Man, I’m away on vacation and you rowdies get all raucus and rude in the comments. The powers-that-be at Seed have received a complaint about your heinous behavior, and have asked me (politely, and with assurances that I have full control over how to handle this situation) to address it. Here is the complaint:
Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to complain about offensive sexual language directed towards me on one of your blogs. I have included the full quote below and a link to the offensive comment. I would appreciate your attention on this matter as I consider this deeply offensive.
Thank you
Brenda von Ahsen
Here is the offensive comment. It contains quotes from other comments by Brenda herself on that thread.
Re: #79
You all can’t be so willfully stupid that you take him literally can you? Oh, I see that you can be that stupid. This is why I repeatedly wonder if it is possible for there to be any discussion at all. It seems futile, especially given the juvenile behavior here.
Re: #224
You’re spoiled, arrogant asshats who cannot treat anyone who disagrees with you with even a modicum of respect.
Brenda, you ignorant slut.
You are a pompous liar, front to back. You have been soundly spanked.
Posted by: CortxVortx | June 3, 2008 10:04 PM
Oh, dear. What am I to do?
Hmmm. Brenda accuses everyone else of being “willfully stupid,” “juvenile,” and of being “spoiled, arrogant asshats,” yet she is the one who is offended because someone dared to recite a well-known humorous line from an old Saturday Night Live skit.
I have done an extensive review of all 58 of Mr CortxVortx’s comments to Pharyngula, and have found a general absence of misogynist malice, but he does seem to have a sense of humor.
Likewise, I have reviewed all 24 of Ms von Ahsen’s comments, and have found a consistent prickliness and the complete absence of a sense of humor.
My judgment: Mr CortxVortx is guilty of a deficiency of vowels in his pseudonym and of doing an almost unrecognizable Dan Ackroyd imitation. As punishment, he is henceforth required to shun all use of lines popularized by the inestimable Mr Ackroyd unless he is also wearing a hat and sunglasses in the style of Jake and/or Elwood Blues.
Ms von Ahsen is guilty of insufferable pretentious self-centeredness. No penalty will be imposed by this blog, as it is punishment enough.
The court is recessed. The next case on the docket may be some clown named Kenny.
Another case of the pot calling the kettle black, while refusing same of self.
Don’t you know that we’re supposed to accommodate the ignorance of all trolls?
It’s viewpoint discrimination to ever step upon the ignorance of anyone. See, everyone is equal, and if Brenda knows nothing about famous SNL lines, her ignorance is a viewpoint that one must avoid troubling at all.
Well hey, if legislators in Louisiana think that ignorance ought not to be disturbed even in the schools set up to counter ignorance, why should forum trolls not have their ignorance similarly safeguarded?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
She’s a bit sensitive about the comment. Maybe she is a slut. Hey Brenda, hun, what’s your number babe?
CortxVortx was being funny, and a tad sarcastic. She on the other hand has the humor of a six titted sow. Now we see how mature she is. Tattletail sissy.
Based on the recent court decision of Ono v Premise, this looks likes a 1st amendment issue regarding the use of a Saturday Night Live comment.
Given that the comment occupied such a small snippet of the total blog (over 500 posts), and that the quote itself was transformed into a comment on a pertinent social controversy, and given that there has been no actual, or financial harm to either of the parties, this court finds that the subject line, indeed falls under the category of “fair use”.
What a coincidence! I was just writing my letter to Seed to complain about being called an “asshat”. It just took me longer ’cause with my knuckle-dragging Darwinist arms I have trouble typing on the keyboard.
No. Really. Brenda, I’m not one of them. I’m not with them at all. God is real. I love God. Let’s worship together and stuff.
Hmm.
I’m British. A typical Brit would say..
“I say, I am terribly sorry and all that, but the heck is Saturday Night Live? (Oh, and would you like some tea?)”
I find it a bit harsh to blame someone for ignorance in this case. If I started quoting PG Woodhouse here, who would recognise it?
On the other hand, I feel that things should have come to an amicable end once the reference to a comedy show had been pointed out. It was a simple misunderstanding.
You must be getting a bit squishy by now PZ. Ktroll has been over on the other thread “humping your leg” for hours. That’ll spoil a vacation. ;)
He forgot the
Seeing as I think being called stupid is more offensive then being called a poor housekeeper* I’m on the side of more hats and sunglasses for all.
*orriginal meaning of ‘slut’, it then moved on to mean promiscious becuase those housewives had to be doing something with their time other then cleaning. *snort* I know I am!
PZ, you asshat, I just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard.
You happy now, you ignorant slut?
Jeebus Hussein Christ.
(Hope you enjoyed the weather in NorCal here last week. Jeez, you timed that trip perfectly. We still need you at UC Davis or UC Santa Cruz, two cities where I’m sure you’d fit in perfectly. Or Cal. That’d work too.)
Stop killing my fantasy here Steve. Brenda really is a slut and I’m trying to score. You’re wrecking it.
As for CortxVortx, perhaps Your Honor can sentence him to buying a vowel.
As for Brenda von Ahsen, well, she can just fuck off.
I don’t understand Brenda’s problem. She’s posted on here regularly, and should realize that many of the people who read scienceblogs are pretty savvy, and don’t need the obvious belabored. If someone is directing improper, offensive, insulting language towards her, the best response is to ignore it and carry on as reasonably as she can. That always makes the Abusive One look bad to the others. In addition, it will usually calm them down over time.
Of course, if you enjoy invective and think you’re good at it, you can return it in kind. The one thing you shouldn’t do is whine and carry on about being unfairly persecuted. If you feel you have to point it out, then it’s probably not worth pointing out.
It took out my joke tags! This time for sure.
He left out the
She’s a bit sensitive about the comment. Maybe she is a slut.
Well, Walton certainly seems to think so. {Walton – I am JOKING. That was a JOKE. Please do not feel compelled to defend your honor or courteousness. Also, as a woman, I have more standing to be offended on Brenda’s or my gender’s behalf than do you. So there.)
I’m crying, I’m laughing so hard. She really tattled!
Oh. My. Dog. I am Big Time!
In my defense, I forgot that Pharyngula has an international scope and that some might not recognize a 20-year-old quip from an American comedy show.
Nor did I expect any normal person to get exercised ove a mildly derogatory apellation. (However, henceforth I will, at the risk of killing the line altogether, say “slug.”)
As for the missing vowels, that is a relic of when AOL (Army Of Losers) allowed screennames of 10 characters max.
In closing, I will preview and review all my comments for any words (but noth ideas) that may offend the thinnest of skins, that I may retain what vowels I have left.
Whaddaya want for nuthin’? Rrrrrubber biscuit!
Alex, you brown nosing suck-up. You’ll never curry favor with Brenda, not even first base. Didn’t you get the memo: she’s not that kind of girl.
I think all Dan Aykroyd quotes should be banned anyway, as he’s a notoriously credulous woo-woo.
In any case, I don’t think it was a very good choice of quotes to begin with, as IIRC Dan’s character on those Weekend Update debates was supposed to be kind of a pompous moron anyway. Much as Ms von Ahsen indeed seems to be an ignorant twit, I’m going to have to call an own goal on CortxVortx.
Oh. My. Dog. I am Big Time!
And so many of us are so jealous. CortxVortx, if I call you an ignorant slut, or a six-titted cow, or an intestinal parasite, will you please, please, please, please, please report me? On second thoughts that probably wouldn’t work. As much as I’d like to ride on someone else’s coattails it rarely works.
y’all sing to the tune of the old commerical jingle, “taste me, taste me”….. “spank me, spank me. come on and spank me and let me show you my stuff”.
Juvenile @ 19, I just so happen to believe that she is warming up to me, like she’s done for many others, many times before.
Don’t listen to them Bren. It’s ok. Let me come visit and we can talk about these asshats, and stuff. Praise the Lord.
Becareful or she will go and tell teacher on all of us again :(
PZ, et al,-
They’re not gonna catch us. We’re on a mission from God!
.
.
@8
Go ahead, bring on Aunt Agatha, the Nephew Crusher! She’d give this “Brenda” whatfor!
And for what it’s worth, I’d say it was more a case hypocrisy than simple misunderstanding. She deserves to get smacked down for that even if Mr.-can’t-buy-an-e, should have included “In the immortal words of Mr. Dan Ackroyd:” prior to his first line in order to prevent misunderstanding by the clueless.
It’s kinda like those stickers they place on lawn mowers warning you not to stick you hands under when running — something that should be patently obvious but is required ’cause some idiot sued them after being, well, an idiot.
PZ has spoken wisely in this matter.
I’m not sure the subsequent comments and commenters are quite appreciative of his ruling though. I hope the rest of the comments don’t devolve to proving this humorless woman right. I can see it starting already and it’s worrisome. The original comment was just a funny quote, but some of these responses.. eh.
PZ’s point only holds water as long as people don’t start being misogynist pigs, thinking they have PZ’s seal of approval and it’s somehow FUNNY now.
Dammit Jim, I am a doctor, not a mind reader. What the hell does the WOO stuff mean anyway?
I see this all the time, and I have not figured it out from the context. I assume it is an acronym, right?
If you’re going to insult Elwood Blues I have to risk showing my ignorance and ask! Woo?!?
(thanks!)
I called Brenda an ignorant asshole one hour and forty eight minutes after CortxVortx called her an ignorant slut. And she did not go tattling to Seed for that. I feel left out.
WHY? BRENDA! WHY?
I can’t resist bringing up this classy remark from Brenda again (I promise I’ll stop bringing it up after this):
When challenged she responded:
So according to Brenda “poo flinging monkeys” should be taken a compliment. Well since there’s nothing wrong with female sexuality, why didn’t she take “slut” a compliment?
sjburnt:
“Woo” is the sound the pathologically credulous make when you pull the wool over their eyes. It’s like the lights going out except the joke is on them instead of on the stage.
“I find it a bit harsh to blame someone for ignorance in this case. If I started quoting PG Woodhouse here, who would recognise it?”
Uh, we got us some PBS here and know all ’bout Bertie and Jeeves, heck, some of us can even READ. (wipes snotty nose with sleeve)sniiiiiifff, hyuk,hyuk.
Wanna quote Monty Python? Black Adder? Marlowe? Shakespeare? Jennifer Saunders or Dawn French? Dr. Who? MI5? Good Neighbors? To the Manner Born? Butterfly? Pope, Chaucer? Goethe (oops, he’s not a brit or a tv show). I’m sure a few of us “Yanks” will get it. Hell, I’m sure the Dutch here can snag a few quotes from you jolly Brits as well. Peace.
@8
“I find it a bit harsh to blame someone for ignorance in this case. If I started quoting PG Woodhouse here, who would recognise it?”
Well, I would, for one. Oh and I’m from Minnesota.
CortxVortx, you pompous ass.
orriginal meaning of ‘slut’, it then moved on to mean promiscious becuase those housewives had to be doing something with their time other then cleaning.
Actually, the earliest recorded use (“sluttish”, Chaucer, ca. 1340) of the word refers to a slovenly man.
Woo
n.(or adj), the way a person is when they uncritically believe unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas. Short for “woo woo”
Someone should tell Google about the existence of Britan. There’s a huge untapped search market over the pond, apparently, as yet unreached.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22you+ignorant+slut%22
That’s it. I’m lodging a complaint against all of you.
All that logic and reason you use on a daily basis? Well it’s offensive to
religious moronsbelievers in invisible sky faeriespeople of faith.And your unrestrained demand for truth and fact! How dare you all!
You will rue the day! Rue it I say!
WOO – Voiced with an elongated rising inflection as if mimicking a ghost on Scooby Doo or spoken plainly with finger quotes.
I find it a bit harsh to blame someone for ignorance in this case. If I started quoting PG Woodhouse here, who would recognise it?
I couldn’t… but then, I didn’t get the original SNL quote, either. I’m just culturally deprived.
*snooty Brit voice* I think you’ll find that’s spelled Wodehouse, my good fellow!
@ Steve Zara, #8:
I wouldn’t. PG Wodehouse, on the other hand, I’m sure I could get.
The local chain grocery store has an insufferable habit of trying to be “friendly” by having their cashiers refer to customers by name (reading from the printed receipt, all thanks due to the Shopper Card that allows the NSA to track my toilet paper brand preferences).
Since I have a surname that’s readily mangled, when they hesitate at “Thank you, Mr…”, I always say, “Smith. The ‘p’ is silent.”
No one has ever got the reference.
“I find it a bit harsh to blame someone for ignorance in this case. If I started quoting PG Woodhouse here, who would recognise it?
I couldn’t… but then, I didn’t get the original SNL quote, either. I’m just culturally deprived.
Posted by: Seamyst | June 4, 2008 3:09 PM”
I was on the same page as you there. I blame it on youth, meself. That SNL skit in reference was….gasp….from before I was born… :)
Ah, is this the right room for misogynist insults? I’d like some insults, please. Or is this abuse?
What’s all this I hear about telling Brenda to ignore Anschluss? How can anyone ignore something like that in history? It was an important bit before World War II! It’s silly to tell someone that they have to ig….
…what?
…oh…
…never mind….
Hey! That wailing shrew called us ignorant asshats!
Get a rope!
Serena:
Don’t feel too bad. Well over half the people under the age of 28 out there were born after that catchphrase had run its course.
It’s OK. She obviously was on her period. Or was frustrated about the lack of satisfaction in some touchytouchy field. I’m not 100% sure which.
Ah, the poor thing. Why doesn’t she get her imaginary god to come down and smite us all on Pharyngula? No, she has to appeal to a mere human to chastise the unruly and so appropriatedly demeaning among us! Where is your god, Brenda to do the work of the mere human in all his evolutionary nastiness?
Clearly PZ is an activist judge!
Oh dear. I have made my self look a silly ass regarding Mr Wodehouse.
However, we just don’t get SNL here in Europe. Which is surprising, considering that we get just about everything else.
I do consider myself suitably reprimanded. What culturally literate blog-posters you are!
Perhaps instead of Wodehouse[sic], I should have said JK Rowling? No?
Not doing terribly well, I feel.
“Actually, the earliest recorded use (“sluttish”, Chaucer, ca. 1340) of the word refers to a slovenly man.”
True, but I thought it was a bit of a stretch to go as far back in living memory of common parlance… what do you figure 1950’s?
Fun though, definitly fun, if esoteric. Heck if we want to get Chaucerian insults out and dust them off we really should just call her (and Kenny) Nice.
Woo, for sjburnt, et al:
Please see another Science Blogs blogger for all your woo needs:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
I am willing to pledge one of my vowels if it will bring peace to the blogosphere.
Zno
Steve,
I knew I wasn’t the only one who was convinced PG Wodehouse and JK Rowling were the same person. “The Golden Bat” is just too similar to “The Philosopher’s Stone” to be a coincidence.
Holbach, Brenda is an atheist.
It was clear from her words and behavior that Brenda was not seeking legitimate redress for a perceived and grievous wrong, she was just trying to get PZ in trouble with his employer. Her actions really were that petty, stupid, ill-conceived, vain, and egocentric. Consider what she wrote in comment #263:
(bolding mine.)
So this wasn’t about being insulted by CortxVortx, it was just Brenda thinking she found a way to hurt PZ. Like someone who goads a person into shoving them and then, smirking, walks off to make a report to the police for assault, Brenda wanted to be offended. (This is further evidenced by the fact she ignored all the explanations of the origin of the phrase.) So this is absolutely the right decision. Brenda seems exactly like the type who would use frivolous lawsuits to badger her enemies. I feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with her in real life.
I’ll round up the lynch mob.
I don’t really get the reference either (I’m a fifteen-year media dropout, and have seen one ep of SNL, which sent me screaming for the hills), and calling someone a “slut” is a sexist term (20 years ago in the original or now, thank you), but it isn’t “sexual language.” Apparently someone needs to learn the difference between “sexist” and “sexual.” Among other things.
And yes, I’m one of those goddam humourless feminists, although generally not a prude about it. If you can’t find a way of making a joke that doesn’t treat me like a second-class citizen, I’m not obligated to laugh at you. It can be done…
30-year-old quip.
Just sayin’.
and what does Nice mean in Chaucer? My middle english is rather rusty.
I don’t happen to really find names like, bitch, whore, c*nt, and the like very offensive. Although I am not sure I have been called any of them before. Except for the time when a kid on the bus called me “Serena the Teenage Bitch”.
For some reason what I do find offensive (as a woman) is “Shtupid Cow” in the worst london accent you can imagine. That gets under mine skin like no other.
Anyways, Brenda was caught calling foul. Good riddance.
http://video.aol.com/partner/hulu/saturday-night-live-point-counterpoint-lee-marvin-and-michelle-triola/L40MNT7XBfXlDBk9nZRykX6Er3EYMY5u
I post the link for reference purposes only. If you fear you may be offended, please don’t click on it.
I’ll round up the lynch mob.
See! See! Just like Hitler!
Windy @ 56: Woops, came in late to that post. Brenda ia an atheist? Well, perhaps not my kind of an atheist, eh?
Tulse @45
Emily Latella! Do I win? Still miss Gilda Radner…sigh. Guess I must be (well over) 28.
Leave me out of this – I’m on a mission from cod.
At least we’re all agreed that Brenda is vindictive and doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Has she been back to see the results of her attempt at getting PZ in trouble? I guess she’s lurking here, but probably won’t admit to having behaved like an idiot.
Steve Zara @8. It hadn’t occurred to me before, but doesn’t Brenda remind you more than somewhat of Florence Cray? Hey, Brenda, have you read Types of Ethical Theory by James M. Martineau?
How would PZ get in trouble for what a commenter says on his site? Do the owners of YouTube videos get in trouble for who comments on their video? This doesn’t make sense.
I’ll round up the lynch mob.
Sven, is that you?
Well, I always felt that particular joke on Saturday Night live was misogynist, but wiser men than I say otherwise.
I think it was hilarious to see Brenda’s criticism open up a can of irrational ad hominem hysteria. Or should that be ad feminam testiness?
Swiped from http://www.barbwired.com/nadiaweb/nawl/archives/000202.html:
“Nice” has had an interesting history. Deriving from the Latin nescius, “ignorant” (from nescire, “not to know”), it’s meaning in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries commonly was “foolish” or “wanton.” To refer to someone as a “nice person” was no compliment in Chaucer’s day.
@ #18 Cortx Vortx
Thin skinned?!?! My family is greatly affected by
Oligostratadermacytosis! How dare you say that about their genetic condition. I am so offended!! They can help lack of skin cells!! How dare you!?!
Busted.
I seem to be addicted to this blog, the finest tool for advanced procrastination I have yet found (excepting weed).
Ach! Preview!
Types of Ethical Theory by James M. Martineau?
Interrobang, Kseniya summed up the sketch pretty well in the other thread: the insult was intended not to promote misogyny, but rather to lampoon the faux gentility that thinly veils the contempt in which the ideological opponents on those debate shows sometimes hold one another.
I think that’s the reason that I don’t mind the word in that context only, because it is so entirely divorced from the normal insult that word is used for. Slut is not the target or object of the joke, and indeed it would have worked in the original sketch as well with any gender-neutral insult attached (one of the ways to tell if a joke really does have something to do with institutionalized sexism or not).
How rude!
The proper, dignified response to the poor, maligned lady is of course:
“Awwwwwww — diddums?”
Robin # 27 you ignorant ….. OOOPS! Never mind you’re right.
Thoroughly chastised. So spank me.
I too twit your nose regarding Wodehouse, sir. I’m a fan of the properly titted Empress of Blandings.
Ms. von Ahsen is no true atheist, remember that Alex, but don’t give up. ;)
Tottenham Court Road via Bethnal Green to Sloane Square to
Wanstead via West Kensington to Clapham North via White City…
And we all know where that leads to.
#69
I have always tried to model myself on Wodehouse’s elder women, particularly Aunt Dahlia.
@51: However, we just don’t get SNL here in Europe.
Uh, we most assuredly do, in this part of Europe. There’s more to it than Surrey, you know…
I sooooooooo want her to come in right now and hiss and pout all offended. I love it when they come back. :P
Well, zy@72, I guess you have never seen the actual 60 minutes segment the SNL skit was a parody of. All Dan Ackroyd did was vocalize what James Kilpatrick was actually saying when he would say, “Shana, Shana, Shana.” I guarantee you, it was hilarious and it was actually a poke at Mr. Kilpatrick.
Anyway, don’t kill Kenny. We need an objective for pointing and laughing.
Although I certainly would not presume interpret the text and subtext(s) of this particular skit for anyone else, I agree with sz @72 (and Interrobang, above)-that Ackroyd’s lines in the skit are definitely misogynistic. But pointedly so, and from my point of view, with a politically anti-misogynist/pro-feminist agenda. The (outrageously over-stated) attitudes of Ackroyd’s character as the right-wing side of the Point/Counterpoint duel is clearly the butt of the joke in the skit (link posted above @63- h/t to SC). But then political and social humor is often open to interpretation, which we all do from the depths of our own experiences.
