Battles breaking out all over the last Zombie Thread! We need more room for waging all out war on each other! Just don’t forget: undead brain-eating corpses do love you.
TZT
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Yes. Thank you for that.
Well, quite, NuMad. (Not the stupid, ugly, bad nonsense, but the rhetoric part.) I’m obviously not in fact part of a vegan militia that forces humans to live in gestation crates and battery cages for months or years and then slaughters and eats them (though a good premise for a short story that would make).
***
WTF. The reference was to PZ’s saying sg’s not a social person when he banned him from TET.
***
Yes, I remember your reasoned participation in the “what the Thread should be” discussions. IIRC, even back then those became partially about pushing sg out.
Fuck, I was going to suggest to Nightjar and Chas that this seems to be the function of TZT now, but PZ beat me to it. Echo chamber!
What you’ve written notwithstanding, PZ (and I think your idea of different spaces for different types of activities is probably the best solution yet), I think Chas’ point in response to Ms. Daisy Cutter, that the TET was not previously only a social lounge, still stands. It may be now, but it wasn’t before. It’s only now that “this sort of interaction does not belong in a social lounge!” Because it wasn’t that way before.
So whatever SG’s social failings may or may not have been (I don’t hang out much in TET, because I am clearly one of those metaphorical knife throwers*), I don’t think breaking some commonly understood if not explicit rule about the social lounge nature of TET is one of them.
*I only became aware of the changes to TET recently myself, after having a dust up with A.R in TET, and having The Sailor quote me as evidence that TET was not a ‘safe space’. So, I don’t post there as often, not because I don’t like social lounges, I do, but because, well, this seems more like the place for me in the capacity that I engage on Pharyngula.
Chas, I have no doubt you’ll correct me if I’ve misrepresented your argument anywhere in the above. If I have, then my apologies; it was not deliberate.
The problem with this is that that wasn’t what TET was when you made the change. When you singled out sg and called the behavior of the gang “social,” you supported their false presentation of what was going on.
It’s fine that there are now two separate threads, and this one so far is exceeding my expectations. I don’t like the way you made the change, but this is probably the last I’ll say about it. (There is one other issue: that some of the gang might want to deal with the trolls here but not want to be exposed to intellectual honesty, certain people, or arguments that make them uncomfortable, so it’s maybe not entirely fair to them.)
so many rules
I donned my hazmat suit and helmet to wander here, because I need to do something:
sgbm/lilapwl
thank you so much for the list suggestion! This is very high on the list of Most Helpful Suggestions(tm) that help me trough a very rough spot right now. Thank you.
So I’ve been away, and I find that rajkumar is extremely consistent. Nothing sways him from the point of view that:
1) Some people hallucinate god, some people have a real experience of god which is in no way possible to distinguish from the hallucinations.
Therefore god.
2)These subjective experiences are the ONLY way of detecting god, and you cannot refute a subjective experience. So nobody can honestly say they are an atheist.
In spite of all evidence, reason and explanation presented in counter argument, rajkumar has not wavered an iota on these two key points.
So don’t anybody say raj is inconsistent. Frustrating and dishonest, but not inconsistent.
keenacat, that’s great to hear. I hope this rough spot lasts as short as possible.
Consistent on these points, yes.
But not consistent with his self-image of someone who values criticism.
And lose out on their capacity as work animals? I suggest milking them and drinking their blood through non-lethal bloodletting on a regular basis, saving slaughter for special occasions.
@Brownian – Oh I don’t know. Raj pretty uniformly says he is accepting of criticism while not ever accepting it. Or is there an instance of him saying he is not interested in accepting criticism that I am unaware of?
I think you do remember correctly, FWIW. Not entirely surprising, given that most people started to frown upon long, heated discussions taking place there. It wasn’t always like that, of course. In fact, it used to be the opposite.
So, I don’t mind the new rules and I understand and respect that some people prefer TET to be like it is now. But it just seems a bit unfair to kick someone out for breaking those rules before they were effectively in place.
Ah, right. You’re talking about about consistency as in the words he uses are always the same, not whether or not those words have any real-world correspondence.
Well noted, Strewth.
So, hey, this is the new place to be huh? I see a Nightjar, that’s pretty exciting.
And SC, you posted a four parter about morality, disassociation, and eating meat a while back, I read that with some interest, but didn’t feel coherent enough to ask questions on your blog. As with too many things, they drifted back of mind so now I need to read again to pull them out. In any event, thought was triggered, just so you know.
So hey SGBM, beers at my place tonight ? Watch some football ?
Yes. That’s what I said. This is a new change, but the smallest one I could make.
The other way I could have handled it was to declare that TET was a no holds barred zone, and created a new thread series that was only about friendly social behavior. But we had TZT, and in the truly evolutionary tradition of taking what was at hand and using it to fill a need, that’s why I settled on the solution I’ve put in place.
Something had to change, and the simplest solution was to tighten up the regulation of TET, increasing its specificity, while compensating by deregulating TZT, making it the broad spectrum sloppy catalyst.
I trust everyone will be able to adapt.
Also, I have to do things to earn my title of poopyhead now and then.
*waves*
Good to see you! :)
I need to start checking her blog more often.
Hey, it’s a miracle that the leaky pipe just happened to drip on the statue. Co-incidence? Raj?
And Raj, do not miss my fricking novel on the last page where I leave every stone not unturned with my surgical dismantling of your last gasp defense, that of ‘you don’t understaaaaaaaaaaaaand, *sob*’
I’m trying to give the utmost benefit of the doubt, and risk public humiliation and ostrification, and red squiggly lines under every second word I type … *sob*… SLAP!
Thanks, I needed that.
David, I signed. Thanks.
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
PZ:
If god is love (as some believers will tell you), there’s something unsettling about hearing “undead brain eating corpses do GOD you”.
It must be some sort of homeopathic solution. God+mead+water, properly succussed somehow becomes ‘love’.
Strewth #12 wrote:
I think that those with a ‘spiritual world view’ generally believe that reason and evidence for their claims doesn’t have to try to be objective or universal — there are different ‘kinds’ of people with different kinds of experiences and this distinction is fundamental to understanding things correctly. The resulting confusion therefore leads to different meanings for common terms or phrases. We don’t mean what they mean.
When a scientist or secular humanist talks about “accepting criticism,” they mean re-evaluating or evaluating a hypothesis in terms of the objections.
When someone working off of “spirituality” talks about “accepting criticism,” they mean being able to stand there and take it. They and their special abilities/insights/experience(s) are being attacked by people who don’t or can’t comprehend that which has gone beyond them. You accept the criticism and give a gentle reply, hoping to edge others to consider possibilities and become more humble and receptive.
I’ve been out of the loop. I thought The Endless Thread was for anything the atheist regulars wanted to talk about (including social) — and The Zombi Threads were for debates and arguments with people promoting the supernatural (or variations thereof.) Seems things are evolving under pressure of the environment.
