Comments

  1. says

    That’s not snow.
    That’s dandruff of the gods.

    ****

    EL quoting me @192:

    16: “Point to someone who has refused to admit that vaccination programs do lead to a very, very, very small number of people dying.”. How about Gregwills in 167, and many others. I’m pretty sure Crip Dyke did the same either at the top of this page, or on the previous page.

    I’ve re-read Grewgills’ comment, and while I think I can see where you might think that xir comment is an example, I don’t think it is. Make your case.
    Also, you “think” CD did the same? How about you don’t throw out the accusation without making sure you can back it up with something?

  2. AlexanderZ says

    Tony! #238 (previous thread)
    There is now a poll!

    P.S.
    I like how on your blog the category of “The Fabulous Art of” is followed immediately by “Tony Tales”.

    P.P.S.
    I can’t see your pets’ pictures. It’s probably better instead of imbedding to link to an external site (like Flickr), since WordPress greatly restricts the space available to free accounts and your theme uses a lot of space by placing a main picture in every post.

  3. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist Wonder Flogger of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I voted on the poll.

    I don’t think I’m going to be in the majority, but the way that I see “assholery” is not so much the “state of being an asshole”.

    I see “assholery” as “the behaviors that give clear and convincing evidence that you are an asshole”.

    In other words, your asshole-ish behavior is your assholery, while your state of being is your assholitude.

    Although…

    …I sure hope this doesn’t start a 1k fight over the definitions…

  4. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist Wonder Flogger of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    “a 1k comment fight” that should be.

    I can’t believe we’ve hit 10 day/1k.

  5. brett says

    Something prompted the memory, and now TOO MANY COOKS!

    Sorry about the snow. The unseasonably warm winter here in Salt Lake City had a brief cold snap again, and now it’s an unseasonably warm spring. I’m really hoping we don’t break the March temperature record like we did for February (since the March one is 80 degrees F).

  6. Al Dente says

    Tony! @2

    That’s not snow.
    That’s dandruff of the gods.

    It could be a huge flock of pigeons with diarrhea flying overhead.

  7. anteprepro says

    brianpansky:

    Saying you don’t see any positions or arguments that need to be responded to (because you think you have already addressed all arguments present) is not the same as saying rape victims aren’t worth listening to. Not even close.

    What the fuck is this bullshit?

    Enlightenment Liberal made sure to address multiple different arguments and different posts.

    The post that people objected to was made by EL at 135. People objecting to the example:

    Me at 140.
    rq at 141.
    Seven of Mine at 147.
    Implicit: Beatrice at 148.
    Giliell at 152.

    EL comes in at 192, addressing comments: 168, 187, 139, 186, 165, 145, 150, 152, 172.

    The only one that EL addresses that is the same list as those taking issue with EL’s horrid little domestic abuse hypothetical was 152, which he brushes off by just saying it is a quotemine.

    The rest must have been read, because all the other comments around them were read.

    And they were dismissed.

    “As for everyone else, I don’t see anyone worth replying to. They cannot read, or have not read, or have a problem with reading comprehension…..
    I think this is a wasted exercise because of the clear lack of good-faith honest engagement from almost everyone here. Just from the last day or two, there’s a half a dozen bald-faced quote minings and other posts who seem to don’t have third grade level English reading skills.”

    How is this NOT a dismissal of people’s concerns regarding ABUSE victims? (Giliell’s comment and rq’s explanation of it explicitly is about both rape and abuse victims, and their concerns, and feelings surrounding such things.)

    EL was as explicit as they could be that they don’t care about their insensitive little hypothetical. They doubled down on that insensitivity by doing so. And it is frustrating to have to explain this.

  8. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @rq

    Grewgills

    Sorry. Accident. I’ll do better.

    @Daz

    Disingenuous bullshit. You quite clearly implied on at least one occasion that if an act is more aggressive than a punch in the face it should be lumped together with rape and other highly abusive crimes;

    The definition of “violence” given by the W.H.O. has a list of harmful forceful acts. The exact list was something like “assault, rape, and murder”. I said incarceration belongs in that list. I compared incarceration to a punch in the face, which is an example of assault (colloquial assault, legal battery). At no point did I say incarceration is comparable in harm, horridness, etc., to rape or murder. Please try again. I again welcome you to provide a direct quotation of me where I said that incarceration is specifically comparable in harm, horridness, etc. specifically to rape. I never said that.

    And didn’t read the rest of your post.

    @Crip Dyke
    Ok. So we agree that historically speaking, tax enforcement has always involved some level of violence. Good. We’re making progress. What next step do you find disagreeable then?

    1- In the real world, for large populations of real humans, with current levels of technology and foreseeable levels of technology, all (non-trivial) instances of governments will require taxation and tax collection enforcement.

    2- In the real world, for large populations of real humans, with current levels of technology and foreseeable levels of technology, all effective taxation and tax collection enforcement will involve at least some minor degree of violence.

    Thus:
    3- In the real world, for large populations of real humans, with current levels of technology and foreseeable levels of technology, all (non-trivial) instances of government will employ at least some minor degree of violence.

    Which then nicely leads into my opening statement:

    Well, government is almost by definition violence

    I still feel comfortable with that description, just like I would say that law enforcement e.g. police action is almost by definition violence.

    Then you’ve said you get to ignore them when you don’t like their definition.

    Again, there’s a fundamental difference between ignoring their particular interpretations of their definition, and ignoring their definition. Just because they put together the words that constitute that definition does not mean that they are the only and final authority in determining the meaning of that string of English words.

    And skipped the rest.

    @Grewgills in 202 (previous page)
    Ok. I originally made the assertion that vaccination campaigns do kill people who would not have died otherwise. I also noted that several people disagreed with this position. Tony called bullshit on that assertion, and asked for an example. I assumed Tony called bullshit on my actual assertion, and not a strawman of my position, and so I gave you as an example. Now, perhaps Tony actually did say “no one here says that vaccination campaigns kill no one … full stop”, but that is a strawman of my position, and I assumed Tony wasn’t strawmanning me.

    Perhaps I was insufficiently clear at some point. My apologies for that.

    As to the factual matter, I think your position is completely and utterly ridiculous that we cannot safely conclude that someone has died from a vaccination who would not have died otherwise. I do not plan to address this matter further.

    As for the comparison to school lunches – the comparison is invalid on multiple counts. 1- People who don’t eat will die. Assuming that people are provided by food, whether they will choke to death on school lunches or choke to death on other lunches or die from starvation – you cannot say that the program leads to people who would not have died otherwise. Unless the food is a significant choking hazard compared to the alternative. 2- Providing school lunches is not compelling them to eat or choke. It’s their choice to eat the food or not. Whereas the vaccination campaigns I was referring to are compelled by the state – especially in those two (IIRC) states with no religious exemptions or other exemptions for vaccination for school children.

    @anteprepro in 203 (previous page)

    Just for the record: EL simply dismissed all of the criticism regarding the insensitivity of their spousal abuse example. Ignored it all with what has become a pretty typical form of dodging for them. Just for those who are taking notes.

    That is correct. This is me not caring about some people tone trolling me and calling me insensitive in the Thunderdome of all places. I don’t even know why I’m bothering to reply to this post.

    @Al Dente in 208 (previous page)
    I also have a similarly strong case of duty calls. I am not trolling. I am just a strong advocate of Marxist critiques of society as the proper understanding of the employment of violence which is inherent in nearly all interpersonal interactions.

    @rq in 220 (previous page)
    I don’t understand how you can be so bad at English or following context. I was setting up a reductio ad absurdum. I was showing how the application of the purported standard of intent which was used against me regarding vaccines is completely and utterly ridiculous. I state in no uncertain terms that the abusive husband does have intent in the context of violence and moral and legal responsibility, and it’s ridiculous to say otherwise.

    @brianpansky in 239 (previous page)
    Thanks.

  9. says

    I see EL is still being a dishonest pissant.

    The definition of “violence” given by the W.H.O. has a list of harmful forceful acts. The exact list was something like “assault, rape, and murder”. I said incarceration belongs in that list.

    We know you’ve said that. But what you haven’t done is provide a reason for anyone to think the WHO report would consider incarceration to be an example of violence. You just continue to assert it. Over and over again. As I’ve mentioned several fucking times, there must be some reason the WHO report doesn’t mention a fucking thing about incarceration being an example of violence. You’re trying to add to their definition by using your bizarre and still unknown definition of the word violence*. Stop fucking asserting your point and actually argue it.
    Or hell, continue doing what you’re doing, you’ve written a lot of mockery-worthy material and I’m sure you’ll write more.

    That is correct. This is me not caring about some people tone trolling me and calling me insensitive in the Thunderdome of all places. I don’t even know why I’m bothering to reply to this post.

    Just bc you *can* be an insensitive asshole in here doesn’t mean you *have* to be one. Especially when the subject is sexual assault or rape. Fucking asshat.
    *Even though you agreed to use the WHO definition, somehow I doubt their definition is what you had in mind when you made the assertion that led to 10 day/1k. Remember that assertion? Here, I’ll help you out:
    government is almost, by definition, violence.

  10. anteprepro says

    Enlightenment Liberal uses the completely unnecessary hypothetical of a man beating his wife to get a sandwich to add to his inventory of asinine arguments.

    People call this out.

    Enlightenment Liberal calls that tone trolling.

    Enlightenment Liberal, FUCK. OFF.

    Fucking disgusting piece of shit.

  11. anteprepro says

    And Enlightenment Liberal dares to fucking dismiss that as tone trolling when they have also been explicitly saying that they are going to start ignoring people….because of tone!

    I just can’t fucking even.

  12. anteprepro says

    By the same fucking token, people pointing out misogyny, rape apologia, or racism are also tone trolls.

    Enlightenment LIberal knows better than that. Enlightenment Liberal knows Pharyngula better than that.

    But they just don’t fucking care.

  13. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    they have also been explicitly saying that they are going to start ignoring people….because of tone!

    PS: Citations please.

    I said I would ignore people who were dishonest, who had poor reading comprehension skills, or for whom I thought further conversation would likely be unproductive. I don’t see how you got “tone” out of that.

  14. anteprepro says

    You said you were ignoring Crip Dyke because they were mocking you.

    And seriously, that’s the thing you choose to address?

    Again, fuck off.

  15. says

    EL @19:

    I said I would ignore people who were dishonest, who had poor reading comprehension skills, or for whom I thought further conversation would likely be unproductive. I don’t see how you got “tone” out of that.

    So you’re ignoring yourself then…hows that working out for you?

  16. says

    EL @13:

    @Crip Dyke
    Ok. So we agree that historically speaking, tax enforcement has always involved some level of violence. Good. We’re making progress. What next step do you find disagreeable then?
    1- In the real world, for large populations of real humans, with current levels of technology and foreseeable levels of technology, all (non-trivial) instances of governments will require taxation and tax collection enforcement.
    2- In the real world, for large populations of real humans, with current levels of technology and foreseeable levels of technology, all effective taxation and tax collection enforcement will involve at least some minor degree of violence.
    Thus:
    3- In the real world, for large populations of real humans, with current levels of technology and foreseeable levels of technology, all (non-trivial) instances of government will employ at least some minor degree of violence.
    Which then nicely leads into my opening statement:

    Well, government is almost by definition violence

    I still feel comfortable with that description, just like I would say that law enforcement e.g. police action is almost by definition violence.

    I know you’re comfortable making that assertion, but how about you try backing it up?
    This time, try to understand the difference between a government using violence and a government being [almost by definition] violence. Using something and being something are not the same goddamn things, you fuckwit.

  17. Grewgills says

    @EL

    As to the factual matter, I think your position is completely and utterly ridiculous that we cannot safely conclude that someone has died from a vaccination who would not have died otherwise.

    You said that the people who instituted vaccine programs knew for a near certainty (100%) that people that would otherwise live would die if the program were instituted. You have not and cannot show that those people know this to be true and so by your own (absurd) standard have intent to kill. You have not and cannot show a single example of a single child anywhere in the world that has died due to a vaccine and prove that without the vaccination program that person would have died. You cannot do it. If you can’t do so you cannot show that the people that instituted the program intended to kill anyone.

    1- People who don’t eat will die. Assuming that people are provided by food, whether they will choke to death on school lunches or choke to death on other lunches or die from starvation – you cannot say that the program leads to people who would not have died otherwise. Unless the food is a significant choking hazard compared to the alternative.

    Likewise with the vaccination program some significant number of the children will die without the program in place. Maybe the person would have skipped the meal that killed them and lived another day to eat another meal that didn’t kill them. Regardless, by your standard, people running the soup kitchen know that there will be choking if they serve the food, and yet they serve the food anyway. They know the harm will happen, intent by your standard, and they commit to the action regardless of the known harm. There is no way that you can consistently use your argument and not conclude that soup kitchens are violence. Equivocate all you want, but you will have to apply some ad hoc reasoning to get yourself out of it.

    Providing school lunches is not compelling them to eat or choke. It’s their choice to eat the food or not. Whereas the vaccination campaigns I was referring to are compelled by the state – especially in those two (IIRC) states with no religious exemptions or other exemptions for vaccination for school children.

    The way the state ‘compels’ vaccinations is by requiring them to attend free public schools. Giving free food to children that otherwise wouldn’t have food is compelling in the same way. If the choice is made not to get the vaccine, the child doesn’t get a free education. If the choice is made not to accept the free lunch, the child doesn’t get a free lunch and might not get to eat that day. Food in an otherwise empty belly is at least as compelling as choosing to go to public school rather than home school. Again though, that doesn’t much matter using your standard of knowledge of eventual harm equals intent. By providing food to hungry children they know that choking and other harms will occur with some small minority of the children. They (rightly) judge that the minor harm is vastly overwhelmed by the good of the program. Again, you cannot argue consistently and dismiss school lunches as violence while characterizing vaccines as violence. You can equivocate and throw in ad hoc qualifiers that you don’t allow for vaccines, but you cannot argue it consistently.

    I am just a strong advocate of Marxist critiques of society as the proper understanding of the employment of violence which is inherent in nearly all interpersonal interactions.

    And there is the seed of all of this disagreement. When you define virtually all interpersonal interactions as violence you so totally strip the word violence of meaning as to make it useless. If giving someone candy and throwing them down a flight of stairs are only different in degree, then something is wrong with your model. If you can’t see that, then you are fucking blind.

  18. Grewgills says

    @me #24

    You have not and cannot show a single example of a single child anywhere in the world that has died due to a vaccine and prove that without the vaccination program that person would have died.

    should have read

    You have not and cannot show a single example of a single child anywhere in the world that has died due to a vaccine and prove that without the vaccination program that person wouldn’t have died.

  19. consciousness razor says

    EL is (almost?) a bad argument.

    Which means he uses them …

    … potentially … or almost potentially.

    Same thing. Whatever. Some shit like that.

  20. says

    quoting more of EL’s inanity:

    I am just a strong advocate of Marxist critiques of society as the proper understanding of the employment of violence which is inherent in nearly all interpersonal interactions.

    (bolding mine)
    Which interpersonal interactions do not have this inherent employment of violence ?
    Adults having consensual sex?
    Parents cooking with their children?
    Friends jogging in the park together?
    Teaching children how to read?
    Buying a cappucino from Starbucks?
    Guests ordering and paying for a drink at my bar (oh dear, there are taxes they have to pay along with the cost of the drink…this probably is yet another example of the inherent employment of violence in interpersonal interactions)?

    I’m holding my breath in anticipation of your answer.

    Also, gotta laugh at the idea that the definition of violence that exists in EL’s head is anything like the WHO definition. Especially given the quoted material above.

  21. says

    Following myself up:

    Also, gotta laugh at the idea that the definition of violence that exists in EL’s head is anything like the WHO definition

    …or the definition most people have in mind when discussing violence.

  22. says

    Why am I even getting into this -______-

    @EL

    I was showing how the application of the purported standard of intent which was used against me regarding vaccines is completely and utterly ridiculous.

    Except that “terror of violence” is the defining feature of what the beater intends as a means, it is not an accidental aspect of the means. I think this makes it a different category than the intent of vaccination. And I think my previous writing about intent is validated here.

    The Sorites paradox may apply to individual doctors. However, I’m not talking about individual doctors. I’m talking about the legislature and their advisors, acting in concert, passing a plan which they know will kill people.

    I wasn’t talking about individual doctors either. It does apply. Just like 2 grains of sand are 100% guaranteed to be 2 grains of sand (yet not be a heap of sand) so too is such a plan (at large enough scales) guaranteed to kill people and yet is still not violence.

    Though now after the clarification I just wrote here about the beating example, I think maybe the difference of category in some cases is clear enough that no sorities paradox even needs to be considered.

  23. says

    If you’re hung up on the word “intent”, then just pretend it isn’t there, or replace it. Substitute what I actually said, and you’ll see it isn’t anything like the “acting with intent” legal definition. And then you’ll see my point about the word “violence”. Instead of missing my point. Maybe.

  24. says

    Though yes my description of intent focused on a “goal”, whereas now, in post 29 here, I’m saying it has to do with the “intended means”. But in my post (a few words before mentioning a “goal”) I did say:

    [the] side effect piggybacks on this plan

    So the side effect isn’t itself the plan/the intended means.

  25. chigau (違う) says

    §´ ̯´§
    I’m trying to make a Miss Sweetie Poo emoticon.
    I can’t find the eyes.
    §* ̯*§
    §○ ̯○§

  26. Holms says

    #192 (previous page) Enlightenment Liberal
    @Holms in 168
    You’re new here, so I can understand going with the groupthink rather than actually reading my posts. Note that I have already made the same argument that you just made, at least twice now, up-thread (perhaps on a previous page of comments). Don’t believe the groupthink. Of course the harm prevented by vaccines is much, much, much greater than the accidental and incidental harm of vaccines, and I am completely supportive of vaccines.

    You assume I have not followed the conversation before commenting, or that I did not read back before commenting. You also laughably invoke ‘groupthink’ to explain away why no one agrees with your inane definition of violence. And in doing so, you do not address my actual argument re. intentional reduction of harm. If only there was a word for being guilty of your own criticism of someone else…

    I stand by my low opinion of people with smarmy names.

  27. says

    Here is some background on the WHO report on violence

    The World Health Organization launched the first World report on violence and health on October 3rd, 2002. Since then, more than 30 governments have organized national launches or policy discussions about the Report, and resolutions endorsing the Report and calling for its implementation have been passed in a number of fora, such as the World Health Assembly, the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, and the African Union.

    The World report on violence and health is the first comprehensive review of the problem of violence on a global scale – what it is, whom it affects and what can be done about it. Three years in the making, the report benefited from the participation of over 160 experts from around the world, receiving both peer-review from scientists and contributions and comments from representatives of all the world’s regions.

    All those experts…all that peer-reviewing…yet the report mentions nothing about incarceration, taxes, government, or vaccination being almost, by definition, violence. Nor does it mention anything about incarceration, taxes, government, or vaccination being examples of violence.

  28. chigau (違う) says

    scary̐̐
    scary̐͒
    scary͒͒
    scary͒̐
    ….̐.̐
    ….̐.͒
    ….͒.͒
    ….͒.̐
    I give up.

  29. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist Wonder Flogger of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Holms:

    EnlightenmentLiberal had evidence you hadn’t read the thread:

    You didn’t agree with EnlightenmentLiberal.

    See? Perfect sense.

    …go …faster …turn …lefter!

  30. chigau (違う) says

    Owlmirror #38
    yeah
    like that
    Sadly, the iPad doesn’t do acronym or whatever that other one is.
    so the underliney things are just a waste

  31. chigau (違う) says

    also
    Owlmirror
    when I Previewed my #36
    those weird characters showed outside the preview screen
    which was scary
    because of stuff that happened awhile ago
    maybe at the old site

  32. Owlmirror says

    Sadly, the iPad doesn’t do acronym or whatever that other one is.
    so the underliney things are just a waste

    It’s just overhead. No worries.

    those weird characters showed outside the preview screen

    Huh. I have no idea why.