Did Kenny complain? Did someone call him a slut, tell a joke he didn’t get? Call me when the lynching starts. PZ can I be on the Posse? Pleeeeez Pleeeez? I’m whinning now aren’t I? But can I come???? Pleeez. I have a friend, she’s a virgin and needs a gooooood spanking too. Brenda’s her name. Not who who yoooouur thinking of. the other Brenda. notFriend of Walton.
I say ban all humor and jokes no one else will get.
Amen.
This is just begging for a video with fart noises.
Yup, that SNL bit must be more like 30 (as opposed to 20) years old. Older than me, fer sure. Wasn’t Aykroyd gone by 1980 or so?
I know of these things from videotapes and parents. Hey, I saw my first Monty Python movie when I was a ‘tween, and believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve also heard of both Abe *and* Elvis Lincoln!
I just thank God no one has complained about me! Apparently I got the comments a Digby’s shut down for days.
My mother always told me to “think before you speak”. If only I had taken her maternal advice more to heart!
Owlmirror, depends on if you’re doing a double slip maneuver at Euston or tracking back through Russell Square, which was not allowed during the War Stations Rations Act but has come into favor more recently.
#38 “rue the day”?
Rue the day? Who talks like that?
They wouldn’t take away the comments would they? WHYYYYY?
PLEEEZ DON’T! WE DIDN’T MEAN TO! REALLY!
PZ can’t have all the fun. Besides whats the difference other than the obvious reference to horney women betweeen “Asshat” & “Slut”? The one was clearly an insult, the other a joke!
Well, Dan’s character was misogynist, but was usually shown to be the twit, so I wouldn’t say the joke was misogynist. You don’t address misogyny just by pretending it doesn’t happen.
Bow Bow Bow
“and what does Nice mean in Chaucer? My middle english is rather rusty.”
Best translation is Simple Minded, which as I said earlier I find a bit more offensive.
“and calling someone a “slut” is a sexist term (20 years ago in the original or now, thank you)”
The intent when used serriously is… but it’s one of those that says far more about the user of the word then the target. I find the attempt of using any of the meanings in a derogitory manner laughable and outdated. Unless you are close enough to me to be invovled with my levels of slovenliness or sexually activity then you have no right to care and if you are you have no right to comment. Doing either is a far worse social sin then either of those mentioned above; hence it is really a rather perfect word for making fun of things and people.
I am of the camp that if you can’t take it serriously it isn’t worth making fun of. Good jokes help people think about things. IMHO and YMMV.
Steve,
When you say people don’t get SNL in Europe, do you mean it isn’t broadcast there and thus y’all (that’s southern U.S. dialect) don’t have a common cultural reference, or that y’all fail to comprehend the humor. (If the latter, don’t worry, the humor is often lacking.)
He killed Kenny guys (for those that don’t know yet).
Another case of the pot calling the kettle black, while refusing same of self.
Oh, for fuck’s sake! It’s his blog! He can rule against her for having a name beginning with “B”. It’d make him an asshole but so what. Everyone’s allowed to be an asshole on his own blog.
Yeah, we are for the most part childish and most of us are a bit closed-minded and shout down dissent with insults just because someone disagrees with us and, yes, that’s a bad way to behave, but consider this: We only do it here– we don’t do it at our “day jobs”; Invariable sane and cogent arguments do come out– it may be thing among the slut and six-titted sow comments but it *always* comes out; we a bunch of frustrated and impatient individuals and venting steam and being rude to people who look at us cross-eyed is therapuetic– we *constantly* deal with non-thinking idiotic stupid irrational ideas bounced around us with no regard to logic, sanity, civility, facts, objectivity, reason or anything and that’s frustrating– when we come it it’s one of the few places we can go to be with people who think like us– so if we vent and act like beligerant yahoos it’s because this is the only place we can:: let’s draw an analogy… consider the poor racist– all day he has to be unnatural tolerant and put up with listening folks spouting equality this and diversity that until he finds a KKK page– sanctity at least– he here can be himself among folks who think just like him– now here I come with reasonable cogent and civil argument about how utterly wrong he is and how such beliefs really make him a very scummy and immoral person– so he tells me to fuck off– surprised? I’m not– so I complain to the grand wizard and *he* tells me to fuck off– well, so what– I was free to press my point with folks well aware that they disagree with me and probably won’t listen to reason– discussion came of it it in them all slapping each other on their backs and iterating *why* the felt the way they do and then utterly disagreeing with each other– no converst but … seeds of discontent– all in all I can’t complain about the experience.
Well, I always felt that particular joke on Saturday Night live was misogynist, but wiser men than I say otherwise.
Well, zy@72, I guess you have never seen the actual 60 minutes segment the SNL skit was a parody of. All Dan Ackroyd did was vocalize what James Kilpatrick was actually saying when he would say, “Shana, Shana, Shana.” I guarantee you, it was hilarious and it was actually a poke at Mr. Kilpatrick.
*I* remember. Kilpatrick was a pompous ass and very patronizing. The SNL skit was hilarious when I first saw it because it was deadpan serious misogynistic ad-homenim attack that said openly what we got a sense Kilpatrick was thinking. The point counter-point segment was on surface a quick exchange debate on some point but it was really a slug-fest and insult exchange for entertainment. The SNL skit was simply a satire showing what it’d be like if the insults were allowed to cross the shock barrier.
Around the same time Carol Burnett Show did a satire of this called “Count. Pointer-count” Which was the same idea but in the opposite direction with the insults going to the kindergarten playground variety. “You’re a poopy-head.” “Yeah, well you stink”.
It wasn’t as funny.
Nicely done, but we all know you cannot be relied on for justice PZ. You are a confessed and unrepentant atheist and thus have no moral code to guide your justice.
(OK, do I really have to say this is humour?)
Ciao y’all
Someone should tell Google about the existence of Britan. There’s a huge untapped search market over the pond, apparently, as yet unreached.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22you+ignorant+slut%22
Posted by: Hank Roberts | June 4, 2008 3:07 PM
I’m not sure why someone would search Google for this or any other apparent insult on the off chance it was a pop culture reference. It certainly wasn’t implied by the context, but as it was explained a couple of comments later, no Google was needed.
Apologies again. I meant that, as far as I know, it isn’t broadcast to the UK. Or perhaps I should say….
I can’t get it on my TV.
Or perhaps I should really say:
I don’t think I can get it on
In any case, I don’t think it was a very good choice of quotes to begin with, as IIRC Dan’s character on those Weekend Update debates was supposed to be kind of a pompous moron anyway.
actually, that was never the “point” of the point-counterpoint sketches.
It was a parody of the 60 Minutes segment of the same name which had conservative James J. Kilpatrick and liberal Shana Alexander going at each other during the 1970s.
Yes, I’m old enough to remember.
…and oh, I see it was already covered.
well, it just goes to show ya…
Woozy, ‘six titted sow’ is a very proper insult, well known to us farm types. ‘Madder than a peach orchard boar’ is another. Please bear that in mind Sir, and sit up straight while you’re typing it. ;)
Nice!
Steve @ #51:
More likely Rumpole of the Bailey.
ROFL! Almost egnorish.. “dang peeple werunt nice to me on teh innnertubez!”. Already laughing out loud, with real danger of waking up the kids… do I dare to read comments?
BJ in #5 (haha, so sluttish)
Sluts are always in the category of fair use! Unless they object of course, a perfectly hypothetical situation.
I’m still speechless by the inherent funnyness of an ignorant slut complaining to seed. Geez, at least wait until it fertilizes an egg, grows up, and is old enough to understand complaints. Which seed would you complain to anyway? Which one is the fastest swimmer?
On the sexism charge:
Regardless of whether or not “slut” was used as part of a pop-culture reference, the use of the term is not sexist unless it’s applied to women as a class and further attributed by virtue of gender (some would say that power needs to be involved too, but those people are wrong of the variety that hold strange and wondrous delusions of patriarchy).
Sexist eg.:
“All women are sluts the second they walk into the world.”
“She’s a slut like the rest of her sex.”
Not-Sexist eg.:
“You, unlike my mother, aunt, or most people I meet, are a dirty rotten still-dripping slut.”
“All women in the world are sluts, and so are men. Really, everyone is a slut. Frankly, I like sluts. Go sluts!”
I would side with PZ’s read on this. This has nothing to do with sex, sexuality, gender, abuse or sexism, and everything to do with sounding the alarm by evoking taboo-language (see Steve Pinker re. swearing).
So Wodehouse is pronounced as if written Wood-?
No. In Classical Latin, homo was the cover term for the whole species, and vir designated an adult male (thence the various duum- and triumvirates).
(It goes without saying that homo was nonetheless masculine in gender, like its analogues in German and the Slavic languages at least. Even though “child” actually is neuter in those languages.)
Re: Steve Zara
I’m an American, and to this I say: “Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!!!”
Oh, wait, that’s so British. XD
So Wodehouse is pronounced as if written Wood-? – David Marjanović, OM
Indeed it is. Having a name that’s pronounced quite differently from the way it’s spelled gives you considerable social cachet in England. Wodehouse is quite a mild example (after all, he was only upper-middle class in English terms). Here’s a few more, with spelling followed by approximate pronunciation (I don’t know the phonetic alphabet):
Majoribanks – Marchbanks,
Mainwaring – Mannering,
Lygon – Liggon,
Cholmondely – Chumley,
St. John – Sinjun,
ffrench – French,
and my favourite:
Featherstonehaugh; Fanshaw
@#18
I can lend you a couple of vowels if you’re running short. :)
Nick, that tradition continues here in New England, where (for example) people who live in Worcester call it “Wistah.”
PZ, we could have worshiped you in your ‘Solamanic’ role of judge. You were supposed to slice Brenda van Ahsen in half and give one of the ‘e’s to CortxVortx.
One of my favorite dubbed lines is from the Spanish version of The Perfect Storm: “Siempre son de Glostair.”
This site is useful for the uninitiated:
http://www.worcestermass.com/pronounce/index.shtml
Featherstonehaugh; Fanshaw – Hilarious.
MandyDax (#112),
I believe you mean toffee nosed, as in the rostrally elevated posture necessary to balance a toffee upon one’s nose.
“Coffee nosed”, on the other hand, summons images of neti pots to mind. Useful, to be sure, but not exactly haughty.
Re: #113
Raymond Luxury-Yacht – Throatwarbler Mangrove (– from “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”, a British comedy series from the 1970s; no insults to yachts (luxury or otherwise), birds, or tropical trees is implied or intended.)
(see how that just saps the comment of humor?)
Wait, we have to have Vowels now ?
Oh hell!
I blame CortxVortx. Or Brenda. or her clone.
Man am I glad I didn’t use anything from W.C. Fields.
Just chiming in to say: do not taunt happy fun ball.
(No, it has nothing to do with this thread. But dammit, I think I should get to do an SNL reference too, anyway. And all the actually relevant ones were taken.)
-Robin Zebrowski
For it to be “misogynist” to insult a stupid, pretentious brat who happens to be a woman by lampooning her complaint, which happened to have some obliquely gender related overtones, all (or at least most) women would have to be stupid, pretentious brats.
I certainly don’t believe that’s the case. Why do you seem to?
Re #113, #119:
In her Richard Jury series, Martha Grimes has named Melrose Plant’s Butler “Ruthven,” pronounced “rivven,” and presumably literarily descended from W.S. Gilbert’s Sir Ruthven Murgatroyd.
Plant’s Aunt Agatha, an insufferable American (if that’s not an oxymoron), calls the butler RUTH-ven, and when corrected says pettishly “Why don’t you pronounce it the way it’s spelled?” The butler’s reply? “I do, Madam, I do!”
I must add my two cents’ worth regarding PG Wodehouse – I live in Ohio and I’ve read all of his Jeeves and Wooster stories and many, many others besides. I think that this quote may be applicable to the lady who recently had her hands slapped by PZ: “The exquisite code of politeness of the Woosters prevented me from clipping her one on the ear hole.” Or maybe “I often wished, while strolling with her at Cannes, that some passing motorist would help ease the situation by ramming her amidships.”
How about this for a cryptic reference:
Brenda was NOT woody, she was tinny.
very tinny.
*runs crying from the room*
Also Ffytche, which I believe is pronounced “Fitch.”
you know, it’s a funny thing… all the naughty words sound woody…
Speaking of Chaucer, there is another quaint old word Chaucer used that has come back into popular usage although the current spelling is quiet different to the old word – queynte.
PZ:
Does this judgment apply to claims to be on a mission from God? :P
What if such a claim is made for the clear and express purpose of confusing the hell out of a creationist nutcase?
all the naughty words sound woody
EROGENOUS ZONE
EROGENOUS ZONE
EROGENOUS ZONE
EROGENOUS ZONE
*splash*
ah, thanks dear.
@windy:
It is – if you pick up the reference to talk.origins. It means you’re a howler…
oh, all right, the croquet hoops DO look frightfully damn pretty…
Gorn…
As with gazillions of other English words, there are at least two possible etymologies. The other traces back to Anglo-Saxon hnaesc, meaning “soft, tender, or delicate.” From that comes another common meaning (perhaps more familiar than the one given above): “overly fastidious, particular, difficult to please, scrupulous, fussy.”
english. i hearts it. :-)
Oops, missed this one the first time through…..
As in Pooflingers Anonymous?
“Around the same time Carol Burnett Show did a satire of this called “Count. Pointer-count”
Are you sure? I remember Count-Pointercount from Kentucky Fried Movie.
Hey Ichthyic @103,
Nanner Nanner
From Don @85
P.S. I saw it in real time as well. I have no idea what was said after that since everyone in the room was roaring with laughter for about 5 minutes. 1976 may have been the year.
See-saw
Margery Daw
Sold her bed
and lay on straw
Was she not a dirty slut
to sell her bed and lay on dirt?
—Nothing to do with anything but just one of my favorite nursery rhymes.
sorry, Steve at #101:
I don’t think I can get it on
I missed that you were having a problem day.
You’ve heard of Viagra, though, right?
:p
“Around the same time Carol Burnett Show did a satire of this called “Count. Pointer-count”
Are you sure? I remember Count-Pointercount from Kentucky Fried Movie.
In it’s time Point-Counterpoint was incrediably well known and it and 60 minutes were satirized *frequently*. Do people still make fun of Andy Rooney? Point-Counterpoint was what 60 minutes had before they had Andy Rooney and it was satirized as much. I vaguely remember a satire on Kentucky Fried Movie but I *definately* remember the Caroll Burnett show.
However the SNL skit is going to live forever and is the only one that is more well known that the subject of the satire.
That’s brilliant
PZ, you waste too much time on these clowns. You’re better off just ignoring them.
lostn, please read what PZ wrote. He had to take action. His verdict was to let Brenda be mocked. And we were mocking her as soon as she threatened to tattle on us. Also, it seems that the twit is no longer posting here. Within a couple of days, this will all be a dusty memory.
It’s always sad to see people using being offended as a means to grab the moral highground. Rightfully people were able to latch onto that, with humourous insight and witty observations.
Steve@8,51, etc.
Quote away my friend! Wodehouse merely ups the entertainment/quality value. I have to say, I’m American and haven’t gotten one of the SNL refs in this thread, but I’ve understood all the Wodehouse refs! Personally, I’d sic Aunt Dahlia on this Brenda character.
Now, Steve, if you quoted “QI”, some Americans might not get it…but I’d sure love you for it!
Was it just my imagination that there used to be a time when the posts on here were fairly intelligent and even mature with a side of gently funny geekiness?
Now we have poo flinging and asshats and sluts and alex’s raging misogynist hormones and it’s like reading a college message board where some clown will respond to every thread with “There’s a party in my pants” or “I’d hit that!”
Where’s pharyngula and what have you done to it?!
Scrabcake:
It’s in my pants.
No, really, I have it right here in my pocket.
/pulls out a tennis racket and hits it
Where’s pharyngula and what have you done to it?!
wait…
you’re looking for the intelligent pharyngula on a thread devoted to a troll?
I think you need to look where the light is better.
Scrabcake, you pompous ass, you don’t have to read EVERY post and thread. The ones with trolls have always tended to get that way.
Misogynist hormones? Is that anything like the communist plot to destroy the US through miscegenation? Not that Alex isn’t a misogynist…
If you didn’t think:
Further to Leo’s post #178, anybody wanna buy a “There are no aSheevahists during a blizzard!” bumper sticker?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 3, 2008 5:52 PM
was hilarious, well then, I guess the party really is in Brian X’s pants for you.
Pompous ass, indeed. If PZ had ignored the trolls I would have gone to sleep to be ready for an early meeting and missed out on at least a couple of great laughs.
American settled in the UK; hoping to bridge the gap!
***Wanna quote Monty Python? Black Adder? Marlowe? Shakespeare? Jennifer Saunders or Dawn French? Dr. Who? MI5? Good Neighbors? To the Manner Born? Butterfly? Pope, Chaucer? Goethe (oops, he’s not a brit or a tv show). I’m sure a few of us “Yanks” will get it. Hell, I’m sure the Dutch here can snag a few quotes from you jolly Brits as well. Peace.***
A little FYI; Good Neighbors is actually The Good Life, retitled when sent to the US because of a preexisting show of the same name.
SNL isn’t broadcast in this country…I’ve checked. And I have Sky.
QI is one of the greatest shows of all time because Stephen Fry is one of the greatest human beings of all time! …I’m a fan…
As for stumping my fellow Americans…maybe Thin Blue Line or Some Mothers Do Ave ‘Em? “Ooh, Betty!” Possibly Buzzcocks? Its getting tougher what with PBS and BBC America conquering the divide.
Pompous ass FTW!!!1
By the way, MB. I’m your boss. You’re fired. Too many meetings missed.
In the words of Sir Pelham himself, this name is pronounced more like Faugh – as in Stanley Featherstonehaugh Ukridge.
Considering that no one ever sent a letter to Seed about me, Ms. von Ahson is clearly a very special sort of person … on the opposite end of the spectrum from slut.
Was it just my imagination that there used to be a time …
In the same sense that it was just your imagination that there used to be a time when the post you were commenting on wasn’t filed under the “Administration” category. Or that it was day rather than night. In other words, you’re engaging in a particularly foolish sort of confusion between variability and permanent change.
For it to be “misogynist” to insult a stupid, pretentious brat who happens to be a woman by lampooning her complaint, which happened to have some obliquely gender related overtones, all (or at least most) women would have to be stupid, pretentious brats.
I certainly don’t believe that’s the case. Why do you seem to?
Considering the behavior of many Clinton supporters, I’m afraid that it’s a far larger fraction than I had ever imagined.
[don’t welcome me back; I’m not planning on staying]
[don’t welcome me back; I’m not planning on staying]
I think you won a Molly in your absence.
PZ’s point only holds water as long as people don’t start being misogynist pigs, thinking they have PZ’s seal of approval and it’s somehow FUNNY now.
Yes, of course, because all men are right on the edge of being misogynist pigs, and all they need is PZ’s approval to teeter over.
Has it ever occurred to you that you are a sexist pig? Well, you are, and as a life-long committed egalitarian and feminist I feel quite comfortable calling you a bitchy slut cow.
Ooooh. Burn.
But you see, it’s not just this post. This was just the most appropriate post for me to comment on because it is on the topic of someone getting banned for spouting juvenile crap in posts that were NOT about administration. THOSE are the posts I’m talking about, and I’d rather not derail the conversation by posting my gripe in THOSE posts. It seems like the religious posts, where discussion in the past has been really surprisingly levelheaded (for the internet) have been devolving into name calling and flame wars a lot lately, so much so that people who would WANT to actually post something intelligent are probably getting turned off. It used to be that creationists and apologists on here could be competently dismantled without name calling.
And even in this post, we have people derailing the conversation by posting mindless crap. Alex’s “seduction” of Brenda for example. It’s like crap being spouted inside a post about people spouting crap.
It’s crap recursion.
I think you won a Molly in your absence.
Lack of posts doesn’t imply any other sort of absence … yes, I’m well aware, despite my attempts to prevent it from being awarded — just before awarding it, PZ threatened to ban me — whee!
But you see, it’s not just this post.
You mean it’s alternated between day and night more than once?
You’re a truly deep fellow.
t seems like the religious posts, where discussion in the past has been really surprisingly levelheaded (for the internet) have been devolving into name calling and flame wars a lot lately, so much so that people who would WANT to actually post something intelligent are probably getting turned off. It used to be that creationists and apologists on here could be competently dismantled without name calling.
