Then again…
Charles Seife @cgseife 17 hours ago
.@guyadams Don’t find @connie_stlouis trustworthy? I’m telling the same story. Ad-hominem away.
Guy Adams is the reporter who wrote the Daily Mail piece about Connie St Louis. Charles Seife is the guy who asked the EU official if he’d provided an actual transcript and got the answer “no.”
Charles Seife @cgseife 17 hours ago
.@guyadams And, speaking of accuracy, I’m another journalist who’s given a “detailed account of the toast.” Your own paper quoted me.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins 13 hours ago
Devastating dissection of the credentials of the only journalist still denying Tim Hunt’s “Now seriously . . .” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html …Charles Seife @cgseife
.@RichardDawkins Now you’ve crossed the line into intellectual dishonesty. You know quite well that she’s not the only such journalist.
And so the quest to be treated as equals ground on into another decade…
Feminism in its present form has corrupted the original feminism of the sixties and seventys, it has become a movement of irrelevant and unimportant issue, case in point, Anita Sarkeesian and fucking bitching about cartoon characters in video games, she has trivilized and debased feminism with nonsense, do present feminists really care about fucking cartoons? Jesus fucking tap dancing masturbating Christ on the cross, why not pay attention to real oppression of women, for example mentally ill women who are homeless or in jail with no real voice and no help via feminism as it now . GARY G PELOW AUTHOR/POET
Why aren’t you solving the problem of mentally ill people who are homeless or in jail instead of shouting about feminism on my blog?
Restating garygggpelow with the same content,
“Assertion, assertion, assertion! These feminists suck because I don’t like what they want to talk about! Stop paying attention to women that I don’t want you to!”
Yep! That’s persuasive! (Or rather it would be if they got to do the dominance display another bunch of times in a context that would let them emotionally suppress what they are whining about.)
Gary is obviously an expert on feminism… yeah right. Someone who mentions Anita Sarkeesian as an example of the unimportance of feminist issues is at best clueless and is definitely part of the problem.
Charles Seife called Dawkins’ dishonesty. Now maybe Dawkins will do some serious shutting up, But I doubt it.
Jesus fucking tap dancing masturbating christ on the cross , I must of hit a nerve for questioning the god of feminism, and you stupid fucks the mentally ill women thing was just an example of feminism and its trivial concerns GARY G PELOW AUTHOR/POET
Gary, not that I think you can comprehended it or want to, but regardless of my or your opinion of Sarkeesian or her work, the way she was attacked is not trivial.
Yes it is trivial because she is a professional victim who sucks in money like a vacuum cleaner over this shit.
Gary, it sounds like you’ve figured it out. Why don’t you become a professional victim yourself, and then use your buckets of money that you will get to help all of those causes that you think feminists don’t care about enough? Win win!
Yeah, it’s trivial and she deserves to die because she’s a woman with an opinion different from yours. I’m sure you write fascinating stuff with a brain like that… Good bye.
Fascinating.
garyggpelow comes in here and:
*Literally accuses modern feminists, and the author of this blog implicitly of being corrupting influences.
*Describes a feminist as “fucking bitching” and “trivializing and debasing” with “nonsense” with respect to criticism of culture.
*Leaves a emotionally overwrought hyperbolic introduction to…
*…a “question” about why feminists don’t pay attention to things they want feminists to pay attention to when that “why” is answered by posts here.
And we are the sensitive ones via that “hit nerve”?
It seems to me that garyggpelow is the one with the frayed nerves. Otherwise they would have actually addressed the content of what is being said here instead of desperately trying to direct attention elsewhere.
Even with a derail if they were here honestly they would have taken the time to fill in those assertions and drop the attack language. This is typical authoritarian projection that they always use when they are on the attack and pretending to be doing otherwise.
You are a clown shoe garyggpelow.
garyggpelow,
You don’t sound as though you’re old enough to have been around in the ’60s and ’70s but believe me we achieved a hell of a lot then. There is no need to go back and do that work again. It is done.
Achievements included, depending upon where you are, anti-discrimination laws and the codes of practice in place in most institutions and big companies, a means of redress for discrimination, direct or systemic, access to better education, equal pay (in theory) – the list is too long but we’ve got the works in law and in policy at least on paper.
Yet by about the end of the ’90s those of us who achieved such things – in the face of the sort of mindless antagonism you display – noticed as rational beings that progress had sort of ground to a halt. So we looked for the reasons why the pay gap was still there, all aspects of computing where women were once well represented had become sterile male ghettos, women with good degrees in STEM subjects and apparently promising careers were dropping out at an astonishing rate.
And what did we find? This may amaze you but the backlash which Susan Faludi described on the basis of actual evidence in 1991 was not merely still with us, it was gaining ground. So different women worked on different aspects of this problem, gathered even more evidence and took action to both assist understanding and to make a course correction. Anita Sarkessian is just one among many – addressing a specific problem the most effective way she can.