    ======
    scary̐̐
    scary̐͒
    scary͒͒
    scary͒̐
    ….̐.̐
    ….̐.͒
    ….͒.͒
    ….͒.̐
    ======

    Nope, doesn’t happen when I do it.

    which was scary
    because of stuff that happened awhile ago
    maybe at the old site

    *whistles innocently*

    I’m sure that I have no idea about any HTML shenanigans whatsoever . . . !!

  33. Nick Gotts says

    Hows about everyone deliberately misrepresents EL? Then he will ignore everyone and just possibly, stop posting. I’ll start the ball rolling: hey, EL, why did you advocate burning kittens alive in the last Thunderdome?

  34. consciousness razor says

    Nick, it’s my understanding that EL was merely proposing that kittens should practice self-immolation, of their own free will. That’s different.

  35. Nick Gotts says

    CR@43,

    But surely that’s still kitten-burning, since he must know that, given a large enough population of kittens, some of them will be gullible enough to follow his advice.

  36. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I said I would ignore people who were dishonest, who had poor reading comprehension skills, or for whom I thought further conversation would likely be unproductive. I don’t see how you got “tone” out of that.

    Then you are lacking an undertanding of “tone”. You don’t control the debate, and in attempting to do say, and say you respond to those polite to you, you are tone trolling. QED.
    What a stupid pissant pseudointellectual you are.

  37. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    EL @ Whatthefuckever

    This is me not caring about some people tone trolling me and calling me insensitive in the Thunderdome of all places. I don’t even know why I’m bothering to reply to this post.

    Tone trolling? Tone trolling? You want to call a request for some basic fucking decency “tone trolling”? Fuck off.

  38. rq says

    It wasn’t just kittens. Puppies, too. And puppies consent to be kicked, since given a large enough population of puppies, chances are 100% that at least one of them will get kicked at some point in their lives. Hey, EL, why do you advocate puppy-kicking?

  39. Okidemia says

    A question to people with experience of TD:
    What are threads change rates? Do they usually last as long as this one?

  40. consciousness razor says

    Okidemia:

    PZ does things on his own mysterious schedule and could change things on a whim at any moment, so it’s fairly unpredictable for us.

    However, generally, new threads for the Lounge and Thunderdome (and previous incarnations of Endless™ threaditude) are created when the old ones are “full.” For a while, being full meant the thread had more than 500 comments, and that was rounded up to approximately 666 (this was before some issues with pagination were fixed). That’s done because it takes significantly longer to load the page when thread have many, many comments. These days, the first page goes to 500 and automatically starts a second page after that, which eventually fills to a roughly equivalent number of comments. Then, somewhere around that time, PZ may or may not feel like punishing us with a new thread. There are invariably still people who are wrong on the internet at such times, so our burden is to rant about it in the new thread.

    So, that depends on how often people comment. When there are in-depth arguments involving lots of people writing lots of comments, then of course the rate of new threads is faster.

  41. =8)-DX says

    Have only read this thread here, but EL seems to be talking typical libertarian bollocks:

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #13

    3- In the real world, for large populations of real humans, with current levels of technology and foreseeable levels of technology, all (non-trivial) instances of government will employ at least some minor degree of violence.
    Which then nicely leads into my opening statement:
    Well, government is almost by definition violence

    Surely then, any society would be almost by definition “violent” (goverments/societies can’t be “violence” as Tony pointed out, that doesn’t make grammatical sense, that’s like government being “truth” or “beauty”), in so far as it enforces its social contract. Even a fully anarcho-communal society, where justice/crime prevention/contracts are all enforced by vigilante mob rule and consensus of present individuals, will be “violent”, towards anyone who breaks that social contract or the social contract of a specific moment. You can’t make use of that definition to say “more government means more violence” or “government is more inherantly violent than a lack of government”.

    In fact if we consider:
    4) A country with well organised commerce, taxation, education, military, social services and foreign policy will tend to be populated with happy, intelligent and safe people who, due to their investment in society will be less prone to breaking the social contract they all benefit from and therefore in less need of “violence” from their particular form of government.
    Then:
    5) Governmental violence is in adverse proportion to the success of that government in so far as it benefits society as a whole. Better government => less violence. Less/smaller government => may often lead to more violence.

    The violence you’re describing is an inherant property of enforcing the social contract, not of government per se.

    And furthermore with the attempt to strain every last drop of violence out here, one could just as similarly say that all of commerce was violent, since in the real world, for large populations of real humans, with current levels of technology and foreseeable levels of technology, all (non-trivial) instances of contract enforcement/property rights/employee management/[insert here] will employ at least some minor degree of violence.

    As I can see, this is another instance of a Nobody Scores debate.

  42. says

    So Thunderdome these days is all about EnlightenmentLiberal? But he’s so boring, and evasive, and long-winded, and did I say boring? Really boring.

  43. says

    @Nerd

    I said I would ignore people who were dishonest, who had poor reading comprehension skills, or for whom I thought further conversation would likely be unproductive. I don’t see how you got “tone” out of that.

    Then you are lacking an undertanding of “tone”. You don’t control the debate, and in attempting to do say, and say you respond to those polite to you, you are tone trolling. QED.
    What a stupid pissant pseudointellectual you are.

    I searched for the word “polite” being used, and it hasn’t been.

  44. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Brianpansky #52

    I searched for the word “polite” being used, and it hasn’t been.

    Doesn’t mean the implication isn’t there. It’s obvious EL wants “polite” debate, where their fallacious presuppositions and irrationality aren’t pointed out, then pointed at and ridiculed. Too bad for them this is Pharyngula Thunderdome.
    It’s hard to pretend you are the authority and in charge of and leading the debate when nobody accepts that you are/have that authority.

  45. =8)-DX says

    Ah, just found my way back to the original post… and my response still stands. Adding to that of course that taxation is therefore not inherantly more violent than any other part of the social contract that is enforced (enforcing rules of the road => may require violence). One may expect that a more restrictive social contract would need more enforcing and therefore lead to more social violence, but there is no way to directly correlate that with taxation. Is 30% taxation more restrictive than 15% if it means your poor family gets education and healthcare above your means? Definitely not. Is 30% taxation more restrictive than 15% for a millionaire? Not in any significant way, the millionaire still has all the life-options they previously had. One could even imagine systems where 100% taxation were nonrestricting, or money-less societies (ones with unlimited or near-unlimited resources and barter exclusively based on value to the individual).

  46. Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur says

    PZ Myers @51:

    Well, yeah. But xe makes up for it by being boring.

  47. Grewgills says

    @Nick and CR
    I think what he actually proposed was a system whereby kittens, puppies and any small, cute furry would be given a lighter and a liter of gas.

  48. says

    @Nerd

    Doesn’t mean the implication isn’t there. It’s obvious EL wants “polite” debate, where their fallacious presuppositions and irrationality aren’t pointed out, then pointed at and ridiculed.

    Sure, Nerd.

  49. ChasCPeterson says

    So Thunderdome these days is all about EnlightenmentLiberal?

    Also kitties.
    Soon, recipes.

  50. pHred いつでも今日が、いちばん楽しい日 says

    TD is also all about violence – it appears that many of us are violently headdesking out of massive boredom and sheer frustration.

  51. says

    Very rough draft:

    Oh Poetry, poor Poetry,
    The horrors people throw at thee;
    The crimes committed in thy name,
    When trying to marry thee with Game.
    There’s nothing there which seems aesthetic.
    The metre’s sprung, the rhymes pathetic,
    Crude imag’ry in brutish theme.
    Oh Poetry don’t it make you scream?

  52. pHred いつでも今日が、いちばん楽しい日 says

    @65 yazikus

    I did the same thing ! Then I read your comment and about bust something laughing.

  53. AlexanderZ says

    It’s a known fact that everything’s better with Muppets.

    BTW, meanwhile “assholery” has the absolute majority with 57% of the vote (though “assholstery” makes me laugh every time. Also Republicans. LOL). Which makes it my word of the day.
    ________________

    Tony! #12

    thanks for reminding me that I need to upgrade my WordPress account.

    I’m glad your financial situation has improved, but I was only offering a workaround, not hinting that should throw money at WordPress.
    ________________

    chigau #57
    Miss Sweaty Poo (what’s up with “poo”?) is taking bribes! I saw her grab that dollar bill!

  54. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Sure, Nerd.

    It isn’t hard to read between the lines. You just need to remember dog whistles, and that people lie to themselves, and don’t realize it. Also, if the phrasing is overly consistent and sounds overly rehearsed, they know they are being deceptive.

  55. says

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #76:

    Also, if the phrasing is overly consistent and sounds overly rehearsed, they know they are being deceptive.

    Huh? I may have a bone or two, or maybe an entire ribcage and a bag o’ miscellaneous small bits that probably belong in a foot somewhere, to pick with EL, but this seems neither fair nor right. You would seem to be saying that (a) consistency and care to express oneself clearly are bad things and (b) EL has been consistent and careful to express themselves clearly. Both of which claims I would dispute.

  56. says

    anteprepro, you seem to have the talent though:

    By the same fucking token, people pointing out misogyny, rape apologia, or racism are also tone trolls.

    (Giliell’s comment and rq’s explanation of it explicitly is about both rape and abuse victims, and their concerns, and feelings surrounding such things.)

  57. says

    Actually, anteprepro, your statement:

    (Giliell’s comment and rq’s explanation of it explicitly is about both rape and abuse victims, and their concerns, and feelings surrounding such things.)

    is clearly true if you change it to be about your own post 140, rather than Giliell’s and rq’s comments.

  58. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I may not be the best at reading between the lines, but the word “unevidenced” is coming to mind.

    The evidence is there. Never, ever, take a proven liar and bullshitter at their words. I find it better to ignore the words per se, and argue the ideas behind the words, up to and including the presuppositions behind the ideas.

    You would seem to be saying that (a) consistency and care to express oneself clearly are bad things

    No, not necessarily consistency of ideas, but consistency of expression of those ideas. The recently banhammered LM used the same sentences over and over. Verbatim. Copypasta. Same for misogynists trying to hide their misogyny. They take care not to be overtly offensive. In doing so, it is a tell as to their real agenda.
    The old Sherlock Holmes clue for an event.
    SH “The strange thing the dog in the night.”
    Watson “The dog did nothing.”
    SH “Exactly my dear Watson….”

  59. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Also kitties.
    Soon, recipes.

    It seems kitty recipes are ***exactly*** the kind of thing that people want kept out of the lounge. If you’re going to wok your kitty, some folk in the lounge may not want to hear about it.

  60. Okidemia says

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    It seems kitty recipes are ***exactly*** the kind of thing that people want kept out of the lounge. If you’re going to wok your kitty, some folk in the lounge may not want to hear about it.

    That’s weird. There are numerous places where pets are for cooking, and not merely convenience cooking. I’ve eaten many pet species and some are actually quite good. (There’s one exception though, I let you guess which one).

  61. Al Dente says

    The So much buzz for the FRFF! thread has spawned a discussion about why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. Here’s my take on the question.

    Most of Japan’s military leaders realized that they could not win a long war against the US. Since the 1920s the Japanese government had become increasingly dominated by army officers. The army leadership had got Japan involved in an aggressive war in China. The Western countries, primarily Britain and the US, had reacted with an oil embargo in August 1941. This put the generals on the spot. They could not politically afford to abandon their war in China as that was their primary justification for running the government. But they could not ignore the embargo either as the Western countries controlled the world’s oil and without oil the Japanese military would be crippled in 12 to 18 months.

    For the military it was a case of use it or lose it. The generals convinced themselves that after sinking the US Pacific Fleet the Roosevelt administration would negotiate from a state of weakness. One of the strongest advocates of this idea was General Shinichi Tanaka, the head of the General Staff’s Operations Section. Tanaka was a student of the American Civil War. Why someone who knew about the Battle of Fredericksburg and Pickett’s Charge thought Americans had no fighting spirit is a puzzlement.

    The generals thought some chance of military victory was preferable to guaranteed impotence from a lack of oil. The generals saw the embargo as an offensive action and their response as a defensive reaction. Many Japanese today still see it that way.

    While the Japanese admirals did not exercise anything like as much control over the government, they went along with the generals. Japan was a maritime nation, it depended on control of the seas. The generals recognized this and the navy’s budget remained large during the 1920s and 1930s. But the generals were in firm control of the government and the admirals followed the generals’ lead.

    The basic plan for the Pacific war was to destroy the Allied forces, seize Allied colonies (remember that the Philippines were an American colony) and possessions, and then sue for peace on favorable terms. It was felt (although not all Japanese military and civilian leaders believed it) that the Allies, particularly the Americans, would prefer some kind of settlement rather than fight a long, expensive war. It was a desperate gamble that at first seemed to work.

    The Japanese had a high opinion of their military prowess. This attitude certainly helped, since the numbers didn’t look so favorable. Most of the Japanese army was involved in China. Only about 250,000 Japanese ground troops could be scraped together for the Pacific offensive. Japan’s target list was impressive: The Philippines, sundry Central Pacific islands, , the Netherlands East Indies (modern Indonesia, the only large oil producing area in the Pacific), New Guinea and nearby islands, Indochina, Malaya, Thailand, Burma and parts of India. In these areas there were over half a million Allied troops. But it was more than numbers which counted. Many of the Allied troops were poorly trained, inexperienced, or both, and many were local recruits who were not necessarily happy with the rule of the “mother country.”

    The biggest asset for the Japanese army was the Japanese Navy. The Pacific war began with the Allies and Japan having rough parity in naval forces (albeit the Japanese had a superiority in aircraft carriers) and the Japanese having larger and more capable air forces. The major Japanese deficiency was in their merchant marine. They did not have enough freighters to support widely spread military and naval units.

    On December 7, 1941 the Japanese attacked the US Pacific Fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor. With quite minimal losses the Japanese destroyed the American battleships. In the next six months the Japanese seized many of their objectives, having attacked targets from the Hawaiian islands to Sri Lanka, literally halfway around the world from each other. But the Allies didn’t negotiate like the generals hoped they would. It took almost four years but the Japanese generals lost the war they had started due to arrogance and wishful thinking.

  62. chigau (違う) says

    5cm and counting.
    How is the equator doing with this climate change crap?

  63. says

    @ Al Dente # 85

    An interesting prelude to your interesting comment… the invasion of China by the Japanese navy in 1894. Their triumph was rather predictable:

    China had better, newer guns. But its navy was furnished with shells that were either filled with cement or porcelain, or were simply the wrong caliber, S.C.M. Paine writes in “The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy.” To blame? Ordnance officials on the take.

    The more things change, the more things stay the same.

    Source: Bloomberg

  64. chigau (違う) says

    Hi, theophontes.
    Nice to see you.
    How’s things?
    Are you and yours safe?
    Got any functioning helicopters?

  65. Nick Gotts says

    I think what he actually proposed was a system whereby kittens, puppies and any small, cute furry would be given a lighter and a liter of gas. – Grewgills@58

    Ah, but that shows a clear intent that furry cuteness should sizzle and smoke!

  66. Okidemia says

    Tony! The Queer Shoop #86

    Roaches?

    Nope. I can’t say about roaches (yet), but insects are usually tasting fine (tried on crickets, grasshoppers, caterpillars, grubs, and termites –which are the closest relatives to roaches and probably taste close) (the edible brands that are tasting “neutral” do fine with hot pepper sauce). I am thinking a much less exotic pet (or a more ancient domesticated pet breed), that would also really be challenging to eat to most people (insects are just _disturbing_ , but many people would it them more easily than they think).

    chigau (違う) #88

    How is the equator doing with this climate change crap?

    The change is either unnoticeable in lucky seasons (from 90% rainy time to 95%) or dramatic decrease in rains (“good” for people but strongly altering ecological communities in sensitive areas, say in dry forest Amazon). That’s the _erratic_ part that’s driving insane.

    In other places in the tropics, it’s rather messy too. We’re supposed to be dry in “Lent season” but I haven’t been able to cut the grasses at home since two months. I lose sight of kids whenever they hide, and it’s also benefiting fire ants whose nests are growing way too big. Try cut banana bunches before rats and birds do, in wet grasses with spiny seeds and angry fire ants!

  67. Okidemia says

    “but many people would eat them”

    I guess when you begin to make this kind of typo, that means you’re improving in language skills…

  68. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    I think I’m going to file this article away to link to every time I encounter someone complaining about their tax money being used to support those lazy, good-for-nothing poor people.

    From the article:

    Since [CEO Dan Cathy] made his controversial comments, House Republicans have spent nearly $13,000 in taxpayer money ordering Chick-fil-A, according to expenditure reports filed through July 2014 (the latest available). That’s the equivalent of 3,900 original chicken sandwiches, and it represents a 37-fold increase over the paltry $345 the House GOP had spent on Chick-fil-A the previous three years.

  69. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @seven of mine, #94:

    Nice catch.

  70. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Daz, #97:

    Hmph.

    I am having difficulty, without access to tone of voice, to interpret that, Daz.

    Was a child questioning a dog trainer whether the child should stand up as well? Or was the child being asked to stand and resisting on the basis of, “I’m a doggy right now”?

    One is a bit funny, I guess. The other isn’t. I suppose which one is which depends on whether or not you live with kids 2-12 years old that you have to parent.

  71. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Do you believe that this movie has this cast?

    Mira Sorvino, Sean Austin, Ted McGinley, Brian Bosworth, Cybill Shepard, and Lee Majors.

    Where’s Nicolas Cage?

  72. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Janine

    From the plot summary:

    His response ignites a journey that impacts everyone it touches in ways that only God could orchestrate.

    Oh, sure, only God could orchestrate it. But most of us believe in freewill anyway and find God forcing us to make choices a symptom of an evil god.

  73. says

    From the sound of the voice twas a child pretending to be a dog, while mum—not snappy, just kinda with a resigned sigh—just wanted to get home at something approaching walking speed. It just seemed, I dunno, ‘timeless’ I suppose. One of those little moments that could have been 2015 CE or 2015 BCE.

  74. Okidemia says

    An interesting point about English, and connections I haven’t made yet.

    English as Globish, and potential remedies to its disadvantages.

    English is a beautifully poetic language, capable of summoning vibrant images, crafting rousing speeches, conveying powerful emotions. And the wonder of it is that it empowers even the less talented. When English is wielded by the greatest of the great, by the hallowed likes of Shakespeare or Nabokov, when reinvented by Whitman and Joyce, it comes as no surprise that it can inspire awe: it doesn’t take a diamond to shine in the hands of a star. But English is so manifold in its modes of expression, so opulent in possibilities, so richly laden with quaint words and nearly frivolous idioms, so mirthfully malleable, that even a lesser pen can reveal itself in its gleam. If some languages seem arid, English is their polar opposite: English is bountiful and ornate, English is a cornucopia of synonyms, a mine for metaphors, a fountain for apothegms, a luscious garden for the poet; each idea can be expressed through a whole gamut of terms, and from each word sprouts a rainbow of meaning. Quite bewildering—and quite the reason why English is a poor choice when it comes to precise communication on mundane matters, when poetry is not of the essence.

  75. Acolyte of Sagan says

    Daz, #101,
    I have an image of the little lad having stopped for a pee against a tree!
    (This is from experience. I have young grandsons and a dog: It is inevitable that a certain amount of copying takes place).

  76. consciousness razor says

    Okidemia:
    What’s your first language? That sometimes helps me decide which words I should use, if it’s a fairly close relative or we’ve borrowed a lot from it.

    Just for fun:

    An interesting point about English, and connections I haven’t made yet.

    This is more properly expressed as “connections I hadn’t made before.”

    You hadn’t (=had not) done that, in the past. But now you do.

    If you haven’t made them yet, then right now you still have not made them. However, that is (probably) not what you mean to say, since you did already make them. That may be what you would have said before reading the article, but it isn’t something you would mean after the fact.

    I disagree with the notion that all international communication should be in English. Let me just say that first.