You have no idea how funny (and foolish) this in light of the fact that I haven’t been here lately.
P.S. If you’re turned off, and thus don’t want to post, you won’t be missed. That’s always been one of the pluses about this site, that it doesn’t cater to self-centered twits who think the world revolves around them and demand that everyone change their style to fit their preferences.
It’s crap recursion.
What were you expecting inside the crap — a pony?
Claudia #149: For god’s sake, don’t tell them about Mrs. Slocombe’s pussy – oh wait, I just did.
(Not only will 99.9% of Americans not get that reference, but I reckon most Brits under 30 won’t either.)
P.S. I apologize for misattributing your gender. A truly deep gal, then.
#138
Truly, for me, this is a jinxed thread.
I’ll pootle off I think!
Truly, for me, this is a jinxed thread.
LOL
sorry, Steve, I saw the opportunity and just went with it.
;)
just before awarding it, PZ threatened to ban me — whee!
I recall that being about the time you went invisible, which left a lot of us wondering if PZ actually HAD banned you.
-Kill Bill, Vol 2
well, you get the idea.
much so that people who would WANT to actually post something intelligent are probably getting turned off.
that’s why Kenny was tossed in the dungeon.
seriously, most of the vehement insults have revolved around everyone here being really sick of his unending idiocy.
Hopefully, once he’s corralled back into his cell again, things will start to quiet down a bit around here.
Steve, count me in as another American Wodehouse-phile.
Anyone here remember when Dave Barry wrote about captioning his columns for the humor-impaired? The point was he didn’t mind the readers who disagreed with what he found humorous; what he had trouble with were those who didn’t even get that his was a humor column. For those who don’t get that this is a science-based, evidence-based, atheism-based blog, maybe PZ needs to start closed-captioning.
Last time I tried, he went into lurk mode again. I don’t get it TM; most commenters value your input to this blog, you seem to value this blog, so what’s the point of you maintaining lurk mode ?
@#161
Considering how many years Are You Being Served? was shown on PBS stations, your estimate of the number of Americans who recognize that line may be low.
Of course, I’m another American who has eagerly read all of Plum’s work. As well as too many other English authors than I could easily list. A few which haven’t been mentioned above would be Agatha Cristie, Dorthey Sayers, Josephine Tey, Brian Aldiss, John Brunner, Terry Pratchett, and let’s throw James Burke onto the pile.
One of the pleasures of reading Pharyngula is reading the comments and either catching the referances in them, or realizing a referance was made and knowing that it will very likely be explained downthread.
Cheers,
For those who don’t get that this is a science-based, evidence-based, atheism-based blog, maybe PZ needs to start closed-captioning
What an excellent idea! Or perhaps extensive Terry Pratchett-style footnotes.
Notwelcome notback, but “Hi” anyway. You are missed by some; I am one.
But a machine’s gotta do what a machine’s gotta do…
Why, thank you, Dr. Orzel!
woozy:
I like to think of us as the French soldiers in “The Holy Grail.”
Re #151 – Pronunciation of Featherstonehaugh
It’s “Fanshaw” according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_names_in_English_with_non-intuitive_pronunciations#F-H
I suspect Wodehouse was going in for a bit of oneupmanship when he had Ukridge’s middle name pronounced “Faugh”!
In defence of Brenda, I can’t think of a word for males that implies such a lack of self-respect in sexual matters. I wouldn’t like it slung at me, even in jest. And I didn’t recognize the quote. However, “sticks and stones might break my bones, but bits will never hurt me.” I don’t take too seriously what is flung through a keyboard on impulse by someone who has never met me.
Brenda, feel free to suck it. And by “It, I mean “lollipop”. And by “Lollipop”, I mean “penis”.
You have NO RIGHT to be non-offended on the internet. Get over yourself.
Actually, the best bit of this might be her complaint about offensive sexual language being directed at herself, shortly after she told everybody else – baring Walton – to …jesus fucking christ… grow the fuck up….
Hypocrite? Much?
I feel bad about my behavior here. I got into a flame war and said a lot of things that I regret. I wish I could take them back. I’m sorry.
I’m not terribly impressed though. You all seem have the morals of a street gang. I guess, since it is ok to judge an ideology on the behavior of its followers, we can come to firm conclusion on the moral worth of Atheism. That is what people will take away from all of this when they look at it.
I’m really disappointed in myself, I don’t know what got into me. I just got caught up in the emotion of it all and lost my cool. But you boys have nothing to be proud of either. You pile on and Mr. Myers goads you on, very unprofessional. The only way I can understand that is to chalk it up to your immaturity and the fact that you lack any moral guidelines at all. I mean, it is pretty obvious to any observer. Your moral bankruptcy is on full display. Someone reading this would naturally ask themselves “Are these the kind of people that I would want to be around?” The answer to that question is a clear and resounding no! Congratulations.
Scrabcake at 155 said “This was just the most appropriate post for me to comment on because it is on the topic of someone getting banned for spouting juvenile crap in posts that were NOT about administration. ”
I just want to point out again that she WAS NOT banned.
As PZ said up top “Ms von Ahsen is guilty of insufferable pretentious self-centeredness. No penalty will be imposed by this blog, as it is punishment enough.” (emphasis mine)
I agree there is a lot of juvenile crap on here, but for the most part it comes from frustration when one troll after another insults the general readership here some people’s knee-jerk reaction to trolling is to strike first, since it will devole into insults anyway.
On the plus side, the insults I read on here are almost always entertaining. And are frequently well deserved. That counts for something.
I’m not terribly impressed though. You all seem have the morals of a street gang.
Why thank you, you ignorant asshole! I feel like I have been put in my place!
If you are worried about sexism, why do you keep calling us all boys?
“Someone reading this would naturally ask themselves “Are these the kind of people that I would want to be around?” The answer to that question is a clear and resounding no! Congratulations.”
Whereas of course the immediate impression they’d get from your actions is “oh my god! You’re so fun! I want to hang out and play Scrabble with you!”. Right.
@ 161
I get that reference and I’m an American under 30. (I watched a lot of Brit coms on PBS in high school.) Never did get why Mrs. Slocombe always had such crazy-colored hair though…
“If you are worried about sexism, why do you keep calling us all boys?”
Not only that, since Janine has been critical of our Brenda, it would seem Brenda has some problems with biology.
Somebody smack me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it Chevy Chase that used the “ignorant slut” line during the news skit?
Brenda,
You’re apparently making a blanket attack on the entire commenter-ship of a blog, seemingly conflating those commenters with the owner of the blog (as though the former is necessarily endorsed by the latter, keeping in mind that there is minimal censorship on this site), and have been unable to restrain yourself from less than admirable behaviour, and yet you would still like to take the moral high-ground?
You were happily name-calling and displaying some of the worst habits of the bigotted contrarian, and suddenly became righteously indignant when a whiff of similar behaviour was directed towards you. You decided to maintain this, even in the face of a fairly reasonable explanation (although not one which was received with universal acceptance, further undermining your assertion of a universal mob mentality amongst the commenters here).
You were happy to insult, but less so, to be insulted. You’ve now decided to remain insulted, even whilst attempting to inflict fresh injury yourself.
Very odd.
I’d call you out as a rather blatent Troll, except that it is often impossible to distinguish earnestly-stupid behaviour from malicious trouble-making.
If you want to hold yourself morally superior, then you need to adopt suitable behaviour.
Bah, never mind. I think he appropriated it later.
Progress seems to be being made:
I feel bad about my behavior here. I got into a flame war and said a lot of things that I regret. I wish I could take them back. I’m sorry.
I happen to think this is praiseworthy.
However…
I’m not terribly impressed though. You all seem have the morals of a street gang. I guess, since it is ok to judge an ideology on the behavior of its followers, we can come to firm conclusion on the moral worth of Atheism. That is what people will take away from all of this when they look at it.
This is really not good. Atheism is not an ideology. There are no “followers of atheism”.
(To be pedantic, atheism is the opposite of “theism”. There are no followers of theism as such, there are followers of religion. Quite what the atheistic equivalent of “religion” is I don’t know).
Atheism also has no moral worth. Neither does theism. It is what you happen to package along with them in an individual.
What you happen to be looking at is “the internet”. This is the way people can behave: some are nasty, some are nice. Some are rude, some are polite. It has been like this since the internet was opened to widespread use in the early 90s.
I am sorry, but that is just the way things are. All one can do is to seek out particular forums that may suit your style.
It is just plain silly to blame posts you dislike on “atheism” – you will find the same mixtures of posting styles on open forums on any subject you can think of.
I am sure I have a reputation round these parts for being somewhat outspoken and ready to hurl insults at those who irritate me. It is not my most endearing trait I know. However I do like to think that I do not go running to the teacher when someone hurls an insult back at me. If you dish it out you cannot complain when someone throws it straight back at you.
And besides, most of the time the people I insult deserve it!
That wasn’t much of an apology, Brenda, since you’re using the same language you did before. I mean, you could take the high road and not resort to name-calling, etc., since that seems to be what you have a problem with on this blog.
From what I’ve seen though, the trolls that come on here know they’re going to get lambasted, probably want to be so they can claim persecution, and most give back as good as they get, so I’m not really sure why you’re picking on one side and not the other.
Also, I’m a girl.
Now who’s being sexist?
Just to be clear, you’re all asshats here. Each and every one of you.
You especially Matt Penfold.
/ducks behind lockers
“We still need you at UC Davis or UC Santa Cruz”
Yeah we do….
Not only that, since Janine has been critical of our Brenda, it would seem Brenda has some problems with biology.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
I am hardly alone. There are also Patricia C, Sastra, Serena, Michelle, Interrobang, Carlie, Kseniya, MandyDax, Anna and Claudia. And than there are the women using non gendered monikers. I do not want to miss anyone.
Rev. BigDumbChimp,
Take that banana out of your cassock and shove it up your …..
:)
Janine,
Very true. I was just too lazy to scroll up and check who had posted that I know, or can tell, is female.
My apologies :)
Can I blame it on the fact I was going to do some work on the smallholding today, but it was raining so much I opened some wine instead ?
Not that wiki is the bastion of Internet knowledge, but it is correct here
I don’t think Brenda is a true troll. This incident may have turned her into one though. I don’t really like name-calling, it kinda breaks my train of thinking when following an idea. After a while, Kenny deserved it. Brenda deserved to have her points refuted, and at times mocked. Some of the names may have come too soon, but sometimes that happens. I didn’t follow her incursion very closely, but I can say she did rub me the wrong way.
I’m not terribly impressed though.
Words cannot express how little I care.
And I too am a woman (as previously implied, on this very thread).
For all you uncultured out there, I am the only female knight of the round table.
Google Spenser and Faery Queen.
A few caught the refrence early on.
Kindly add me to the list of non-boys.
Brenda, get a clue !!
I have gone back top review the original thread, and the first comment I have found from Brenda has her being sexist.
“But I truly find it hard to believe that no one here has any idea what is meant by the word “heart”. So, little boys, set aside your games and be honest. Do you truly not know what is the referent in the phrase “The heart has it’s reasons”? It should be obvious to anyone, I know what it means, do you?”. Post #79.
It seems we can had hypocrite to the list of her failings. This was BEFORE the “slut” comment.
And I too am a woman (as previously implied, on this very thread).
Posted by: SC
My apologies, SC. I was going by females names and posters whom I knew were women by past posts. That is why I included my CYA statement.
Britomart, I have to claim ignorance about many british myths.
Matt Penfold@200. Given Brenda’s Freudian tendencies, I wonder if her repeated use of “boys” and particularly “little boys” is an attempt (possibly subconscious) to create, let’s say, certain sexual anxieties in those she is addressing, in the hope that this will give her an advantage in argument? What say you Brenda? You’re our resident expert on unconscious motivations after all!
Janine – No offense taken! My remark was aimed at Brendan :), not you.
I’m not terribly impressed though. You all seem have the morals of a street gang. … You pile on and Mr. Myers goads you on, very unprofessional.
I didn’t realize bashing kooks and kwaaaazy kweationists was a profession.
Um, we are a street gang. This is a blog of which bashing kooks and kwaaaazy kweationists and releiving stress in comments plays a significant part. It’s a carnival; a party; It is an ol’ boys an’ girls club.
Nick,
It could well be. However for someone who seems to so keyed into seeing sexism it is kind of hard to understand how she failed spot her own use of potentially sexist terms. Saying “boys” when referring to men it not always sexist, like saying “girls” when referring to women is not always sexist. As always context is all, and when you decide to complain about what you think is sexist language you really should make sure you are not using language that can be construed as sexist.
On a totally different topic, Nick, you put me right on St Augustine and original sin on another thread. I can only plead total ignorance in defence of my mistake. I now know better. Thank you.
No problem Janine, thats a bit why I spoke up.
You all seem have the morals of a street gang.
After thinking about it, I would have to say, we would make one of the least intimidating street gangs ever. Egad, who is PZ going to scare? And if he is the head of this gang, what must the rest of us be like?
When you’re a Jet
You’re a Jet all the way
From your first cigarette
To your last dying day
To be serious for a moment, there does seem to be a divide between the US and the UK when it comes to insults. Or rather I should say in certain attitudes that seem to be more prevalent in the US than the UK.
Those who have mentioned humour such as Monty Python, Blackadder etc. are onto something I think. John Cleese after all did once say that an Englishman would rather be accused of being a lousy lover than not having a sense of humour. There are those who when insulted will always get upset, and there others who will go with the flow, and if it happened to be a rather appropriate insult will likely acknowledge the wit behind it. It is in part down to the ability to laugh at yourself. Those who take themselves very seriously (as opposed to what they do seriously, there is a huge difference) seem to take all insults personally whilst sometimes being quite keen to dish them out. When I look at my favourite bloggers here on ScienceBlogs the ones I like most tend to be those who get the British concept of taking the piss. PZ gets it, and it is fair to say I think all the regular commentators here do as well. Some of the other bloggers do not. I will leave it to the reader to decide who I might be referring to!
Seriously, Brenda (May I call you Mr. von Ahsen? What if I’m nasty? What if I just like silly Janet Jackson references?), Uncertain Principles, also on Sb, may be more your speed. The commenters here disgust him, too, so you’d be among like…um, people.
Janine,
Good point. PZ may have a formidable intellect, as do many regulars here. But to be honest, if I met PZ down a dark alley after midnight, I would not be that scared. Unless he was armed with a cephlapod of course. Then I would run away like a girl! :)
Apparently I am required to posses psychic powers here. That way I would use them to know that “SC” is female.
Steve Zara
I happen to think this is praiseworthy.
Thank you.
This is really not good. Atheism is not an ideology. There are no “followers of atheism”. (To be pedantic, atheism is the opposite of “theism”. There are no followers of theism as such, there are followers of religion. Quite what the atheistic equivalent of “religion” is I don’t know).
That’s an interesting blindspot you have there. Did you just define yourself out of existence? But that can’t be, you clearly exist. You have social, political and philosophical beliefs that you share more or less in common with each other. You have a group identity and yet you claim not to exist as any definable ideology. That comes in pretty handy doesn’t it? You get to criticize everyone else and yet no one can touch you. Sweet.
What you happen to be looking at is “the internet”. This is the way people can behave: some are nasty, some are nice. Some are rude, some are polite. It has been like this since the internet was opened to widespread use in the early 90s.
I know that, like I said I got caught up in a stupid flame war and I said I’m sorry and that I’m not happy with how I acted. I will own my stupidity but as I scroll up or look on other threads I can see little to admire here. Kenny, or not-kenny is right about one thing. This is not a biology blog, it’s a militant atheist blog.
Apparently I am required to posses psychic powers here. That way I would use them to know that “SC” is female.
No, Brenda, all you’re required to possess are basic reading skills. See my comment at #17.
Then I would run away like a girl! :)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to complain…
Brenda,
Clearly you do not understand what atheism is.
It is not an ideology. It mere a lack of belief in god(s). How do you construct an ideology around that ? It is like constructing an ideology around being bald. There is no such thing as an atheist agenda. There are atheists who are vocal, anti-religious and speak out in favour of rationality as opposed to faith. There are atheists who reject the idea god(s) exists but embrace new age philosophies. The former look with no more approval on the latter than they do on the religious. There are atheists who embrace humanism, but humanism is not the same thing as atheism, and there are moderate religious people who’s views have more in common with humanism than with the philosophies of their more fundamentalist fellow believers. Anyone who has read and listened to the Archbishop of Canterbury will know, that whatever other faults he has, he does not consider homosexuality to be a sin, nor an impediment to becoming a priest. He is even is favour of same sex partnerships.
If people just not believing in god is such a problem for you, then I really do suggest you grow a thicker skin. Atheists are here, and we are not going away anytime soon.
Pharyngula has a group identity. Atheism doesn’t. Atheism is defined in an entirely negative way.
You have social, political and philosophical beliefs that you share more or less in common with each other. You have a group identity and yet you claim not to exist as any definable ideology.
Who do you mean by “you”, Brenda? Atheists, or atheists who comment here? If the former, then the only common belief is that there are no gods: Lenin and Ayn Rand were both noted atheists – would you like to tell me what other “social, political and philosophical beliefs” they held in common? If the latter, you are not addressing Steve’s point since you are no longer talking about “atheists”, but about a tiny subset of them.
Brenda asks: “Are these the kind of people that I would want to be around?”
I answer: Fuck yeah they are!! (that’s an invitation, to be clear)
I also noticed Brenda’s tendency to refer to us as “boys” whenever someone disagreed with her. That’s bullshit.
So I’m glad she got spanked.
I know that, like I said I got caught up in a stupid flame war and I said I’m sorry and that I’m not happy with how I acted. I will own my stupidity but as I scroll up or look on other threads I can see little to admire here. Kenny, or not-kenny is right about one thing. This is not a biology blog, it’s a militant atheist blog.
Posted by: Brenda von Ahsen
And I will gladly hand your stupidity back to you, you poo flinging monkey.
You are right, this is not a biology blog. But biology plays a huge part of what goes on here. Please read what the header says.
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
It is spelled out right there. That is why there are plenty of non-biologists here.
Brenda, you came in, insults blazing and without know the background here. You stood up for one of the stupidest regulars here, which also placed you in a bad light. And again, you support him on a point that he is wrong about.
Please go back and read some of the things he wrote before you back him on anything. There are reasons why Kenny gets verbally abuse.
And I sign off; Brenda, you ignorant asshole.
Atheism is defined in an entirely negative way.
I fear Brenda, who has already shown herself incapable of recognizing sarcasm, may read this the wrong way. But I’ll try not to assume the worst.
I have always considered Pharyngulites to be intelligent, witty, enquiring, iconoclastic, well informed, well read, possessing a self-deprecating sense of humour, liking a good argument, and to be honest, pretty dammed sexy it has to be said. It has to be said they do not suffer fools gladly, but if you come and put forward a good argument you may get your argument torn to shreds, but you are likely to end up being respected. Yes this place can be tough, and if you are thin skinned it may not be the place for you, but it you can hold your own it is very rewarding, not to mention enlightening. I doubt there is any subject at one person here is not at least reasonably familiar with.
Count me in with those who love the place.
For those keeping score at home, I’m a girl too.
…it’s only a matter of time until someone realizes that Pharyngula is not at all as male-dominated as commonly assumed, and starts calling us the atheist equivalent of the Manson women, or something. At least it would be more imaginative than “little boys”.
That’s an interesting blindspot you have there. Did you just define yourself out of existence? But that can’t be, you clearly exist. You have social, political and philosophical beliefs that you share more or less in common with each other. You have a group identity and yet you claim not to exist as any definable ideology. That comes in pretty handy doesn’t it? You get to criticize everyone else and yet no one can touch you. Sweet.
Gosh no. People can criticise me, and plenty have. Actually, I somehow got into a flame war here months ago (more like a flame ambush), and even got a mild reprimand from PZ. So it goes. We move on.
I have social, political and philosophical beliefs. However, they don’t come from atheism. They can’t from from atheism. Atheism isn’t a foundation for other beliefs, as it is an absence. The situation between atheism and theism isn’t symmetrical.
Look at it this way. You can build on foundations (theism), but you can’t build on lack of foundations (atheism).
Atheism is a conclusion that comes my from philosophy of rationalism and my sceptical attitude. You may label those part of an “ideology”, you may attack me for those, but not atheism, as there is, literally, nothing to attack.
I know that, like I said I got caught up in a stupid flame war and I said I’m sorry and that I’m not happy with how I acted. I will own my stupidity but as I scroll up or look on other threads I can see little to admire here. Kenny, or not-kenny is right about one thing. This is not a biology blog, it’s a militant atheist blog.
It is a delightfully mixed blog. Months ago I may have said that PZ’s tone is not one I would use, but I have become far less patient dealing with arrogant creationists and IDers, and I can see where he is coming from.