PZ:
Well, I must say, that I for one, think the TET changes may quite possibly bring in some of the many lurkers out there.
Repeating lies doesn’t make them the truth. Just repeated lies. Making rajkumar sound daffy and illogical, as his conclusions are daffy and illogical. If his deity exists, there would be evidence….
That said, isn’t a bit dickish to do a Ex Post Facto ruling on SG? I mean yes I found it annoying but it would have been IMHO far less disrupting and shit string to just proclaim “ENOUGH” on that one topic under threat of bouncing from lounge.
There comes a point, in every relationship, when ‘the fight’ inevitably occurs. Things are said, feelings hurt, and then understanding and new respect heralds the beginning of a new, more genuine and honest bitterness aspect to my marraige…
Oh, shit. Time for Hors d’œuvre, everbody. White meat? Dark meat? Olfactory bulb, anyone?
Let me explain my @16 a bit more, I do get where some of those who have criticized SGBM are coming from, and while he has triggered near-apoplexy in me in the past as well, and our disagreements led to heated exchanges that have preoccupied me more than they should have for days and weeks on end, I can’t really say that I have ever felt threatened by even the most personal attacks, and I still would love to meet the guy and have a chat with him in person. But I do realize that others have a different perception, and I take their safe space concerns seriously. For me personally, I regret that TET, which was my living room and pub for the last 3 years, is now being redesigned as some kind of kumbaya place. I must say that I have lost interest in posting there, at least for now. A social thread should be able to handle disagreements between the participants, particularly if they have known each other for years. But it’s PZ’s blog, and he’s the boss.
A social thread should be able to handle disagreements between the participants
PZ has specifically stated that disagreements are NOT banned from TET, but that disagreements that end up as knock down drag out obsessive fights should move over here.
This exchange, for example, would still fit in TET, although there being no rules on TZT, it fits here as well.
Er, you know that evolution doesn’t work that way? Not at the individual level?
I agree that such a space is good to have. Like the “No Knives Allowed” bars that used to dot our local downtown.
(Fun Fact: I once taught everyone in the lounge of Edmonton’s infamous International Hotel how to do the Macarena, just a few years before they finally tore the place down on account of all the people dying/being killed there.)
Yes!
Thank you so much for saying this. Much appreciated, and I’m happy to hear it.
***
This is the first part. I have several new posts in the hopper. :)
Brownian:
I suppose that’s better than teaching them the Cupid Shuffle…
I hope PZ replaces the carpet. This has nothing to do with that stain underneath the side table (looks much better there in the middle of the room than tucked away in that corner, dontcha think?), but because what stain? I don’t know how it got there. I don’t even see a stain. Oh, that little teeny-tiny spot? That’ll come right out. You can’t even tell it’s there.
cause:effect
England vs France. Later.
More receptive to a proven liar and bullshitter? I don’t think so Tim. Which is why rajkumar has to step up his game and actually supply some real and conclusive evidence to further his arguments. And I see nothing from him…
Nerd of Redhead #34 wrote:
Neither do I: that was supposed to be a description of what the Spiritual (ie raj) strategy is. The last line there is supposed to represent their own internal monologue when dealing with criticism … “here is what you, the Enlightened One, do.” Rational critique of an idea is interpreted as personal criticism of them.; in their view, they hold the idea because of who they are and what they know through experience. Belief = identity.
Sorry that wasn’t clear.
I clearly understood your post Sastra. I should have quoted rajkumar #624 from the previous thread who said for me to move on, which is exactly what you said he was doing. Me move on by accepting his bullshit. My reply was to him, not you. Sorry for my lack of clarity, I’m a bit fuzzy today.
Our Brownian lives dangerously. Does he still have a lounge suit?
Well OK, that was snarky, and it was supposed to allude to previous discussions of the several functions of the Thread. (Plus, Caine and the Recipeswappers: band name).
OK. I was just correcting somebody else who seemed to be claiming that the New Rules simply formalized de facto rules that were already accepted. In fact, they changed the function of two threads (TZT used to be for troll-incarceration as I understood it, now it’s whatever). Which is fine.
I wasn’t trying to complain. Just clarify.
England vs France.
Um…we are talking sports, here, aren’t we? Not a reprise of the Napoleonic wars?
What Dianne said in #27. This discussion about TET/TZT could have occurred on TET as well, without repercussions or concern that you’re breaking the rules. TET is not a “kumbaya place” — dissent is OK, you don’t have to affirm everyone’s self-esteem or end every comment with “Namaste”. I just want to be able to end the frothing furious infighting that sometimes breaks out in just that one place…that’s all.
Notice that since I’ve made the announcement of a difference there hasn’t been any intervention by me in either place? I’m trying to make a subtle shift in how these discussions are to occur. There are no radical changes incoming.
Also, Brownian #31, no way am I upgrading the carpet here. I expect it to be thoroughly blood-soaked, and will be cutting up chunks of it to wrap the bodies in, so pretty soon it’s going to be bare concrete.
Incarcerating people in the open thread?
So that’s what PZ and Walton were talking about in that photo: prison reform?
Don’t do that, you’ll stain the carpet
Please don’t stain the carpet
Sport is the continuation of war by other means, as von Clauswitz never said.
Just like Sister PZ said.
Having worked in an abbatoir, concrete does make for the easiest clean-up. I recommend sound baffles for the walls, or the echoing screams are going to deafening.
For one thing, Napoleonic Wars would involve more than two teams.
But it does! It’s France vs England vs Sweden vs Ukraine. Just not all at once.
Right. Chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry.
Nonsense, Brownian. The screams are part of the advertising, to draw people in.
Actually, my one worry is that all the bloody spectacle here will draw away too many people from TET. We’re going to need some equivalent scheme to attract participants there.
But, our ears!
[Makes a discreet call to Occupational Health and Safety.]
Make every last Thursday of the month Free Peas in TET Day. Everybody loves peas!*
*Can you people believe I have no formal training in marketing and promotion? True story.
The last screams of the missing neighbors.
All Bacon Sundays.
PZ,
Are you sure that’s accurate?
For example, this looks like a comment that could not have been made on TET.
Well, I posted some pictures from the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. Hopefully that should draw in the crowds.
(…or maybe not. If all else fails, we can always return to the age-old Pharyngula tradition of setting goats on fire. Or designing People’s Republic of Pharyngula memorabilia.
I avoided BBCAmerica because of that shit.
keenacat,
Thanks for letting me know! I’m glad it was helpful. Now if I could ever remember who told me about it years ago, I should pass on the thanks. ;)
YMMV, but here’s another thing that is helpful for some folks.
Hmm. I really do love peas — they’re my favorite vegetable, and I could eat nothing but peas for dinner — so that might work!
Jubipeas!
@Rev. BigDumbChimp
All Bacon Sundaes?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/12/a-gluttons-delight-burger-king-testing-new-bacon-sundae/
So, by how much would a diet of these shorten someone’s lifespan? 60? 70 years?
So worth it.
Hey I’m all for baconization, but that’s Burger King.