    But, as a matter of fact, that is of course how things are going in many cases, so we do have to work on that somehow. English is terribly complicated in a lot of ways, but I don’t think that is always bad. The world is a complicated and messy place too. Yes? The criticism about the large vocabulary seems especially misguided. That is not a problem. Technical writings (in academics, law, etc.) do often require many shades of meaning, so cutting out parts of the language for those would not be helpful. Also, we do already complain about imprecise/ambiguous/informal uses of English (the thread above about “violence,” etc., is a good example), so that we do whatever we can to more accurately represent the ideas that we have. That is not a problem with English itself. The problem is that English speakers (and speakers of any language) are sloppy at communicating and thinking, because they’re humans. Even when they aren’t being very sloppy, there can still be a shared understanding of the context (e.g, whether we’re talking about “writers” or “riders,” “irons” or “ions,” etc.) to guide us in the right direction. I don’t think picking any other language (or set of languages) or building a new language from scratch will remove the need to do things like that.

  77. consciousness razor says

    CD:
    Happiness is overrated and all that, but I was “happy” to see it wasn’t one of those bullshit self-report studies. Those were apparently even criticized in it. That’s a bonus. They say conservatives are more prone to a “self-enhancing style of self-report,” but there are other problems. You can imagine: “it was cloudy today when you called to conduct this questionnaire, therefore my entire life sucks.” People obviously aren’t consciously thinking that sort of thing, but it affects their responses. Taking that garbage out of the equation would at least help a little bit.

    I haven’t read it (behind a paywall) so I don’t know what else to think. How much happier are liberals, etc.?

  78. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Huh.

    I would think taking the garbage out would just be another confound.*

    =====================================================
    *and this is another example of the acquitted taste of my humor.

  79. AlexanderZ says

    Crip Dyke #106

    Political liberals display greater happiness, study shows

    Maybe in the US…

  80. consciousness razor says

    *and this is another example of the acquitted taste of my humor.

    Maybe you have been trying, but you are very, very guilty.

  81. Rob Grigjanis says

    cr @107: You can read it here (PDF).

    But never mind Duchenne smiles, etc. It seems reasonable to me that not denying reality would generally make life more bearable, if not all happy happy joy joy.

  82. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @CR:

    Thus the importance of the procedural defense. Where, precisely, are you going to find someone my peer to sit the jury, eh?

  83. consciousness razor says

    Thus the importance of the procedural defense. Where, precisely, are you going to find someone my peer to sit the jury, eh?

    Well, if you can import your defense, it’s only fair that juries can come from somewhere. To find your peers, I suppose that simply means we need to find people who are very, very guilty (and violent). But convicted criminals aren’t allowed to serve as jurors, are they? So we can’t get them from prisons….. Yep, I’m totally stumped. You’re innocent.

  84. Rowan vet-tech says

    Dunno if this has been posted before… but WTF honestly.

    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-men-body-evolutionary-roots.html

    By asking a grand total of 300 men, they’ve “conclusively” determined optimally attractive angle for spine curvature. The drawings of the various angles 2/3 of the way down the article are hilarious and 3/5 deserve to be on eschergirls as being snake-women or centaurs.

  85. Okidemia says

    consciousness razor #105

    What’s your first language? That sometimes helps me decide which words I should use, if it’s a fairly close relative or we’ve borrowed a lot from it.

    French. That helps to a degree where it is actually often deceiving and even deceptive. That’s the part that resonnated most when I first read the text. I feel often grammatically correct but meaning weirdo, and I also spot it regularly when I read colleagues as a mock reviewer.

    Also, I liked the suggestion that we may collectively aim for a simple form of English so as to ease standard com for scientists worldwide. This is a fair argument. Having been assistant editor at a scientific journal, there are too many authors that are unfortunately outed from the “greater” sci com pool.

    Also, it is quite frequent for French scientists to have reviewers pointing out poor writing quality. I find it striking that part of the answer might be, as the text suggests, prescient language connections (here between French and English) that I hadn’t suspected until today. Worth exploring.

    You’re right about my wording. Thanks for the note. I can still rationalise a posteriori that I am actually still making the connections, but that would still be rationalising… :-)

    What’s more, changing the standard with creation of an entirely new language (or pick one of those that have been already proposed to that purpose) would at least place everybody on the same level. Not sure that it is something I would push up, but it is interesting to look at critically. Whatever. We are not changing things today… :-) More interesting to me is the argument for collective appropriation (sorry, can’t help) of what International English should be. That would certainly allow people worldwide to embrace their diversity directly upon transformative action. It is certainly already happening, and this is not a call to enforce it, more simply the realisation that we are allowed to do that.

    I disagree (softly) with you about the vocabulary richness as an issue. Typically, for French authors, it could be really helpful to stick to lower word diversity, so that they would not be tempted to frenglicise their writings (which results in grammatically correct sentences that are barely understandable to actual English natives).

  86. AlexanderZ says

    Goodbye, math and history: Finland wants to abandon teaching subjects at school:

    Instead, the Finns are teaching phenomena—such as the European Union, which encompasses learning languages, history, politics, and geography. No more of an hour of history followed by an hour of chemistry. The idea aims to eliminate one of the biggest gripes of students everywhere: “What is the point of learning this?” Now, each subject is anchored to the reason for learning it.

  87. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    AlexanderZ,

    Sounds interesting. There is also something bothering me about the idea, but I can’t put it into words quite yet, maybe better leave criticism for after I’ve read more about the proposed program.

  88. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Beatrice:

    I’d like to think that they’re not making so great a break with the past without some research to show this works better on average.

    My only worry, since they appear to really be intending to teach all the subjects, just not as “Subjects, capital S,” is how this will work when collaborative learning is taking place (as apparently will be common). This methodology + collaborative learning certainly allows for kids to avoid certain subjects in favor of others, but that might also be called “finding what you’re good at and making your best contribution that way”.

    Again, it’s a worry founded on ignorance. It may well be that the system is better, or has problems but not ones I’m noticing, but it’s just different enough that unease is as natural a reaction for some of us as excitement might be for others.

  89. AlexanderZ says

    Crip Dyke #126

    …allows for kids to avoid certain subjects in favor of others, but that might also be called “finding what you’re good at and making your best contribution that way”.

    The current system already allows the student to choose their educational path in higher classes.
    ________________________

    Beatrice #125
    I know what you mean. The click-bait title has really put me off at first and the aftertaste remained even when I finished the piece. Regardless, they do seem to be very careful about it, slowly implementing it here and there. I’m too curious about the gritty details. If you find a good translation/summary in English, please let me know. Strangely, I can’t find any mention of this reform on the Finnish National Broad of Education site or on Eurypedia.
    Then again, in the Finnish system the government mostly restricts itself to setting targets and the actual teaching programs are left to the schools.

  90. AlexanderZ says

    Janine #128
    he also wrote this.
    So it doesn’t look like he’s throwing his support for Breitbart. He’s Just Asking Questions. Very vigorously and for all to see.

  91. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Yes, that is part of the new narrative of GG and TERFs, that being placed on a blocklist is libel because the reason for the block is just a difference of opinion. And the terms you use for people on a blocklist are slurs.

  92. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    The only Lib Dem with a Breitbart column.

    This person might want to rethink his life choices.

  93. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    He is so proud of that statement, he pinned it.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  94. says

    @Janine

    Sad to see that he doesn’t notice that creationist logic is silly when it isn’t coming from creationist talking about science. When a feminist says something wrong, he must think it just works differently than when a biologist says something wrong. And perhaps he thinks it isn’t silly to say something true (like a deepity) when the fallacious argument is left implicit, rather than explicit (though still very obvious).

  95. says

    He should have had a talk with some of the other Thought Leaders before tweeting those things. Surely one of them could have helped?

  96. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    I am now being told that I am picking an argument with someone much smarter then me.

    Dawkins gets all the best dudebros.

  97. anteprepro says

    Wow. Dawkins fanboys are saying that calling someone a “moron” is dehumanizing, and Dawkins himself is making a big damn spectacle about calling out how RUDE and WRONG it is to be so INSULTING.

    Seriously, wut? I really can’t believe I am seeing Dawkins of all people whining about tone and politeness. I suppose it is consistent with his whining about “LIBELS! LIES!” however. I guess there is a Just Right amount of Civility where Dawkins can both take offense to being called sexist and yet also see no issue with issuing rape apologetics, attempting to justify certain subsets of child molestation, and just otherwise being an utter dismissive asshole to women and feminists. A Goldilocks Zone, if you will, where it is bad to call someone moron, but when you call religious people everywhere delusional, that is somehow not “rude”, no matter what.

    I really don’t have faith in Dawkins’ ability to Logick, anymore.

  98. anteprepro says

    Janine:

    I am now being told that I am picking an argument with someone much smarter then me.

    I would imagine good skeptics would want to have evidence for such a claim. And people with a good logical and scientific mind would understand that intelligence in general doesn’t translate to intelligence in regards to a specific subject. I very much doubt anyone willl get much quality evidence of Dawkins being much smarter on this specific subject.

    It’s almost like there is a blind spot at work here.

  99. Al Dente says

    brianpansky @139

    Certainly Michael Shermer could have made some good suggestions.

  100. anteprepro says

    Okay this is really precious.

    First the hairsplitting:
    So one Twit on Twitter made a post about how “Feminists” called Newton’s “Prinicipia Mathematica” a “rape manual”.
    One critic calls said Twit a “moron” because Newton did write “Principia Mathematica”.
    Good Sir Dawkins gallops in to express his gravest offense at the word “moron”, of course, and says that Newton did in fact write a book with “Principia Mathematica” in the title: “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica”, which according to Wikipedia is often referred to simply as The Principia.
    The book that, you know, was ONLY known as “Principia Mathematica” by Whitehead and Russel, was in fact named after Newton’s book. Dawkins points this out to call out the critic, but really….it seems like the original poster is just right on a technicality. Or wrong on a technicality. Either way.

    But the real meat is of course avoided: That feminists called that book a “rape manual”.

    Well googling has shown that a lot of people have been grasping onto this one statement by Sandra Harding in the last few years. She made the comment in 1986.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801493633/qid=1126945492/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6180632-7236007?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

    That is the book. I found the source and the quote from this 2005 post from Gene Expression, a blog that prefaces the statement by talking about how he was searching for some “post modern feminist gibberish” to criticize.

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/09/know-thy-enemy-newtons-rape-manual.php

    One phenomenon feminist historians have focused on is the rape and torture metaphors in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon and others (e.g. Machiavelli) enthusiastic about the new scientific method. Traditional historians and philosophers have said that these metaphors are irrelevant to the real meanings and referents of scientific concepts held by those who used them and by the public for whom they wrote. But when it comes to regarding nature as a machine, they have quite a different analysis: here, we are told, the metaphor provides the interpretations of Newton’s mathematical laws: it directs inquirers to fruitful ways to apply his theory and suggests the appropriate methods of inquiry and the kind of metaphyiscs the new theory supports. But if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors were a fundamental component of the explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. Presumably these metaphors, too, had fruitful pragmatic, methodological, and metaphysical consequences for science. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton’s laws as “Newton’s rape manual” as it is to call them “Newton’s mechanics”?

    I do note that the passage conveniently ends with the sentence where “rape manual” comes up.

    Which is crucial, because Harding has been criticized A LOT for this passage, and claims that it was taken out of context and that her feminist critique is not anti-science.

    Here, from an article about feminist criticism of science: http://www.dhushara.com/book/renewal/voices2/femsci.htm

    Even Harding, whose description of Newton’s Principia and other statements have sparked so much controversy, maintains that her criticisms are meant to strengthen science. In fact, she says she is sorry she used the term “rape manual” in her 1986 book, The Science Question in Feminism: “I had no way of knowing how it would be used and repeated out of context. I wish it weren’t in there.” Now at the University of California at Los Angeles, Harding argues that science should aim for what she calls “strong objectivity”-a means of evaluating not only the usual scientific evidence but also the social values and interests that lead scientists toward certain questions and answers.

    Also notable: Dawkins himself has been a part of making a mountain out of this molehill.

    http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=160361&postcount=1

    Richard Dawkins, as someone who has complained once or twice about the shoddy and unprincipled tactics of some creationists, ought to be particularly careful not to emulate them. It’s disappointing to find the following passage in his Unweaving the Rainbow…..

    Now, I’ve explained before why this is a complete misrepresentation of Harding (in a thread at IIDB). At that point I was just addressing the mined quote’s occurrences on innumerable “Men are hard-done-by” and/or “Feminism is stupid” websites. But now the misquote has become enshrined by repetition; Dawkins himself seems to indicate that he’s relying on Gross and Levitt’s hatchet-job Higher Superstition for his information on Harding. What seems clear is that he did not actually read the quote he so passionately excoriates…..

    In context, it is obvious that Harding is not simply “describing” the Mechanics as a “rape manual”. She is using this as a provocative way of pointing out a missing argument: an argument to show that gendered metaphors were inert in subsequent scientific concepts, given that machine metaphors are conceded to have played a major role. If anything, the force of her point seems to hinge on its not being “illuminating and honest” to call the Principia a “rape manual” — hence, by parity of reasoning, it is not illuminating and honest to simply assume the fecundity only of the machine metaphors.
    …..
    Imagine how muddled and politicized those feminists are, that one of them could read the Principia and somehow come away from it thinking that it was a how-to guide for rapists! That’s the force of mined quote, which in most of its many internet appearances includes nothing more than the words “rape manual” in quotation marks.

    Does Harding even think that scientific concepts are gendered in the way she’s considering in that passage? Again, figuring that out would mean actually reading what she writes. Most of The Science Question in Feminism is not concerned with that question; much of it focuses instead on practical and empirical matters about how science is (or was, prior to 1986) actually structured and constituted: whether women were underrepresented as researchers and in funding bodies, and how that might have an effect on the sort of projects that get studied. ….

    Notice how carefully she holds this idea at arm’s length. This is not the work of someone who thinks that Newton’s Principia is a rape manual. Nobody who so much as read the actual context of the quote could think so.

    Quote-mining, and the repetition of undocumented claims without checking up on them, are not the province of creationists alone. Dawkins’ outrage is cringe-making, premised as it is on such shoddy scholarship.

    And let’s also quote from this book about the anti-feminist idiots taking this out of context:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=id75vu3IRCIC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=Newton%27s+rape+manual+context&source=bl&ots=iww9NBSVnb&sig=K9u5yXTOqJxB8ql6vl64oaWWNgg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z2IPVeTKD8WjNo-pg9AC&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Newton's%20rape%20manual%20context&f=false

    One of the most infamous expressions in all of science is studies is “Newton’s rape manual”. Sandra Harding coined the phrase- and has been paying for it ever since. It has been quoted repeatedly as decisive evidence of the insanity of feminist critiques of science. Some “evidence” might be less than it seems, however, so let’s take a look at the context of her offending remark.
    Harding is interested in the role of metaphor in science….In it she notices a tension in the views of several philosophers and historians of science. On the one hand, many have stressed the great importance of
    guiding metaphors: they have played and continue to play a key role in the course of research and in shaping our general view of nature. Taking nature to be a great machine…is one of the most striking examples…..
    Feminist historians have repeatedly cited sexual examples such as those of Francis Bacon, who represents the relation between scientist and nature as a man dominating a woman…..
    When feminist historians claim that these domination metaphors have played a role harmful to wome (and to the environment), they are rebuffed with the remark “mere metaphors”, but the inconsistency is rather glaring….
    Harding’s point is that we can’t have it both ways. If metaphors are fective in science, then Bacon’s sexual domination metaphors can’t be passed off as harmless fluff. No one needs to be told about the dangers of quoting out of context. In this case, remarkably little context is needed. Three pargraphs are sufficient to make Harding’s point perfectly clear and to see the injustice of the charge commonly raised against her (The frequent charge of shoddy scholarship made against feminists is particularly ironic)

    And Dawkins joined in all the anti-feminist bandwagon of pseudoscholars, laughing at the dumb things a feminist supposedly said when really they are just quote mining her. Surprise surprise.

    Final note:

    The first three hits for “Newton rape manual context” are:
    Wikipedia entry for Sandra Harding.
    An article by Dawkins. From 1998.
    Fucking Freerepublic.

    The writing has been on the wall for a long, long time.

  101. anteprepro says

    The words “willful ignorance” and “special pleading” come to mind:
    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/579800276695126016

    You are very kind to try to inform me what GG is, but I’m really really content to remain ignorant. “Ignorant” is not an insult like “moron”

    Regarding his incredible opposition to calling people morons: I have not found Dawkins using “moron” as an insult. I have seen him calling people or things “stupid” though. So he isn’t opposed to the insults in general. And I very much Dawkins would object to the term on the basis of ableism: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus

    Dawkins really is a fascinating disaster.

  102. vaiyt says

    No need for him to defend GG when he’s uncritically signal-boosting Sargon of Akkad, Mark Kern and Milo Yiannopoulos.

  103. chigau (違う) says

    If it were warmer out there and less snowy, I’d go out for a smoko.
    but
    fukit
    I’m goin to bed

  104. says

    @ chigau

    How’s things?

    Bisy Backson

    Are you and yours safe?

    Things have quietened down on the streets. This does not make things any less disquieting though. I am sure that at some stage things will be brought to a head again.

    Got any functioning helicopters?

    I have one little racing quad working (though through no small effort on my part to destroy it.) Also two tricopters nearly ready to fly

  105. opposablethumbs says

    Thank you so much for that, anteprepro. I finally get what it is that’s been so massively misrepresented.

  106. johnlee says

    I’ve just seen a newspaper story about the Pope being mobbed by a group of adulating nuns, and I’ve had a flash of insight so powerful that it can only have come from the Lord himself.
    So hear ye, O Sinners:
    I prophesy that Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, known as Pope Francis, will have at least one miracle attributed to him in the next few decades, and that this will be proven as absolutely true by no less an authority than the Vatican itself.
    Such power of prophesy on my part (remember we’re talking miracles here) is clearly a sign that I too should be beatified, ‘coz it’s pretty impressive on my part – I am clearly righteous unto the Lord or something like that.
    Anyway, if any of you poor misguided sinners want any more of my amazing insights into God’s great plan, just send me 500$, and you will receive a 100% genuine, five-star, bona fide no-frills prophesy, guaranteed by Sainthood (pending). It will be the best 500 bucks you have ever spent.

  107. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    [Testing]

    (Been having some problems leaving comments; let’s see if logging out then logging in again has fixed it!)

  108. twas brillig (stevem) says

    I can’t find the thread to which I’m referring. The Bibble opening of, “He created them, man and woman. Man and woman he created them. Adam the first man…”, Is all from the King James translation, which was royally required to be an artistic translation of the original Greek (?) writing of the Bibble.
    I am trying to ask (clumsily) what the original Hebrew Torah had written, as the first few lines of Genesis, and if they are radically different than the KJV. Did KJ mistranslate the original, deliberately, or were they working with a mistranslation to begin with?
    Even if the translation is accurate and precisely correct, does the phrasing “He created them…”, imply that Adam and Eve were not the solitary residents of the Earth? That A&E were just two of the many that Gawd selected, and plopped into the Garden, until they disobeyed and were kicked out, to the land of more people, where Cain & Able could go forth and find themselves girls to bear their children?

  109. says

    @ twas brillig (stevem)

    Even if the translation is accurate and precisely correct, does the phrasing “He created them…”, imply that Adam and Eve were not the solitary residents of the Earth?

    Correct! Look up the story of Lilith.

    (There was a long and detailed discussion of Genesis, Lilith, Mrs Snake, The Garden, Gawd ™ , etc only a few years ago, on this very thread.)

  110. AlexanderZ says

    twas brillig #157

    what the original Hebrew Torah had written

    The relevant part is from Genesis 1:27 – “וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם”
    It literally translates to “God created the man in his image in god’s image he created him male and female [he] created them”

    does the phrasing “He created them…”, imply that Adam and Eve were not the solitary residents of the Earth?