…it’s only a matter of time until someone realizes that Pharyngula is not at all as male-dominated as commonly assumed, and starts calling us the atheist equivalent of the Manson women, or something. At least it would be more imaginative than “little boys”.
Posted by: windy
Do you want to be Squeaky or can I take the name?
Hey! Wait! Would PZ tattoo a red A on his forehead? Perhaps this could be a step in making PZ an intimidating gang leader.
…Bride of Shrek, Etha Williams, Mrs. Tilton,…
To back up with what Steve Zara has said, I have been critical of him the past (although I cannot recall what it was about. Must have been really important!). I probably even threw a few insults at him. However he is man enough to rise above that, and most of what he has to say it interesting. Like many of the regulars here, if I find myself in real disagreement with him it indicates I may need to go back and re-think my position. Sometimes I do that, and I still disagree. If we do, well then we do.
However he is man enough to rise above that,
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to complain…
Oh crap,
I give up. Where do I send my posts for prior approval by the anti-sexism brigade ?
(although I cannot recall what it was about. Must have been really important!)
Two lessons I have learned.
1) Never criticise Pat Condell near (typical?) Pharyngulites unless willing to make a fast get-away.
2) Never show concern about upsetting religious elderly relatives.
I think that may jog memories :)
All this talk of complaining about insults reminded me the joke what defines and English Gentleman, and a Scottish Gentleman.
An English Gentleman never insults someone unknowingly. A Scottish Gentleman knows how to play the bagpipes but doesn’t.
Ah, I remember now Steve!
Steve Zara, are you that person? Are you using a different moniker now? If so, I am pleased you got past that rather rocky start.
Go ahead! Since there aren’t enough Manson women to go around, we’ll need some other names too… Who wants to be Ulrike Meinhof? Or Patty Hearst?
I am also a not-boy. Though, since I’m fairly new here, and not a frequent poster, there’s no penalty attached to not noticing. :)
Brenda:
Speaking solely for myself, I think that blatant insults are counterproductive, if what you’re aiming for is to have someone seriously consider what you’re trying to communicate. (I’ve said it before; once you call someone an ass-hat, s/he stops listening.) On the other hand, persistent, belligerent, malignant refusal to even try to follow someone’s evidence posted in rebuttal, and singing the same tune over and over as if no one had ever even posted contrary evidence (Kenny, I’m talking about you), does result in responses in increasingly-laboured patience, sarcastic response, and eventually maybe even exasperated name-calling.
And then, it all has to be done over and over and over again, as one dogmatic, willfully ignorant poster is replaced with a different one, singing the same tune, ignoring the same rebuttals. Small wonder if the go-for-the-throat response becomes a bit hair-triggered. Small wonder if in time you don’t come to think, “To hell with the quiet, measured approach; these people never listen unless you hit them with a brickbat!”, and automatically reach for the Really Big Stick the moment another DWIP pokes his head up.
Not excusing. Just explaining.
There does seem to be something a pattern with regards how people think this blog deals with creationists. Some turn up here and see someone who pushing a creationist line being torn to shreds and it upsets them. If they hang around they come to realise they normally only happens when a creationist has been making several posts and is showing no signs of learning where they are wrong, or when they come and made a particularly stupid argument in an especially arrogant way. If it really is a case of genunine ignorance they will find the regulars will actually make an effort to explain, and to suggest where they can learn more (a thread in a blog is not the best place for getting over the fundamentals of evolution)
Steve Zara, are you that person? Are you using a different moniker now? If so, I am pleased you got past that rather rocky start.
I am. Here was when I started posting with my full name, rather than some obscure logon name, to try to indicate some degree of sincerity.
But anyway, it was only a minor incident here. I have been posting on and off in various places since the early 90s. And, sometimes, I get things wrong, or manage to press people’s buttons the wrong way. These things happen.
Cicely,
Not to mention that turning up on the blog of an experienced biologist and uclaiming you know better than them abot evolution is arrogance of the highest degree.
Damn near fell out of my chair…the gobshite came back?! Still showing all the humour of a six titted sow.
Doesn’t godless liberal translate out from ‘Merikan’ to ‘street gang of French Python soldiers’?
Me, too, despite some rather unorthodox Mackerian hypotheses on urso-gender intersection constraints…
Perhaps Brenda doesn’t believe that anyone who comments regularly here can possibly be either female OR post-pubescent? As a 40-something FEMALE biologist, I have to join in with the other voices expressing my appreciation for the eclectic personalities on this blog and the rich, complex, thought provoking, hilarious discussions that issue from this group. Yes, these are absolutely the kind of people I would (and do) choose to hang out with.
Brenda’s “Whaaa, you boys are a bunch of meanies!” criticism is as banal as it is inconsequential…although come to think of it I am having some very traumatic flashbacks to the late-bloomerhood of my Middle School years due to her offensive use of the ‘little boys’ label.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to complain…..
I give up. Where do I send my posts for prior approval by the anti-sexism brigade ?
Matt Penfold,
I am, of course, only joking (well, 99% joking).
SC, you make me laugh, always. (smile) Except when you are serious of course, please dont report me to PZ as the sexist toad that I am!!! (laughing)
I am a male, wait…checking…yes, I am, but can I have a cool female moniker like Boadicea to use at times?
Ciao y’all
SC,
I know you are :)
I did think about changing the comment, but decided not to. In all honesty I would probably have said the same if Steve was a Stephanie.
I wonder how PZ’s blog compares to others in the percentage of women commentors. Comparing it to talk radio is probably apples vs oranges – but I hear the hosts on KBOO morning radio asking for more women callers almost everyday.
JeffreyD – I’m glad you haven’t gone into full-out lurk mode. I am a bit upset with you for giving me another person whose safety I’ll now worry about, but speaking from experience and from the (dare I say it?) heart is always good.
And to prove that I do not lack a sense of humor about myself, I even laughed a little at this joke, told on Greg Laden’s blog recently:
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: That’s not funny!
Solomon would be proud. Well, you didn’t cut something living in half, but then I guess he never really did, either.
Brenda von Ahsen #211 wrote:
Technically speaking, atheism in itself has little content as a world view. However, I would guess that most of the atheists who hang out on scienceblogs are some form of secular humanist, whether they self-identify as such or not.
Loosely defined, Sec Humanism is an approach to life using reason and science as methods for understanding the nature of reality; metaphysical naturalism is tentatively drawn as a conclusion from the evidence; and a respect for human rights grounded in freedom of the individual and compassion.
In theory, an atheist could hate science, and believe things only because it “feels right” in their gut. They could believe in ghosts and souls and psychic powers and a universe infused with magic. They could also be in favor of totalitarian dictatorship, or follow Social Darwinism to create an atheistic Master Race.
Secular humanism cuts that crap out.
Humanists will still have political and philosophical differences. But I think it narrows down some of the basic commonalities of our Pharyngulite ‘group identity’ by eliminating the anti-science, anti-reason, anti-freedom “spiritual but not religious” forms of atheism.
Ah, but remember, Brendan has already dismissed secular humanism, in the most wooish manner possible:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/coyne_at_rockefeller.php#comment-910748
Take that, coalition of reason!
‘Twould appear so.
BTW, I’m female and pushing 60.
One of the reasons I like Pharyngula (and ScienceBlogs in general) is that it does not suffer from testosterone poisoning.
@ # 229: “All this talk of complaining about insults reminded me the joke what defines and English Gentleman, and a Scottish Gentleman.”
My boyfriend is Scottish (though he grew up mostly in Canada), and whenever his family goes back to Scotland to visit, his father always greets his friends with an insult: “Angus, you’re a thieving bastard!” or some such. It’s just the way they roll.
Possibly the falsest dichotomy I have ever seen proposed.
It’s both.
See?
Both.
I will own my stupidity but as I scroll up or look on other threads I can see little to admire here.
the obvious question seems to be, then…
WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?
Negentropyeater said “I don’t get it Truth Machine, most commenters value your input to this blog, you seem to value this blog, so what’s the point of you maintaining lurk mode?”.
Most? Did you do a poll on that? From what I’ve seen Truth machine rarely has much to offer beyond foul tempered expletive filled insults. I find the place improved without him.
I second you Ichthyic.
#249 – That’s funny about your father in law. My grandpa always greeted his friends by slapping them on the back and bellowing “Hi there you old bastard, why aren’t you dead yet?!” ;)
Someone did, it was called the February Molly.
“Hi there you old bastard, why aren’t you dead yet?”
hey, I rather like that.
kind of a reverse-meaning greeting.
like asking:
“so what’s good in your life this week; what’s motivating you?”
with a twist
:)
“Hi there you old bastard, why aren’t you dead yet?”
hey, I rather like that.
Hah, that’s a classic Southwestern Finnish greeting as well. There they say:
Viäläks sääki elät? (‘Wow, are you still living?’)
But this? “So what’s good in your life this week; what’s motivating you?”
Never, ever greet a Finn like that. He’ll assume you are fucking with him. ;)
SC
No, Brenda, all you’re required to possess are basic reading skills. See my comment at #17.
Yes, I see that. There have been several threads now with well over 1000 comments all totaled. I guess I missed it.
Matt Penfold
[Atheism] is not an ideology. It[sic] mere a lack of belief in god(s). How do you construct an ideology around that ?
You construct the ideology first and then wrap it in the trappings of science. This is how all ideologies work. They are highly irrational and emotive. It is only later that people seek to justify them using whatever they have at hand. For atheists this is almost always science. The hatred and lurid sexual obscenities hurled at me only confirm for me exactly where this comes from.
Nick Gotts
Who do you mean by “you”, Brenda? Atheists, or atheists who comment here?
Sorry, I meant “you” third person, the denizens of pharyngula.
Janine ID
Brenda, you came in, insults blazing and without know[sic] the background here. You stood up for one of the stupidest regulars here, which also placed you in a bad light.
Janine, all you have done is to insult me. According to you I had the poor taste to feel some empathy for someone who was not a member of the gang and getting the crap beat out of him. Silly me. I guess I’ll take note of your high moral standards and leave you with your homies.
Steve Zara
I have social, political and philosophical beliefs. However, they don’t come from atheism. They can’t from from atheism. Atheism isn’t a foundation for other beliefs, as it is an absence. The situation between atheism and theism isn’t symmetrical.
Look at it this way. You can build on foundations (theism), but you can’t build on lack of foundations (atheism).
Proof by assertion? Historically people have indeed used atheism as a foundation on which they built their beliefs. I call bullshit.
Atheism is a conclusion that comes my from philosophy of rationalism and my sceptical[sic] attitude. You may label those part of an “ideology”, you may attack me for those, but not atheism, as there is, literally, nothing to attack.
Nihilism is a sad sad philosophy and rather… empty I should say. Look, if there is nothing there then where does your objection come from? Why even bother to register your opposition to anything I say? If atheism doe not even really exist, according to you, then where is all this hate piled on my head coming from? If you think about it a little I bet you can figure that out.
Your atheism doesn’t flow from your rational skepticism because as Tingley via Pascale pointed out it just doesn’t get you there. So you are left with this hole, this non-belief belief. And into that hole you pour your ready made belief system of scientism. I already said as much in the Tingley thread. I even emphasized that I don’t share Tingely’s religious views, only that I felt his criticism of atheism was correct.
What I got in reply was a wave of bigotry and invective. There was not a single substantive reply to what I actually said. So you’ll all forgive me if I fail to see the rich complexity and the wonder that is you. I made a fairly simply statement, albeit one that placed me outside the goup, and what I get in return is yowls of anger and sexual obscenities hurled at me. I remain unimpressed with ur skillzz.
cicely
Speaking solely for myself, I think that blatant insults are counterproductive, if what you’re aiming for is to have someone seriously consider what you’re trying to communicate.
Pot. Kettle. They be all black.
Small wonder if in time you don’t come to think, “To hell with the quiet, measured approach; these people never listen unless you hit them with a brickbat!”, and automatically reach for the Really Big Stick the moment another DWIP pokes his head up.
Then you won’t mind if in reaching the same conclusion I react the same? Or is only you who are privileged to wield the brickbat? PZ Myer claims he has the right to judge Christianity by the behavior of it’s adherents. I claim the right to judge Pharyngula by the same measure. So scroll up cicely and tell me honestly that you are proud of each and every comment. Look at those comments, own them, because as far as I am concerned they came from your mouth. Fair is fair right?
Another female person, here. Brenda, what chaps my hide is the non-apology apology. “I did thus and so, *BUT*”, “I may have been mistaken, *BUT*” How about a simple, “My emotions got away from me and in my efforts to ‘win’ the argument, I acted like an asshat. Sorry.”? I think most people would have taken that, patted you on the back for it and moved on. It’s the politician’s route of “*IF* I offended anyone…” after saying something blatently offensive or “Yeah, I was wrong, *BUT* you were wronger/meaner/icky-cootie-infested boys…” that makes me want to stick habanero peppers up my nose (in a very feminine and delicate fashion, of course) to make the urge to laugh wildly at you go away
Bullshit. There were excellent and invective-free comments from kcrady and several others.
You are so funny. Remember when it was pointed out to you that PZ claims to judge by the MAJORITY, and you admitted that you hadn’t read a MAJORITY of the comments? Remember when it was pointed out that PZ claims to judge a BELIEF SYSTEM, but hasn’t stopped responding to Christians altogether?
Negentropyeater said “I don’t get it Truth Machine, most commenters value your input to this blog, you seem to value this blog, so what’s the point of you maintaining lurk mode?”. I asked “Most? Did you do a poll on that?”
Windy replied “Someone did, it was called the February Molly”.
Wow, so he made one comment that wasn’t an insult that people liked, and I missed it.
Brenda the troll, continuing with her not-pology…
The hatred and lurid sexual obscenities hurled at me only confirm for me exactly where this comes from.
does it come from here?
sweet, sweet smell o funk.
They be all black.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to complain…..
#253 Patricia C.:
Heh, that’s exactly what my bf’s father does. Only he sometimes tries to do it in Canada and the U.S. too, and my boyfriend has to explain to him that people outside Scotland don’t really do that. It never really seems to sink in, heh. Personally I think the Scots are on to something there…
Lurid sexual obscenities… either I missed those or is that what ‘asshat’ means? One of you young hip folks clue me in, please.
If his criticism was correct, then atheism would be incorrect. Eh, didn’t you claim to be an atheist?
When PZ judges Christianity, he brings into evidence a multiplicity of formats of expressions, from the most ridiculous picketters â la phelps or the loony dino-museum, to the blog posts of uncommon descent or a debate with Alistair Mc Grath.
So yes you can judge Pharyngula, the blog, but this is a very particular format, and you and I have no idea how these people would actualy behave as a community in the real world, so why judge its people ?
I’d be interested to know, what purpose does this serve ?
There was not a single substantive reply to what I actually said. So you’ll all forgive me if I fail to see the rich complexity and the wonder that is you.
because you didn’t say anything substantive, and you STILL choose your current direction instead of moving on with something substantive.
frankly, honey, you simply ain’t worth the effort.
why are you still here?
I’d be interested to know, what purpose does this serve ?
she’s lonely.
*shrug* I don’t mind being judged by Brenda. ‘s mutual.
Ich:
Several people did make substantive replies even to Brenda’s disingenuous posts. Don’t sell them short.
Brenda: I can think of phrases that are much more “lurid sexual obscenities” than “slut,” especially since it was intended to be humorous. If there’s one thing I’ve noticed about being a commenter on this blog, it’s that you’ve gotta have a sense of humor.
Also, you don’t seem to be so good at the reading comprehension…
Proof by assertion? Historically people have indeed used atheism as a foundation on which they built their beliefs. I call bullshit.
I am afraid it isn’t. You can’t use atheism as a foundation on which to build beliefs, because it is an absence. You can say that being atheist can remove a barrier to certain beliefs, but that is it.
Nihilism is a sad sad philosophy and rather… empty I should say. Look, if there is nothing there then where does your objection come from? Why even bother to register your opposition to anything I say? If atheism doe not even really exist, according to you, then where is all this hate piled on my head coming from? If you think about it a little I bet you can figure that out.
You seem rather confused about terminology. Firstly, I am anything but nihilistic. The issue here is about labels. It is about freedom to express absence of belief, and not to have beliefs imposed.
What you seem to be mixing up is an intellectual position, and the reaction to, and the battle to be allowed to hold, that intellectual position. I arive at my disbelief in fairies through reason and scepticism. However, if it turns out that my a-fairyism leads to me being considered an inferior person in society, and subject to ridicule, then I may get pretty militant about my right to openly not believe in fairies. However, any claim that this is part of an “a-fairyist philosophy” is absurd.
Your atheism doesn’t flow from your rational skepticism because as Tingley via Pascale pointed out it just doesn’t get you there.
It certainly does. What gets me there is Ockham’s Razor.
And into that hole you pour your ready made belief system of scientism.
Oh dear. I see you have all the “trigger words” ready. Scientism implies that someone considers all questions in life can be dealt with by science. I am afraid that does not apply to me. Call me a “reasonist” if you like – I use philosophy as well.
I remain unimpressed with ur skillzz.
I was at first prepared to be open-minded about your position. I know what these forums are like. However, my “troll” warning lights are flashing. You fit the pattern, I am afraid: generalising about atheists, generalising about posters here, throwing about terms designed to “press buttons” (such as “scientism”).
You should have left it with the apology.
Selective (and delusional) reading in action:
What I got in reply was a wave of bigotry and invective. There was not a single substantive reply to what I actually said.
I absolutely love that the evidence of the other thread is preserved and linked to above. For those interested, I offer this summary of the relevant posts* (while noting that there was much insightful said in the interstices, and recommending a full reading for anyone with time):
Brenda #79
CJO #87
Dennis N #88
Brownian #89
woozy #93
windy #99
kcrady #100
SteveM #101
H.H. #105
Vic #125
Brenda #152
Dennis N #153
windy #155
me (SC) #157
jase #164
woozy #167
ndt #169
Nick Gotts #170
CJO #171
windy #174
Nick Gotts #175
heliobates #191
Brenda #201
windy #202
Matt #203
CJO #206
jase #208
Owlmirror #209 (*link to an interesting article on sarcasm)
me (SC) #210
Dennis N #213 and #215**
Brenda #224 (“arrogant asshats”)
windy #226
me (SC) #231
Steve_C #232
Dennis N #234
windy #235
Kel #237
eewolf #238
Etha Williams #239
jase #242
CortxVortx #248
*Apologies to anyone I inadvertently missed.
**This Dennis N comment contained the following, for the record:
Mind if I take liberties, Steve? I’d like to use your statement to express my own sentiment towards Brendairhead:
You should have left
it with the apology.carry on.
Yes, you just “feel” it’s correct, we just don’t know why, but you did grant us with this beautiful pseudo-freudian home baked analysis;
When I read this, I thought, where did she get her sample of atheists to make her analysis ? I wonder in countries like France or Sweden where there’s close to 50% Atheists or agnostics, there must be an awful lot of people having difficulties becoming adults then…
I think you are drawing conclusions much too fast from a few samples that must have impressed you.
This doesn’t make sense even in a Freudian way, wouldn’t belief in a sky-daddy or -mommy be a better way to deal with separation anxiety!? How does non-belief help?
Of course, that’s what the nanny state is for! ;)
What! Evidence?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to complain about the blatant use of evidence by commenter “SC”…
windy and negentropyeater,
Your comments exemplify what I enjoy about this blog. People here are the complete opposite of what Brenda says: Even when dealing with people whom they don’t particularly respect or are otherwise mocking, they generally can’t resist making the substantive arguments. It’s not at all unusual to see comments saying things like “Dude, you’re an ignorant twit and I don’t know why anyone would waste any time on you” followed by “You’re also wrong about Quantum Mechanics, and here’s why…” Make an offhand comment about the relative simplicity of rocks, and someone will appear almost immediately to explain their complexity, in great detail. People are still arguing with Kenny the Wonder Troll about NDEs, for pity’s sake.
Whatever happened at the wild monkey sex orgy with Brenda? Is she hot? Gossips want to know!
Janine, all you have done is to insult me. According to you I had the poor taste to feel some empathy for someone who was not a member of the gang and getting the crap beat out of him. Silly me. I guess I’ll take note of your high moral standards and leave you with your homies.
Brenda, you ignorant asshole. I insult you because that is all you merit.
Guess what, I have entered other sites where one person was being verbally abused by the others there. And at first, I felt bad for those people. But unlike you, I took the time to read older posts instead of jump to those people’s defense. In most of those cases, I was happy I took the time to know the background of the arguments and resulting insults. I did not have to defend an argument I did not agree with.