Anything Burger King is ipso facto wrong.
@Brownian
Urp. No. I can feel my arteries clogging just looking at it. It’s not the baconiest food monstrosity I’ve ever seen, though. The internet is a frightening place.
The BK dark side wrongness far outweighs any gratuitous baconization light side points.
Chimpy, this still gives me fucking nightmares.
So, by how much would a diet of these shorten someone’s lifespan?
Unless they’re vitamin C fortified, if you ate nothing but those you’d die pretty quickly of scurvy. How about a compromise? Bacon sundaes for one meal a day. You could last years that way if the other meals were even moderately nutritious.
me said:
Moreover, today’s confrontation ended in a draw.
Nightjar said:
You mean they can’t form alliances to fight common adversaries? Outrageous!
Brownian said:
I never fully understood why people are supposed to hate peas. Or broccoli, as a matter of fact.
Walton said:
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Walton for not posting that here.
mythbri said:
That reminds me of pork parfait.
Have you seen the coverage on The Daily Show?
Part 1
Part 2
(Mano Singham has instructions for how to watch online if you’re outside the US.)
This is also wrong.
This is a rule that I think follows the same logic of the “If it has Family in its name it more than likely isn’t for families. ie. American Family Association”
If a restaurant has to promote its “Gourmet” items, they most likely are nothing close to what the word used to mean.
Jesus fucking christ don’t do that
Here‘s some more baconized nightmare fuel (and dudebros who seem to think it’s edgy to be an ass. Dark side indeed)
Ok, maybe not kumbaya, but definetely “Where have all the flowers gone” instead of “Sympathy for the devil”. Boring ! There’s a reason everyone is in here right now, you know…
There’s a reason everyone is in here right now, you know…
Well, “everyone” is a bit of an exaggeration, but at the time I counted, 6/15 “recent posts” were for TET and 8/15 for TZT. So TZT is winning. That could, of course, change from second to second…Heck, someone might find something to say on a non-open thread.
Aw. *hugs*
Okay, but consider that I like to drink the kind of shitty draft beer that they stick lemon wedges in.
The problem with such a compromise is that every moment not spent eating a bacon sundae is a moment spent remembering how hollow and empty life is compared to life while eating a bacon sundae. It would be like staring at the blinding beauty of the sun. Or my ass. (Poetry! They should’ve sent a poet.) Glaucon could never again return to the cave.
So I shall not have one. Dragons that cannot be caught and kept are best never chased at all.
If you’ll all excuse me, I must take some time to process this newfound love and the knowledge that I can never consummate it.
Here’s what happens in the Zombie Thread.
Warning: NSFW, kids, sheep, or the squeamish.
What about us sheeple?
It’s OK. Really, it is.
*turns away to hide malevolent grin*
True; the citation that was offered — which many seemed to think was applicable — was specifically about intimate partner abuse, and he was (I think) correct to reject the specific analogy of himself to an intimate partner. He only needed to do that once, though, and repeating it helped trigger the cycle of contemptuous responses.
Would you disagree that some of the tactics that could be characterized as being (intimate-parter) abusive — not all of them, certainly — might also be applicable in a more general context of browbeating one’s interlocutors? And that SGBM does/did sometimes use them? (And has definitely had them used against him as well?)
He uses the term “liar” more than once — yes; he (correctly) responded that he had not complained about meanness. But I was looking at these lines:
[SGBM to Daisy Cutter:]
Which are the ones that struck me as being specifically problematic with respect to narrow versus broad definitions of “abuse”.
I gotta say, nicely snarked.
—
TET as Kumbaya thread: I don’t buy it, but I do wish fuckin’ Kumbaya weren’t stuck in my head now.
—
[WHINE]
See, I don’t even have any interest in throwing knives at the moment, and still I’m not enjoying the fighting. I have a lot of respect and in some cases very deep affection for people who are fighting with each other (I don’t know if y’all already know that), and since the fighting has become about people and how terrible they are or aren’t, I feel sick watching it without stepping in to say anything in defense of those people I care so much about. And even here, I was pulling the same “am I being insensitive if I comment during this argument and don’t say anything about it?” deal. Except that then I feel like I’m taking sides in an argument about who is horribler, when in fact my general opinion is that everybody’s pretty good (omg I know take it to the Kumbaya thread). And I know I must be missing large swaths of what’s going on somehow, and what people are accusing each other of all falls within a known blind spot for me, so I feel like if I do get involved then it’ll just be like me going into a chemistry lab and randomly pouring things into other things.
[/WHINE]
And yet I still feel more comfortable in the knife-throwing area. That’s probably dangery.
This is still problematic. What actions, exactly? What’s the consequentialist analysis of those actions such that the appropriate response is violence?
If his position is really substantially different from advocating violence against people solely for believing things (as opposed to committing specific actions), then he needs to qualify the phrasing of exactly what his position is.
Hmm, I see I missed an entire TZT where true to form, Raj came back still repeating these same arguments in the face of all the facts he has been presented so I see nothing has changed enough to warrant a look back.
To add to Strewth’s comment at #8:
Since Raj believes that we can not imagine anything we have not experienced with our senses, the a hallucination while still a subjective experience, cannot be anything but real. It is kind of disconcerting actually but it is consistent with his expresses views so far… I guess hallucinations are god/the universe’s way of distilling new information and truths to us.
Cipher, I wanted to make sure you saw this.
“In the Barn”, by Piers Anthony.
Um. That might need a trigger warning. Several trigger warnings, in fact.
(Meta-digression:)
Do trigger warnings even belong in TZT? This is not a “safe space”. Maybe you step on a landmine; maybe you fall into a pit with poisoned stakes. Or snakes. Or spiders. Or weasels. Or even the Abyss itself. Suck it up, soldiers!
Problematic what. I don’t “need to” qualify anything, because I’m not interested in defending my position right now. Call it thoughtcrime if you want, I do not care.
What’s absurd is when my suppress-the-clergy stuff is cited as though it is a justification for misrepresenting me, especially on unrelated matters.
SG, thanks :) I read it and bookmarked the page yesterday when you linked to it, but I must have been checked out of posting by then so didn’t respond. I will definitely make up the list of things to do, probably on one of the notecards I’ve now started carrying around with helpful stuff on them. (I don’t really know what to do with them though since I don’t have a wallet so I’ve been using them as bookmarks.) The letting the thoughts be what they are and not fighting with them thing clicks for me – it’s kind of like the Litany Against Fear, which is also one one of my notecards. I feel like after the point of having tried and failed to break the loop, that’s somewhat more productive than my “I SHOULDN’T BE THINKING THIS WAY IT’S SO SELFISH AND STUPID” response.
ObQuote:
Heee! That’s awesome.
I feel much the same way. Which is why I hate these fights.