    Not by this point. Genesis 1 is the first genesis story (the Torah has several versions of it) and is fairly straightforward. Later it (in Genesis 6) it is revealed that “god’s children” and the giants (nephilim) lived along side the first humans, though the creation order of those is never specified. It is mentioned (Genesis 6:4) that the children of god intermingled with Adam’s daughters/human women (the two phrases are the same in Hebrew).
    ______________________

    theophontes #158

    Look up the story of Lilith

    Lilith is an external myth (from the Babylonian Talmud) that tries to explain the inconsistencies of Genesis 6, not those of Genesis 1.

  111. twas brillig (stevem) says

    God created the man in his image in god’s image he created him male and female [he] created them.

    So Gawd is male AND female? And Xians are so opposed to trans* as “abominations”, me thinks they need to read the Bable more literally.

  112. AlexanderZ says

    twas brillig #161

    So Gawd is male AND female?

    According to Ḥazal onward, yes (the female aspect is called Schechinah).
    Though there is little hint for this in the text, in the previous verse (Genesis 1:26) which talks about the intention of making a man and his/their role amidst the animals, god refers to itself in plural (…we will/let us make man in our image our likeness…). There is no royal “we” in Hebrew, but the word for god that’s used in Genesis (elohim) is the plural of the word deity (eloha).

  113. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @brianpansky

    Except that “terror of violence” is the defining feature of what the beater intends as a means, it is not an accidental aspect of the means. I think this makes it a different category than the intent of vaccination. And I think my previous writing about intent is validated here.

    Good intentions make it not violence, and good purposes make it not violence. Is that a good summation of your argument? This reminds me of a phrase about good intentions and roads to hell.

    you’ll see it isn’t anything like the “acting with intent” legal definition. And then you’ll see my point about the word “violence”. Instead of missing my point. Maybe.

    Bullshit. Try that in a court, and see how far you get. Imagine what it would look like if it was a private citizen doing it, and not the government:

    Your honor, I took it upon myself without consulting others to use this alien device to forcefully vaccination everyone in the country against measles. (The machine uses teleportation to teleport the intravenous vaccine directly into the body of every person on the planet.) Yes, I know that the alien device reports that 3 people were killed (allergies, contaminations, etc.), and independent autopsies confirmed this fact – but I didn’t intend for those people to die. It was an accident. Yes, I also know that the alien device confirmed the well known medical literature that this course of action would kill a small number of people, but it’s still an accident. I’m not guilty of murder. I had the best intentions. Look at how many other lives I saved.

    We would charge you with murder – or at least negligent homicide. IIRC, that’s the charge for when someone fires their gun into the air and the bullets falls and kills someone, right? If any one person had the power to do it on their own, and did it on their own without consulting anyone else, and without obtaining the informed consent of a majority of the population through a government, then it would be homicide at the very least – actual, prosecutable homicide. Good intentions be damned – such a person would have killed someone, and it would be homicide.

    It’s ridiculous to say that criminal homicide is not violence, which is the end result of your position.

  114. getkind says

    I stumbled on an online video on vk.com (like youtube) that seems to be evidence of an unconscious woman being raped. I don’t know where it was taken or when or any of the people and the few comments are in Cyrillic. How do I bring this to the attention of the appropriate law enforcement and get the evidence preserved before it gets deleted?

  115. says

    Good intentions make it not violence, and good purposes make it not violence. Is that a good summation of your argument?

    No…how could that be a good summation of my argument? What a joke.

    This reminds me of a phrase about good intentions and roads to hell.

    Which is a vague phrase. [I’ve written about it before ^^]

    And now you’ve taken to a court example when I specifically said I was not using any legal definition of “intent”. I’m not even going to respond to that.

    you’ll see it isn’t anything like the “acting with intent” legal definition. And then you’ll see my point about the word “violence”. Instead of missing my point. Maybe.

    Bullshit. Try that in a court, and see how far you get.

    UGUUGUUHUGHHUUHGUGU.

    Look. Having a different definition of a word doesn’t mean that I think I can equivocate it with any other definitions. I’m capable of both: 1) having a different definition and 2) not trying to equivocate it with legal jargon.

    I said I wasn’t using the court definition. That shouldn’t imply that I think my definition can be used in court.

  116. says

    @getkind

    I don’t know who you would contact about that (doesn’t that website have a report feature for criminal content like youtube does?), but to preserve the video you could try FreeMake Video Downloader or Firefox video downloader.

  117. getkind says

    @brianpansky

    Thanks from mentioning Firefox Video Downloader. I seem to have successfully used to save a copy of the evidence, so I am no longer feeling the need to get someone involved right this very minute in order to preserve evidence.

    I think reporting it to the host would more likely just get it deleted quickly instead of having it preserved, so I don’t want to be the one to take that step.

    The nice person at the other end of online chat at RAINN.org both suggested the FBI Tip Line and promised to try and follow up at their end. I provided the link to RAINN.org and FBI Tip Line and several contacts at my local newspaper, so maybe one of those will pan out.

  118. Okidemia says

    Tony! The Queer Shoop #86

    My guess is that you don’t give a try for a second guess because you fear that it would be right? (If that’s it, I just want to tell you: you’re certainly right about the second guess! ;) )

  119. says

    Dawkins displaying his usual arrogance.
    Goodness gracious me, there’s a difference between time and tense and it’s time he studied some linguistics.*
    But since it’S Dawkins just being ignorant and arrogant on linguistics is probably progress as opposed to him being ignorant and arrogant on rape.

    *Would you believe that I can use the simple past to indicate a recommendation or order for the future?

  120. Okidemia says

    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- #173

    Calling that progress may even be a bit optimistic, it’s merely progessive panoramics.

  121. anteprepro says

    It is confusing when historians refer to historical events using the historical present tense? How? It’s history: It is essentially in the past by definition. How the fuck can you get confused and think that the Gettysberg Address is happening right now, because someone is describing it as if they were there?

    I sometimes get the impression that Dawkins thinks that any field that isn’t his own is fundamentally flawed and not worth knowing about.

  122. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    I sometimes get the impression that Dawkins thinks that any person that isn’t him is fundamentally flawed and not worth knowing about. Unless they bend over and give his ass a huge smooch.

  123. says

    I sometimes get the impression that Dawkins thinks that any field that isn’t his own is fundamentally flawed and not worth knowing about.

    Yep. He’s showing his ignorant ass off. Oh, excuse me, he showed his ignorant ass off.
    If you limited were going to limit limit the use of the tenses to the time they roughly corrensond to, you’ll run into trouble.

  124. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Giliell, is Dawkins afraid that is a historian is using the present tense in a work of history, that the reader might get confused and no longer think it is a work of history?

  125. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Remember, black people were happier under Jim Crow and they were more “religious” and not contaminated by outside agitators according to that fine upstanding chritian.

  126. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Does Dawkins also get confused when reading memoirs if parts are written in present tense?
    Life must be heard for him.

  127. AlexanderZ says

    getkind #169

    so maybe one of those will pan out

    I hope so – it’s the only available option. If you were certain that the video was shot in Russia or by Russians then you/we could also have sent a message to the FSB, but they don’t pay much attention to crimes witnessed online, nor will they accept reports from foreigners.
    Hopefully the FBI would get in contact with the their counterparts in the relevant country or the Interpol (though that’s usually works only for child porn, not for videos of adult rape victims).

  128. says

    Janine
    I have no fucking clue. To me it seems like he’s trying to say something terribly clever, failing to even conside that he might not be qualified* to talk about this. Really, it’s the equivalent of “why are there still apes???”

    *How can I do that? Used a past participle as an adjective!

  129. AlexanderZ says

    Wait. Scratch that. You said vk.com? That’s V Kontakte – a Russian version of Facebook. It’s mostly owned by Putin’s confidante. It should be reported to the FSB.

  130. AlexanderZ says

    Daz #188
    He reminds me of the Ankh-Morporkian attitude towards poetic similes:

    Poetic simile was strictly limited to statements like ‘his mighty steed was as fleet as the wind on a fairly calm day, say about Force Three,’ and any loose talk about a beloved having a face that launched a thousand ships would have to be backed by evidence that the object of desire did indeed look like a bottle of champagne.

    The Light Fantastic

  131. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @brianpansky
    Again, I believe my position w.r.t. your position remains the same. As I said before: If a private citizen tried to use the same amount of force as some states of the United States sometimes use to enforce a vaccination campaign over a big enough population, we would call that negligent homicide. Now, your choices appear clear to me: 1- Admit that justification or cost-benefit analysis is part of the definition of violence. 2- Continue to hold a position which entails that some instances of actual, prosecutable, criminal negligent homicide are not violence, which is a completely ridiculous position to hold.

  132. anteprepro says

    Enlightenment Liberal:

    As I said before: If a private citizen tried to use the same amount of force as some states of the United States sometimes use to enforce a vaccination campaign over a big enough population, we would call that negligent homicide.

    No, we would call that medical care.

  133. Saad says

    EnlightenmentLiberal,

    Continue to hold a position which entails that some instances of actual, prosecutable, criminal negligent homicide are not violence, which is a completely ridiculous position to hold.

    Injury or death due to unpredictable vaccine adverse effects is not criminal negligence. Negligence would be if the healthcare provider didn’t bother to check if the child has an allergy to a component of a vaccine.

  134. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    *peeks into Thunderdome*

    *sees EnlightenmentLiberal still doesn’t know what words mean*

    *concludes all is right with the world*

  135. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    EL, government is not violence. But your reaction to government borders on violence with your inane and hostile rhetoric.
    Now, out of a million children, how many will die from the measles if none are vaccinated?
    How many will die if all are vaccinated from vaccine reactions?
    (Answers will be shown later)
    Which is the solid PUBLIC HEALTH position based upon EVIDENCE, not emotion.

  136. Saad says

    Seven of Mine,

    *peeks into Thunderdome*

    *sees EnlightenmentLiberal still doesn’t know what words mean*

    *concludes all is right with the world*

    Yeah, I don’t know why I got sucked back into it.

    SIWOTI and EL don’t mix.

  137. Nick Gotts says

  138. anteprepro says

    Interestingly, EL’s latest strays further from the debate of the definition of violence into a debate about the term “negligent homicide”, specifically about whether something with a very remote risk of fatality but is still very very VERY likely to be a net positive counts as either negligence and/or murder on the very rare occasions that it results in death. Essentially this brings EL’s argument against all of medical care, and possibly against any action at all. I imagine you could use EL’s “logic” to argue against driving, due to the high risk of traffic accidents. I imagine driving is negligent homicide by definition the second you wind up in an accident. You are automatically at fault, by definition, due to your choice to drive whilst knowing the risks of driving.

    I wonder if obligations that require driving or incentives to drive count as VIOLENCE? I imagine it must be. Though EL never confirmed nor denied that the Economy is Violence, it is clear from the “logic” that it must be.

  139. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    There was a study a few years back.

    Random sampling of written internet content available through various channels (like “all wordpress”, etc) or on various big sites (CNN, whatever). Even corporate and government websites.

    They scored them according to type, then noted how often that type of website was, on average, updated. Finally, with the random sample of content, they counted how many easily disprovable errors of fact were plainly made, excluding reasonably possible instances of metaphor, etc.

    Noting the sector from which the content came, and multiplying by frequency of updates, it appears the major portions of the English language internet are responsible for > 95,000 easily identifiable errors of fact per second!

    What I didn’t realize at the time when I originally read that, was just how many of these are attributable solely to EnlightmentLiberal!

  140. says

    CD

    What I didn’t realize at the time when I originally read that, was just how many of these are attributable solely to EnlightmentLiberal!

    Did I tell you recently that I love you?

    +++
    Well, a Germanwings plane just crashed in the Alps. On board a German Spanish class and their teachers on their way back from a student exchange. I conclude that taking students on an exchange is attempted homicide or something like that.

  141. yazikus says

    Lordy, the letters to the editer are a hoot this week:

    is also troubled by the fact Ellen White claims the “amalgamation of man and beast” was a chief cause for God’s destruction of the antediluvians. He bases his objection on the assumption it is impossible for man to mate with animals and produce offspring.

    #However, I know of reputable Christian biologists who have proposed that similar chromosome numbers before the great flood could have permitted man and animals, and diverse animals, to produce offspring. In that case, it would follow that all such anomalies, including the dinosaurs, were not taken aboard the ark, and that God made such crossbreeding impossible following the flood.

    I’d like to hear the name of your supposed ‘reputable christian biologist’.

  142. AlexanderZ says

    Judging by the name, Ken Ham can be considered an “amalgamation of man and beast”.

  143. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

    @Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy, Thunderdome #58, page one, comment #427.
    Sorry I have not responded in a while. But I wanted to thank you for your response. I’ve been very socially complicated lately. As my other community nears a merge between the sites that resulted from an old schism the conflicts have increased (I think the more combative people are sizing one another up). It’s hard to maintain a behavioral code for two internet environments and I often fear some sort of breakdown. I did not want you to think that I did not read your comment.

  144. says

    In the world that exists inside EL’s fuckwitted noggin, violence equals taxation equals incarceration equals vaccination equals kidnapping equals government equals rape equals domestic abuse equals child abuse equals gun violence equals…sheesh! In EnlightenmentLiberals’ world, it’s probably easier to list the things that aren’t violence (or examples of violence; xe still hasn’t clarified which one xe means) than to list those that are.
    Thankfully, here in the real world incarceration, kidnapping, vaccination, taxation, and government are not violence (or examples of violence).

  145. anteprepro says

    Tony

    In the world that exists inside EL’s fuckwitted noggin, violence equals taxation equals incarceration equals vaccination equals kidnapping equals government equals rape equals domestic abuse equals child abuse equals gun violence equals…sheesh!

    Enlightenment Liberal is a true egalitarian. In their world, all words are equal. To each other.

  146. says

    Wow. Superherohype ran an article about the addition of Chyler Leigh and David Harewood to the cast of CBS’ upcoming Supergirl tv series. Harewood, who is black, has been cast as the character Hank Henshaw. In the comic books, Henshaw is a white man. In the comments, one person wrote:

    I’m not going to lose sleep over a character like Hank Henshaw, but this diversity for the sake of diversity crap is getting real old real fast.

    To which I responded:

    I agree. We need to return to a time when television and movies were dominated by white, heterosexual, cisgender men. Oh, wait, the industry is still dominated by that demographic, and many people are tired of Hollywood catering solely to that group. There are other groups who watch television and movies that want to see themselves represented. People who are African-American, Asian-American, Latino. People who have physical or mental disabilities. People who are transgender, lesbian, gay, or bisexual. People of non-traditional religious affiliation, those with none, or those who are atheist.
    I applaud diversity for the sake of diversity, bc the point of it is to show that the dreams, hopes, desires, accomplishments, and lives of non-white, non-heterosexual, non-cisgender, non-male people matter.

    I just received a lovely response:

    typical racist coward.
    television and movies were NEVER dominated by white people. there IS such a thing as white culture you racist coward. there is such a think as white culture and the medium it produces. it has NOTHING to do with non-white racist vermin who WANT something from white people and white societies. its not white peoples JOB to dissassociate themselves from there own societies you RACIST hypocrite.
    you dont give a damn about diversity…go diversify uganda you racist hypocrite.
    the ONLY thing you care about is forcing non-whites into every aspect of white society and culture. thats the only vomit coming out of your mouth.. you spittle the word “diversity” because you are too much of a COWARD to admit the only thing your interested in is multiracializing white societies ALONE.

    That first line…
    How can anyone be so disconnected from reality to think that’s true. A cursory look at the history of tv and cinema shows that white, heterosexual, cisgender men have and continue to dominate the big and small screens.

  147. chigau (違う) says

    Tony! #207
    If you continue the conversation, don’t forget throw in some UPPER CASE.

  148. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Tony, that sounds like a person who thinks that there is a white genocide going on.

  149. says

    Janine @209:
    Most definitely!

    ****
    chigau @208:
    I did respond to the guy who claimed Hollywood has never been overwhelmingly white. I doubt he’ll click it, but I left a link to the 2014 Hollywood Diversity Report, which shows that Hollywood is still doing a poor job on the diversity front, but doing a great job employing white, cisgender, heterosexual men. I doubt I’ll respond any further. When I comment on sites other than FtB, I usually comment only once.

  150. says

    President Obama talks about his childhood love of comics.
    Given how much the GOP despises the President, I’m morbidly curious to see their reaction to this.

    ****

    Gal Gadot talks about playing Wonder Woman:

    Gal: “I will never take for granted the job I have right now. (she actually said ‘I will never spit into the well from which I drink from’. It’s a phrase in Hebrew that means she won’t make fun or look poorly on what she is doing right now. I forgot the equivalent in English ). Playing Wonder Women is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I can’t describe to you how much I wanted to play this character without even knowing I wanted to play her. I met a lot of people from the industry in LA for meetings. They always asked me ‘what’s your dream role?’, and I never could define it. I always answered that I wanted to play a women that is strong and will be a source for women empowerment. I don’t want to play a damsel in distress that needs to be saved. I don’t like it when women in the movies are shown as the victims. I always thought that if I could send out a massage I want to show the strong side of a woman and how she can handle tough situations.”

    I haz smile on face.

  151. says

    Anteprepro:

    I really can’t believe I am seeing Dawkins of all people whining about tone and politeness.

    He’s always been whiny about tone and politeness. During Egate, he said he’d consider how his Dear Muslima was wrong, as long as it was explained politely, with no naughty words.

  152. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Finally came to the realization that Richard Dawkins’ fans treat him in the same veneration as fans of Ronald Reagan treat Reagan.

  153. Okidemia says

    Tony! The Queer Shoop #205

    I didn’t have a second guess until I looked at your gravatar…

    But… But… These are pets! How dare you even think about eating them! :)

  154. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Brony @ 203

    I assume you mean the question you asked about Ponychan and my response about the Conflict Tactic Scale? At any rate, don’t worry about it. I just figured life got in the way. Of course you should take care of yourself first. :)

  155. Okidemia says

    I have to acknowledge I’ve had longways found Dawkins interesting. Probably even until Twitter was invented.

    Okay, I admit I swept back to Jesus. At least Jesus loves you.

    Hahem.

  156. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    It is as if VD cannot wait to show off just what a horrid little specimen of humanity he is.

    But it is somewhat haunting to think about how many lives might be saved each year if the sluts of the world were just a little less picky and a little more equitable in their distribution of blowjobs.

    Funny how in the minds of too many men, women are somehow sluts and too picky about the men they have sex with. What a wretched little world they insist all of us must live in.

  157. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Just saw that PZ has a post about the subject of my last message.

    So, never mind.

  158. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Caine, #215

    During Egate, he said he’d consider how his Dear Muslima was wrong, as long as it was explained politely, with no naughty words.

    Oh, I remember that.

    So… fondly.

  159. says

    Trigger Warning: Rape
    A group of young men in Nairobi intervened and prevented a man from raping a young girl because they were taught
    about bystander intervention and that ‘no means no’:

    The schoolboy watched as a man tried to remove the nappy of a little girl he was dragging along a Nairobi riverbank, suspecting that he was going to rape her.

    Having been trained to defend girls against sexual assault, the boy called other young men to help him confront the man and rescue the child.

    “It would have been fatal,” said Collins Omondi, who taught the boy as part of a programme to stamp out violence against women and girls in Nairobi slums. “If this man would have assaulted this kid, he would have thrown her inside the river.”

    Omondi teaches a programme called ‘Your Moment of Truth’, run by the charity Ujamaa Africa which encourages adolescent boys to stand up against violence towards women.

    The training is “highly effective” in improving attitudes towards women and increasing the likelihood of successful intervention, researchers from Stanford University, University of Nairobi and United States International University-Africa said.

    The training increased boys’ successful interventions when witnessing physical or sexual assault by 185 percent, from 26 to 74 percent, according to their study to be published later this year in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

    Interventions in verbal harassment also increased, and rape by boyfriends and friends of girls in schools where ‘Your Moment of Truth’ was taught dropped by 20 percent, from 61 to 49 percent, the researchers said.

    “Our main focus on the curriculum is positive masculinity for the boys, positive empowerment, and actually making them gentlemen on issues to do with the prevention of rape and standing up for the rights of women,” said Omondi, dressed in a black T-shirt with NO! emblazoned on the front.