You, on the other hand, cannot be bothered. If you just did a simple search, you would have found Kenny to be one of the dimmest and willfully ignorant of godbots. And you fucking claimed this moral had the high ground on all of us.
BRENDA! FUCK YOU!
You cannot bother with reading comprehension.
Atheism is a conclusion that comes my from philosophy of rationalism and my sceptical[sic] attitude. You may label those part of an “ideology”, you may attack me for those, but not atheism, as there is, literally, nothing to attack.
Steve Zara
Nihilism is a sad sad philosophy and rather… empty I should say. Look, if there is nothing there then where does your objection come from? Why even bother to register your opposition to anything I say? If atheism doe not even really exist, according to you, then where is all this hate piled on my head coming from? If you think about it a little I bet you can figure that out.
The Ignorant Asshole
At what point did Steve Zara refer to himself as a nihilist? You claim I have nothing to say about what you say. Fine. I leave the heavy lifting to some of the others here. I defer to their more coherent writing skills. But, dammit, I never placed words in your mouth. I insulted you for being a fool.
You make a claim not was never implied and dismissed what Steve said.
Once more I say; BRENDA! FUCK YOU!
(Off topic. I am sure that Steve have to be laughing about this, considering our last run in.)
Why thank you, and you are no less substantive yourself. We seem to be a bunch of Summer Glaus here.
#263 – Astroande, That is pretty amazing. Here we have a greeting being done by the Scots, Finns, and my grandpa, Dutch. That’s cool! :)
(Off topic. I am sure that Steve have to be laughing about this, considering our last run in.)
What’s past is past.
One lesson I have learned from someone wise on another site is that criticisms should be targeted. If someone has a problem with certain viewpoints on a site, they should have the decency to specifically mention the relevant posters.
You insulting Brenda directly follows that rule. Brenda attributing qualities to atheists, or posters on this site, in general, is not acceptable.
If she says there is bigotry, she should deal with the posters who she feels are at fault, and not make broad accusations.
I have found this a useful rule.
Yeah, Steve. I feel vaguely insulted by Brenda, and she and I haven’t really had any interaction at all.
We seem to be a bunch of Summer Glaus here.
LOVED that!
Good thing they keep us all here, under strict SIWOTI-syndrome quarantine.
She’ll of course counter with her “but PZ judges all Christians, waah waah” response. But I’ve never seen such a far-out crazy use of the tu quoque argument… “I judge you! I judge you!” OK, so you judge us, we get it, what next?
The hatred and lurid sexual obscenities hurled at me
Lurid? Lurid? My dear little girl, you haven’t seen lurid until you’ve been on the wrong end of one of Kseniya’s invectives.
Brenda:
You seem to be determined to take offense at anything anybody says to you, however phrased or however inoffensively meant. Why?
You said:
Whether I am “proud” of what other posters say in their comments is a complete non sequitur; I do not share identity with them. I am responsible for my own words and actions, as you are responsible for yours, and not those of others, even if you happen to be in complete agreement with what they say.
You are entitled to slam me for any insult I, personally direct at you. You are not entitled to slam me for insults, or perceived insults, directed at you by others.
But Carlie, I haven’t called anyone a fobbing rampallian clack-dish in well over a month!
Dammit – the new Oxford dictionary goes asseveration, asshole, assibilate – no asshat.
And just to be clear, I demote Brenda to the humour of a four titted sow. One more crack about lurid sexual remarks and she looses even that ranking.
Of course when someone tells me what an asshat is, I may become insulted.
(Where’s wOO+ when you need a really good visual…?)
Am I the only one who’s having visions of a Pharyngula party with a whole bunch of Summer Glaus? I can’t think of too many things I’d enjoy more. Good conversation and lots of slightly-creepy-but-still-hot actress from one show I loved (Firefly) and another I like (Sarah Connor Chronicles).
Is it just me (I haven’t read all the comments on all the posts) but did Brenda avoid making anything resembling a coherent description of her own belief system? She had having no problems attacking others for theirs, or simply making assumptions (that all the posters were male, or nihilists; all atheists are obviously nihilists) – but she never explained her own worldview (short of saying she was some sort of atheist). I have a feeling that it would have turned out to be a variation on insubstantive woo of the worst (The Secret, perhaps) kind.
Hence the smoke-and-mirrors.
windy
There were excellent and invective-free comments from kcrady and several others.
kcrady tried to pin Tingley’s hidden God argument on me, which I reject, so his long lecture on Osiris was irrelevant. I am a skeptic, I don’t really consider myself an atheist or a theist.
Remember when it was pointed out to you that PZ claims to judge by the MAJORITY, and you admitted that you hadn’t read a MAJORITY of the comments? Remember when it was pointed out that PZ claims to judge a BELIEF SYSTEM, but hasn’t stopped responding to Christians altogether?
Well that’s mighty white of him and I bet if you used all caps that would make your argument even awesomer. I’ve probably read most of the comments by now and the majority are pretty damn ugly. Some in other threads are much worse than “slut”. I still say that it is wrong to point at the likes of Fred Phelps and judge all Christians from him. You here on Pharyngula and PZ all claim that is fair. I deny it. It’s confirmation bias just as my making sweeping generalizations about your belief system is also unfair. I didn’t think I needed to spell that out so literally but I guess I do.
If his criticism was correct, then atheism would be incorrect.
It isn’t really even a matter of being correct or incorrect. That isn’t important and it is not and never has been my point. The structures upon which both theism and atheism are built are the same. Ptahotep, Osiris , YVHV, Buddha or Science, it doesn’t really matter. What does matter is how you chose to behave. The problem is that many atheists today seem to believe that they are different. They are above everyone else. They set themselves apart and lift themselves up in their own eyes. We’ve already seen how that plays out in the arena of the real world. You are no better than those you claim to be superior to.
Steve Zara
You can’t use atheism as a foundation on which to build beliefs, because it is an absence. You can say that being atheist can remove a barrier to certain beliefs, but that is it.
But people do anyway. Linguistically the word “atheist” is a signifier no different than “theist”. I suppose the computer science term would be pointer. Either way it points to or indicates an intellectual concept. That concept or state can signify an “absence” of belief or a “presence” of a belief. And that is something anyone can then transform into a ideology of the absolute dominance of science or rationalism or whatever.
The issue here is about labels. It is about freedom to express absence of belief, and not to have beliefs imposed.
You are more than free to express your absence of a belief, I’m just pulling back the curtain. There is machinery underneath.
Scientism implies that someone considers all questions in life can be dealt with by science. I am afraid that does not apply to me.
It certainly applies to the majority on this blog and frankly, to the majority of atheists. Or is there some kind of ‘woo’ that answers your extra scientific questions?
my “troll” warning lights are flashing. You fit the pattern, I am afraid: generalizing about atheists, generalizing about posters here, throwing about terms designed to “press buttons” (such as “scientism”).
My generalizing about the posters here is a rhetorical device and I’ve been pretty transparent about it saying that if you get to make sweeping generalizations then I do too so how do you like them apples baaaay beee. No one challenges me on that because they can’t. Because it is the big dawg PZ who is making the bullshit and you will all eat it because you are too afraid to go against him. I am right and you know it.
negentropyeater
When I read this, I thought, where did she get her sample of atheists to make her analysis ?
Where does PZ get his? From the creationists and other religious cranks that he is a lightning rod for? Let’s call that by it’s true name, confirmation bias with a big hunk of generalization and a soupçon of arrogance.
windy
This doesn’t make sense even in a Freudian way, wouldn’t belief in a sky-daddy or -mommy be a better way to deal with separation anxiety!? How does non-belief help?
Rejecting God is a great way to reject dad. In fact, you’re killing him, committing fratricide erm deicide. Double points if your name is Oedipus.
SC
She of the many names and numbers with nothing else. That post has 400 comments, this one and a couple more that I’ve commented on are of similar length. If you have something to say you’re going to have to be fairly succinct and then hope it doesn’t get lost between another 100 “Har har har, she said poopy” comments from your 12 year old genius buddies. See how I subtly inject some humor, I’m in ur blargz, winning you over with mah lolz.
Well, there is one thing I’ve been itching to say:
Comma splice!!!
Succinct enough?
Patricide.
GodBelief theism = New GodBelief (“YHWH”);
GodBelief atheism = (null);
Oh! Now I get it, PZ is an idiot.
Sorry – sometimes it takes us dirt plowin’, manure spreadin’ farmers longer than others.
Kseniya, Windy stop being bashful…tell us what you really think. ;)
I haven’t seen you talk about my belief system. You haven’t mentioned secular humanism. Atheism is not a belief system. Perhaps you’re lumping it with scientism or a naturalistic worldview.
As a side-note:
Who here has turned to woo in any of their posts? You were talking to Steve Zara, and he said he also relies on philosophy, so are you saying philosophy is the woo that answers his questions?
One more thing:
Let’s call that by it’s [sic! sic, sic, sic!] true name
But Carlie, I haven’t called anyone a fobbing rampallian clack-dish in well over a month!
Posted by: Kseniya
I ran a google search and this was my result.
I remain very confused.
That went dreadfully wrong. I am more confused than I thought.
Here it is.
What?!
How DARE you use a word like Patricide!
Dear Sir/Madame,
I wish to complain.
Brenda
Now I’m confused. Are you seriously suggesting to me Brenda, that atheism is nothing more that an extension Oedipus complex?
Surely this only works if you are rejecting a monotheistic, paternal god (does anyone know any of those? Oh, right…). Maybe disbelief in Santa falls into this category?
What about those of us who are rejecting nothing, because there is nothing there to reject.
That’s a notpology followed by an assertation that unpleasant or rude behaviour by blog commentators equals a complete lack of morals?! Someone‘s suffering from a lack of perspective and a tendency toward hyperbole.
Only an idiot would make such a claim, and an idiot who would make such a claim immediately after a proffered apology (sincere or not) is a particularly oblivious sort of idiot.
Go stuff your fake apology (“I’m sorry, but it wasn’t my fault”) and begone, you histrionic fool.
Sorry, that should have been an extension of the Oedipus complex.
I’m feeling a little [sic] today.
While we’re on Freud…
Anyone care to offer a pithy pop-psychology analysis of Brenda’s oversensitivity to snide sexual remarks? It’s seriously a bit bizarre….
cicely is actually nice, weird. You sure you belong here?
You seem to be determined to take offense at anything anybody says to you, however phrased or however inoffensively meant. Why?
Notice how you frame that? I’m the one being active in taking offense while you all are therefore blameless and passive because you didn’t give offense. I’ve also been told I am supposed to have a thick skin. I am supposed to just take any sexual innuendo you dish out but you all sure as hell can’t take it. Walton at 301 is right. In spite of my serious disagreements with him.
“What CortxVortx said to Brenda was absolutely inexcusable. That particular slur was, in this context, entirely unjustified and entirely vicious, not to mention redolent of misogyny.”
Whether I am “proud” of what other posters say in their comments is a complete non sequitur; I do not share identity with them. I am responsible for my own words and actions, as you are responsible for yours, and not those of others, even if you happen to be in complete agreement with what they say.
But you do share identity with them. How the people on a blog act collectively reflects on the integrity of whomever is running the blog. It says something about the character of Mr Myers. It also reflects on Science Blogs itself. That’s what living in a world with people who are not you is like. You don’t always get to do what you want whenever you want. You have to moderate your behavior. I understand you can’t do much about that on the internet. That doesn’t make it right.
Secondly, as I explain yet again for yet another time. I am just using PZ’s broad brush to paint you instead of others. The only reason you are complaining is because you are getting some blowback. Heckuva moral compass ya got there cicely. The people you chose to hang with hurt other people for fun. The fact that you chose to stay says something about you.
Brenda:
The fact that you consider being correct “unimportant” does explain quite a bit.
No, not at all, really. People have, correctly, explained this to you already.
Holy shit. Brenda, do lack any sense of self awareness, or do you just spout this crap completely oblivious to the hypocrisy and unintended irony of your words? If atheists are bad because we set ourselves above theists, how bad are you for setting yourself above atheists? (And by projecting utterly bogus psychological motivations on us to boot.)
er…well…this isn’t too pithy – but there was the hot monkey sex offer for Kenney…and then there was Alex trying to score with Brenda. About 400 threads ago I brought up the death from beastiality in Washington. Oh yeah, the immortal “Brenda, you ignorant slut!”
Walton, you pompass ass!
And then some one called all of us asshats – which I don’t get, because an asshat is a crochet, over the forelock, ear net to keep blowflies from laying eggs in the ears of asses. Why that is a bad thing escapes me.
Is that at all helpful Etha?
You sure you belong here?
I’m as sure she belongs here as I am that you don’t.
Secondly, as I explain yet again for yet another time.
Dear Sir/Madame,
I wish to complain about the excessive use of redundancy…
The fact that you chose to stay says something about you.
perfect projection.
Brenda, you’re bugfuck nuts.
get help.
do you just spout this crap completely oblivious to the hypocrisy and unintended irony of your words?
was that a rhetorical question?
In order to make grammatic sense, I realize I should have replaced the word “lack” with “possess” in my above comment. However, in retrospect, I’m glad I didn’t offer her the choice. So, um, yeah.
reuben
What about those of us who are rejecting nothing, because there is nothing there to reject.
So… you reject your own atheism because there is no god to reject in the first place? I’m not sure you’ve thought that all the way through. “Father” and “Mother” are givens.
So, um, yeah.
ah, good.
;)
Because it is the big dawg PZ who is making the bullshit and you will all eat it because you are too afraid to go against him. I am right and you know it.
I’m speechless.
I’m unbelievably pissed off by this thread. I’ve been here for almost two frikkin years and nobody has ever called ME a slut. Lord knows I’ve tried. I’ve flirted with MAJeff, proposed marriage to more than a few people, offered to have the babies of a few more and basically acted like a proper trollop for the entire time yet, no-one, not one solitary Pharyngulite has ever called me a slut. You can all fuck off, I’m not coming back til I get at least two or three “sluts” hurled at me.
From sow to gilt.
So… you reject your own atheism because there is no god to reject in the first place? I’m not sure you’ve thought that all the way through. “Father” and “Mother” are givens.
*shakes head violently*
uh, whaaa?
I’ve flirted with MAJeff, proposed marriage to more than a few people, offered to have the babies of a few more and basically acted like a proper trollop for the entire time yet, no-one, not one solitary Pharyngulite has ever called me a slut.
words aren’t actions!
Frankly, I was withholding final commentary until we got together in NZ*
*nudge-nudge, wink-wink
:p
I’m speechless.
go ahead, you can say it:
Brendairhead is a demented fuckwit.
In fact, I think she is the very definition of troll, as it appears to me she is doing nothing but baiting us, looking for another response she can fake getting the vapors from.
I don’t think she got just how UNSERIOUSLY Seed took her original protestation.
seriously, Brenda, why not just type a post that just says:
“Harumph!”
over and over and over again?
It would get your same point across without the need for anyone else to strain themselves looking for any real meaning in your posts.
Bride of Shrek, you’re so slutty, I thought it was just something so well known that it was unspoken. Glad to help.
As for Brenda, why is it her type have so much trouble typing Dr. Really, the D is closer to the R than M, so why do you say Mr. Myers? Ignorance of his doctorate or disrespect? Jesus, around here we even say Dr. Behe, and lord knows we hate that man.
Bride of Shrek – you slattern! Sixteen titted sow!
Lowdown layer of double yolked eggs!
Shite, now you’re the grand champion at the county fair.
Brenda #292 wrote:
I reject this. I am an atheist because I was born that way (as are we all) and, unlike many of the posters here, was never indoctrinated into any form of theism which I then rejected. Nor was I indoctrinated into atheism for that matter. Is the lack of a structure a structure?
You still haven’t explained what your own cosmology/worldview/etc. is – I’d like to know and I’m sure the other posters here would as well. Or is there a reason you aren’t forthcoming?
Right now you’re hiding behind your indignation and taking pot-shots at people’s ideologies without being strong enough to admit what your own are and face the sort of criticism you’re so keen to dish out.
Woo HOO, we’re all friends again. Thanks guys. My sluttishness reaffirmed, I’m all smiles.
Ichthyic, ooooh you are naughty- but I like you!
(and if any of you Brits can tell me whose catchphrase that was I’d be much obliged- Benny Hill? someone from Are You Being Served?)
HH
The fact that you consider being correct “unimportant” does explain quite a bit.
Read it again. It doesn’t matter in the current discussion whether or not atheism is factually correct or not. What matters is that it functions for many here and elsewhere as an ideology.
No, not at all, really. People have, correctly, explained this [what atheism is] to you already.
I don’t agree, but if you shout it a little louder that will make you right. Maybe you are used to bullying people into accepting what you say is true?
Holy shit. Brenda, do lack any sense of self awareness, or do you just spout this crap completely oblivious to the hypocrisy and unintended irony of your words? If atheists are bad because we set ourselves above theists, how bad are you for setting yourself above atheists?
But I don’t think I’m better than you. I do think I have perhaps a better understanding of certain things but I don’t believe that makes me superior than you. Yeah, I got bent out of shape, lost my cool and said some things I regret. I apologized for my role. You all have not done likewise, not even close. You all remain smug and self righteous. You, collectively, have a sense of entitlement. I’m calling bullshit on that and THAT is what really gets everyone upset. That’s what this is really about.
And another:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/8/S0130800.html
Take that and [sic] it, von Ahsen.
#322 wrote:
This sounds like Barbara Windsor (probably to Sid James) in the Carry On films to me. But I’m happy to be corrected.
Wait just one damned minute Bride of Shrek, you slut, that was from the episode of Mrs. Slocum’s pussy being gassed.
*headesk
Atheism is not a rejection of a particular god. Like Wowbagger above I was never indoctrinated in the first place, I have nothing to reject per se.
I simply don’t believe in things that doesn’t exist (god, tooth fairy, politeness on the internet), when there is no evidence that they do. That is all.
I absolutely didn’t become an atheist to reject my dad – perhaps you know someone who did?
sorry for my persistent [sic]ness, that should be things that don’t exist.
Ah… to be young again. When I would be less inclined to duck a flying slut…
That is what you meant yes?
reuben, its an idea floating around among the religious. Apparently, they think there’s a statistical correlation between people who grow up with no father and atheism. I haven’t bothered to look it up, but someone should. Even if there is correlation, it doesn’t necessarily imply causation (as we all know).
Maybe you are used to bullying people into accepting what you say is true?
well, was this the first time you tried to bully an entire blog by “reporting” it to the host company? If not, then I’d say you’re the one that would be used to bullying people.
I mean, even it was your first time, you’d still be the expert on that kind of behavior.
My dearest Ms von Ahsen,
I hereby profusely apologise for calling you an Asshat, a Slut, a Whore, Fag, Rapscallion, Windbag, etc. I hope you will kindly accept my humble apology so that we can continue with our regular polite discourse.
Warmest regards,
Reuben
—
Better now? Should we all do this? What do you want from us exactly?
Brenda, #323, wrote:
Who on earth are you referring to in these comments?Seriously, stop with the generalisations.
(There’s that smell again…)
Wowbagger
I am an atheist because I was born that way (as are we all) and, unlike many of the posters here, was never indoctrinated into any form of theism which I then rejected. Nor was I indoctrinated into atheism for that matter. Is the lack of a structure a structure?
None at all Wowbagger? Really truly? Lemme see here… umm… oh, here we go. “I reject this.” There ya go hun. Everyone is an individual Wowbagger and yet we are the same in many ways. We all react differently, some like Patricia just fall apart into a stream of obscenities. I don’t pretend to know you personally. What I do feel is that I have a good idea how people work as people. What is my cosmology? Hell I don’t know, whatever the cosmologists are saying these days. I don’t really care.
Ichthyic
uh, whaaa?
One of the first things I said was that I thought there would be a language problem. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you tried treating me like a human being and not shitting on me because I don’t fit your expectations maybe we could get somewhere. One of the biggest problems I’ve had has been that everything I say is taken so damn literally. Everyone here is so concrete in their thinking. My fault is that I have a hard time translating what I want to say into something you understand. And then someone comes along and shits in the thread, I get pissed off and 300 comments later there is no hope of any kind of discussion at all. Maybe it’s hopeless.
“Anyone care to offer a pithy pop-psychology analysis of Brenda’s oversensitivity to snide sexual remarks?”
Well, there seem to be unresolved “daddy issues” between her and “Mr. Myers”. *shrug*
“but she never explained her own worldview”
Thus far, I’ve been able to discern a whole lot of this oh-so noble yearning for Something More than what “scientism” can provide. How she proposes to get beyond that is hazy; shades of the usual “other ways of knowing” people who never explain just what those other ways of knowing actually are, and why they would be at all reliable.