Yes I remember those words, Brownian. It’s actually a part of the process…. When you are being criticised, you are likely to deny and reject the criticism. In my case, the denial is almost always of a ‘fleeting nature’, which means it hardly lasts any longer than a few hours. So, I am pleased to annunce that I have come out of that short denial phase after I had a chnace to deeply reflect upon your criticsm, and then logically concluding that it was heavily biased and sounded very unprofessional — not to mention the fact that it was charged with unneeded emotionailty.
OK.The process that I mentioned above starts once again. I again vehemently deny these accusations. But I will let you know of the final outcome soon enough and sure enough…
Sorry
pleased to annunce
should read
pleased to announce
Problematic for having your position be understood.
Then ignore me.
I most certainly did not call it thoughtcrime, nor do I want to. You’re not committing thoughtcrime; your position is (or appears to be) that certain thoughts should be criminalized, or treated as “crimes”.
You’re right; it is completely tangential, and is not a justification for misrepresenting you. But people are reminded of one set of negative attributes [advocacy of violence, and the potential hypocrisy of advocating violence while presumably not wanting violence directed against yourself] by other negative attributes [obsessiveness; self-righteousness].
Like I wrote, ignore me if you have nothing more to say on this particular topic just now.
@Cal – a problem arises in that rajkumar admits there is no way to tell these hypothetical revalatory visions from a purely biological hallucination. So we have no way of discerning whether Jim’s vision that we are to stop eating salads on Tuesdays or Mike’s vision that the only thing we are permitted to eat is salad, and we must do so every single day, is the true message from the creator.
*Note: These examples are simplifications and exaggerated for comedic effect, but the point stands that if you can’t tell a true prophet from a madman, it is impossible to benefit from the prophecy.
Strewth, I agree some problems arise for us from this understanding, but we are not the ones holding this position. From my point of view it is no different then trying to distinguish the difference between the Pope and the Mormon Prophet, both claim to talk with/speak for god directly, yet there is little agreement or crossover. If there is a god, I am afraid he is something of a prankster….
No. ‘Move On’ means say something new, or, at least, something diferent. Or, at least, TRY.
I don’t want you to accept anything that I am saying. But if you want to argue, at least, try to argue with something new. How many times do you think a person can repeat the same stuff over and over again, while expecting to get a new reply each time he/she repeats it? What is with you? Why don’t you eject that old badly scratched CD and load a new one? A recordabble one, so to make it possible to write new information on your memory?
I saw in the last TZT thread that Raj had decided that he wanted to rejoin the festivities, and piss people off even more with his inane arguments that don’t address anything anyone has said that debunks what he’s said quite thoroughly, especially the stuff he keeps repeating even after the fact.
At this point, I could simply bring up a link to the last posts I’ve done that Raj STILL hasn’t addressed (and which I’d still like him to) that have comprehensively smashed apart his claims, even despite his denial that they do even though he claims he won’t read my posts because they’re too thorough and detailed for him to debunk.
I COULD do that, but I won’t.
Instead, I’d like to address the recent John Loftus affair, what with his attacks on FtB and especially the concentrated attacks and smears made against Pharyngula, particularly towards the supposedly “less than civil” commenters here.
With your permission, Mr Myers, I’d like to engage in a passionate defence of this blog, especially since of all the blogs in FtB, Pharyngula is up there with Greta, Dispatches and TAE as the most inspirational blogs I’ve encountered while being an atheist. I’d be deeply honoured as well if you could post this on your front page (with any additional comments and corrections that you’d like to make of course), as I think this is a message many of the “concern trolls” could do with reading:
(Plus, while I may not end up winning a Molly for May, I’d like to hope this could make me a shoo-in for the June Molly, lol :) )
To those who bash Pharyngula as well as other FtB sites as being “uncivil” and a “cesspool”,
Ahem, fuck you.
“Hey,” you’re undoubtedly saying, “how’s that supposed to change our stereotyped image of this site you’re on? You guys are so mean!”
Yeah, well you know what? I may not be able to speak for other people on this site, but I can say that I consider myself one of the most patient people when it comes to debating with theists and non-theists alike, and even I’m getting sick of the constant fallacies on display, be they from theists who regurgitate the same old tired arguments about their God and their perceptions of morality, or from atheists who have a bloody awful habit of insisting that we “all get along” with theists regardless of their repugnant values, or indeed those atheists who are prone to making some flat out awful arguments on issues of the month and then adapt EXACTLY the same persecution complexes and intellectual dishonesties as theists when their arguments too get ripped apart.
Like I said, I’m a very patient guy, so these are the sort of debates I’d very gladly dive into and attempt to stay calm while doing so. But I don’t have quite the experience of debating these matters as others do, so for now, that’s part of the reason why I remain calm.
But others here on Pharyngula and across FtB have had greater exposure to this sort of crap from others on a repetitive basis for far longer than I have. Sure, from my personal experience they’ve still been damn friendly to me, even when I made a post that I fully admitted could be wrong about the Courtier’s Reply, but quite frankly if these guys feel the urge to snap when confronted with bullshit, can you honestly blame them?
Like I’ve said, I largely find the “uncivil” argument alone to be bogus, since even when I’ve witnessed both myself and others commit errors when it comes to our arguments, these guys still have a knack for being very patient and nice about debunking any arguments on most occasions that I’ve experienced when it comes to dealing with people who mean well but are simply mistaken. But when intellectual dishonesty, persecution complexes and trolling apathy enter into the equation, why is it considered a fault that these things would be considered as Berserk Buttons by the folks here?
Pharyngula and the rest of FtB do have genuine issues that could certainly do with being sorted out. But the utter crap that is spouted by bullshitters like John Loftus and Alain de Botton is not among them.
Much regards,
Jon
Raj, did you read that article I sent you?
@Jon
It’s Loftus. Going crazy stupid is apparently his niche.
No, I did not. Sorry. But that’s only because I did not receive it. Where did you send it?
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
Yes, I know what you meant. Call it violence against thoughtcrime if you want.
And?
Yes, they would be appreciated, by me at least. Zombie knife-fighters have feelings too, you know.
Rajkumar: Colorblindness.
Pharyngulites: What country are you from?
Rajkumar: Colorblindness. Colorblindness. Col-?
Pharyngulites: “Colorblindess” ain’t no country I’ve ever heard of. They speak English in Colorblindess?
Rajkumar: Colorblindness.
Pharyngulites: English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
Rajkumar: Yes! Yes!
Pharyngulites: Then you know what I’m sayin’!
Rajkumar: Colorblindness?
Pharyngulites: Say ‘colorblindness’ again. Say ‘colorblindness’again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say ‘colorblindness’ one more goddamn time!
That link?
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
Yes, I did have a look. Extremely funny. But, still, no where near as funny as you, I guess.
Pharyngulites???
Really? Seriously?
@rajkumar – It is interesting to me that you ask us to vary our argumentation when you have not made any attempt to vary your own.
Lying again, fapwit?
You have already demonstrated, and admitted, that you do not have a sense of humor, and that subjective things like humor, cannot be defined at any rate.
Fapfap.
@Raj
Do you want me to point out the notes of interest in it?