    “If they say the boys are actually the problem, we the boys can actually be part of the solution,” he added.

    Every secondary school child in Nairobi – some 130,000 students – will undergo the six-week programme by the end of 2017 with funding from the British government, which is focusing aid on finding out what works to prevent violence against women

  160. AlexanderZ says

    Jacob Schmidt #226
    I hoped it wouldn’t end like that, but I guess they’re doing what their lawyer/s think is best.
    The worst part is that now rape apologists will bring this as an example of “false complaints” and “misandry” and what not.
    _____________________

    In other news:
    Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships if it joins NATO shield:

    Denmark said in August it would contribute radar capacity on some of its warships to the missile shield, which the Western alliance says is designed to protect members from missile launches from countries like Iran.

  161. Okidemia says

    AlexanderZ #223

    So, how’s the taste? Anything you’d recommend?

    You mean for grubs? Needs seasonning! A bit bitter, so I’d rather say to give a try to crickets or termites. Definitely better.

    I’d recommand anything that’s prepared traditionnally, because it’s gone through a long experience of cooking experiments and experiences. Else there’s nothing better than experimental chefs with regard to modern insect cooking.

    But the worst tasting pet* is definitely not an insect, it’s a vertebrate.

    *in my experience.

  162. says

    Lakota woman angry at racist t-shirts and headdresses being sold at New Mexico gift shop:

    A shop clerk’s response to a Native American woman protesting the sale of culturally appropriated items has drawn caustic debate online.

    A Lakota woman confronted the clerk in Albuquerque, New Mexico when she happened upon racist T-shirts and Native American headdresses at the Mercado Gift shop located at the Hyatt in downtown Albuquerque.

    “Are you fucking kidding me?” the woman says during a cell phone video she shot.

    “I’m coming to bring this to you,” she says to the clerk. “I don’t appreciate seeing any of this shit here.”

    The Lakota woman, who was in town for the American Indian Higher Education Consortium at the convention center, tells the clerk that the display and sale of culturally appropriated items in the store is “disgusting.”

    “I do not want any of those up on that wall. If I could grab them I would take them down, too,” she said. “This is disgusting, this is disgusting. This is a part of my people’s heritage,” she said referring to the headdress.

    According to the Lakota woman in the video, also on sale were culturally insensitive T-shirts including one that read, “My Indian Name Is Runs-With-Beer.”

    The Lakota woman soon turns her attention back to the headdresses.

    “You’re living on our land,” she tells the clerk. “That’s our people’s things,” she said.

    The clerk responds by saying one headdress was “made by a Navajo.”

    Then, seemingly trying to justify the sale of the items, the clerk brazenly told the Lakota woman, “Hey, you lost the war, friend. I’m sorry.”

    A collective gasp and reactions of disbelief can be heard in the background coming from other shop-goers.

    Online, people are both applauding and chastising the Lakota woman.

    One person who commented on the KRQE website said the Lakota woman caused the “poor clerk to be visibly upset.”

    Another came to the Lakota woman’s defense and said, “If people knew (or our schools taught ) more about our violent histories maybe they would not sell or say stupid things that are so offensive and conduct themselves with more class.”

    The clerk later told KRQE News 13 the headdress was valued at $800 and that the Lakota woman damaged it during the confrontation. The Lakota woman does not have to pay for the damages, KRQE News reported.

    The store has since pulled several of the offensive T-shirts off the shelves.

    If you click the link, you can watch the video she took on her cell phone.

  163. AlexanderZ says

    Okidemia #228
    Thanks, I was curious. Provided grasshoppers taste as good as crickets, I might get a taste in the next locust season.

  164. Okidemia says

    AlexanderZ #230
    Where are you located? Pending, make sure there isn’t already a species documented as non-edible.
    Locusts might be more abundant than grasshoppers.
    Avoid species with spitting defense behaviour, since spit substances is usually what makes them bitter.
    Also, make sure to have them feast one day before you prepare them, so that they are “empty” (also better for taste).

    If you’re into insect diet in a temperate place (where breeding is easy), you can go with mealworms (I think temperate species are better tasting but this is only based on opinion), they are easy to keep.

    If you’re based outside USA/Canada, you can also go for stick insects (plus if you’re in Europe, the common entomo enthusiasts’ breeds feeding on bramble without aposematic ware are often edible). (Beware the food plant if you pick them in the wild, avoid those species eating known toxic plants, and unfortunately species in the USA are not edible).

  165. AlexanderZ says

    Okidemia #231

    Where are you located?

    Currently, Israel.
    I’m not adventurous enough to try to collect/prepare the insects on my own. I know that local Yemeni Jews have a tradition of eating grasshoppers and some still do it, but I’ve never seen some on sale (and I don’t know a single one who still holds that tradition). I’ll go looking down south, there are more tradition oriented towns there so I might get some insects prepared in by an experienced cook.

  166. AlexanderZ says

    Tony!, Giliell
    I’ve replied and my comment is awaiting moderation. Is that normal?

    Also, that discussion about the origin of skirts is plain silly.

    Not only that but I found Ophelia Benson’s claim that “There is one reason women are expected to wear skirts, and that’s ease of access” to be very problematic in the way it plays into the hands of rape apologists. After all, a rapist would argue that if skirts exist to provide ease of access, then a woman that chooses to wear a mini skirt must want to provide maximal access, and therefore has nobody to blame for being raped.

    Obviously that’s not what Ophelia Benson wanted to convey but, once again, she needs to rethink both her position and her wording.

  167. chigau (違う) says

    A bazillion geese, the sun low, their wings *sparkle*!!!
    Where the fuck is my camera?

  168. HappyNat says

    Tony!
    Thanks for the reminder of why B&W is no longer one of my regular stops.

    Chigau
    Is it under the passenger seat of your car? I find the damnedest things there.

  169. chigau (違う) says

    HappyNat
    Nope. In my purse.
    My ‘purse’ is big enough to hold a wallet and house-keys.
    How I lost my camera in there…
    under the passenger seat of my car is a whole nother story

  170. says

    @236, AlexanderZ

    Not only that but I found Ophelia Benson’s claim that “There is one reason women are expected to wear skirts, and that’s ease of access” to be very problematic in the way it plays into the hands of rape apologists. After all, a rapist would argue that if skirts exist to provide ease of access, then a woman that chooses to wear a mini skirt must want to provide maximal access, and therefore has nobody to blame for being raped.

    Obviously that’s not what Ophelia Benson wanted to convey but, once again, she needs to rethink both her position and her wording.

    No it isn’t playing into the hands of rapists or their apologists. It’s possibly false and poorly reasoned, but it isn’t that.

    Your hypopthetical rapist is using an extra dose of fallacious reasoning that isn’t part of what OB said. For instance: ease of access does not mean permission of access.

    What if it were true that skirts did exist to provide easier sexual access, and (just to tease out your fail here) suppose that some women wanted to wear them for exactly that reason? What then….? Honestly, the fuck?

  171. says

    Meet ‘Yawunik kootenayi’: researchers unearth 508 million year-old sea creatures’ fossil in Canada

    Scientists said on Friday they unearthed nicely preserved fossils in British Columbia of the 508 million-year-old animal, named Yawunik kootenayi, that looked like a big shrimp with a bad attitude and was one of the largest predators of its time.

    Including its claws, Yawunik measured about 9 inches (22.5 cm) long. That may not sound impressive, but most creatures at the time were much smaller.

    The fossil beds in Kootenay National Park where it was found were in a previously unexplored area of the Burgess Shale rock formation that for more than a century has yielded exceptional remains from the Cambrian Period, when many of the major animal groups first appeared.

    Yawunik, whose name honors a mythical sea monster in the native Ktunaxa people’s creation story, was a primitive arthropod, the highly successful group that includes shrimps, lobsters, crabs, insects, spiders, scorpions, centipedes and millipedes.

    A capable swimmer and active predator, it possessed rows of spikes along its large frontal claws, a highly developed sensory system comprised of two pairs of eyes and elaborate antennae, and a body divided into 17 segments.

    “The new fossils show clearly that these primitive arthropods were sophisticated, fearsome predators,” said paleontologist Robert Gaines of California’s Pomona College. “Our vertebrate ancestors had not yet developed bones or jaws, and remained humble bottom feeders.”

  172. chigau (違う) says

    I wonder if it’s possible to actually “spell” ‘Kootenai’ in the English alphabet.
    I doubt it.

  173. AlexanderZ says

    brianpansky #241

    Your hypopthetical rapist is using an extra dose of fallacious reasoning that isn’t part of what OB said. For instance: ease of access does not mean permission of access.

    Of course not, but that isn’t the point. The rape argument goes like this:
    All women are sluts. Sluts deserve to be raped.
    Neither part is true and there is no logical connection between the two. But for rapists and their supporters it doesn’t matter. What I’m saying is that OB’s statement can be used by rape apologists to argue in support of the first part of their dogma.

    What if it were true that skirts did exist to provide easier sexual access, and (just to tease out your fail here) suppose that some women wanted to wear them for exactly that reason? What then….?

    Then it’s an argument that deserves more than a couple of lines. Because considering how popular skirts of all sizes are, it means inhuman levels of sexualisation.
    ____________________________________

    My comment wasn’t approved by OB. Here is a copy of it:

    quixote #31

    In this, she does have biology on her side but not queer theory.

    She has neither biology, nor queer theory. You can read this article in Nature about the relationship between genetics and sex. It’s far from the neat and tidy picture you and Bindel seem to draw in your minds.
    _________________

    Ophelia Benson #49
    I don’t see why you shouldn’t have answered that specific comment by Tony! regardless of his other comments, considering that this entire post is about you replying to one specific point of the NUS’ position while ignoring all the rest.

    P.S.
    I find it really odd that she screencapped Tony’s comment here. It’s not like PZ is going to delete it or anything.
    P.P.S.
    My entire spine hurts more than usual. From the neck down to the lower back and shooting into my legs, chest, arms and numbing my fingertips. It’s either the changing weather or I overexerted myself swimming yesterday.
    It has nothing to do with anything, I just feel like complaining. Sorry.

  174. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    AlexanderZ @ 245

    Neither part is true and there is no logical connection between the two. But for rapists and their supporters it doesn’t matter. What I’m saying is that OB’s statement can be used by rape apologists to argue in support of the first part of their dogma.

    What you’re actually asking of Ophelia is that she not make a claim of fact that she believes to be accurate because her interlocutor will respond fallaciously. If she’s factually incorrect, she should care about that and stop making that claim because it’s incorrect; not because her interlocutor can’t argue competently.

  175. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Chigau, #244:

    No.

    Almost by definition.

  176. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @AlexanderZ:

    Ophelia Benson seems an odd duck to me. At one point when I was critical of her wording (she was claiming certain people, IIRC, “think of themselves” as allies to islamists and/or “think of islamists” as allies to themselves – either way, the wording doesn’t admit of people who think of non-violent muslims as allies but happen to have bad tactics such that they do things to benefit islamists, which was my point), she brought up a months-old statement from me over here to the effect that I’d stopped reading her.

    I never said she was crap. I didn’t insult her. I said I stopped reading her. Which was true. Reading habits can change back, of course, and I had been poking around a little in the couple weeks before this disagreement, but I am Groot! she seemed to think this was some kind of rebuttal. I don’t know what the point of that was supposed to be, but she clearly was lurking over here and remembered this bit that I’d said, and then was apparently prepared to use it “against me” or “against my argument” or whatever. It was surreal.

    CD: I don’t think that the folks you’re describing have a subjective identification of islamists as “allies”.
    OB: Yeah? I thought you stopped reading me!
    CD: Um, so?

    My best guess is that she’s had so many people bash her in bad faith that it may be harder for her now than before the online harassment to hear honest disagreement. If her point was that I couldn’t possibly be critiquing her argument in good faith since I had once said I’d stopped reading B&W (or stopped reading it regularly, or something – it was a mild statement, as I recall, wish I could find it), well, that would be wrong, but it would at least make some sort of sense based on the harassment campaign.

    I could hardly care less about Bindel. She sounds a bad job, but I don’t know. I don’t read her work. And I’m not that interested in seeking out years-old work that supposedly bashes me. I mean, ugh. Countering current misinformation is a good enough reason to read anti-trans* trash, but there’s too much out there from the past to bother with, y’know? I have a life, after all.

    Well, sort of a life.

    Okay, I have an occasional day.

  177. says

    @AlexanderZ

    Neither part is true and there is no logical connection between the two. But for rapists and their supporters it doesn’t matter. What I’m saying is that OB’s statement can be used by rape apologists to argue in support of the first part of their dogma.

    Well if “for rapists and their supporters it doesn’t matter” whether things are true or have any logical connection, then there is literally nothing you can say which is safe from them using it. So judgement is absurd.

    I don’t think you have a point.

  178. AlexanderZ says

    Seven #246

    What you’re actually asking of Ophelia is that she not make a claim of fact that she believes to be accurate because her interlocutor will respond fallaciously.

    No, I’m asking her to be mindful of a very common attack tactic. She’s not writing to her drawer – she’s a prominent blogger with a platform. This means she has responsibility to address common misconceptions, misunderstandings or even expected misuse of her words.

    Here’s an example: How often does PZ say that Darwin was wrong? Fairly often, almost in every post discussing Darwin. But PZ never leaves that point hanging. He always explains that while Darwin was wrong on some issues due to his lack of knowledge of genetics, he was still right when it comes to the basics of evolution. Furthermore, PZ often states or explains how modern evolution theory combines both Darwin’s insights and modern genetics to get a better understanding of the world.
    PZ does it again and again, and why? Because he knows that any potential ambiguity will be exploited by creationists and IDiots, who are no different from rape apologists when it comes to fallacious arguments.

    Does that mean that OB (or any other writer) must triple-check every word they write? No, but they do have to be careful when they’re supporting a very controversial position in a very sensitive matter.
    ___________________________

    brianpansky #249

    Well if “for rapists and their supporters it doesn’t matter” whether things are true or have any logical connection, then there is literally nothing you can say which is safe from them using it.

    Human beings aren’t robots driven by deterministic logic. They are varying degrees of support and even strong support may be strengthened or eroded through arguments. Take for example a different case: Slymepitters hate FtB and OB in particular, but they’re happy to quote her when her position on Islam or Muslims coincides with theirs.
    Given that she knows her words are turned against her, I would have expected her to be more careful/clear when talking about sensitive topics.
    ___________________________

    Crip Dyke #248

    I don’t know what the point of that was supposed to be, but she clearly was lurking over here and remembered this bit that I’d said, and then was apparently prepared to use it “against me” or “against my argument” or whatever. It was surreal.

    It is surreal! It also proves that Tony was right about her – if she can find the time read the Thunderdome, she can certainly find the time to research the positions of the person central to her post.

    My best guess is that she’s had so many people bash her in bad faith that it may be harder for her now than before the online harassment to hear honest disagreement.

    It makes some sense, but if she had been reading you for at least half a year she should have understood that you are in no way a harasser, and learned enough of your positions to know that you argue in good faith.

    Okay, I have an occasional day.

    I hope you have a great day :)
    ___________________________

    I find OB’s attitude particularly strange because I used to read her a lot in 2007-8, during the Obama campaign. She was on a blog with several other writers, all reporting about liberal issues and the Democratic Party’s campaign. It was one of two US blogs I read at the time – the other being Andrew Sullivan’s (who, eventually, was the one responsible for me coming to Pharyngula).
    She impressed me then as a very reasonable person, but I’ve stopped reading that blog when Obama was elected. I rediscovered her here on FtB when I started reading PZ some time ago. I don’t know whether I’ve changed over the years or she did, but my attitude is no longer that receptive.

  179. AlexanderZ says

    Ophelia Benson #251
    I’m terribly sorry. I was sure it was you. I even remember the name “Butterflies & Wheels” there. I have very bad memory, but this is just horrible. I’m off to find that blog.
    Again, sorry.

  180. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    AlexanderZ @ 250

    No, I’m asking her to be mindful of a very common attack tactic.

    Which, in practice, would amount to her not stating what she presumably believes to be a fact because some hypothetical interlocutor might argue fallaciously from it. The statement you’re objecting to is a simple claim of fact, not some complex moral argument. It’s true or it’s not. She states it or she doesn’t. There is no interpreting exactly what she means by it. She makes quite clear from the rest of that passage that she objects to the idea that wearing a skirt is implicit permission for random strangers to do what they like to your body. Even if she didn’t, a fairly cursory examination of her blog should reveal to any honest person what her position is. The people who would quote mine her would do that regardless of any additional explanation she provided. Because that’s what they do. Because they’re dishonest, horrible people.

    If there is a problem there, it’s that she’s either altogether incorrect or her understanding is incomplete. The problem is not ambiguity.

  181. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @AlexanderZ:

    Does that mean that OB (or any other writer) must triple-check every word they write? No, but they do have to be careful when they’re supporting a very controversial position in a very sensitive matter.

    I’m more-or-less with Seven of Mine here, but I’ll had a clarification.

    I think that you’re talking about steps one should take for the practical purpose of being effective in one’s advocacy.

    I think that Seven of Mine is understanding you to be making an ethical statement – that Ophelia (or anyone else) has an **ethical duty** to avoid misuse of one’s blog posts.

    Fuck the rape apologists: they are solely responsible for their misuse of our words, ethically.

    As a practical matter it might be good tactics

    to be careful when they’re supporting a very controversial position in a very sensitive matter

    but there is not duty to use good tactics.

    That makes your phrasing somewhat confusing. I’m interpreting you as talking about practical tactics, and taking Seven of Mine’s side because I think it’s much more important to get the ethics right than the tactics right. (there’s room for quite a lot of different folks with lots of notions of best tactics)

    However, if you were actually making the argument that Ophelia Benson (or anyone) has an ethical duty to avoid misuse, I’d have to say that you’re wrong. Almost by definition.

  182. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Crip Dyke @ 255

    I think that Seven of Mine is understanding you to be making an ethical statement – that Ophelia (or anyone else) has an **ethical duty** to avoid misuse of one’s blog posts.

    More or less. I’m fully on board with taking care with one’s words. It’s on the speaker/writer to communicate their position accurately and clearly and to argue it correctly. I just don’t think the example AlexanderZ gave fails to do either. If AlexanderZ is talking about good tactics, I’m not sure what xe expects Ophelia to have done differently there, apart from verify that she’s factually correct which is worth doing for its own sake.

  183. AlexanderZ says

    brianpansky, Seven, Crip Dyke

    I think that you’re talking about steps one should take for the practical purpose of being effective in one’s advocacy.

    CD is correct. It’s my fault, I was so much engrossed with this specific issue that I didn’t think about the general, ethical implications. Ethics weren’t on my mind at all which is why I gave an example of a factual issue (i.e. Darwin’s understanding of biology) rather than a moral one.

    If AlexanderZ is talking about good tactics, I’m not sure what xe expects Ophelia to have done differently there, apart from verify that she’s factually correct which is worth doing for its own sake.

    I was so shocked by OB’s statement that I thought it deserved a full explanation, but you right – this is only because I strongly question its veracity to the point of taking my criticism too far.
    _____________________
    Ophelia Benson
    I was unfair to you in this regard and I apologize.
    However, I still think your statement was factually wrong and I still share the criticism of half of your commentariat regarding your post.

  184. says

    What is it with special higher intellect christians and being so damn weird in conversation? My guess is that their position selects for individuals who are slippery.

  185. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Just discovered it, did you, chigau?

    I had the pleasure years ago. It is indeed a thing of …ahem… beauty.

  186. says

    @ chigau

    Where the fuck is my camera?

    Mine hit the picket fence on the edge of my roof yesterday, and plummeted two stories onto my neighbours slab below. At this stage it became detached from the *copter and skidded along the concrete. I retrieved it by putting double-sided tape onto the bottom of a jar of honey, attaching this to some gardening twine, and fishing it back.

    It is still working.

  187. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    I need to watch Red Dwarf again. It’s been quite a few years…

  188. AlexanderZ says

    Workers were supposed to come six hours ago so I took a day off.
    They came just now.