Other than that, mostly it’s just been aspersions cast against the rest of us, weird psychobabble amid familiar tirades against elitist (in the Get Your War On sense of “not the dumbest guy in the room”) thinking. And this weird obsession with how we supposedly judge people and ideas and how they reflect upon this blog, its maintainer (who surely has better things to do than read every single comment thread and micromanage it), and, most bizarrely, ScienceBlogs itself.
The phrase “psycho hose beast” comes to mind.
Oh, and Bride O’ Shrek is the sluttiest slut that ever slutted around the interblags.
Perhaps, just perhaps, if you tried treating me like a human being and not shitting on me because I don’t fit your expectations
The irony is (yes, I realize irony is entirely lost on you), that you actually DO fit my expectations.
The same expectations I had of you since your very first post.
Maybe it’s hopeless.
you’re getting warmer.
Brenda babbled:
Where, exactly, is the mother figure that we’re going to get to fuck after killing daddy-god? Your application of Freudian psychology is utterly nonsensical.
If you insist on going with the paternal metaphor, rejection of the daddy god (for those who ever accepted it in the first place) is more like the abused/neglected child’s realization that no matter how much he waits, no matter how good he is, no matter how hard he tries to pretend otherwise, his daddy still won’t care.
Dennis N
reuben, its an idea floating around among the religious. Apparently, they think there’s a statistical correlation between people who grow up with no father and atheism.
I’m not religious. That’s not what I’m saying.
ruben
I absolutely didn’t become an atheist to reject my dad – perhaps you know someone who did?
Well no, not your father per se. But we all work out our Oedipal complex in unique ways. Although even that isn’t correct but maybe it’s something you can understand.
Sigh. I tried, I really did. She’s managed to try even my infinitely prolonged patience.
Now you get the Wowbagger special:
You’re a jerk, Brenda. A complete asshole.
Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to complain about offensive racist language…
So Ichthyic – you think you can just haul off and say “Harumph” in front of Ms. Brenda? And look at you Reuben, you wrote “Rapscallion”.
Obscene, lurid, sexual remarks.
Next thing you know Cortx Vortx will show up and say, Bride of Shrek, you ignorant slut!
Don’t you icky-cootie-little BOYS use any word stronger than ‘piffle’ or I’ll tell.
Etha Williams
Where, exactly, is the mother figure that we’re going to get to fuck after killing daddy-god?
You expect to be able to locate her in the real world? (checks your blog) Ahhh, I see you have already found her. Good for you. Lesbians are the only true heterosexuals. (See, I told there would be a language barrier.)
Yes, if it wasn’t my highly structured worldview of rejecting absolute nonsense for which there is no evidence at all, I guess my life would fall apart.
I thought modern psychology rejects most all of Freud’s ideas, especially the creepy sex parts. I understand that Brenda studied her psychology very well, class of 1910.
Brenda,
Proof by assertion?
Atheism is often the by-product of an evolving belief-set. That much is obvious. Atheism by way of deconversion may then subsequently become an integral part of a worldview, and may inform future modifications to that worldview, without being the foundation upon which the worldview is built.
You mentioned “pointers” as a metaphor. You will note that my perhaps overly succinct response to that was to suggest that the atheism pointer may simply be a null pointer of type godBelief, rather than a pointer to a belief system of type “atheism” as you suggest. Or should I say, as you insist.
There is more than one way to model this. The way you conceptualize it may work for you, but for those who came to atheism the long way, your model may not accurately reflect their reality.
As I conceptualize it, the object model is based on a worldView class, and includes a godBelief class (amongst others). The worldView class includes a pointer to an object of type godBelief. This pointer may be null. Other properties of the worldView object may depend on the value of the worldView.godBelief pointer, and perhaps upon the values of certain properties within a the populated godBelief object when the aforementioned pointer is not null, but these properties may not necessarily be religious in nature or depend on a non-null godBelief. For example, a worldview that rejects the notion of reincarnation may be based on either the lack of god-belief, or on a god-belief that excludes the possibility of reincarnation.
Ack… headache pounding again. Better stop thinking so hard.
Obviously, there’s more than one way to approach this, and maybe a more sensible implementation would be to populate a godBelief object for atheism (but with a null deity, or something… LOL) but I would argue against building the entire worldView on the godBelief class. A worldview encompasses god-belief, not vice-versa, even in cases where the god-belief dominates the worldview.
“(See, I told there would be a language barrier.)”
Too right. We don’t speak Crazy here.
Oh yeah…. before I forget:
Bride of Shrek, thou frothy pottle-deep harlot!!
Clearly, Brenda is trying to cast an atheistic instance of worldView as a type godBelief.
Well, the Pharyngula compiler ain’t havin’ it.
Dennis N
I thought modern psychology rejects most all of Freud’s ideas,
He made important contributions that have been greatly expanded upon but if I mention modern post-structuralist thinkers like Lacan or Deleuze ya’ll will just run for the hills. At least Freud is someone we vaguely have in common.
The best thing to do would be put forward ideas and not worry about names.
No, you didn’t. You acknowledged your behaviour and blamed others for it.
That’s not an apology.
“Some like Patricia just fall apart into a stream of obscenities.”
Madame, I do NOT limit myself to obscenities.
I revel in blasphemy, gluttony, lust, fornication, lieing, tempting men, maybe tempting women (?), telling little children the truth…
oh shit – I’m off topic.
It’s not my fault, it’s Bride of Shrek. She’s a slut.
Watch out, Brenda knows both Lacan and Deleuze! We are all doomed!
How do you expect any single one of us to take you seriously Brenda, when you continue to make sweeping assumptions about what we as a group think, ne, know.
Rather than dumbing down everything for us, assuming we are ignorant, try engaging on the level you feel is appropriate, and see if anyone bites then.
No. Absolutely not.
Theism is built on blind faith in the transmission of tradition. It asserts that the imaginary is more important than the evidence of the real. At its best, it is merely a comforting story; at its worst, it demands murder for the sake of the imaginary.
Atheism does not. It rejects the blind faith. It follows from the basic inference that the evidence of the real is more important than the imaginary. By itself, it does not comfort, but neither does it require death.
“Some like Patricia just fall apart into a stream of obscenities.”
Madame, I do NOT limit myself to obscenities.
I revel in blasphemy, gluttony, lust, fornication, lieing, tempting men, maybe tempting women (?), telling little children the truth…
oh shit – I’m off topic.
It’s not my fault, it’s Bride of Shrek. She’s a slut.
LOL
best post so far, IMO.
@#344 Brenda —
???
Where in my blog do I say *anything* about my sexuality?
It’s not my fault, it’s Bride of Shrek. She’s a slut.
I know the feeling, Patricia.
I’m really disappointed in myself, I don’t know what got into me. I just got caught up in the emotion of it all and lost my cool. But Bride of Shrek has nothing to be proud of either. She piles on, very unprofessional. The only way I can understand that is to chalk it up to her immaturity and the fact that she lacks any moral guidelines at all. I mean, it is pretty obvious to any observer. Her moral bankruptcy is on full display. Someone reading this would naturally ask themselves “Is Bride of Shrek the kind of people that I would want to be around?” The answer to that question is a clear and resounding no! Congratulations.
Where in my blog do I say *anything* about my sexuality?
interesting.
Is Brenda stalking you?
http://www.flayme.com/stalker/
I think you should file a report with your local authorities right away!
Hot damn! I got me a stream of ‘obscenities’ – will someone alert Stephen Fry?
It’s west coast time for us old gals to go to bed.
Good night YOU SLUTS!
Brenda:
Too Long, Didn’t Read.
Also, what’s with the christotrolls and the cutting and pasting of long quotes. Think for yourself, or at least paraphrase it and we’ll know you actually read and comprehended it.
As for the rest of you, see? I managed to be a dick without calling someone else one! Win!
@#360 Ichthyic —
If so she’s doing a pretty shitty job of it, considering that she was only half right. Even Kenny did better.
Or maybe a letter to Seed…..
Etha
I’m guessing Brenda saw a cute student with short hair, misread your “out campaign” link, and jumped to conclusions.
Brenda – am I wrong? Please correct me on this.
Kseniya
As I conceptualize it, the object model is based on a worldView class, and includes a godBelief class (amongst others). The worldView class includes a pointer to an object of type godBelief. This pointer may be null.
Not too bad. Language consists of signs and symbols and meaning is constructed by grouped systems of these elements. “Atheism” as I conceive it is a signifier of the absence of belief in god. Or perhaps it is a presence of a rejection of god. I suppose it could go either way. But irregardless it is still an symbolic object around which it is possible for someone to erect an ideological frame. My claim is that that is exactly what has happened through history. All I have to do is look at the former USSR or China to see vast numbers of people living in under an atheistic ideology. Here in the US I once met Madalyn Murray O’Hair years ago. She was just as arrogant and egotistical as many atheists today. I’m not seeing any improvement here.
My point was that atheism doesn’t have to be the reaction to a structure. It can be, for those who have had a theistic structure – but for those who never had it in the first place it’s different.
I’m no more rejecting god than I am rejecting leprechauns or unicorns (invsible & pink or otherwise) – i simply don’t believe in them and never have.
The difference is significant.
“Also, what’s with the christotrolls”
She’s not Christian. Don’t be hasty.
So is my hat. What is your point? Sorry to be an Ignorant Asshat but I really don’t understand what you are getting at here.
Brenda met someone and didn’t like them? Well, doesn’t that just blow my little world apart!
I wonder who she complained about O’Hair to.
@#365 Brenda von Ahsen —
How is communism built on a framework of atheism? Marx saw religion as part of the larger problem of class consciousness:
No one will deny that atheism is a part of communist ideology, but it’s ridiculous to say that it’s the foundation of that ideology. That would be the Young Hegelian movement.
(And the pragmatic adoption of state atheism as part of the govs of the USSR and China is much more about wielding a useful tool to control dissenting groups than setting a philosophical political foundation.)
But irregardless [si…well, OK, she is finally trying to make a point, so no comment]
Etha Williams
Where in my blog do I say *anything* about my sexuality?
I saw the posts on gay pride issues and you asked me about “the mother figure that we’re going to get to fuck”. I’m sorry did I make a mistake? Sorry, I apologize.
I am,quite simply, in love with you all… you have done me proud. This is one gratefully tearful little slut sitting here at her keyboard.
Brenda #365 wrote:
My, how patronising. Especially to someone like Kseniya. When you throw obnoxious non-words like irregardless about that’s just begging for it.
I just realized something:
We cannot call Bride of Shrek an ignorant slut, because that would be false, libelous, untrue, and defaming of her character.
Bride of Shrek is obviously a knowledgeable slut!
that’s just begging for it.
wait, didn’t she just report us for calling her a slut?
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html
SC, Dawkins starts that essay with:
Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say…
uh huh.
I think Brenda must have read that essay, and taken that bit as encouragement instead of admonition.
OTOH, you’re a right slut for not posting that sooner.
:p
Etha Williams –
How is communism built on a framework of atheism?
Atheism can also be a vale of tears for which it is a halo.
To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.
The human condition requires illusion, phantasy. I’d say it’s a good thing to give up religion but that will only usher in other phantasies. Isn’t that what we see today? Modern consumer driven culture barely even touches the ground any more.
I don’t think illusion is bad, it can be. It’s what makes life worth living.
Why?
Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to complain about incoherent vacuous language…
@Bride of Shrek:
If you’re still interested (you ignorant slut?) that’s Mandy, one of Dick Emery’s creations, slightly misquoted; the correct version has “awful”, not “naughty”.
He was a comedian/impressionist I remember from my childhood (long,long ago) who had a show on the Beeb – see:
http://www.teletronic.co.uk/dickemery.htm
she’s described on the second page, but her catchphrase is in the first paragraph on that page.
Sokal affair
The affair spilled out of academia and into the mainstream press, and commentators are divided on the level of its consequences. Anthropologist Bruno Latour, one of those singled out by Sokal in his later book, has described the whole affair as a “tempest in a tea cup.” Mathematician Gabriel Stolzenberg, however, has written a number of essays with the stated purpose of debunking the claims made by Sokal and his allies. He argues that Sokal and company do not possess a sufficient understanding of the philosophical positions that they criticize and that this lack of understanding renders their criticisms meaningless.
From the Dawkins paper;
“all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle”
Oh wait, you folks don’t actually assert the law of the exclude middle as a priori truth do you? I gots some baaaad news.
Brenda, you mentioned fantasy. Have you consumed some this of this substance? Are you guilty of posting under the influence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-hydroxybutyrate
It’d explain a lot.
OTOH, you’re a right slut for not posting that sooner.
*blushes*
I wanted to work up to it slowly, teasing you with other comments while letting the excitement build…;)
I’m unbelievably pissed off by this thread. I’ve been here for almost two frikkin years and nobody has ever called ME a slut. Lord knows I’ve tried. I’ve flirted with MAJeff, proposed marriage to more than a few people, offered to have the babies of a few more and basically acted like a proper trollop for the entire time yet, no-one, not one solitary Pharyngulite has ever called me a slut. You can all fuck off, I’m not coming back til I get at least two or three “sluts” hurled at me.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek
What is wrong, Bride Of Shrek? If you remember, I had a rather violent reaction to your flirting with MAJeff. I believe I said something along the lines that you are frying my evil lesbian brain. Now if I known that all you wanted was to be called Slut Of Shrek, I would have happily called you that.
Slut Of Shrek!
Slut Of Shrek!
Slut Of Shrek!
I hope you feel better.
S-L-U-T
She may be a slut
But she looks good to me.
Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to complain about a slut that hangs around the premise..
Latour’s a bit more contrite of late:
http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/issues/v30/30n2.Latour.html
< blockquote >Oh wait, you folks don’t actually assert the law of the exclude middle as a priori truth do you? I gots some baaaad news.
Ok Brenda, you win. You are smarter than me. You are smarter than all of us! Yay!
What are you doing here exactly?
Heh, I think a few of us “ladies” need to get this quaint little offering from the chaps at Landover.
http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist.199835061
Mind you I could also imagine a few of the lads here in one too.
@#378 Brenda von Ahsen —
There’s a difference between illusion and fantasy. Illusion is a misperception of reality, and thus thinks itself to be real (eg, religion); fantasy is generally able to recognize itself as unreal. When it is not able to do so, it becomes psychosis.
“The human condition requires illusion, phantasy.”
reuben:
Why?
That is just how we work. Sort of like this thread which consists of the libidinal offal of a number of the posters here. They construct their own virtual phantasy image of me and post their ejecta. I guess I’m supposed to flattered. I’m not.
Our relationships with others are based largely phantasy. We wouldn’t have it any other way. In fact, encountering the real “other” in someone can spell the end of the relationship.
He argues that Sokal and company do not possess a sufficient understanding of the philosophical positions that they criticize and that this lack of understanding renders their criticisms meaningless.
READ:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php
then go the fuck away.
Slut Of Shrek, I simply must have one of those t-shirts. Do you think we could convince Landover Baptist to print up a t-shirt that states Ignorant Slut? Better yet, make it a long sleeved and ankle lenght dress.
They construct their own virtual phantasy image of me and post their ejecta. I guess I’m supposed to flattered. I’m not.
It was not meant to be flattering.
That is just how we work. Sort of like this thread which consists of the libidinal offal of a number of the posters here. They construct their own virtual phantasy image of me and post their ejecta.
Ew. Just ew.
Brenda,
[cue’s soft music, lights fire]
Like Ichthyic, I could tell from your initial post to this thread that your fingernails on the chalkboard approach to the dialog made you look like a spoiled child gearing up for a supermarket tantrum. The fact is you’ve offered nothing but angst to this thread with your holier-than-thou attitude and pathetic post-tattle apology. Your hollow atheist, non-atheist blather and philosophical ramblings are so poorly explained; whatever interesting discussion you do have to offer is overshadowed by your efforts to continuously play your intellectual trump card.
So instead of stomping your feet and complaining about the content, climate and personalities on, SOMEONE ELSE’S blog -as others have mentioned, you might try a more subtle and subdued approach to your snarky pit-bull tactics. Otherwise, please, just take your toys and go home.
Are you suggesting that non-constructive proofs that depend on the law of the excluded middle aren’t valid?
But first, clarify what you mean by “a priori” and “excluded middle.”
It is not at all clear to me that you know what those words mean, in the sense that I understand them.
Do tell.
No, what I was asking is why you insist on spelling it phantasy. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I retract my previous question about “a priori” and “excluded middle,” for the time being.
I’ll be away camping a few days, and not around to see your answer or respond. Sorry.
Brenda wrote:
You’ve obviously spent a lot of time arguing against males, haven’t you? Are you choosing to ignore the fact that there are as many (if not more) women on this blog who are calling you on your nebulous bullshit?
I’m not one of them (women that is; I’m still calling you on your nebulous bullshit), but it’s very irritating – and makes you look ridiculous. There’s nothing more pathetic than someone who’s had things pointed out to them and yet they just keep plugging along regardless. Like an in-class debate in high school where you still get marks for trying.
No-one’s grading you on how you do here, Brenda. School’s out.
Brenda
That’s disgusting, can you please clean your ejecta off my computer- it’s making the keypad all sticky.
“No, what I was asking is why you insist on spelling it phantasy.”
Someone call Gerald Spezio, I think we may have found him a match.
Not too bad. Language consists of signs and symbols and meaning is constructed by grouped systems of these elements. “Atheism” as I conceive it is a signifier of the absence of belief in god. Or perhaps it is a presence of a rejection of god. I suppose it could go either way. But irregardless it is still an symbolic object around which it is possible for someone to erect an ideological frame.
No.
You are confusing the label with what is labelled again – the signifier with the signified.
It is possible to build a cause around having rights as an atheist. It is possible to build a cause around the right to label oneself atheist, for example. It is not possible to build a cause around the idea of atheism, because there is nothing there – atheism is an absense. It has, in itself, no features, no characterists, zilch.
All I have to do is look at the former USSR or China to see vast numbers of people living in under an atheistic ideology.
That still does not mean that the ideology was founded on atheism – it just means that atheism was one of the characteristics of an underlying ideology.
It is easy to see why you are wrong by examining how people build ideologies with a religion. We’ll then attempt to switch this to deal with atheism.
A Regligious person might say “I had a dream. In it I spoke to God, and he said do this…”.
Right. Let’s try this for atheism:
“I had a dream. In it I didn’t speak to God, as he doesn’t exist, and he said…”
See the problem?
Trying to build an ideology with atheism is like trying to build a fire with no fuel.
Even if someone believes that the world should be atheist, that belief can’t have been founded on atheism, as there is no foundation!
Paul W
I mean that the Law of the Excluded Middle is rejected by constructive mathematicians. Or understood in such a way that classical logic is seen as the 2d analogue to 3d space. If we take sets to be like topological spaces then LEM can be understood as “all spaces are discrete”. This is true within the domain of classical mathematics. But many topological domains are continuous and it would be useful to drop LEM so that more general constructivist tools can be used.
Our relationships with others are based largely phantasy.
Speak for yourself.
We wouldn’t have it any other way. In fact, encountering the real “other” in someone can spell the end of the relationship.
Firstly, I think this is a desperately immature attitude. Many of us are in long term relationships with partners we do know, and we accept their faults.
I don’t care how much you think it is necessary. This is a small and interdependent world. Having a large proportion of the population wandering around in a fog of delusion, believing that it is only a few thousand years old, that Jesus will lift them into heaven, and that they have a hotline to the creator, scares me, to be honest. It is like having the majority of humanity on drugs, and we have seen what can happen when some have a bad trip.
Brenda,
OK, constructivism, maybe intuitionist math… but I gotta say it sounds like you’re really reaching to connect that up to the condescending flaming you’ve been doing about scientism, atheism, etc.
You really need to work on flaming less and explaining yourself more.
In particular, never ever write condescending, pretentious shit like this:
Even if you can some how connect up constructionist math with something (strong program? Dummett’s Catholicism?) and make your way to debunking atheist scientistic “ideology”… you will never, ever get there.
Because you sound like a pretentious crank, and an asshole. You will be dogpiled by people who may not know what the excluded middle is, but don’t take you seriously enough to ask.
You will also be ignored by people like me who do know what the excluded middle is, and that it’s important in epistemology, but don’t particularly care about your opinion.
Why? Because we know that millions of mathematicians and logicians mostly disagree with your apparent position, and you don’t show that you’re able to explain yourself. Sure, that’s an ad populum argument, but in the real world it’s also a filter that you have to get past.
You have to make your pitch, and make it plausible that you’re the special person who can sort it out for us.
Stop being such a condescending asshole, and start making a sincere effort to communicate, or give up and go away.
There are actual philosophers and mathematicians who read this blog. They are not talking to you.
That is your fault.
There are a lot of reasonable and intelligent people on this blog, and you’re wasting time calling them names and playing the victim card.