Shall I point out when you slip into those bad habits for you?
DID I FUCKING STUTTER, SHITBAG?
I haven’t asked you, or the collective you, to do that. I am only asking Nerd.
I don’t know. Impossible to tell while we chat on two remote computer terminals. Why don’t you tell. Did you stutter?
Rajkumar: “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times.”
Pharyngulites: What country are you from?
Rajkumar: “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times.” “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times.” “I have no understanding-?”
Pharyngulites: “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times” ain’t no country I’ve ever heard of. They speak English in “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times”?
Rajkumar: “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times”?
Pharyngulites: English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
Rajkumar: Yes! Yes!
Pharyngulites: Then you know what I’m sayin’!
Rajkumar: “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times”?
Pharyngulites: Say “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times” again. Say “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times” again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say “I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times” one more Goddamn time!
@rajkumar – Ah, I apologize then. My confusion comes from the fact that many of us, including myself, have also raised points repeatedly because you have either not addressed them or have demonstrated a lack of understanding of them.
*DING* #1: Winning by Loosing
rajkumar
This thread is public.
You cannot expect that no one else will respond to you.
Unless you are really stupid.
(you’ve been reading Pharyngula for months and this is the first time you’ve seen the term “Pharyngulite”?
Really? Seriously?)
Brownian, it sounds like you are serious. Or, at least, PRETENDING to be serious. Either way, your posts are still very funny
THEN YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I’M SAYING THEN, SHITBAG.
READ OR GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!
I do keep trying and failing to get the evidence from you that will change my mind. There, you need to shut the fuck up and point. And the evidence must meet my standards, not yours. Which means the peer reviewed scientific literature. And I’m still trying to get that evidence. If you don’t have any, you can always shut the fuck up about your unevidenced claims… The one thing I won’t try is believing you or your sources. That is nothing but lies and bullshit.
DING: #2 Pity Riposte
DO YOU HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF ME BEING SERIOUS? IF THAT CAN TELL YOU THAT THE GOD YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHATSOEVER IS A ***REALITY***, THEN WHAT’S YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM HERE, FUCKFACE?
Yes, seems obvious enough. But the fact still remains. That if I request only ==one of you== to do something, I am only asking that one person. So, I have only asked NERD to vary his/her arguments.
No. Maybe third or fourth time
What is with you. All you do is repeat the same shit over and over never moving foward, and I respond to your lack of moving forward with me repeating the same-old to your same-old. Why can’t you either move your argumet forward with solid evidence, or shut the fuck up about it if you have no evidence?
rajkumar
Why would anyone do what you ask?
DING: #2 Pity Riposte
WHY ARE YOU SAYING I’M ATTEMPTING TO WRITE THEM FROM A SERIOUS MOOD?
Good question. And the timing couldn’t have been more perfect, because Nerd has just answered that question.
rajkumar: shut the fuck up.
Remember that I am only asking rajkumar to shut the fuck up — no one else, just rajkumar. Goodbye.
Also: colorblindness. Mysterious mysteries. Bye again.
One more thing, rajkumar: shut the fuck up.
Bye.
You are not entitled, you arrogant pretentious fapwit, to dictate to us who may or may not respond to your questions, posted at your free discretion, on this public forum.
Fapwit’s still fapping?
Fapfap?
Raj has to be some kind of bot.
I mean for fuck’s sake.
Also, page, LOAD FASTER so raj’s comments will disappear into my killfile and make me not have to read them.
—
—
—
Caine has departed. This makes me ill. Here’s what I know: she’s one of the people who has helped and inspired me the most here, and is one of the biggest reasons that I continue to have any belief whatsoever that I can have a happy life at some point in the future. I learned from her, among others, what it means to live with a broken sense of self and still be loved and loving and fierce and creative. I owe much of the strength I have now to her. She has always treated me with great kindness and understanding, and has made real, powerful efforts to help me that I have worked and that I don’t know how to reciprocate. She is elsewhere on the internet, but I’ll miss her a lot here. Other people have different experiences, I know that, but for me personally, this is a major blow. I hurt.
rajkumar
Did you ever figure out what “peer-review” really means?
I am not saying that. I am saying EVEN when you are attempting…. which roughly translates into, IF you are attempting….
In short, it means, if you are ‘trying to act’ serious, then you are doing one hell of a lousy job, because your ‘trying to act’ serious is translating into something very funny on the other end — my end. OK?
Brownian, is there any way to cut the line for the ghey secks? Or perhaps due to the nature of your motion we should just form a circle around you and hope you come our way…
Brownian
Because Raj can’t imagine things that he can’t experience directly?
Fuck, that sucks, Cipher.
Thank you for acknowledging the clarification.
OK.
Until I see a modified or clarified presentation of your position, at least.
I don’t think I have more to add to that at this time.
The bolded portion serves well as a trigger warning, for anyone familiar with his work.
For anyone NOT familiar… the trigger warning is probably a good idea.
Cipher,
If you’re using Firefox, installing RequestPolicy will make pages load faster. NoScript might also; but I can’t guarantee it. Both can be found at addons.mozilla.org.
This is almost unbelievably obtuse, hypocritical, narcissistic, passive-aggressive, and dishonest.
Wow.
I did that! Thanks. (I already have NoScript installed. Come to think of it, it may be a really bad thing that I have both of these things installed without knowing how they work exactly. …) Also, I think part of it was my internet connection, which is wavy.
PZ:
That would have got my vote.
Biologists. *shakeshead*
Think like a geologist. New seas to open! Continents to accrete!
—
SC’s point about people potentially being put off is on-target, too.
And some of us had been using the quieter moments of TZT for offtopic silliness that would have derailed, or been swamped by the volume of, TET.
But, whatever, we’ll muddle through.
Probably fine. The default settings tend to be sensible. If you just can’t get a particular page to load, you might temporarily set RequestPolicy to “allow everything” mode, and if that doesn’t work then do the same for NoScript as well, but typically that’s not necessary. If you set them both to allow everything, that’s (almost) functionally equivalent to vanilla Firefox without either of them installed.
Just keep stirring the shit Chas
Says the person who:
-promised to leave for good some time before (but after all, this is the Zombie thread)
-has taken care to bring up Caine every once in a while (“Caine and the recipeswappers”) to make sure she really knows it’s about her.
Dishonest, yes, but not by her. Apart from the fact that you don’t get to question somebody’s feelings
Hey, Cipher. It’s a nasty place. Just wanted to say hi.
jonmilne, you sir, are a artiste.
Raj, you are a curious chap.
Raj, you are not a curious chap, either. At all.
Maybe forgot an adjective…
jonmilne, you sir, are a BULLSHIT artiste.
This sounds accurate. No one can possibility understand someone else’s sense of humour. An example: Remember Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill films? When the first one came out, I saw a woman on some talk show cursing Quentin for making such creepy films. But Quentin thought the film should be taken in a funny context, and told her so. The woman started cursing him even more, saying how could you call something like this funny? That woman could never have possibly imagined Quentin’s sense of humour.