  189. =8)-DX says

    Oh, you know that “assholstery” answer to @AlexanderZ’s poll? That was me. Oddly that occured to me before having read this: #TwitterFail: Twitter’s Refusal to Handle Online Stalkers, Abusers, and Haters

    Yes, there’s a twitter user who goes by “Assholster” (when not a sockpuppet) who perfectly exemplifies “the state of being an asshole” – as in a serial harasser who creates thousands of twitter accounts to continually harass his victims and anyone around them with racist and sexist slurs, threats of violence, incitement to self-harm. Assholstery is why we can’t have nice things (including silly ways of saying assholery).

  190. Pteryxx says

    Why the trolley dilemma doesn’t work: BoingBoing on measuring utilitarianism versus just plain psychopathy.

    But the utilitarianism of killing the bystander is more like “utilitarianism” — it invites you to pat yourself on the back because you’re such a rational being. However, that hyper-rational willingness to sacrifice others for the greater good rarely extends to ourself. The sacrificial dilemma is about someone else losing out for the greater good, while Mill might have asked his utilitarians to consider this dilemma: “If you gave up 90% of your income, you would be very poor, though you’d survive, and the money you gave could save 10,000 children from horrible deaths due to malnutrition and preventable disease in the developing world.”

    Kahane and his colleagues have published ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good in the journal Cognition, in which they interrogate the difference between utilitarianism and “utilitarianism,” and they imply that the traditional sacrificial dilemma wants you to behave like a psychopath, not a utilitarian:

    ScienceDirect link

    The Trolley and the Psychopath at Last Word On Nothing

  191. AlexanderZ says

    =8)-DX #268
    Twitter likes assholes. Assholes are good for business. Just image how much ad revenue one harasser who daily creates dozens of accounts and sends hundreds of twits can bring. Twitter needs people like that to inflate its user number and activity, and since all of those fake accounts technically count as white, American males they are prime targets for clueless advertisers.

  192. anteprepro says

    Pteryxx: (I am probably not saying anything you don’t already know, this is just my half-serious reaction to the articles you linked to)

    I call shenanigans on those articles. It was talking about the Trolley Problem in general, but the Boing Boing and Last Word on Nothing articles are specifically talking about pushing a fat man into the way of a trolley. That’s an alternate version of the trolley problem, isn’t it? The other version (which I thought was generally considered the basic and traditional version) is where you choose between letting the trolley hit five people, or pulling a lever, changing its track so it hits one person on another track.

    The fat man example supposedly uses the same utilitarian logic that the original trolley problem uses but it leads people who agreed the first time to NOT agree this time. Sort of like an “argumentum ad absurdum”, a test of how far you can push someone when they use utilitarian thinking. Per wikipedia:

    Resistance to this course of action seems strong; most people who approved of sacrificing one to save five in the first case do not approve in the second sort of case.[8] This has led to attempts to find a relevant moral distinction between the two cases.

    The way that the articles frame this, I was thinking that even the people who responded to the initial trolley problem with a “yes” were considered to be lacking in empathy. Which was baffling. The fact that the people who responded to “yes” to the fat man problem is far less surprising. The entire point of that example is that it introduces a conflict between cold rationality calculating the greatest good against the visceral response to actively killing an innocent bystander and essentially using their corpse to stop a locomotive. As someone who would say yes to the traditional Trolley problem, and finds the “fat man” variant abhorrent, this makes a lot more sense to me. And I dislike that these articles do not clarify which Trolley problem they are specifically looking at.

  193. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    This has led to attempts to find a relevant moral distinction between the two cases.

    How about: labeling this action moral fosters a sociopathic morality that will end up causing so much more harm than a single death that even assigning a small percentage of that harm to the category of relevant consequences of labeling this action moral (because such a thing would only contribute a small percentage to an eventual sociopathic morality) outweighs that single death?

  194. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

    Would anyone be willing to look at my first draft posts on my nascent blog? It’s a little weird because these are all posts that organize the blog rather than legitimate blog posts (so they will be in the top menu bar). I put it here instead of the lounge because I thought the subject matter could get a little harsh, it automatically comes along with the nature of the material.

    There are four posts, but really it’s only three that matter when it comes to wanting some opinions (but I will take opinions on anything really). They are:
    *A page explaining the blog’s purpose, “The purpose of this blog.”
    *A page explaining why the name of the blog is “A Demon Speaks”, “About the author: “A Demon Speaks”, why the name? My experience of Tourette’s Syndrome.”
    *A “Warnings and notes.” page that seeks to explain the mature content, my writers voice, Wikipedia warnings (because I will use it a lot and it has risks), and how the linking to the vocabulary, concepts and resources page works.

    The second one may be a little long and I’m thinking of ways of shortening it, but since these are defining pieces of writing I’m thinking of just leaving them as long and being more aware of length on future posts. I am still playing with formatting to make it easier to while maintaining the style and substance. And I am in the process of figuring out how to add visuals to replace text and make everything easier.

    The last post, the “Vocabulary, Concepts, and resources” page, is very long and will probably stay that way because I will be constantly adding to it and probably reinventing it over time (lots of figures at the least). So I’m not really expecting anyone to go through that unless they want to. These are not standard definitions in some cases because to be honest, I have to brutalize our language and concepts to get across things that I see and feel in the material. I’m trying to make it obvious what it me and what is standard though.

    @Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy 219
    Yes, it was the contact scale question. But I have not needed to use the information yet because to be honest most of the anti-feminism around there has been of a nature that has not really needed research to deal with. In my experience most anti-feminism on imageboards is organized around conflict rules and I have almost never had anyone get into details with me. They try to make it look like it’s about details but that usually involves trying to shift the burden of proof. This has been a very revealing exercise. I’m still puzzling over the contrasts that I see when I’m in both places at the same time.

    I’m a lot more stable though. It’s the damnedest thing feeling your group codes of conduct bleed into one another. Hyper-focus can drag me into mistaken places in a way that’s still fascinating even when it’s embarrassing.

  195. anteprepro says

    Tony: Just check out Brett Arends twitter to get an idea of what kind of person he is.

    Scrolling down I see:

    Whining about George and Laura Bush being cropped out of NY Times photo (and retweeting someone who complained that Al Sharpton did not get similarly cropped out).

    An article entitled “How to Invest like Mr. Spock” after Nimoy’s death.

    Whining about the government being mean to Americans who want to remain American while living overseas.

    Whining about a Jezelbel article about “stupid white people” being racist: https://twitter.com/BrettArends/status/567067254907367424

    Brief whine about the following tweet “ruining someone’s life”, calling it a “cyber lynching”.

    “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!”

    Citing Ann Coulter and mocking Rolling Stone because they were wrong regarding a campus rape story.

    The words “privileged asshat” come to mind.

  196. anteprepro says

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
    I like that. Honestly, my personal stance is that the problems are quite different because the former implies that one person is dying only as an accident of saving the five, while the latter problem, you are purposefully using someone against their will to save other people. In a way that I can’t honestly imagine not defying physics and, even if it did, requires god-like levels of foreknowledge to know that it is necessary and that it will be effective. Which I guess is exactly the problem: the people who think that they could and should shove a fat man off into the way of a trolley with the guarantee that this will save lives and with no feeling of guilt in doing so are essentially imagining themselves as gods, able to perfectly predict the future and able to perfectly say what is Best for humanity at large, and who is expendable at any given moment. Which I would imagine is where the antisocial elements come in.

  197. chigau (違う) says

    I opened my birthday card early and spent some of the money on AdFree FtB.
    Holy shit.

  198. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Thanks Chigau, your #280 reminded me I needed to update my Paypal account.

  199. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m getting some ads again.
    What does this mean?

    Sign out, then sign back in again. The ads should disappear. And make sure you accept cookies from FtB.

  200. Xaivius says

    So, I recently got so cranky on my Facebook feed that I wrote this. Could people look it over and make sure I’m not TOO far gone in irritation that it still makes sense?

    Alright, so to anyone arguing that “The government shouldn’t regulate this”: Who should? This is a ‘Minority Rights’ issue, by definition of which the meta-class in question (comprised of multiple protected classes: Race, Religion, sexuality, and several others) had no recompense. This is how you rectify injustice in a nation: You petition the state to address this grievance. Not that this helps immediately (or at all), but it is LITERALLY THE ONLY CHOICE THESE PEOPLE HAVE.

    In several cases (race, most notably in the US. Judiasm in most of europe) the government ENSHRINED IN LAW the explicit right to PERSECUTE these classes. If a state/government/ruling body can give explicit, statute permission to deprive a class of life, property, and liberty based SOLELY on membership in that class (membership which is almost exclusively non-voluntary in many cases, see RACE) why should it not do the opposite? The reason it do so in this case was that, absent a protective measure, the behavior toward the class by society would continue.

    So let’s take the choice example: The original ‘Social Justice Movement of 1960’. Do you know WHY there was such a huge fight for integration after the repeal of slavery? Because people like YOU simply treated all black people just like the slaves they had been. Stores wouldn’t serve blacks, HOSPITALS would segregate ‘Black wards.” It goes on. So what, I can hear you say. They can have their own doctors! Their own Stores! No, moron, they couldn’t. They couldn’t own land, businesses, or choose where they fucking lived. Because the people who could authorize that, chose not to. These people had no fucking future if they didn’t fight for change. So they did. THIS is why the black people fought, and fought HARD. Because people, yes, like you, did not consider them human enough to consider.

    So to argue that you should have the ‘right’ to discriminate in sales, you are explicitly saying YOU ARE A BIGOT, and you expect the government to tacitly condone your behavior, contrary to nearly 300 fucking years of history.

  201. Xaivius says

    @287 this is, btw, in response to someone posting “The government doesn’t have the right, nor should it, to tell me who I can or cannot service, for any reason, including if they’re a n***** or k***.”

  202. anteprepro says

    Xaivius, aside from trouble understanding the second sentence at first (it was obvious once I read it a second time), it is coherent and sounds like a good argument, with an obvious amount of righteous anger behind it. If the person you were replying to used those racial slurs, you did a damn good job restraining yourself too. I’m not sure if I could reply with much than a screen full of “fuck” ‘s.

  203. birgerjohansson says

    twas brillig (stevem) at 161.

    Of course El/Yaweh is both male and female (on account of being a colony organism. Like that Portugise whatsit)

  204. chigau (違う) says

    Watching The Desolation of Smaug.
    Boy oh boy, those Mirkwood Elves are kinda…
    not much like Rivendell or Lothlórien

  205. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Xaivius:

    I’m with anteprepro: perfectly good comment. Second sentence could have been broken up for clarity.

    @brian pansky:

    Sorry about your comment stuck in the spam trap. It seems that
    a) it was counting your links twice because you included each in 2 different formats – so your 3 unique links added up to practical links 6 when anything over 5 triggers the spam trap.

    and
    b) I wasn’t aware that I need to be the one who performs those actions on the threads I initiate. So I could have approved it a while ago, but didn’t realize I had the power (no one has ever gotten spam-trapped on one of my threads before – thanks for teaching me a lesson).

    c) did I mention power? Unlimited power!!!

  206. yazikus says

    Watching The Desolation of Smaug.

    We just started watching this on Sunday. It is the first ‘movie’ movie we are watching with the little dude. He is six. Up till now it has been David Attenborough & educational kids shows, but he really expressed interest in this. We are watching it bit by bit. It is really interesting trying to explain to a very literal and skeptical young person what is going on in the movie. My own response was more like, “Ah, yes, the extended running scenes, I remember those! Ah, yes, the extended fighting scenes, I rememb… Oh SHIT THAT IS A GIANT SPIDER, AND THERE ARE MORE!!!!!!!’. I’m not sure whose heart was pounding faster. Okay, it was mine. Little dude didn’t even flinch at the spider scenes, he was more curious about what kind of spiders they were and if we have any like that around here for him to hunt. So there is that.

  207. yazikus says

    Xaivius, if I remember correctly, the issue is happening right now in your locale, correct? I keep reading the TCHerald, hoping for some good Letters To The Editor, and am daily disappointed. I have a dear friend who was a long time customer of the florist in question who stopped shopping there after this all went down. I talked to my state rep. when a bill was on the floor to do the same thing Indiana is doing, and though republican, she assured me that it would never leave the floor and that she would fight tooth and nail against discrimination. That gave me hope. She also told me that her party ‘had jumped shark’ and she didn’t know what the hell they were thinking.

  208. Esteleth, RN's job is to save your ass, not kiss it says

    chigau:

    Mirkwood Elves are kinda…
    not much like Rivendell or Lothlórien

    Indeed not. The Elves of Rivendell are Noldorin. The Elves of Lothlórien are mostly Sindarin, but their leader (Galadriel) is Noldor (well, mostly – she has some Vanyar ancestry) and their culture is heavily influenced by Noldorin custom.

    The Elves of Mirkwood are mostly Silvan, but their leader (Thranduil) is Sindar. Thranduil is also – as the film depicts – an asshole of the first order. The rule of Thranduil – and that of Oropher before him – has been predicated on the idea that the Silvan will be made to give up their inferior/barbaric customs follow Sindarin rules and keep Sindarin customs (the Silvan are not terribly pleased about this). What’s-her-face, the Elf woman that Kili gets the hots for? She’s Silvan, and one of the reasons Thranduil is such an ass to her over the idea that she and his son Legolas might get together is (1) Thranduil is an ass (2) Thranduil is a racist ass who is content to rule Silvans, but cannot handle the idea that his son might actually like one. Legolas kindasorta having the hots for a Silvan woman suggests that if and when (the fact that Elves are immortal makes the “if” highly relevant) Legolas becomes King of Mirkwood the policies of the Sindarin ruling elite might change vis-á-vis the Silvan majority, and this really pisses Thranduil off.

    TL;DR: Elven politics are as mucky and racist as human politics, and Elves are as varied – culturally and ethnically -as humans are. The varying depictions of the Elves in the films is thus Jackson showing his work.

  209. chigau (違う) says

    Esteleth
    Interesting.
    Actually, they all seem to be assholes.
    and
    poor Smaug
    :,(

  210. chigau (違う) says

    -The Dwarves are the only ones who pay attention to grooming.
    (srsly, the rest of you. comb yer fucken hair)
    -Azok was packing a bat’leth.

  211. Rowan vet-tech says

    For sheer loyalty to the awesome and splendor (and smexyness) that is Smaug, I will have to say that he will win. Because he is Smaug and he is perfect… my preciousssss

    One of the best designed dragons ever. Amazing.

  212. bassmike says

    chigau Red Dwarf was one of my favourite programmes when it came out. I can still quote various chunks of it. It dropped off in later series, but I still have fond memories…..

  213. Saad says

    So will Muslim men be able to marry four women in Indiana?

    Prohibiting that seems far more of a personal attack on one’s religion than having to sell cake to two men.

  214. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    I read somewhere (Daily Kos perhaps?) that someone registered a church which listed smoking pot as among its religious practices. Apparently there are lawyers who actually think it’s not outside the realm of possibility that it could successfully be used as a legal defense under the new law.

  215. says

    Daz:
    Happy belated birthday!

    ****

    I’m sure there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the NRA once they learn of this Harvard study debunking their favorite talking points

    It occurred to Hemenway that this was a familiar problem, so he set about surveying a wide range of experts on guns—modeling his project after a game-changing 2010 study on climate change, which found that 97 percent of researchers believe that humans are responsible for global warming. Hemenway’s team at Harvard went through about 1,200 articles on firearms published since 2011 in peer-reviewed journals focused on public health, public policy, sociology, and criminology. In May 2014, Hemenway began sending monthly surveys to the authors of these articles—upwards of 300 people—with questions concerning firearm use, background checks, and other gun policies. The Harvard team has completed nine surveys so far, with about 100 researchers responding to each: They show that a clear majority of experts do not buy the NRA’s arguments.

  216. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Seven of Mine:

    Ed Brayton is of the opinion that it’s nonsense. Me? I think that ignores Smith v Oregon – the case that started the RFRA thing.

    In that case, 2 workers were saying that the peyote they smoked shouldn’t have led to their firing, because it was only as part of a sacrament of their indigenous religion. The Supremes ruled that the burden to indigenous religion wasn’t a discriminatory and unconstitutional burden in a country that bans peyote but manufactures, exports, and imports red wine. For the Supremes it was an incidental burden of a neutral statute and these were entirely constitutional.

    The federal (and original) RFRA was passed **specifically** in response to this case. The language didn’t specifically overturn the holding – so it doesn’t actually say, “yes, smoke peyote” – but it does overturn the test applied to determine the holding. The court would have to pass a much more stringent test if it wanted to maintain a ban on peyote smoking in religious rites. In other words, given the legislative history and the new test, it would be entirely reasonable to believe that the federal RFRA protects smoking peyote as part of a religious rite. Wouldn’t necessarily win in court, but the position is reasonable and has a chance to win.

    Nonetheless, Ed was discussing someone who had just filed paperwork for a new church that articulates marijuana smoking as part of its sacraments. It’s possible that the court wouldn’t take the opportunistic creation of the church seriously. However, for Rastas and others who have established a religious tradition of smoking marijuana, it’s not outside the realm of possibility at all.

    BUT that is at least ostensibly true in other states that have RFRAs as well. The language unique to Indiana wouldn’t affect the case for religious pot smoking. That means we should have seen that test of the law’s reach by now. And maybe we have, but I haven’t read the case. I think it would be hard to distinguish pot smoking from peyote smoking, but maybe the courts (especially a motivated court) could distinguish between the two or find that the language of the RFRA requiring a new test doesn’t go so far as to make religious peyote smoking legal (and thus find the two don’t need to be distinguished in order to ban religious reefer).

    Is that helpful?

  217. Saad says

    Tony, #305

    Ugh. A GoFundMe campaign has raised nearly $40K for the pizzeria owners.
    I’m dismayed that more than 1,000 people (in 5 hours) have raised money to aid bigots. Not surprised mind you. After seeing Darren motherfucking Wilson get nearly $500K in donations, I’m not sure if I could be surprised at the support that bigots receive. Dismayed, yes. Surprised, no.

    It’s at $142,000 now. That’s in 18 hours.

    Shame on GoFundMe. Just like Twitter has a moral obligation to ban certain content, so does GoFundMe. So how does this work exactly? Memories will actually be receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars just like that?

  218. anteprepro says

    This time on “Dawkins is an asshole on Twitter”
    https://twitter.com/benlangfeld/status/583596952371257344

    Dawkins does the “we are all African” line.
    Someone on Twitter notes how this can be problematic: an appropriation of African culture, being careful to note that it might not be done intentionally.
    Dawkins and fanboys get incredulous.
    One fanboy says the following that, on accident, perfectly encapsulates why there is an argument to begin with:

    lol he is talking about the biological geographic origins of our species nothing about culture

    This distinction is not made clear at all by, you know, a fucking T-shirt that just says “We are all African”. The African even has the standard Dawkins Scarlet letter atheist A attached to it. But that doesn’t stop the scoffing. Oh the endless scoffing.

    This was the fanboy response Dawkins retweeted:

    wow. You’re actively trying to find fault in a message that quite obviously intends solidarity. Amazing.

    As compared to actively trying to fault in a message of concern about sloppily claiming membership in a group you obviously do not belong to and patronizingly referring to such an action as an attempt to help Africa somehow, in process of associating yourself with it. Amazing.

  219. chigau (違う) says

    anteprepro #317
    I don’t care if you are black or white or purple, we are all African!
    yup
    That works.

  220. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    wow. You’re actively trying to find fault in a message that quite obviously intends solidarity. Amazing.

    Because dog forbid we’d show solidarity by NOT rhetorically erasing the fucking problem. Jesus fuck.

  221. says

    Re: the Indiana pizzeria

    The money they’ll receive from the GoFundMe campaign will be enough to keep the restaurant afloat for a while, but they don’t just need money. They need customers. I wonder how business will be for them if/when they reopen. And what business will be like months down the line.

  222. anteprepro says

    Tony!:

    I wonder how business will be for them if/when they reopen. And what business will be like months down the line.