I go against the grain on this blog on a regular basis. I’m more likely to speak up if I have something very different to say than what’s already being said.
And for the most part, I get away with it, and I get a fair hearing. I may get some flames at first, but after a while people usually see where I’m coming from, and either agree or at least don’t think I’m just a pretentious fool for disagreeing with them.
If you’re going to go against the grain, you have to be patient, work hard at communicating, and have a thick skin. That’s just the way life is, everywhere.
Wow, is it me, or is Brenda unwinding and becoming more and more unhinged?
This was mentioned before, but Brenda, using the phrase “mighty white of him” is a hell of a lot more offensive than quoting Dan Ackroyd.
I saw the posts on gay pride issues and you asked me about “the mother figure that we’re going to get to fuck”.
Brenda, you ignorant… oh, never mind. News flash: heterosexuals can care about gay pride issues. And that’s the second half of the whole Oedipus killing his dad bit; he fucked his mother, yes? You can’t go throwing around names without knowing what they mean.
Struggling up out of lurk mode…
Well, made it all the way to Brenda’s #292 before spitting coffee. “Well that’s mighty white of him” Why thakee Miz Brenda, you want me to drive you home now? Brenda, you really do have an ugly “soul”*. Is your life so miserable that you must take it out on others? Is your own “heart” so empty? Is your sexuality so twisted that you assume all are boys out to sexually torment you? Oh wait, you have answered all that.
Well, I am not the nicest person on this blog, by far, but allow me to extend you a sincere and heartfelt wish that you find another blog to haunt. Alternately, you can take something with sharp corners and insert it into your anal passage, though you might wish to remove your head first. Oh, just to help you out, the above paragraph is intentionally insulting. The first one was calling you on your insensitivity.
*Use whatever word you think best.
Ciao
Regarding The Brenda :
The term “formal thought disorder” comes to mind.
How interesting and aggravating this has all become. And funny, too.
Brenda, I would firstly like to agree with and thank PaulW for taking you to task over the inanity of your latest argument. Trotting out difficult maths and philosophy questions in order to condescend is, quite simply, retarded.
There are lots of people on this blog who have done their best to try and explain to you where you went wrong on your take of what atheism means; and you simply ignore it by saying you don’t think they’re right.
A = without ; theism = god(s)
There is no ideology there. Atheism can be a characteristic, even one you don’t particularly like, but it is not an ideology. No amount of you disagreeing can change that.
Then you said, “”Atheism” as I conceive it is a signifier of the absence of belief in god. Or perhaps it is a presence of a rejection of god.” Ack! You were so nearly there! It is not a rejection!!! You can think you’re cute and clever by talking about Oedipus and Freud, but sooner or later you will have to face facts. You cannot reject something which isn’t there.
Peep this, shorty (see, I can use ‘hip’ language, too) – Lack of belief is not the opposite of belief. That would be disbelief. We, none of us, have disbelief.
Kseniya said it best when she said, “Atheism is often the by-product of an evolving belief-set. That much is obvious. Atheism by way of deconversion may then subsequently become an integral part of a worldview, and may inform future modifications to that worldview, without being the foundation upon which the worldview is built.”
Everyone has been correct in questioning your reading comprehension skills.
Finally, you complained “One of the biggest problems I’ve had has been that everything I say is taken so damn literally.” Yet you, Brenda, were the first person to go running to tattle when something intended as a joke was taken literally. And you’re still insisting that ‘lurid sexual obscenities’ were said to you. No. They weren’t. You had the audacity to take something someone said literally. For shame, Brenda.
I too had a coffee-spitting moment over Brenda’s “…that’s mighty white of him” comment in post 292. First of all, I didn’t think that anyone used that phrase any more. Secondly, I can’t believe that the person using it is the same one who was offended by a well-known line from an old television show. Brenda, may I suggest that you read and edit your own comments before posting them. I think that you will find that this will help you write more succinct and coherent arguments that don’t contain unintended racial slurs.
Re #404 Brenda is right that there are logics in which LEM does not hold; or equivalently, where ~~P does not imply P; and that the axioms of classical logic can be interpreted in terms of spaces with discrete topology, while those of constructivist or intuitionist logic, which does not allow P to be derived from ~~P, can similarly be interpreted in terms of more general topological spaces. However, this itself can be used to “embed” classical logic within constructivist logic, showing that if constructivist logic is sound (roughly speaking, will never lead from true premises to false conclusions), so is classical logic. Moreover, from the way she expresses herself on the topic, like Paul W. I suspect she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about.
If we take sets to be like topological spaces
A topological space is defined as a set with some additional structure. This additional structure can be defined in various ways, but the most common relies on the concept of an “open set”, defined by the Hausdorff axioms:
A topological space is a set X together with a collection of open subsets T that satisfies the four conditions:
1. The empty set is in T.
2. X is in T.
3. The intersection of a finite number of sets in T is also in T.
4. The union of an arbitrary number of sets in T is also in T.
So for any set with more than one member, one can define more than one topology. A “discrete space” is one in which all sets are open.
Or understood in such a way that classical logic is seen as the 2d analogue to 3d space.
All discrete spaces are of dimension 0.
many topological domains are continuous
In topology, “continuous” is a property of functions, not spaces; and in fact, all functions from a discrete space to any topological space are continuous.
On the subject of Oedipus, I can’t resist posting the lyrics of Tom Lehrer’s song, just in case some of you young whippersnappers have never heard it:
From the Bible to the popular song,
There’s one theme that we find right along.
Of all ideals they hail as good,
The most sublime is Motherhood.
There was a man, oh, who it seems,
Once carried this ideal to extremes.
He loved his mother and she loved him,
And yet his story is rather grim.
There once lived a man named Oedipus Rex.
You may have heard about his odd complex.
His name appears in Freud’s index
‘Cause he loved his mother.
His rivals used to say quite a bit,
That as a monarch he was most unfit.
But still in all they had to admit
That he loved his mother.
Yes he loved his mother like no other.
His daughter was his sister and his son was his brother.
One thing on which you can depend is,
He sure knew who a boy’s best friend is!
When he found what he had done,
He tore his eyes out one by one.
A tragic end to a loyal son
Who loved his mother.
So be sweet and kind to Mother,
Now and then have a chat.
Buy her candy or some flowers or a brand new hat.
But maybe you had better let it go at that!
Or you may find yourself with a quite complex complex,
And you may end up like Oedipus.
I’d rather marry a duck-billed platypus,
Than end up like old Oedipus Rex.
We’ve made some progress toward discovering Brenda’s beliefs, despite her best efforts – we now know she considers Lacan and Deleuze important thinkers. Perhaps she could explain why she, and how their ideas cast light on the topics of this thread?
On the other hand, two steps forward, one step back. Brenda several times described herself as an atheist (given her diatribes against atheism, I had concluded she must be a “self-hating atheist”), but on this thread, she has said she regards herself as “neither a theist nor an atheist”. So it seems we have to drop the law of non-contradiction as well as the LEM!
By the way, Brenda, you kindly answered my enquiry:
Who do you mean by “you”, Brenda? Atheists, or atheists who comment here?
with
Sorry, I meant “you” third person, the denizens of pharyngula.
However, my query was put forward in a specific context. Steve Zara@186 denied that atheism was an ideology. You responded @211 with the following:
That’s an interesting blindspot you have there. Did you just define yourself out of existence? But that can’t be, you clearly exist. You have social, political and philosophical beliefs that you share more or less in common with each other. You have a group identity and yet you claim not to exist as any definable ideology. That comes in pretty handy doesn’t it? You get to criticize everyone else and yet no one can touch you. Sweet.
It was the “You” in that paragraph I asked about @216, making quite clear I was doing so by quoting part of the above. So Steve was talking about atheists at large, making quite clear he was doing so, and you responded as if he was talking about denizens of Pharungula. Why?
Okay. This is my first post here, so please excuse my lack of forum etiquette. Ofcourse, we need a sense of wonder and mystery, this is what compells us to investigate and understand the world around us. You are asserting that this can only be found in some kinde of (pseudo-)religion. Another way of handling that would be to actually study something and explain it, which I will admit, leads only to the next unknown. But sometimes the journey is more important than the arrival. ‘Finding Itaka’ comes to mind.
Judging from afar, I’ve only been lurking here for a couple of months, I can only catagorize you as a troll. Your arguments are cherry-picked to suit some kind of contrarian viewpoint. If you truly are a skeptic ,which I doubt, you’re so hung up on that that you’re trying to be a skeptic skeptic now.
Brenda, here’s too you:
http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg
Actually, this would be better:
http://assassaindolphin.files.wordpress.com/8852/09/palm.jpg
Kind regards,
Rhysz
P.S.
Being an Atheist is like ‘killing daddy’? If daddy was ‘jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.’ (Dawkins) I think it would, at the very least, a moral imperative to consider illing him. I can not, in good conscience, give you the high ground on this one.
Hey Rhysz,
When you did you meet my dad?!
He really doesn’t get out much so I am quite surprised.
This is trivial, but because nobody has mentioned it, I’m beginning to doubt myself. Consider this sentence:
Sorry, I meant “you” third person, the denizens of pharyngula.
Shouldn’t that be second person plural, rather than third person? Third person would be he, she, it, they… no? Whereas second person is limited to thou/you. Yes? Or am I having (another) brain cramp? :-|
Regarding Brenda’s “Not too bad” response to my object-model comment, I wasn’t offended. I took it as a pinch of grudging praise from one whose baseline attitude, as exhibited here anyways, appears to range only between condescending and snide. It was both “not too bad” and “in no way comprehensive” – so Brenda’s succinct assessment wasn’t unfair, IMO.
Brenda, I’d like to try to refine this slightly, if possible, if only to aid my own understanding of what you mean. It seems to me that “rejection of god” may lead to atheism, but is not itself atheism. Or perhaps the lack of belief – or, more specifically, the loss of belief – leads to rejection of the god-concept, but not to the rejection of god per se because, as others have pointed out, once the belief in the entity is gone, there’s no entity to reject. Either way, it’s the lack of belief, not the rejection, that defines the atheist.
Consider that it’s possible for a theist to reject god without ceasing to believe in god. You know, the whole “angry at god” thing. (In fiction, the protagonist usually comes back around by the end of the story and once again embraces god. In reality – who knows?) In these cases, one could not claim that atheism as the basis of that rejection.
I agree it is possible, but not common. I admit this is difficult to prove one way or the other. Does an naturalistic worldview provide a foundation for atheism, or vice-versa? Tough call – I suppose it varies from person to person, and depends on the heirarchy of belief established primarily (or so I suppose) by way of chronology. I would argue, however, for the former – consider the functional equivalence between deism, agnosticism, and atheism. Naturalism supports all three. On the other hand, the loss of belief in god(s) would also commonly lead to a naturalistic worldview, unless the god-shaped hole got filled with woo. ;-) It depends on the experience of the individual under consideration, I guess.
Yes, yes, but the point has been made that atheism is a property of the underyling ideology, not the foundation. I do not believe that Marx began with the proposition that god does not exists. I’d say “an ideology that includes atheism” rather than “an atheistic ideology”. Moot distinction? Maybe. But if so, why are we all talking about it?
I find it revealing that Brenda would compare rejection of god with rejecting dad….
Why do you think I refer to god as big sky daddy? It is the ultimate father figure.
Well, Clinteas, it makes sense when you consider that in neo-Freudian psychoanalysis, the rejection of Bigfoot is symbolic of killing Cousin It.
You’re quite right, Kseniya. It’s just that there’s so much to criticize in Brenda’s writing that it takes time to get around to everything. And when there is so much substance to critique, elementary grammar errors tend to get lost in the process.
Personally, she lost any remaining vestige of sympathy I might have had when she deployed the “mighty white” trope; I haven’t heard that one used the way Brenda did since I escaped from Alabama.
*Chuckles*
Yeah good one Kseniya hehe…
So,anyway,423 comments onwards after PZ ruled on the case of the people vs The Brenda,and here we are still wasting our time on the new batch of trolls that the Expelled thingy has washed ashore….
I say,move on and get back to business !
Personally, she lost any remaining vestige of sympathy I might have had when she deployed the “mighty white” trope; I haven’t heard that one used the way Brenda did since I escaped from Alabama.
To be honest, I had never seen/heard that expression before Brenda used it here (which so totally means I’m not racist ;)). I just googled it. Mr. von Ahsen has some explaining to do, I’d say.
Shouldn’t that be second person plural, rather than third person?
Such errors can be very revealing, as Lacan would be tripping over his feet to point out. In this case, clearly indicating Brenda’s subconscious desire to push us away, so we are not a “you” but a “they” ;-)
Not even. Freud himself famously was an atheist and explained religion in terms of sublimed patricide and stuff. He made up pretty nice just-so stories about this topic.
Five bucks says she’ll hand-wave it away by claiming that we’re all sexist so she’s allowed to be racist. Apparently, she’s just giving us a taste of our own medicine à la her “I am just using PZ’s broad brush to paint you instead of others” slight-of-hand.
I’ve noticed she hasn’t stopped generalising, which is uncharacteristic of someone who actually deplores them. From the evidence on this thread and others, it appears that they come easy to her.
I’d analyse her comments further, but she’s an extremely uninteresting and irritating bitch.
Nick – you mean to say we’ve been otherized?
OMG!
Brenda, with regard to PZ and others generalizing across all of Christianity based on the attitudes and behaviors of a subset, I believe you’ve made your point about that by applying the same unfair generalizing tactic to all the commenters here on Pharyngula.
With that said, I’d like you to attend to the fact that you’re still doing it.
Brownian, get off my wavelength! I was using it! Darnit…
Sorry Kseni, I’d hoped I could quickly use it just once before you noticed and needed it back.
Kseniya – I’m afraid so. But judging by the repeated use of “little boys”, we’re the “little other”, not the “Big Other”! How humiliating.
Heh.
“Mighty White” was the name of a brand of sliced bread brand here in UK back in the Eighties.
Reading this thread I suddenly realise that I haven’t actually seen it on the shelves in years, I wonder if someone eventually noticed the unfortunate connotation implicit in the name?
Goatboy –
http://www.notesfromspain.com/2007/11/09/spanish-brands-that-dont-translate-well-bimbo/
Terrible bread, too. Inedible, really.
I recently went back to mighty whiteys after years of wearing boxer briefs. As a hirsute and sudoriferous southern Slav, I don’t need any extra moisture-retaining fabric next my nethers.
Goodbye embarrassing rash; hello low sperm count!
Brenda:
Not so much “rhetorical device” as a post hoc rationalization of your inability to argue your way out of a paper bag. That’s pretty clear since you started using the sweeping generalisations long before you came up with this ploy. See, for example, your first posts in this thread or this thread.
Continuing with the pointless but satisfying ‘Summer Glau’ analysis!
Brenda: In other words, the reason that some people disbelieve is due to the child’s struggle with separation anxiety. In order to become an adult, something few here have managed to achieve, you need to break with your parent objects. For many here that break is along religious lines.
Me: This doesn’t make sense even in a Freudian way, wouldn’t belief in a sky-daddy or -mommy be a better way to deal with separation anxiety!? How does non-belief help?
Brenda: Rejecting God is a great way to reject dad. In fact, you’re killing him, committing fratricide erm deicide. Double points if your name is Oedipus.
But if atheism is a way of achieving adulthood, then it doesn’t make any sense that “few here have managed to achieve” it. Which is it?
Perhaps that bit of sloppy reasoning was just a throwaway insult. But what really left your ass bare was confusing separation anxiety with the Oedipal complex. While Freud thought the Oedipal complex plays out at 3-5 years of age, separation anxiety is related with the sense of object permanence and is normally strongest around one year of age! We were all technically atheist then, but are you going to argue that someone actually “rejects belief” at that age?
Underwear humor.
Underwear humor!
UNDERWEAR HUMOR!!
Underwear humor?
Well, while we’re off on a tangent (that NEVER happens in this blog, ever!), this particular one reminds me of the great line in “Clash of The Titans.”
“Release the Kraken!”
That became a term for, well, a successful date.
Brenda wrote:
I find it perplexing that in all Brenda’s years of study in the field of psychoanalysis she’s never come across the term “projection.”
Wowbagger wrote:
“You’re a jerk, Brenda. A complete asshole.”
Shouldn’t that be “complete knee-biter”?
Oops. My bad. Didn’t know they edited the US version to remove “asshole”. Prudes.
Next time I’ll Google first, post second.
Brenda (#292): “The problem is that many atheists today seem to believe that they are different. They are above everyone else. They set themselves apart and lift themselves up in their own eyes.”
Plenty of Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. do the exact same thing.
Brenda:
I’m not at all sure we’re having the same conversation, but I gather that you are accusing me of agreeing with the posts of others (specifically, the ones where they call you rude names), because I don’t castigate them, individually, for doing so? Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I disagree with calling people who disagree with you (generic you; not just specific, personal you), asshats (which applies to other insults, also)? Apart from hunting them all down one by one and, I don’t know, leaving a horse’s head in their beds or something, I don’t know quite what you expect of me (and, presumably, every other individual poster here). Would you mind clarifying?
Moving on, it looks to me as if you think that any atheist has to either have some alternative belief system to handle the “extra-scientific” questions, or be a “sciencist”. But this doesn’t have to be true. I’m not a sciencist (nor a scientist, either; just an interested amateur), but what I see is that, over time, more and more of the phenomena that used to be attributed to the acts of some god, have been eventually explanable by science. Our understanding of the causes of weather used to be thick with gods, to be placated and cajoled, but these days science rather well explains the weather in terms of the interaction of air masses, moisture, terrain features, etc. Does this mean that the weather gods used to exist, but went out of business, and ceased to exist? No. And I doubt very many people in, say, ancient Egypt, would have given serious mind-room to the notion that the weather could be explained as the interaction of impersonal forces. Are there things that science will never be able to explain? I don’t know; I have no way of knowing what currently inexplicable things sceince will, in the future, have good (I would say “accurate”, but I don’t think that complete, absolute accuracy is possible) explanations for. Why should I spring for a supernatural explanation of any sort to tide me over ’til we determine whether a given thing (morals, compassion, the capacity to perceive and create beauty) can be explained by science, or not? I’m out of my league, and I know it.
Science isn’t something to “believe in”. It’s a tool for understanding the world.
Ruben #301: “Surely this only works if you are rejecting a monotheistic, paternal god (does anyone know any of those? Oh, right…). Maybe disbelief in Santa falls into this category?”
That seems like a good analogy to me to how one becomes an atheist (though not in the bullshit psychobabble way Brenda is proposing). When you’re a child, you believe in magic and things like that because, well, you’re a kid. But as you get older, your rationality starts to kick in (because you’ve learned more about the world), and you start to realize that it’s not very likely that there’s some jolly old omniscient elf who can fly all the way around the world in one night.
A similar thing starts to happen with God and some of the things various religions claim that God can do/has done. Logically, rationally, it just doesn’t make sense.
Logic: You’re doing it wrong.
Actually, it is a sanity barrier.
I think Brenda is suffering from a bad bout of cognitive dissonance. See, she’s the smartest, most enlightened person ever to grace the blog with her eruditition. She knows this. And yet, not only do people keep pressing her to support her asserions with the temerity to act like they can actually understand the concepts she haphazardly employs, she keeps letting little boo-boos like “irregardless” and the claim that “you” is a third-person pronoun slip out there into public space –whereupon she comes dangerously close to being forced to realize how she looks by comparison to even the run-of-the-mill posters here. It won’t do. It will not do at all.
Thus she placates her gnawing dread of utter mediocrity with yet more invective, shouting, not at us, but to drown out the sneaking suspicion that everyone can see what a sorry, pseudo-intellectual fraud she is.
LOL, and *eyeroll* at the euphemism of “successful”. :-D
You meant to write “pseudo-intellectual Freud” but ended up calling her a ‘fraud’ by mistake, didn’t you CJO?
It must be one of those whatchamacallit-ian slips that everyone’s always talking about; you know the ones I mean.
Kseniya:
No, don’t grant her that! It’s not the same generalizing tactic at all. Brenda’s consists of “la la la I can’t hear you”. PZ and others continued to address new arguments even after expressing a low opinion of Christianity as a whole.
Brownian,
I think that’s a schadenfreudian (slippery) slope.
Lacan talks about those. In code. Smart-person’s code.
Brenda, my father was an atheist.
I was born an atheist and have never seen any reason to change.
Stop assuming we are all kids in rebellion.
Come to think of it, abandon ALL your assumptions and start over. You really brought a lot of preconceptions here, along with your bad manners.
thank you kindly.
@ Bride of Shrek in #389:
Hee. Awesome t-shirt. It’s almost as great as the Best T-shirt Ever.