Please continue to keep me apprised of what you think, Ing; you know exactly how much your opinion has always meant to me.
Giliell, way off base. Here’s why:
a.) my proven personal inability to stick to a pledged (not ‘promised’; I sure as hell didn’t attempt it for the benefit of you-all) flounce has absolutely zero to do with my criticism of Caine, in which case I had no problem with the attempted flounce itself but rather with the crybaby martyry manner in which the attempt was made.
b.) I brought up Caine in that context not because I think it’s about her, but because she has always been the chief proponent of the TET-as-‘social lounge’ model that was under discussion.
c.) The ‘dishonest’ part was her claim that she can’t post a single word in TZT with causing a shitstorm. That’s a fact claim, one that is easily falsified with a few clicks and cntrl-Fs. (Go ahead, investigate the claim. I did; it’s bullshit.)
d.) How and why is it a rule that I don’t get to question somebody’s feelings? And if I say that Caine’s been dishing it out to all and sundry on a near-daily basis for years but can’t seem to take even mild criticism herself, say, is that questioning her hurt feewings or is it an empirical observation from reading hundreds of comments?
e.) If you think it’s unfair to take a parting shot at somebody who has just dramatically flounced, I might agree. But both Caine and Ing deserve the tu quoque from me in that regard.
so, dismissed.
Correction: Part of it sounds accurate…
And screw this spell checker. I am done correcting my typos
Subthread won.
FIFY. Dative/genitive ≠ nominative/accusative.
Peas: taste, smell, and texture.
Broccoli: texture. Which is easily rectified by using a blender. Broccoli soup *Homeric drooling*
Pratchett at his best!!!
Do you prefer pharynguloids?
I’ll respond as I always do: *blanket* *hugs* *chocolate-chip cookies* *more hugs*
Owlmirror,
I disagree.
Which, in many cases, were incorrect. Contemptuous hardly matters.
Depends on what you mean by browbeat. Some definitions mention threats or intimidation; those wouldn’t apply.
In any case it does not make sense to speak of abuse without authority or dependence: emotional dependence at a minimum.
What makes abuse so terrible is the exploitation of a power differential. That’s why we’re all so strongly against it. People here are denigrating rajkumar as a shitheaded moronic nuisance right now, saying things it would be terribly hurtful to say to one’s child, elderly dependent parent, student, friend or intimate partner. But saying those things here to raj can’t be abuse, because we have no power over him.
I’m calling her a liar there because she was evidently going along with the citation to intimate partner abuse supplied by Pteryxx — evidently since she mentioned Pteryxx and it was the only citation offered by anyone.
I’m pretty sure I said at at least one other point that there are other types of abuse besides intimate partner abuse — again I’m listing some above; child, elderly dependent parent, etc. But yeah, a stranger on the internet, who isn’t even showing up at one’s personal blog or sending emails? Please. It’s understandable why people might be triggered by behavior that would be abusive in contexts of authority or dependence, nevertheless, like our treatment of raj here, absent those contexts it just isn’t abuse.
However, about this other thing that David Marjanović pointed out:
It’s possible. I can imagine that this might be the case. It would still be a purposeful misrepresentation of what I said, or intellectual dishonesty by negligence. If people don’t think that qualifies as lying then I don’t mind retracting the L word. She was being dishonest as all hell, regardless.
Theirs on lay won spell chequer that mat terse: The won bee twin you’re ears.
Caine has been through fucking unbelievable shit earlier in her life; she always gets very agitated and exhausted by heated discussions. About midway through every 500-comment thread with Morally Repugnant Assholes and the like, she drops out, goes on TET, and says there that she’s completely exhausted from the thread in question and can’t go back there.
You, on the other hand, have often shown that you’re remarkably careless about making people feel uncomfortable. Indeed, you’ve explicitly said this about yourself several times.
Add to this the fact that Caine seems to be among the many people – see my comment near the end of last subthread – whose reasoning abilities get compromised by extreme agitation… Step off your high horse.
That’s one reason why I never use a spellchecker and why I immediately turn it off when it’s preinstalled.
I don’t understand why a “shitstorm” here would be a reason to leave TET.
ChasPeterson
You’re right. Only it makes you somebody who should stfu when it comes to people declaring that they’re leaving and why the same way I shouldn’t criticise anybody’s chocolate consumption.
So, you din’t bring her up because you thought is was about her but because you thought that it was her fault. Yes, that’s much of a difference.
I also disagree with your claim.
No, of course, when several commenters spend a lot of time explaining how everything is her fault, that really doesn’t give you the impression that she could post that post without a shitstorm. Especially since you were very keen to start one with her post copied here and her gone.
That’s “how humans work 101”. Easy.
Somebody’s feelings are their own. Whether you think they’re justified or not and whether you give a fuck is 100% irrelevant.
Easy answers part two: Nope, that’s making a judgement. Empirical observation? Give me a hanky.
So, they deserve it. Prosecutor, judge and hangman all in one. Only that it doesn’t matter if you thing that they deserve to have a bad argument thrown at them. It’s that you’re talking shit.
You’d probably get fewer <borkqotues> if you added things like that to the dictionary so they’d be easier to spot.
Question:
Is Caine’s statement that “some people have made an effort to make [her] feel unwelcome here”
a claim about the external world, which can be questioned by others, or
an expression of her feelings, which cannot be questioned by others?
cr
Maybe because it’s about people and not arguments. The shitstorm might be limited to TZT, but it’s not like people don’t “migrate” between both of them.
It’s one thing to have a fierce discussion about an issue and then go for a beer together. It’s hard to do that when people decide that the issue is you. Just my guess. I don’t speak for Caine, obviously, nor have I been “trained” by her.
Meh.
I bet he still thinks that those are things that you read on the back cover of books.
Shrodinger’s Flounce is still fapping about the very same stupid, pointless imagination/colorblind/whatever that got dismembered in the last zombie threads. Again.
It doesn’t want to learn anything.
I’m getting a Groundhog’s Day kind of feeling reading it.
This chew toy is getting mouldy. It doesn’t even squeak anymore.
Sigh.
I’m missing the fabulous yec and it’s conversion-by-Star-Trek shtick. At least it was creative. This one’s so used up it eats its own vomit to puke it again.
lilapwl
Find somebody else to answer that question for you. I have no interest to have any kind of argument with you.
Giliell, I have entirely unjustified feelings that what you’re saying is bullshit. Therefore, it’s bullshit.
Maybe that’s not what it’s about.
It’s not like that’s been a problem at TET since the new rules were issued.
Giliell,
I understand that you don’t, and — assuming you agree those two options are exhaustive, and you don’t have a third answer instead — I promise I will not argue against whichever answer you give.
cr
Nope, that’s the problem and that’s the bullshitting and I actually don’t believe that you’re not clever enough to see the difference.
“I’m feling sad because you sleep with other mammals” means that you can argue the claim about sleeping with other mammals. You just can’t argue that a person is feeling sad.