    They could go Full Chick-Fil-A and just run with the two prong approach of “We are good Christians being persecuted for our innocent beliefs” and “Hey, come visit us if you too hate the filthy, evil gays!”. I imagine their business will look very similar to a Baptist church or to the speakers’ line-up at CPAC.

  223. schoolofbrock says

    “Bcs dg frbd w’d shw sldrty by NT rhtrclly rsng th fckng prblm. Jss fck.”

    T b hnst, Dwkns ws gng bynd hs blgtn t vn rcgns tht wrtchd hv f scm nd vllny. Fr tht y shld b thnkfl. s hrsh s t snds, frc rlly sn’t th pstr chld y wnt fr mvmnt tht prds tslf n scntfc dvncmnt nd scl prgrssn. W r tlkng bt cntnnt stll n th drk gs n gd mjrty f plcs (sv, f crs, th plcs whr th vl wht mn hs sprd hs nflnc, nmly strng dctnl nstttns, pblc hlth nfrstrctr nd stbl cnms bsd n rsrc dvlpmnt rthr thn sllng slghtrd mnkys nd lmrs).

    Lt’s b frnk – why nyn wld wnt t b vlntrly ssctd wth frc n ny wy, shp r frm s bt bfflng t m. prmtv ppl wth prmtv blfs (rgrdlss f th myrd vrtns f ncmprhnsbl lnggs, trd wrppd n tlt ppr s stll trd) dsn’t xctly ffr nsprtn fr th ftr f hmnty. W r tlkng bt ppl wh cldn’t rgns fck n brthl – bl shld hv bn stmpd t nd cntnd thrgh snsbl, rgnsd pblc hlth nttv bfr t gt t ths lvl, bt t lv nythng cmplx t th ntvs n Wst frc sms t b skng fr trbl. f crs, w cld hv pssd n th rspnsblty t th lrgst nd mst cnmclly dvlpd stt n tht rgn, bt Ngr sms t b strgglng wth thr ndmc crrptn n th Sth, r pr-Mdvl slmc nsrgnts n th Nrth. Lvly, h?

    Brng bck th clns. Th dd blck my d, bt th nnmrbl dvncs cnmclly nd mdclly tht ntrlly cm wth th gdng hnd f cvlsd wstrn ppl s wrth t.

  224. consciousness razor says

    That’s a lot of racist shit. Get the fuck out of here, schoolofbrock.

  225. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Their GoFuckndMe is up to $300k. My only consolation is that most of it will be taxed. And they’re eventually going to lose. It’s simply a windfall for an undeserving bigoted family. Still angry that there are enough people out there to contribute that much… Fucking fuck.

  226. Okidemia says

    coolofbrocken #324

    Let’s be frank – why anyone would want to be voluntarily associated with Africa in any way, shape or form is a bit baffling to me.

    Let’s be frank –to be as remotely associated to anything from you as possible seems already a sufficient reason to.

    Second, why would anybody let you know what makes Africa worthwide if you have so much shit in your eyes?

  227. Okidemia says

    And I’m not a physician, so I assumed the issue was with the eyes, not the brain.

  228. schoolofbrock says

    Fnny, sn’t t? Nn f y (t my knwldg) r frly pstng ths frm hrdln Mslm twn n Mzmbq? r wr-rvgd slmc ffdm n Nrthrn Ngr? r n DS-plgd sttlmnt n Swzlnd? r rp-fctry n th DRC?

    t’s sy t rmntcz cntnnt frm th lxry f sf, scr md-Wstrn cff shp r st cst cnd. t’s sy t ppnt yrslf s th mrl rbtrs fr th dfnc f ppl wh y’v nvr mt, smply t stt yr hngr fr yr dprssng mnrty-ftsh. Th hrsh trth – frc s by nd lrg dngrs, pr-mdvl bskt cs fll f th wrst xmpls f hmnknd. Th nly sm-cvlsd plcs r ths nhbtd by whts, r fndd, dctd, mntnd nd spprtd by whts.

    Stp rmntczng sch dplrbl cntnnt. Th snr th ntvs thr kll ch thr ff r r r-clnsd th mr th rst f th wrld wll bnft.

  229. Okidemia says

    You’re the luxury shopper, I’ve spent a lot of time both in West Africa and South Africa, from the most modern cities to remote villages and life in the bush.

    Maybe I’m romanticizing, sure, but indeed, the whole continent is a wild philosophical romance and despite your apparent complete lack of experience (if you really experienced Africa anyhow, I’ve certainly seen you behind your fences and your security quarters full of civilised looters and professional plot commanders, or maybe you’re a civilised mercenary?).
    Maybe I’m romanticizing, but you’re idealizing both African people and the colons in ways that are telling long about your own unsecure cultural setting.

    Did you spot my gravatar? Should have told you that Africa is not something I fantasize about but a real thing to me.

  230. consciousness razor says

    It’s easy to romanticize a continent from the luxury of a safe, secure mid-Western coffee shop or East coast condo.

    It’s easy for you to romanticize the shooting next door to my house just days ago, a robbery days before that, lots of diseased and ignorant people, lots of zealous fucking religious people at the church around the corner…. That’s just my tiny neighborhood, but it’s all over for that matter, and it’s in a mostly white town in the US. As if that fucking mattered.

    Fuck off. Try to cure your hateful fucking ignorance some day, but for now just fucking leave.

  231. anteprepro says

    The most blatant fucking racism I’ve seen a while. That’s saying something.

  232. says

    I know this is Thunderdome, but even here we have some limits, and fucking racists are never going to be tolerated anywhere on this site. schoolofbrock is banned.

  233. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    Late as always.

    Africa has fifty four fucking countries in it. It’s land mass is bigger than the US, Europe, India and China put together. Anyone making any kind of broad brush claims about “Africa” or “Africans” is an ignorant idiot.

  234. Saad says

    It will be $1,000,000 shortly.

    Is it really this easy to make a lot of money? I don’t need a million. I wonder how much I can get for the common cold.

  235. chigau (違う) says

    $842,592
    the most recent donation was 12 hours ago
    Maybe they’re done.

  236. Lofty says

    Just watched 6 minutes of totality of the lunar eclipse. Nice and orange with a bright edge that set it off nicely. Off to bed now so I will hopefully sleep through any world ending event in some fundies bent mind.

  237. HappyNat says

    I think we should invite Malcolm Kirkpatrick over and ask if he thinks taxes equal violence. *runs away*

  238. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Death toll in the Kenyan massacre : 148
    … since we’re counting.

    A good day to hate the world.

  239. Lofty says

    Rats, the world is still here. I suppose I’d better get into the easter eggs then.

  240. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    Hey chigau. The family’s fine. I’m… well, we’ll go with tired. You?

  241. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The Redhead requires lamb for Zombie day. Fortunately, takeout from a local restaurant is good enough.

  242. chigau (違う) says

    FossilFishy
    I’m OK. It’s good enough.

    There’s 5cm of snow here, the smeggin’ Bunny didn’t make it.

  243. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    Snow? What’s that?

    The Small Fry benefited from your inclement weather: She had two egg hunts, one at her Nana’s and another when she came home. I wonder if the bunny got overtime… Mind you, she still has a chocolate rabbit left from last year’s haul. I sometimes wonder if she really is my kid.

  244. chigau (違う) says

    FossilFishy
    Someone needs to eat that old rabbit.
    It’s the right thing to do.

  245. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    chigau

    Heh, I offered to put it out of its misery earlier tonight. The SF’s response was to grab it back, give it a cuddle and a kiss before putting it tenderly away. I’m afraid foul play in the dead of night is now the only answer…

    Speaking of the dead of night, time for bed. Night.

  246. chigau (違う) says

    I’m watching Iron Man III.
    I can feel my brain cells dying…
    nice explosions though

  247. chigau (違う) says

    I was just informed,
    “Your brain is not big enough to contain all the inconsistencies.”
    ayup

  248. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    chigau,

    I watched Iron Man III last night too. Heh.

    Agreed on Ben Kingsley. Agreed on the explosions.
    Was that no AC/DC in an Iron Man movie? WTF?!
    Pepper Potts getting powers was awesome. Iron Man just sort of casually “fixing her” in the end. WTF?!

    Pepper had extremis and rocked that Iron Man glove. I hope the “fixing” bit was just stabilizing her powers, even though it sounded like getting rid of them.

    Other than Pepper being awesome (when she wasn’t the damseled), yeah, pretty crappy.

  249. chigau (違う) says

    Beatrice
    Yeah. Belief not so much suspended as sent on a nice vacation far away from the movie.

  250. polishsalami says

    anteprepro #317:

    Richard Dawkins has spread some insane horsesh!t on Twitter in the last couple of years, but this does seem like a fairly straightforward (if useless) show of human solidarity.
    There may be some issue with Dawkins being part of the colonial elite in Kenya, but he was born there and spent his formative years there too.

  251. anteprepro says

    polishsalami: I don’t disagree that that is the intent. But I do think it is open to interpretation and Dawkins and his fanboys dismissing that interpretation out of hand, and not caring how it is interpretting, outright scoffing at people who might think it is taking about culture instead of just evolutionary ancestral origin on the relevant continent, is just par for the fucking course for them.

  252. polishsalami says

    anteprepro #371:

    There are heaps of folks who will defend Dawkins no matter how badly he fucks up — it’s cult-like. But any day he doesn’t do any Rape Ranking is sort of a good day by his standards.

  253. anteprepro says

    polishsalami: Disturbingly true. That should be added to his wikipedia page and/or to his biography.

  254. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    I fully agree that the “we are all African” thing refers specifically to evolutionary ancestry. And it’s also completely vacuous as a show of solidarity because anyone with a few spare brain cells and a couple seconds to think about it understands that anti-black sentiment (and racism in general) has fuck all to do with Africa. “We are all African” is a platitude for making white people feel better about the status quo without having to engage with any of the actual issues.

  255. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

    Does this logic I used over here make sense? (fourth paragraph from the bottom).

    It has to do with the way I see SJW get used and the natural consequences of it and I’ve been wanting to develop this idea more. Let me set this up.

    SJW = Social. Justice. Warrior.
    Supposedly this means a person supporting social justice in an extreme way, and/or supporting an illegitimate example of social justice.
    The three words and the literal message of their combination is simply a person that “fights” for social justice in a metaphorical sense. A metaphor used all over our political culture. Everyone is fighting for something related to justice at a social level. At face value this term can cover anyone. A person hearing and seeing it used for the first time only has the literal meaning for a first impression.

    Some SJW characteristics used by randzoid(1) and my paraphrasing of my own experience with the term:
    *Hyper-reactionary
    *Emotionally unstable
    *Over-analytical
    *Absurd
    *Cannot bear criticism Ideas
    *Sensitive to reality being inconsistent with arguments and thus uses mechanisms to protect beliefs

    The SJW argument/belief characteristics.
    *Trivial
    *Irrational
    *Illogical

    Notice something? This is how political opponents often describe one another. Creationists often look like this and thought we were being unjust. You get descriptions like these by passionately politically active people all of the time. Including on the side that does not reflect reality. When it comes to pure political behavior and rhetoric independent of reality the sides are identical in the form of the emotional rules and presentation.

    But like in the fight with creationists and Fox News’s “fair and balanced”, the sides are rarely equal when you get past the political behavior and emotional language. Often one side is simply a detriment to society as it takes actions based on beliefs.

    This stuff is steeped in subjectivity, perspective and perception. There are people that are genuinely being honest and still utterly utterly wrong. So what would happen if both sides used this word as it is intended? All social justice becomes illegitimate and the status quo is maintained. The term SJW is poison to society and it must be dealt with. The easiest way for me is to refuse to care about it and be proud of it while trying to drag examples out of the people using it.

    But that might not work for everyone. Thoughts?

    (1) I get the impression that randzoid is legitimately confused by our reaction to them. I realize that this does not matter when it comes to activism, but it does have important implications if true. Like the fact that I’m going to take his characteristics as impersonal and that they believe the term has real objective use until I dishonest behavior.

  256. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    I think you’re spot on Brony. The literal meaning of the term is completely beside the point. It’s understood to refer to a reactionary who defends people against purely imaginary slights. Much like any slur, its intent is to silence and shame, not to actually convey any meaning which tracks with reality.

  257. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

    @Seven of Mine 376
    Interesting. You are correct overall about the literal meaning, but I added it because it’s actually relevant to me because of my non-literal language issues. I’m not actually bothered by it personally because I know what I’m doing with it, but I thought it would be worth mentioning.

    The neutral meaning is what always sticks out at me loudest. That at least implies that different people with different exposure and ability in non-literal language may be somewhat impressionable by the the literal meaning. Things like how bills can get named things that sound innocent but contain awful things. But I guess that it’s not something that most people would pay attention to.

  258. dõki says

    I made a whiny comment and I’ll hate it forever.

    So I’ll sit on this corner sipping my grog while muttering Katie Cruel, because I suppose this is the mature thing to do.

    Or maybe sleep. Sleep sounds tempting.

  259. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Brony @ 377

    I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be dismissive of the importance of the literal meaning to you. It certainly is worth mentioning how the way the term is used works to poison the entire concept of fighting for social justice.

    re: ranzoid,

    He has a long history here of being more or less completely incoherent. I wouldn’t file him under the heading of your garden variety MRA but he’s still full of all kinds of FUBAR ideas about pretty much everything he attempts to opine on.

  260. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

    @Seven of Mine 382

    I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be dismissive of the importance of the literal meaning to you. It certainly is worth mentioning how the way the term is used works to poison the entire concept of fighting for social justice.

    It’s funny but this ended up being one of those things where I am different, and I’m honestly not offended. But I mentioned it out of a sense of obligation. The balance is that you are pragmatically correct and so your modification of what I wrote is appropriate. A person’s tendency to be literal or interpret literally is probably a factor, but not one that the average person would be worrying about.*

    I’m often very aware of the difference between the analytical and the intuitive because of the range of things I have to pay attention to. It’s like I had the analytical signal pop up and it said “I think this is one of those things that someone else called “ablism””. One part of my intuitive side said “I don’t care, I don’t want to argue about it and it’s strategically sound to not worry about it”. Then another part of my intuitive side said “You need to at least mention it, it matters in a larger context”. Then every one grumbled and went back to work.

    That’s all interesting all by itself because it suggests that I have some privilege with respect to others with mental illness and maybe even tourette syndrome. Social OCDs are sort of like annoying advisers in my head.

    *I still believe that a first impression with the literal meaning of an unfamiliar three word term might actually be relevant in terms of cognitive bias issues, but that’s an analysis for the future. It has to do with how the words are mostly used in a political context, and how that relates to fitting those meanings into one’s experience of “social justice” and warrior when one encounters the term “social justice warrior”.

  261. says

    Yet more police shenanigans

    Jamaican-born Kam Brock, a 32-year old former City Banker was driving her BMW through Harlem last September when she was pulled over by an NYPD police officer who claimed that he could smell marijuana.

    Despite failing to discover any drugs in the vehicle, her car was impounded and Brock was forced to collect it the next day.

    […]

    Officers claimed she was ’emotionally disturbed’ and then proceeded to have her detained in a mental health facility for 8 days.

    In an effort to establish her credibility, and prove that she was who she said she was, Brock explained that she was a businesswoman who even had President Obama following her on Twitter. Despite the fact that both of those statements were later proven to be true, doctors and officers claimed that she was lying and delusional and repeatedly injected her with a cocktail of powerful drugs including lorazepam and lithium. She was also forced to attend group therapy.

    […]

    A master treatment plan published by the hospital has helped to support Brock’s story.
    It read: “Objective: Patient will verbalize the importance of education for employment and will state that Obama is not following her on Twitter”.

    It also notes “patient’s weaknesses: inability to test reality, unemployment.”

    When she was finally released and her identity became apparent, no apology was given.

    Instead, she was handed a £13,000 medical bill for treatment she did not want – or need – in the first place.

  262. drowner says

    I am similarly and continually appalled by the blatant racist crimes committed by America’s law enforcement, but I have nothing to add that has not already been said. Here is something else to present to the Horde, if you please:

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/04/06/science-denial-is-not-just-conservative-or-liberal-its-bipartisan?int=998208

    “There are important lessons in this. Science is not a collection of facts to be memorized but a rational process for drawing conclusions about the empirical world. In this way, it is different from – but can co-exist with – religion, which relies on faith. ”

    Any responses to that self-contradictory clap-trap? Thanks for your time.

  263. chigau (違う) says

    Tony!
    I think feel it’s more of a guideline than a rule.
    and it’s really meant for new commenters.
    lorn ain’t new

  264. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    @ Tony!

    That is FAR from lorn’s first post at Pharyngula. The rule isn’t 3 posts per thread is it?

  265. polishsalami says

    Last year, a Connecticut philosophy professor made some pretty nasty comments on the people of Gaza (‘rabid dogs’ who need to be kept in a cage). Some students discovered it a few weeks ago, and now the professor has taken medical leave. This has upset Jerry Coyne:

    To me, this post reads more or less like a passionate editorial in a newspaper…

    Yeah, just like NYT: these people are rabid dogs, those people need to be caged like wild animals etc.
    Luckily, reader “muffy” has worked out who the real professorial villain is:
    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/connecticut-professor-hounded-after-pro-israel-facebook-post-forced-to-take-medical-leave-while-his-university-frantically-engages-in-soothing-hurt-feelings/#comment-1172509

  266. Saad says

    polishsalami, #391

    That’s interesting. I like how he calls the professor’s comments “pro-Israel” and not horribly demeaning racism against an oppressed people like they truly were.

    It’s like saying “pro-life” when you mean “anti-choice”.

  267. anteprepro says

    From polishsalami’s link, this is a fascinating exchange:

    colnago sez:

    Myers has also been busy badmouthing Dawkins and Harris over the past few months. He really has gone off the deep end.

    And then in response to another comment, sez:

    As I have opined elsewhere, I wish Dawkins would stop using twitter as its restriction as to the number of characters prevents him from exercising his customary nuance.

    And person he is talking to sez:

    Yes, that, and it lends itself to rash rage posting. Being an old fart, he hasn’t got antibodies for siwoti and the internet drama virus, and it shows.
    If manages to stick to his tried and true means of communication, he’ll continue to do great.

    Apparently it is okay to badmouth Dawkins when they do it (?)

    Also: From polishsalami’s link, this is a fascinating exchange:

    colnago sez:

    Myers has also been busy badmouthing Dawkins and Harris over the past few months. He really has gone off the deep end.

    And then in response to another comment, sez:

    As I have opined elsewhere, I wish Dawkins would stop using twitter as its restriction as to the number of characters prevents him from exercising his customary nuance.

    And person he is talking to sez:

    Yes, that, and it lends itself to rash rage posting. Being an old fart, he hasn’t got antibodies for siwoti and the internet drama virus, and it shows.
    If manages to stick to his tried and true means of communication, he’ll continue to do great.

    Apparently it is okay to badmouth Dawkins when they do it (?)

    Also: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/?s=Dawkins
    Last posts about Dawkins were in September and November.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/?s=Harris
    Last post about Harris was October.

    Also also: colnago80 in action on Pharyngula
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/07/20/no-more-us-support-for-israel/
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/20/do-the-right-thing-temple/

    Believe colnago was also considered a persistent troll over at Mano Singham’s.

  268. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    @ anteprepro

    That’s not badmouthing Dawkins, though. It’s basically blaming Twitter and casting Dawkins as the venerable old man about whom the worst that can be said is that he’s a little out of touch with internet culture.

  269. anteprepro says

    Seven of Mine: That’s what it attempts to do, deflect the blame. What it actually does is cast Dawkins as feeble and incompetent old man, lacking stamina to debate, lacking self-awareness and adaptability, unable to learn how to use new technology and mediums. Oh, they obviously don’t mean to do so. They diminish the importance of communicating on the internet, and dismiss the importance of the debates that he steps into. They want to blame everything but Dawkins. But they way they frame it, they are accidentally insulting Dawkins by implication. Their apologetics for him accidentally portray him in a new and yet not necessarily more positive light. As apologetics often do.