I’m late to this whole debacle but this Brenda woman is a fackless imbecile. Rambling, non-sensical, spurious statements and the gall to take offense that people see this bullshit?!?!
She needs help. Maybe she needs more attention from Mommy and Daddy.
Brenda jeered:
Of all the painfully twisted logic you have spouted on this and preceding threads, Brenda, this is the nugget that kept me awake last night, terrified by the glimpse it affords of the horribly warped universe you must inhabit.
I was initially tempted to respond with some Cthulhu humor, of course. The idea that we all quake at the notion of defying our Cephalopod Overlord is still amusing (and, I might add, a standard trope used by many a troll ’round these parts), but your insufferable attempt at schooling us all on this perceived hypocrisy really saps the jocularity right out of me, quite frankly. Loathsomely smarmy delivery aside, it’s just gratingly illogical and wrong.
PZ, and those who are regularly engaged in reading and participating in this blog, do make generalizations about the religious. It’s hard not to do so, as we are inundated daily with stories of faith based lunacy, and there is very little criticism coming from the religious moderates to balance out the extreme and vocal voices of what they claim is the non-representative minority. This is one of the major sticking points here–why aren’t there more of the cute and fluffy religious folks calling out the loons? Why do the godless heathens get stuck with this distasteful job?
This blog is a one of several places where people who value science and reason can vent their frustrations and concerns over the stranglehold religion seems to have over our global community. As Steve Zara quite aptly points out, it is indeed frightening to comprehend how many people in the world sincerely, passionately believe in such irrational ideas. It is extremely beneficial to my well-being, and I’m sure to others, to have a forum in which to discuss such phenomena in an open and uncensored manner. You have every right to saunter in and judge me (and others) for such behavior. We have every right not to endure such insipid concern trolling without an argument. Admittedly, such ‘in house’ exchanges can sometimes become scornful or unkind, but neither PZ nor any of the denizens of this blog, as far as I know, have extended this to real life applications. Vigorous debates? Yes. Unapologetic criticism of religion itself, as well as criticism for the privileged shield from criticism that most religions enjoy in our society? Absolutely. Open derision, condemnation, or threats against any individual religious folk we happen to encounter in our daily lives? Not so much. If there were Atheist speakers across the globe, representing a majority opinion denouncing the foolishness of religion and advocating social sanctions against the faithful minority, then you’d have a point. This does not, however, reflect the state of affairs in the real world, as even you must realize.
Thus, your comparison is irreparably flawed. Moreover, your taunt has the suspicious appearance of being fabricated after the fact to justify the innumerable insults you have hurled, with self-imposed impunity, during your time here.
The tone of your comments, regardless of any well-intentioned and enlightened lesson you may have been trying to impart to the snot-nosed rubes of Pharynguland, has been unwaveringly condescending and unpleasant. At this point I doubt that you truly have anything substantive to say–but on the off chance that you do, I regret to say that I cannot muster any interest in hearing it.
May you and yours be eaten first. Cthulhu’s name be praised!
I was initially tempted to respond with some Cthulhu humor, of course. The idea that we all quake at the notion of defying our Cephalopod Overlord is still amusing (and, I might add, a standard trope used by many a troll ’round these parts), but your insufferable attempt at schooling us all on this perceived hypocrisy really saps the jocularity right out of me, quite frankly. Loathsomely smarmy delivery aside, it’s just gratingly illogical and wrong.
well said.
May you and yours be eaten first!
@422: I haven’t even heard the “…that’s mighty white of him” phrase before, and I’m from Georgia.
The only unironic context I’ve heard it used in is by older relatives who are still ticked about that whole civil rights thing (yes, I have some relatives I’m not very proud of). I’ve since heard it used ironically to mock those very same types, but since leaving Alabama, I haven’t really heard it so much either way.
It could be a generational thing, possibly, or more regional to some parts of the South than others. Or it could just be my racist relatives who used it; who the hell knows. I wouldn’t put inventing it past them, except I have heard it elsewhere.
Damn, thanks Chuck C at 439. I was wondering for a while now why “Wowbagger” seemed familiar to me, and then that joke nailed it for me.
I really think we should make a new religion based on the hitchhikers guide. There’s messages of god already built in, real practical advice for how to live (i.e. carry a towel), and it’s even got humor as a bonus.
I just don’t understand this. Nobody here likes Brenda or thinks she’s got anything worthwhile to say, yet she claimed “See how I subtly inject some humor, I’m in ur blargz, winning you over with mah lolz.” Further, she goes on to explain that “What I do feel is that I have a good idea how people work as people.” Good thing she said ‘feel’, since it would be rude of us to point out the chasm between what she ‘feels’ and what the evidence suggests.
So what we have here is another Authority on How to Win Friends and Influence People who is completely incapable of winning friends or influencing people.
Brenda: meet J, Matt Nisbet, and Chris Mooney. J, Matt, Chris: meet Brenda.
Freud was a confused and confusing old gink. If, as Brenda seemingly postulates, atheists suffer from an Oedipus complex and want to kill off “Big Daddy”, where does that leave all the female atheists? According to Freud, a female suffering from Oedipus complex would want to kill her *mother*. If it were an Electra complex, we’d still want to knock off mom. Aside from Freud evidently having some serious Mom Issues, I don’t see where that’s helping Brenda’s case.
I do have a bit of advice that I’m sure someone else has already mentioned to Brenda: the only thing atheists, as a group, have in common is a lack of belief in any gods. Attempting to make assumptions about atheists as a group, well, the phrase “fool’s errand” springs to mind (see also: “herding cats”).
As an aside: can I be a “rump-fed runyon” instead of a slut? I like the classical allusion.
I did a little more research (when I first saw the phrase, I heard a black man’s voice saying it – turns out it was George Jefferson of The Jeffersons), and came across this:
http://everything2.com/e2node/mighty%2520white%2520of%2520you
Since a) von Ahsen has shown herself to be severely challenged when it comes to communication, and particularly to humorous communication, and b) I’m so sweet and charitable and all, I will give her the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was merely a stupid deployment of an expression whose shifting and context-dependent meanings she wasn’t taking into account.
You just step into Brownian’s world, and you can be whatever you want, Baby. Oooh, yeah.
Nonono, according to Freud a female suffering from Oedipal complex would have a lesbian desire for her mother, so would still want to kill Daddy, until she discovers that Mommy lacks a penis, and starts to desire Daddy instead. Because the original version wasn’t far-fetched enough.
I see that others are detecting the same smell I picked up on a couple of days ago…
Brenda: meet J, Matt Nisbet, and Chris Mooney. J, Matt, Chris: meet Brenda.
Funny you should mention that. This whole incident reminded me of one of my favorite comments, from a thread at The Intersectionfollowing a Mooney mini-tantrum in the wake of Expelled (“My Review of Expelled, 4-23-08):
– Screechy Monkey
The smell of unrepentant, incoherent, dishonest, dysfunctional, maladaptive, inflammatory, antinomian trull?
(I would look for more adjectives if I had time…)
Is the etymology of “mighty white of you” actually racist? Or is it an old expression rooted in the concept of white equals pure equals clean and upstanding and all that – white as in white hat vs. black hat, where white hat is the good guy?
(Either, it’s pretty clear that it’s now farther up the “racist overtones” scale than, for example, the otherwise innocent word “niggardly”…)
Windy, I granted Brenda the “broad brush” point because a) I initially thought she did have a point, and b) I’m in a generous mood. The implication of my last comment on the subject, though, is that she should have quit while she was ahead. (If she was ahead – you seem to think not, and I’m inclined to trust your judgement ahead of my own in this case…)
Owlmirror: Not exactly, no… I thought I’d identified it as the smell of a Cluster B Personality Disorder of some sort, or some potpouri of features thereof, but perhaps not. It’s hard to be sure about these things.
Does anyone have a tricorder I could borrow?
Oops.
“(Either, it’s pretty clear” should be “(Either way, it’s pretty clear”… d’oh.
http://www.zaporacle.com/textpattern/article/150/iui-incarnating-under-the-influence-in-the-polywater-world
???
[Googles]
Hm. Well, that might well be close.
If she is the same as the other hits on her name that Google finds, then there is another blog forum where she first sneered contemptuously, then exploded in outrage and invective far out of proportion to those who refuted/disagreed with her, then later calmed down and apologized.
Hm.
SC: Say what?
Re: #60
Yeah. Thanks for that.
And now a song by the Rolling Stones:
“Hey! Hey! You! You!
“Get off of my lawn!”
I suspect that a majority of the readers here were not even born when the Saturday Night Live skit was famous. To you all, the line seemed an out-of-the-blue insult. (I’ll really have to be careful in quoting Richard Pryor or Blazing Saddles.)
Moreover, it’s not a generic insult, it’s gender-specific. And I realize there are many women at whom such insults were hurled by bosses, co-workers, relatives, and strangers, and that it does have emotional impact.
So, to all you women — even Brenda — who were disappointed, shocked, outraged, or hurt by my gaffe, I most humbly apologize.
Great jumping hornytoads! Are you sluts STILL going?
Isn’t it dead yet?
SC: Oh… it’s a TRICORDER reference… LOL!
(young whippersnappers who listen to Rolling Stones, grumble, grump. “Get off of my lawn!” isn’t some damn rock song. Hell, it predates the Cambrian Explosion, when all of these uppity arthropods started swanning about all la-di-da, I’ve got an exoskeleton. *shakes tentacle*)
Best as I can tell, that number was “1”. As in, only Brenda.
Cortx Vortx, I was not offended in the slightest – that was a very funny quip, classic SNL, and placed exactly in context.
Honestly, you’ll probably be a legend for at least a week.
CortxVortx,
No apology necessary. In fact, I thank you. Had you not written that, no complaint would have been forthcoming, and said complaint provided some amusement (no, I’m not proud) in an otherwise bleak week.
I’m still somewhat perplexed as to which of my blog posts were read as relating to “gay pride issues.” There was the Gay Scientists Have Isolated the Christian Gene video and the homophilic binding pun, but both of those were just a bit of light-hearted fun. (Then again, if Brenda von Humorless missed the jokes, I’m not exactly surprised….)
She could have simply been too tightly laced, couldn’t figure it out, and pitched a hissy-fit.
OR maybe she ran out of sangria & cake. That’ll do it to me. ;)
Etha – I didn’t get that lesbian/gay pride stuff she pointed at you from your website either. You kept telling her there was no personal sexual content there…?
Sheesh, imagine poor Mr. von Hysteria’s life. *shivers*
CortxVortx:
no apology necessary for my part either. I am, in fact, old enough to get the joke, but even in the absence of that, I’m with SC–the preposterous overreaction and whacko dialogue that ensued has provided some much-needed levity to my work week.
Kseniya:
I believe the etymology is indeed racist. I heard this phrase used quite frequently in the early ’80s in Virginia by members of a demographic who had no taboo on racist jokes, and who would frequently refer to African-American males less than 50 years of age as “Boy”. I was quite sickened to learn, through Brenda, that it has not suffered the death it so richly deserves in modern usage.
Re: “Asshat”. I’m always reminded of Bruno Kirby’s lecherous line in “City Slickers”: “I like your ass–can I wear it as a hat?”. Lest Brenda fire off another missive about sexual harassment, I hasten to add the modern definitions, taken from “The Urban Dictionary”:
I think all three definitions are uncannily apt, in this situation.
Oh, and Bride of Shrek, you’re a right little strumpet, my dear. Whore on!
#207 Posted by: Janine ID | June 5, 2008 1:57 PM
I’ll have you know I’m quite intimidating in person.
JBS
Etha at #478, you are looking too hard. You are bright, have your own blog, are an atheist, involved in science, have no truck with morons or their statement. It is obvious that you are a lesbian, what else could you be? Brenda the V’s world view does not seem to allow dissent, so if you do dissent from her standard, you are warped in some personal way. You, as a dissenter, must be either a little boy, a lesbian, suffering from some Freudian malady, or just trying to get into her pants. I believe she sees the world pretty much as a threat to her and lashes out to protect her place in it. She needs to be able to plug people and beliefs and things into what are, to her, the correct sockets. That she sees “boys” and lesbians and atheist as dangers to her sense of order says much, does it not?
Ciao y’all
*snort*
Dude. She saw the words “homophilic” and “pride”, and
jumpedleapedpogoedtrampolinedpole vaulted to her absolutely certain conclusion.#257 Posted by: Brenda von Ahsen | June 5, 2008 7:02 PM
So, all ideologies wrap themselves in the trappings of science. Cool. Good. That’s the way it ought to be. But that’s probably not what you meant to say – especially since you add that irrational and emotive bit. Science aims to be objective and rational (humans are involved, it often fails – but at least it tries).
Just because some people start with atheism to build their ideology doesn’t mean all atheists do so.
Who said anything about nihilism?
Are you interpreting this correctly? That is clearly a non sequitur. Atheism may or may not be related to a person’s skepticism, and a person’s skepticism may not be related to their atheism. They can be arrived at separately.
Have you ever met a skeptical theologian? (well, other than as it relates to God) Have you ever met a non-skeptical atheist? They often go hand in hand, but it isn’t required.
Why must there be a hole? This is a baseless assumption. I have no such hole. I, of course, have no way to prove this assertion.
I keep hearing about scientism. What are it’s tenets? If I’m practicing scientism, I want to be sure I’m doing it right. But I’ve never received a handbook of scientism, so I might be doing it wrong – or not at all.
That’s quite likely because that is how you arrived. I neglected answering your post in the previous thread. I apologize for being so late to catch up.
That statement requires a selective reading of that thread. However, I do agree you were deluged with, um, detritus. I can see how you missed the substantive replies.
I make no claims to skills – only a habit of critical thinking. I also make no claims that I’m exceptionally good at it. I do try.
Why should I be proud of someone else’s work? They can take credit, or blame, for their own words. You should be thoroughly aware that so far, your words have presented little to be proud of, especially your notpology.
By the way, “sceptical” is the non-American English spelling of the word, you don’t need the “[sic]” for it – by definition that is given.
By the way, look up the word “irregardless” – a poor word for an educated person to use. The “ir-” beginning cancels the “regardless” to imply you mean “Not Regardless.”
Time for a confession: I have no idea where the Heart is that Tingley is saying proves there is a god. I’ve looked and have never found a place in my conscience, my spirit, or any other part of me that requires I believe there is a god. So, if such a thing exists, I don’t know where it is. Now I know what I would call the emotional heart, I know where I can find that “Gut Feeling” – but there is no place I know that reveals god for one and for all. So, if such a place exists, please, tell me where to find it.
Quote from the other thread
Please review my posts on this site and perhaps reconsider your blanket accusal that we’re all asshats. I’ll make it easy for you: http://tinyurl.com/6h4gqv
I have one last point. There have been substantive replies to your posts. The reason you don’t remember them is they were, in fact, polite and substantive. I’ve noticed that the vast majority of people that come here to argue with us ignore the polite and substantive in favor of chasing their tail as some of the denizens entertain themselves at the expense of the visitor. It doesn’t matter whether I condone their behavior – it’s a free country, and free internet, and a mostly free blog. Whether they act like it or not, they are adults and do not require chaperoning.
JBS
Owlmirror, re #484, true. Why go for complex when simple ignorance and poor reading skills solves The Brenda equation. (smile)
Ciao
#481 – Danio – Thankyou for posting the definition of asshat. I honestly thought it was earnetting for work mules, as I posted SOMEWHERE above. No wonder I didn’t get why some people got a bit riled.
Dammit, she insulted me and I didn’t even know!
As to the ‘boy’ thing, that could be a regional bias. Like ‘young’ – I would be ‘old Pat’, and my great neice would be ‘young Pat’. I was raised that if you are old enough to be someones grand parent you can call a youngster ‘boy’. A friend of mine from Rhode Island said it’s the same in her town. But for someone of the same age or younger to call a man ‘boy’ is disrespectful and fully ment to be an insult regardless of their skin color.
#430 Posted by: Kseniya | June 6, 2008 11:12 AM
I am so stealing that!
I laughed out loud while reading that. I’m glad I wasn’t drinking my soda then – I hate it when it goes out my nose.
JBS
@# 483 Jeffrey D —
True. You’ve got me there.
I did like how she said, “Good for you. Lesbians are the only true heterosexuals.” Presumably she thinks that the only way to feel good about one’s sexuality is to assume that it’s truly heterosexual? It fits with the rest of her warped view of sex, anyway, which seems to be constituted of a bizarre combination of Freudian and Victorian sensibilities….
#489 Posted by: Etha Williams | June 6, 2008 9:45 PM
I do wonder about that. I mean, the word hetero explicitly means “different” – so, does that mean that being gay is different, and being straight is “Same” or homogeneous? And if I’m correct, does that mean I’m thinking like Brenda? Uh Oh…
JBS
I submit that it’s possible that Brenda meant to write “homosexuals”…
Hummm…hetro – Greek – heteros ‘other’ – other; different: heterosexual.
homo – Latin – Man – the genus of primates of which modern humans are the present-day representatives.
homo – Greek – same. 1. Same: homogametic 2. relating to homosexual love: homoerotic. Concise Oxford English Dictionary (latest volume!) My high skrool English teacher instilled a love of dictionaries in me that has never died.
Those definitions leave a huge pool of possibilites to whatever the hell Brenda the Berserker ment.
Beats the hell out of me Etha. *shrug*
I saw the “lesbians are the only true heterosexuals” comment too — there was so much else to ponder that I didn’t think much about it at first. I figured it was probably meant to be “homosexuals,” but that’s not an easy typo to make and also: it doesn’t make much sense. Not that many of the other things Brenda has said make sense.
It certainly wasn’t a typo in the strict sense – it was a word-selection error. We all do it, sometimes, when we’re in a hurry, or distracted, or not as sure about meanings as we ought to be – we pick the wrong word from a set of closely-associated words, especially if they’re phonetically similar. This is related to other, more simple errors that even the most educated and fastidious commenters will occassionally commit, such as typing “their” for “they’re”, “then” for of “than”, “it’s” for “its”.
I don’t confuse homosexual with heterosexual, ever, but oddly enough, I often do have to stop and think for a sec before choosing hetergeneous vs homogenous. Go figure.
Given the type of errors to which Brenda has shown herself to be prone, I can see her typing the wrong word there as she composed that spontaneous though while looking ahead to the next.
However, what sense does it make if we change the word to “homosexual”? That is a good question. Perhaps the implication is that male homosexuals, like their heterosexual counterparts, do engage in penetrative sex, whereas lesbians generally do not (or cannot, without the aid of third-party hardware or unusually-dimensioned body parts) which keeps it free from any such similarity with heterosexual sex. It is therefore more “purely” homosexual than male homosexual sex by virtue of that lack of similarity with penetrative heterosexual intercourse.
We’d have to ask Brenda, though – it’s her statement, her implications. I’m just speculating. I hope you’ll still respect me in the morning… especially if I’m right, which would imply that I understand Brenda perhaps a little too well…
However, in having left Freud out of it completely, I’m probably way off base…
Nah – don’t think you’re too off base. We’re getting it teased out here. As much as sane people can, and given the wide diversity of age groupings, geography, sexuality, and education.
This is a pretty good ship to sail on.
Except for Bride of Shrek, she’s a slut.
A slut, and a harlot. And a shallot. Hey, whatever. A spicy lass, in any case.
Cortx,
I have followed this for the past few days, and I must admit that I immediately caught the “ignorant slut” line. I may have even seen the original on TV. If I remember correctly, it went something like “Jane, you ignorant slut. You change beds with the frequency of a cheap ham radio”, or something to that effect. It was/is a priceless bit of comedy.
As for Brenda’s “mighty white of you” comment, I have heard that one in my youth, usually not directed at “white’s” from “black’s”, but more often from “white’s” to “white’s”, trying to indicate dissatisfaction with a boss’s/managers type of decision. Used here in Memphis, I have most often heard it as an insult to “white” people from “white” people bitching about what was really a fair decision.
My $.02 for what it’s worth.
P.S. Brenda von Ahsen brings an astonishing combination of ignorance and arrogance wrapped in a package that even DaveTard from UD is hard pressed to top.
Back to lurking.
Perhaps Brenda applies the old animal behavior analysis to human sex, where male homosexuality is simply dominance/submission behavior, not actual sexuality. Whereas since all female is only submissive, it can actually be sexual. Not that that makes sense, but then again I think it has been established that we’re not going to find an explanation fully grounded in sense.
This thread is getting mighty close to 500 posts. And PZ has been turned in for ‘us’ being a naughty group – so is he going to get some sort of award?
If he is going to get the “Asshat of the Week” trophy, I say he owes us a round.
I think I’m just going to go with Brenda was making shit up.
And now I’m going to go to bed, heh.