Can you understand that difference?
If yes, you now why your statement is bullshit.
If no I suggest remedial English.
And yet here you are, fapwit, continuously making assumptions and claims about our senses of humour and other subjective experiences, even while spouting like two-faced Janus out of your other mouth that subjective qualia cannot be understood.
Utterly pathetic intellectual dishonesty, yet again.
Are you still fapping, fapwit?
Fapfap?
I suggest remedial thinking.
cr
I think I give up. It’s 1 am here already and my alarm goes off in 6 hours. If you’re happy to engage nicely in space A with a person who’s busy convincing the world that you’re the worst person ever (and that’s a hyperbole and not an accurate description of events) over in space B, so be it. I wouldn’t be, I wouldn’t feel comfortable, it would stress myself out. That’s not about rules, it’s about people.
lilapbwl
Nice try, don’t bother trying again.
Hyperbole aside (since you know, who cares, right?), is there any person doing that?
Giliell,
No need to try again; you implicitly answered my question.
You chose “Caine’s statement that ‘some people have made an effort to make [her] feel unwelcome here’ is a claim about the external world, which can be questioned by others.”
I agree.
Pharyngulistas are the only true PZed followers.
cr
What?
Engage in both TZT and TET?
Talking about how bad Caine supposedly is and what bad things she’s done in TZT?
“That” is a bit unclear, so before I answer the wrong question, please clarify.
It is not birth, marriage or death, but pharyngulation, which is truly the important time in your online life.
If I am, then I probably should refrain from doing that. Your criticism thereby has been taken into consideration, and is much appreciated.
Now to your Qualia: I say: Subjective “experiences” (I can’t even pronounce the word QUALIA) cannot be explained using language. The only way to understand a subjective experience is to have the experience subjectively or personally. I give you another example, which should be much familiar to you. Can you explain your LSD or Peyote trips, by using language, to someone who has never had such experiences?
DEEP RIFTS!!!
Unless one says “Bayesian probability” before, during or after questioning that person’s feelings, presumably.
Someone who’s behaving the way you described (with or without hyperbole — your choice).
LILAPWL obviously isn’t on TET, so who are you talking about? I haven’t been commenting there, nor has Jadehawk or SC, for example. (The only exception I made has been for keenacat.) You don’t need to name names, but is there any person you have in mind, or is this something you just made up?
Yes.
Got any harder ones?
;) I like you, NuMad. You’re fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/u/Science-Fiction-Fantasy-Books-Bestsellers-New-Releases/379003055
Refuted with evidence. You lose….
shitweasel
First of all, fuck you, shitweasel.
1) Yes I can, and I have done so. There’s nothing supernatural in it, just an enjoyable and extraordinary way to get my brain firing neurons that usually wouldn’t.
2) Haven’t tried that yet.
3) Bonus question: Psilocybin mushrooms. I know several individuals who ate ‘shrooms and decided their hallucinations were evidence for Kalevala being the one true holy book. Why, exactly, do you think your bible is any better than that?
Yes. I also lose every time I play cricket with the neighbour’s kids.
OK you one genius pharynugaliteitie. Then please describe one of your experiences right here…
For starters, tell us all how time was perceived, without invoking Wikipedia if possible?
To be determined by demonstration via change in future behaviour and apology for past behaviour.
Your dubious word is not enough.
raj is really adamant that God is an experience that can’t be explained, understood or described.
So lets all listen to him talking about it some more!
Yeah whatever. But answer the question about LSD and peyote trips, if possible.
Ugh. Despite recently and noisily having had a Deep Rift™ with Caine prevthread, could we keep her out of it, at least for a bit? Because that outgrouping goes both ways, and I don’t want this to become the slimepit.
Look! Trolls!
No, fapwit.
You are not entitled, pretentious arrogant fapwit, to dictate to us what we can and cannot choose to involve in a reply.
Your continued refusal to accept even the most basic form of evidentiary citation as represented by wikipedia is noted, fapwit, and dismissed for the pathetic intellectually dishonest piece of pitiful dissembling that it is.
Fapfap.
raj why don’t you reference back to when I whipped your ass on your idiotic drug assertions and save us all a lot of time?
And I am sure you’ll now get a standing ovation from all participating pharynugaliteities for this ????
OK. But that only shows you are effectively out of arguments now, even if you had any arguments before, which you never did.
Oh shut up. I already did:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/30/tzt-5/comment-page-2/#comment-330380
And time was perceived as, well, time. Possibly distorted. But the 4:4 anchored all.
An assumption about my subjective experience, fapwit.
Already you fail at altering your behaviour.
Fapfap.
Another assumption about my subjective experience, fapwit.
Another demonstration of your lies.
Utterly pathetic.
Fapfap.
Raj
Have you ever tried debating? You might be a match for them as long as they are reading at or below the third grade level.
Says the fapwit even while deliberately ignoring all the arguments ever made to it, and continue to be made to it, by everyone all around it.
Pitiful.
Fapfap.
Doubtful. The fapwit knows it would lose.
<blockquote Have you ever tried debating? You might be a match for them as long as they are reading at or below the third grade level.</blockquote
Yes I have. I lose here as well. But losing to kids is like hving the grandest win you could possibly imagine! Just see the sheer joy on their faces…I can't see your face, but I can well imagine the joy on it.
opps…
Sorry
let’s try again
Yes I have. I lose here as well. But losing to kids is like hving the grandest win you could possibly imagine! Just see the sheer joy on their faces…I can’t see your face, but I can well imagine the joy on it.
Irrelevant, citations have been made. Testimony not needed in the court of science, where you are….
The only here with no arguments is yourself. We have all refuted your fuckwittery one time or another. All you can do is pretend that you win while we and the Pullet Patrol™ laugh our asses off at your lies and bullshit…
Is the rajkumar chew toy getting all frayed and tattered? TZT is the place to rip into the idjits, but even here, creationists can wear out their welcome. Let me know and I can dispose of him.
You know another one will come along any time, after all.
DING: Number one winning by losing.
I can describe a NDE
Raj
Why don’t you just go here? There are only about 800 accounts of psychedelic experiences from 40 or so different drugs.
I’m not going to tell you mine personally, because I have no reason believe you actually care, and the ones at the link above are already written. Look for them in the individual vaults under “experiences”.
*shows the sign of the hammer*
Amphiox
Here is something that you should know…
Going back to the drug example, if it was possible to convey the ‘essence’ of these experiences using language, then people needed not take drugs to have such experiences. All they had to do was to read about the experiences in some book, and voila, reading about these experiences gives you the actual experience. But you know this is not possible? Right? You know reading about sex, not matter how beautifully it has been written, is nothing like having actual sex? Yo do, don’t you, assuming you are still not a virgin?
Read my comment 205
*Agrees with Nerd*
Oh for fucks sake. Just squash the sexist little toad.
Please let him know, he is now going to break all his promises.
Oh please don’t….