  270. says

    Seven of Mine @390:

    That is FAR from lorn’s first post at Pharyngula. The rule isn’t 3 posts per thread is it?

    As chigau pointed out it’s probably not a rule so much as a helpful suggestion (though I initially thought it was a rule-should have checked the commenting policy first). One that I think is reasonable to keep in mind. Not sure about if it is per thread though.

  271. toiger says

    Michael Nugent’s word choice shows us whose support he’s gunning for. Quoting from Friendly Atheist’s reproduction of his arguments, “We would like people to endorse the importance of ethical standards of reporting when blogging.”

    Ethical Standards of Reporting.

    Sound familiar?

  272. says

    Over in the Sad Puppies thread, Brony said this:

    I mean, I love my Popeye’s chicken and I like it over and over, but I still found awesome things to eat at the Mexican cafe up the street ( and learned that I like tripe breaded and fried).

    I found myself having the same knee-jerk reaction that I often do when learning that someone likes something that I don’t: “Yuck! How could you like that. It’s so gross.”

    But I’ve been slowly training myself to stop and recognize that I’m doing this and remind myself that my response is predicated on the false idea that others share my tastes. My knee-jerk reaction is self-centered, without regard for the preferences of others.

  273. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @toiger, #405:

    That is telling.

    Of course, I never read MN (actually I did once, when linked, just to review the supposed-evidence of his supposed-jerkiness; it wasn’t the jerkiest thing he’s said to have written, but it was enough for me to credit future reports without bothering to click through). So I wouldn’t have caught it without you, and it’s not particularly important to me who reads or doesn’t read the blog of some guy I don’t know who lives in Ireland.

    Still and all, it’s a good catch. It’s the kind of thing that lends a lot of credence to the idea that he’s got a tendency towards obsessive denigration of particular favorite targets, given that an occasional gamergater (the audience he’s clearly courting with that rhetoric) has also demonstrated that tendency.

  274. chigau (違う) says

    My teeth are …fragile…
    but
    I will try anything
    if you grind it
    and provide the hot sauce

  275. LicoriceAllsort says

    Crip Dyke, thanks for your offer from the I-haven’t-had-this-much-fun thread to bring it to the T-dome, but the info provided over there was enough to jog my memory. I don’t have any further questions/comments (but would still be interested in reading a post from you if you’re working on one). Thanks.

  276. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @LicoriceAllsort:

    My laptop battery doesn’t work, so when my my mac mag-power chord gets jiggled, my computer instantly shuts down.

    That happened and cost me the long comment I had going. Since I’d prefer not to recreate it anyway, I’ll let it go now that you remember.

    Thanks for the note.

  277. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    DAREDEVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  278. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    from what I see 5 minutes in, he’s kicking sex-trafficker ass!

    Do i need to live-blog this?

  279. LicoriceAllsort says

    Crip Dyke,

    My laptop battery doesn’t work, so when my my mac mag-power chord gets jiggled, my computer instantly shuts down.

    Uuuugh, that’s the worst. I appreciate the effort, anyhow.

  280. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Are you prepared to live-blog for that long?

    Does a Koch shit on the poor?

  281. says

    CD:
    I was eating food when I read that response. You very nearly made me spit out my hot dog…

    leave it alone people

    By all means, I’d love to read your live-blogging. I can’t watch the show bc I deactivated my Netflix account and haven’t yet reactivated it (I planned to this week, but rent ate up all my extra $$).

  282. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    tony!, check your e-mail

  283. chigau (違う) says

    The local Symphony Orchestra is doing a concert of the music of Led Zeppelin.
    Think I should go?

  284. Nick Gotts says

    I made the following comment on the WEIT post polishsalami linked to@391. Very likely my last there!

    The dishonesty of this post is manifest. Dessin’s message says “Gaza is in the cage”. so the pretence that he’s talking only about Hamas is a transparent lie.

  285. Ranzoid says

    I stumbled across this video about something that Lionhead Studios got into hotwater over, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfs-Nx1Ngl0

    Is she right? is she wrong? Is it a double standard for the internet media to single out only one of the two pictures and scream about sexism in a very tongue-in-cheek advertisement that uses silly puns?

  286. chigau (違う) says

    Ranzoid
    A warning.
    When PZ says that you should not comment in any other thread, it means he will ban you if you do.

    Your linked video is 45 minutes long.
    I ain’t watching it.

  287. says

    Ranzoid, it’s transparent that you are fishing for people to troll.

    In the unlikely case that you seriously want information, maybe the following link will be useful to you:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3128

    It will probably take you in the ballpark of 45 minutes to read it, and the material it links to. I’ll also leave it up to you to judge whether this link is relevant to your inquiry: your post is unclear, so I’m only guessing here, and I’m not going to bother checking your video.

  288. Ranzoid says

    Your linked video is 45 minutes long. I ain’t watching it.

    Is your time so valuable on a Sunday afternoon that you can’t watch even part of it? Why even bother responding?

  289. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Is your time so valuable on a Sunday afternoon that you can’t watch even part of it? Why even bother responding?

    To let you know you are likely a troll who is to be ignored and/or laughed at. DUH.

  290. leerudolph says

    What was I thinking? I must be obsessed in my ceaseless quest to drag Dawkins & Harris down! No wonder Atheist Ireland can’t get anything done.

    It may be not so much that your quest is ceaseless as that the sting of your harsh words has a very, very long half-life (as stings go).

  291. Ranzoid says

    To let you know you are likely a troll who is to be ignored and/or laughed at. DUH.
    Ranzoid, it’s transparent that you are fishing for people to troll

    How is it trolling to ask questions that i preserve to be legitimate? how is it trolling to be the contrarian if only to step back and look at the movement to find anything that may be wrong with it? What makes Liana Kenzer wrong? I only just started reading Richard Carrier article so if the answer is in there let me find it.

  292. consciousness razor says

    Ranzoid, who objected to the first tweet? What did they say about it? Was there actually any screaming? Can you honestly say what the fuck you’re on about and why anyone here should care?

  293. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    How is it trolling to ask questions that i preserve to be legitimate?

    Because you have stupid concerns and opinions. Who gives a shit about your questions, if they are nothing but JAQing off? You past behavior suggest strongly that is the case.

  294. says

    If some actual real people have said something wrong, then point out what they said wrong, and why it’s wrong.

    Using some obscure media incident that no one has heard about to evaluate an abstract unspecified “the movement” is backwards. It looks like an intentional attempt to make a chaotic dispute directed at people here that has nothing to do with anyone here.

    It doesn’t make any sense. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

  295. Ranzoid says

    Ranzoid, who objected to the first tweet? What did they say about it? Was there actually any screaming? Can you honestly say what the fuck you’re on about and why anyone here should care?

    If you would of bother to watch the first ten minutes of the video and read the Gamespot post you would know that Lionhead deleted the tweet, along with all comment with it, as far as i can tell it isn’t in a cache anywhere. As to what the fuck I’m going on about, it’s this. the industry that is my, and my others, primary form of entertainment is being torn apart. Companies are walking on egg shells so they’re content won’t offended anyone. Well guess what, you don’t have a right not to be offended! I’m also seeing a movement that is being run by absolutist and group thinkers, where any kind decent, any of deviation from the narrative is not at all welcome, there is no absolutely no room for any other kind of conclusion. When you are rigid you beliefs you became fragile, one good hard smack and you will shatter like cheap glass. Sex-Positive Feminist like Liana Kerzner is trying to find the middle ground that both sides can agree on, and what does she get? she gets doxt, she gets harassed, she gets threaten. all because she is a centralist

  296. Ranzoid says

    whoops, blockqoute fail.

    Ranzoid, who objected to the first tweet? What did they say about it? Was there actually any screaming? Can you honestly say what the fuck you’re on about and why anyone here should care?

    If you would of bother to watch the first ten minutes of the video and read the Gamespot post you would know that Lionhead deleted the tweet, along with all comment with it, as far as i can tell it isn’t in a cache anywhere. As to what the fuck I’m going on about, it’s this. the industry that is my, and my others, primary form of entertainment is being torn apart. Companies are walking on egg shells so they’re content won’t offended anyone. Well guess what, you don’t have a right not to be offended! I’m also seeing a movement that is being run by absolutist and group thinkers, where any kind decent, any of deviation from the narrative is not at all welcome, there is no absolutely no room for any other kind of conclusion. When you are rigid you beliefs you became fragile, one good hard smack and you will shatter like cheap glass. Sex-Positive Feminist like Liana Kerzner is trying to find the middle ground that both sides can agree on, and what does she get? she gets doxt, she gets harassed, she gets threaten. all because she is a centralist

  297. consciousness razor says

    If you would of bother to watch the first ten minutes of the video and read the Gamespot post you would know that Lionhead deleted the tweet, along with all comment with it, as far as i can tell it isn’t in a cache anywhere.

    I did already figure out that they deleted two tweets. The first one, which drew some kind of criticism from somebody, followed by another (who knows how much later) that was presumably meant to be their dumbass response to that. According to you, there was “screaming” of some sort, but unfortunately any evidence you might have had of that is gone. Probably, you’re just making that up though, since you also don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    I think the gaming industry is doing just fine and isn’t being torn apart, because there is no evidence of anything remotely like that. Perhaps you are offended by the fact that some people in the industry have some sense of decency, but like me, you also don’t have a right not to be offended. Since nobody here has anything to do with any of this shit, I don’t know what the point is of whining at us about it.

  298. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    How is it trolling to ask questions that i preserve to be legitimate?

    Did you salt that question? Dehydrate it?

    Oh, I know, it was something you smoked.

  299. Saad: Openly Feminist Gamer says

    Ranzoid, #452

    the industry that is my, and my others, primary form of entertainment is being torn apart.

    Companies are walking on egg shells so they’re content won’t offended anyone.

    Elaborate on both of those statements.

  300. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Companies are walking on egg shells so they’re content won’t offended anyone.

    Razoid, since you are proven liar and bullshitter, CITATION NEEDED. No citation, claim dismissed as fuckwittery.

  301. Friendly says

    I find it sad that at the same time that Ranzoid is banging on about tone and that Nugent and his affiliated organizations are going after PZ for (ostensibly) his tone, George R. R. Martin is Not-a-Blogging his support for tone arguments in connection with the Sad Puppy fiasco; see http://grrm.livejournal.com/417600.html. I would like to like George, but if he’s going to come down on the side of pearl-clutching and fainting couches on issues related to social justice, he’s lost some of my respect.

  302. Nick Gotts says

    Did your comment there go into moderation? It’s not showing on the page as of now. – Daz@437

    It did; I hadn’t noticed before. So, very unlikely it will ever appear.

  303. Saad: Openly Feminist Gamer says

    I’m starting to wonder about melanie’s “neocon” posts in response to every topic.

  304. polishsalami says

    Nick Gotts #461:
    Here’s how that comment should have been worded —-

    “While I too am saddened that this courageous defender of Israel has been hounded by the politically correct Thought Police, most of whom are no doubt inspired by anti-Semitism, I can’t agree entirely with this post.

    Even though much of what you’ve said is true, I do have a minor quibble however with the wording of that Facebook post, in that Pressin, no doubt absent-mindedly and with no intent of malice on his part, wrote “Gaza” when he should have typed “Hamas”. I just hope that this fine individual can recover from this savaging from these sociopathic SJW types.”

  305. says

    Those ‘skimwords’ adverts, where commenters’ words are being turned automatically into links for amazon, ebay and the like…

    If you have the Stylish add-on for Firefox, or similar, this will differentiate them from intentional links made by the commenter:

    @namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);

    @-moz-document url-prefix(http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/) {
    a.skimwords-link {
      color:green !important
      }
    }

  306. says

    Saad:

    I’m starting to wonder about melanie’s “neocon” posts in response to every topic.

    I called her out on that on some thread a day or so ago, I can’t remember which one. I was pretty mild, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I got a “you neocon!” response. Definitely one note, well, no, two. There’s the white supremacist thing also, but it’s behind the ever present neocon.

  307. Tekore says

    Is it just me, or does the over-use of “neocon” in melanie’s posts make it stop even sounding like a word?

  308. says

    Google results for site:freethoughtblogs.com “melanie says” neocon
    7 threads matching so far:
    Pharyngula:
    • April 3, Fatwah envy, again;
    • April 6, We don’t need another hero;
    • April 9, We can only bear it because we don’t see it;
    • April 10, Secular Coalition for America → Global Secular Council → Secular Policy Institute;
    • April 11, Blockbot argle bargle waaaah waaaah waaaaaaaah
    Butterfly and Wheels:
    • Sometimes one swears
    • The words spoken

    I also believe she may have tried to post on Ashley Miller’s blog, judging how Ashley described her on Twitter as possibly being a Poe. Whoever Melanie is, she needs a few new words in her vocabulary.

  309. says

    Hmm. I just noticed the bizarre necromancing of the Bill Maher, nevermore thread. It looks very odd:
    • Back in February when the post was fresh, there was a prolix motormouth calling himself Michael Kimmitt spamming the thread.
    • Now since early April, there’s a different prolix motormouth calling himself Christopher Jones, also spamming the thread.
    Are these commenters one and the same? It looks like one has simply picked up whether the other had finished two months earlier.

  310. says

    Saad et al. – yes, I banned melanie a few days ago when her third comment sounded too suspiciously rote and…deliberately provocative. I think it’s a sock and I think I know which one.

  311. says

    Add to the list of threads, There go my plans for creating an atheist thinky-tank, just now. That suspiciously looks like they’re trying to seed Pharyngula with a very particular meme, that certain New Atheists are being impugned by PZ Myers’ commentariat as being ‘New White Supremacist Atheists’, and I can’t imagine why they’d want to do that… oh, wait, it’s only too easy to imagine a reason why someone might want to do that.
    (Oh, and sorry for mangling the name of your blog Ophelia!)

  312. says

    She’s also suspiciously good at covering her tracks: she’s using a throw-away hotmail account and an anonymizer. She’s banned now, because as suggested above, I suspect someone is trying to game google here.

  313. chigau (違う) says

    re: melanie
    What happens if I look in a mirror and say:
    neocon
    neocon
    neocon
    ?

  314. says

    [China]

    Well, after all that, it looks like Xi’s hoods have released all five women – at the last minute. Very much thanks to the international outcry. I have little doubt that if a lot of noise had not been made, they would still be arbitrarily (and illegally) detained.

    There is a lot of fuss being made about rule of law here , but it is going to go nowhere while some animals consider themselves to be more equal than other animals.

  315. says

    PZ, that accusation by “melanie” over at Greta’s almost certainly looks like dirty pool, either for unfavourably gaming search engines, or to facilitate defamatory quote mining, so I have no objection to any of my comments being redacted as you see fit. (I’m particularly thinking of the capitalised words N_ W_ S_ A_ in 476.)

  316. says

    China Needs a Strong Leader Like Xi — but the Rule of Law Like Singapore

    I am flabbergasted that the writer has managed to fit so much bullshit into a single article. How such a navel-gazing RWA shill became a professor is incredible.

    (eg: The so-called “Eco-city” has been built on land trucked in from the mountains and dumped onto a wetland. i have seen the endless stream of belching behemoths myself. If ever there was an assault on the environment, it is this project. Reality simply does not enter this person’s narrative at any point.)

  317. says

    [China]

    Despite Release, Feminists’ Case Shows China’s Hostility Toward Civic Action

    “Sadly the five’s release does not indicate a change of view by the government towards civil society activists: It still treats them as criminals, rather than as partners in solving pressing social problems.”

    “As long as nongovernmental organizations’ activism for advocating and implementing laws relating to gender equality or any other issue is defined as criminal, there will be no safe zone for feminists as well as activists working in other realms for social justice.”

  318. anteprepro says

    Well it looks like Cracked did the inevitable and published a pro-douchebag article: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-being-offended-doesnt-matter-anymore/

    The good will streak in terms of support of the social justice side of things had to come to an end eventually. Though it isn’t overt, the gamergater and other assorted asshats are certainly reveling in it. And I despise this fucking bullshit narrative of framing all criticism related to social justice issues as “offense”, painting it as emotional and irrational in order to dismiss it out of hand. Oh, sure, there might be emotion involved, but isn’t mere “offense” to object to this shit. I can’t speak for everyone, but I am rarely ever personally offended by the shit I criticize. The shit I criticize is offensive often, sure, but that is part of why I criticize and what I criticize about it. Dismissing that anyway is just saying that you have the right to be a douchebag immune to any resistance or rebuke. Which is ridiculous or outright evil.

    And that’s to say nothing of the fact that the real offense and outrage is coming from people who are just pissed off about the GALL of those people actually criticizing them. The strongest and most outraged offense are those who are whining and shrieking about their free speech being impugned by people daring to say that they are being fucking jerks.

    Seriously, what the fuck?

  319. Jacob Schmidt says

    The good will streak in terms of support of the social justice side of things had to come to an end eventually.

    Cracked goes back and forth a bit on SJ related stuff, but most of it is forth rather than back, lately. I wouldn’t right Cracked off entirely.

  320. anteprepro says

    Jacob Schmidt: Oh, I haven’t written them off and I know that they have quite a slew of writers, all with their own opinions, and some of them are naive and write something without really thinking the shit through. Nevertheless, it is disappointing. And I really really do hate the labeling shit as “taking offense” (and also the myopic overtones of “kids these days” doesn’t help either).

  321. The Mellow Monkey says

    I purposefully avoided reading that “being offended” article because I could guess by the title I’d hate it. JF Sargent isn’t the worst writer there*, but he’s definitely not one of the better ones.

    *I’m fairly certain that’d be Seanbaby.

  322. Jacob Schmidt says

    Fair enough. I was pretty charitable on my reading of the piece, as Sargent is sort of the un-official Cracked SJW,* so I doubt he’s taking a swing at SJ to score political points (or maybe he is and my estimation of his political integrity is wrong).

    I think some parts of it were good in principle, e.g. “We all need to call out shitty jokes, and then give the comedian room to recover and try something new, because we’re not Roman emperors dishing out sentences here.

    I like that strategy: call people out as needed, and let them recover. Pharyngula seems to mostly operate on that principle (isn’t that an actual commenting rule? We’re not supposed to bring up stuff from other threads so that people don’t always feel defensive?).

    Then he veers into crap like this:

    There’s no “wrong” or “right” thing to be offended by, because it’s an involuntary human reaction and feelings, man, are hard to get a grip on. I’m saying that those jokes are old, and clearly experimental, so why fire him over it?

    I mean, ok, sure. Offence is something felt, and feelings aren’t invalid. Except he’s clearly not talking about feelings. Previously, he was talking about calling people out, which is an action with consequences on others. It can be justified or unjustified. It’s a copout. It’s a fuzzy, bland statement that is virtually meaningless except to give credibility to the “offense is just feelings” narrative.

    *On that note, it’s amusing watching the commentators on his threads. For a while there was a bemoaning of “Oh, no, not another Sargent social justice piece. I bet he even reads Jezebel!”

  323. chigau (違う) says

    Am I correct in thinking that chocolate-covered almonds and rum are covering some of the Basic Food Groups?

  324. says

    chigau
    chocolate comes from coacoa beans. Bean are vegetable. Also sugar, which can be made from a variety of plants like , cane, beets, corn. Again, vegetables.
    Almonds are nuts, rum, again, sugar cane.
    Maybe you should add some cheese.

    +++
    Wow, fuck, I didn’t know that Madonna was disturbingly sexually predatory.
    I’m currently reading a cultural studies text that deals with her (very interesting reading a late 1980’s analysis some 25 years later) for the methodology and concepts, but there’s this very disturbing quote from her (and the author doesn’t even notice):

    I like young boys – 15 or 16 year olds are the best. I like them smooth and thin. I want to caress a nice smooth body not a hulk.

    She was in her late 20’s by then. That’s fucking creepy and predatory.

  325. anteprepro says

    theophontes: That’s just how the title got truncated in the link.

    The real title is “Is Atheist Ireland reliably leftist, or neocon, or neither?”