Do you really expect us to unravel the work of more than a century in order to knit you comfort blanket? Get real! And do stop whining, please.
I never heard of GARY PELOW. I would note, however, that real authors and poets tend not to have to stick the title “author/poet” after their name.
“Must of” is the ne plus ultra of dumb.
@ garyggpelow
Meh. “Dear Mentally Ill Women who are Homeless or in Jail” just doesn’t have the same panache. It’ll never catch on.
Did you learn that in AUTHOR/POET school?
Did anyone else bother to look him up? Apparently he uses that phrase a lot.
https://plus.google.com/115167064903356171486/posts
Josh @ 14,
I suspect Langston Hughes would disagree, but perhaps I mixing up the author with his characters.
A recent Flea Snobbery seems apropos: http://fleasnobbery.blogspot.dk/2015/06/worse.html
And again,
As though if, in fact, he said that, indicating he thought he was being funny, or couched it as a joke, it would mean no criticism he’s received would stand. But of course, one of the first responses he made was “I was joking (ish)!”. People pointed out from the outset that even if he intended it as a joke it was a stupid, shitty thing to say. It’s remarkable, watching this bullshit goalpost-shifting of pretending that critics can be proved! wrong!! about a thing they didn’t actually assert, then they can be ignored about something that doesn’t actually rely on that thing being one way or the other.
“You say a green car knocked over your mailbox? Well, your neighbour says she thinks it was red. How dare you lie about your mailbox being damaged?”
If anyone is interested in the truth about how dangerous freethoughtblogs.com and PZ Meyers and feminism in its modern form is to freedom of speech and how they accuse any critics as mysoginists , Read my latest blog post at poetrybyschizophrenia.blogspot.com.
The above post on how dangerous freethoughtblogs.com, PZ Meyers and modern feminism is to freedom of speech was posted by GARY G PELOW AUTHOR/POET IF YOU DO NOT LIKK HOW I SIGN EVERYTHING OFF WITH GARY G PELOW AUTHOR/POET TO FUCKING BAD
i DO NOT SPEAK FOR THUNDERFOOT ON YOU TUBE, BUT HE WAS RIGHT ON WHEN HE CALLEN FTB A ”NEST OF VIPERS”. GARY G PELOW AUTHOR/POET
Seife initially twitted that he could confirm that there was no “my trouble” and no “now seriously”. He then changed that to twitting he could confirm that there was no “now seriously”. He changed his position presumably because he either noticed or someone pointed out to him that the journalists he was tweeting in support of were in agreement that the quote was “my trouble”. Conclusion: Seife’s memory is suspect. As long as there is no video or transcript, everyone’s memory is suspect.
Ok, that’s enough of Gary G Pelow.
This whole situation with Tim Hunt just makes the dishonesty so much more clear to me. It’s the controversy in microcosm. It’s pretty amazing what I’m seeing more and more. garyggpelo claims to be about truth and criticism in dealing with danger. What I see is deception via misdirection using projection. There is much desperation here. The point is not any honest disagreement over these issues but rather political maneuvering and coalition building so they can simply bully people into submission.
Projection is the opposite of truth. If I might remind everyone this is how garyggpelo came into this thread,
This is nothing but a stack of un-evidenced assertions given in an insulting and hyperbolic manner.
Any reasonable person would want the items that are bolded justified, and no reasonable person with autonomy would consider changing their beliefs or actions when faced with behavior and detail like this.
This is not criticism beyond emotional impressions and assertions of danger. This is the criticism of a bully. It is also clearly evidence of a person quite sensitive to people criticizing men and culture of being sexist. garyggpelo created the situation that led to our reaction since any reasonable person would be sensitive to behavior like this.
If one were to consider this “move number one” in primate politics what does move number two tell us after we quite reasonably reacted negatively to garyggpelo ‘s behavior?
Since negative responses to deliberate offensive behavior are reasonable and garyggpelo chose to portray us as overly sensitive (a typical tool used against outspoken women that this white male now sees), garyggpelo is simply creating the situation where they can point at us and say “oversensitive!” as a manipulative attention directing mechanism. This is not something a person interested in truth does. This is what a primate interested in social manipulation does.
So after dishonestly attempting to draw the perception of everyone to reasonable sensitivity to insulting and offensive behavior in order to hide their own sensitivity what does garyggpelo do next? They reveal that their true intentions in this social conflict are simply to assert that this community is the danger and get people to see their message in a safe environment where they don’t have to have it challenged.
Since they brought their inner toddler instead of an actual argument I have no reason to think that there is any substance of worth at the link they posted. This is dishonesty intellectual cowardice. Why would I want someone like this as any kind of political ally? There is no strength to this person beyond emotional outrage.