Let me have more fun PLEASE, I beg you, (literally) Mighty PZ
You have no idea how stupid you sound when you try and say something clever.
Really.
Stupid.
PZ
This one has a broken wheel. It just spins around in circles making it boring to chase.
I say hit it with a hammer.
Oh Literally Mighty PZ, please once again….
shitweasel, there’s no need for Wikipedia. I’ll answer your stupid questions.
I felt like time fluctuated. That means it felt like time sped up and slowed down at times. It obviously was a step in getting truly wasted, and quite interesting in itself. But only the beginning.
Enough masturbatory material for you, shitweasel?
DING winning by losing
I have a suggestion : let it flounce, then ban it.
This way it will have learned at least to flounce properly.
PZ and his banhammer.
Instead of just begging, explain why in plain language you have fucked up your chances to date, and should be given another chance. At least that might be entertaining.
I’m with Kemist. Just quietly ban the asshole next time he decides to flounce for a bit.
Shut your fucking word-hole.
No no no don’t wait…that’s playing on its term.
Well, yes. He’s given up arguing and started trolling – saying completely random shit in an attempt to make us angry.
Will we get illithid back? Oh, please, I want that misogynistic statistically-challenged conspiracist numnut back.
Meantime, rajkumquat is OK for practise, if a bit messy.
I don’t know. Can’t afford the cable these days. So, the only fun that I have left for me is this thread, and all the regulars who live here. After all, I haven’t broken my quarantine.
Plus, think about all the lurkers and media people. You do like this blog to have good reputation in the future, don’t you?
Maybe not…
How cute that the fapwit actually thinks I have been arguing with it.
The fapwit seems to have forgotten what I told it way back on the first thread it infested, long before it was quarantined, IMMEDIATELY after it refused to read a citation given to it by claiming it “didn’t read philosophy citations”.
I told it that from that moment on, until it actually reads that citation and demonstrates an understanding of it, I was done arguing with it, or taking anything it said seriously, and that every other thing I would ever say regarding it from that point onwards would be intended as as comment about it for the the attention of others, and not an argument too it, as until it demonstrates the basic level of intellectual honesty required to seriously consider provided citations, it did not deserve the privilege of a serious response.
And, also, for emphasis,
*gladitorial thumb-to-neck sign*
It’s nothing like it – but, together with a bit of systematic experimentation, it gives one a quite good impression of what exactly one is missing. That’s why I, a 29-year-old virgin, am so sure “it’s nothing like it”.
You’re trying to troll; but your attempts are so stupid you just make me laugh!
Dance, troll! Dance!
PZ and his banhammer.
Not bad!
Ok, so then why in your opinion is sex-ed taught in schools? Is it perhaps so that adolescents can understand the act of sex, and its significance, before they are ready to partake?
Remember this is an argument about understanding God. Not having sex with it or experiencing it in some other way.
…*sigh*
I should have gone to bed long ago, but was having too much fun here!
Not bad!
If you ban rajkumar we will have only each other.
Oh, look, threats.
That’s something new. Pathetic, but new.
Maybe if put another 40 000 V through it ? …
Not just understanding God, but understanding God in ANY way.
The analogy to sex is valid ONLY if one couldn’t understand anything at all about sex by reading about it.
The fapwit doesn’t appear realize that the longer it perseverates on any version of its subjective qualia arguments, whether it is sex or drugs or the color that was formerly known as green, it systematically destroys its god argument in the process.
How funny would it be if Raj turned out to be David Gregory?
We’ll still have illzit, antigutless, and gooey the tyrant slavemaster (whom I nominate as the next occupant for the fapwit’s zombie pen).
Wrong! You’ll still have your many alter egos.
But I think banning someone is a very poor solution. For one thing, if one wants to come back, all he has to do is use proxy servers or multiple internet connection, which are available freely at every public library here. No, admitting you are all clowns and have nothing more to say is the solution, I guess. Right PZ?
I have to go now. PZ the threatening gigantic grizzly bear… This place stinks
Dungeon.
Hotel California.
I think all he needs is a sock puppet to make every entry on the list
It will smell much better when you quit leaving shit/flatulence all over the place. Evidence, separates the fools from the intelligent–FOOL.
I second the nomination. Joey is truly disgusting. He reminds me of every fucking arrogant christian piece of shit who I’ve ever tried to argue basic fucking human rights with.
Christians aren’t interested in human rights, because according to their fucking shitrag book, “Not the potter but the potter’s clay.” We’re god’s property and HAVE no rights.
Wait, isn’t gooey the guy with an apparently pathological obsession on umbilical cords ?
Can we please have one that doesn’t sound like a broken 8-track ?
And….. now.
It looks like shit got nasty above because Chas couldn’t refrain from sneering at Caine leaving – fuck you, Chas – but I’m going to post my HATE here without having read all of what came before.
FUCKING GOD FUCKING DAMN WHOLE FUCKING FOODS.
FUCK.
That is all.
Ah. The fapwit’s still doubling down on this slanderous lie, and still refusing to either demonstrate the evidence or apologize.
*Repeats gladitorial thumb-to-neck sign*
*caught up*
*hugs back for David M*
*bought herself some sunglasses today and discovered that Outside is far more pleasant with sunglasses on*
*stalks around still being ragey*
Ah christ. Do I even want to know?
Having proven beyond a doubt the plausibility of perpetual fap-motion, any reasons for a stay of execution have run very dry.
This zombie took a head-shot on the first day in here, and it’s been a case of kicking the flailing meat since then. I very much doubt Raj has the sort of god who’ll persuade him via epiphany towards reasoned discussion.
Once again, that wise troubadour Jim Reeves said it best. He’ll have to go.
chigau:
L’enfer, c’est les autres …
PZ: We the jury of me myself and I, on the charge of insipid boringness and stupidity, find the prisoner, rajkumar, guilty as charged, and recommend that he be banhammered.
How about if we can get even one person (other than the rajidiot himself) against his banning?
Anyone? Anyone?
Wowbagger: Maybe the tardigrade.
Maybe a heartfelt apology for his crimes against the horde would help. Oh, that is Rajkumar, who doubles down when losing….Never mind.
I might have if its last flounce hadn’t been so plain, childish and boring.
I thought it might have done something a bit more memorable, a starflounce kind of thing, with a few creative insults in it.
But, meh.
Its indescriptible if unexperienced squeakiness is all gone.
I think it’s about time PZ stopped punishing us. What have any of us ever done to deserve it? Called him a poopyhead? Give me a break.
Okay, I confess: I didn’t pay the meter last week when I parked someplace for five minutes. Maybe ten or fifteen minutes. I don’t know how that’s relevant, but please, just make it stop, PZ. Eternal damnation is unjust. Giving raj the hammer is the only moral option.
Wowbagger, you want an entouraj?
rajkumar is like Gilligan’s Island reruns. There are only two or three plots. The dialogue is insipid. The acting is mediocre. And yet, in a strange way, it is still fun.
Until you realize that you have now watched the entire run of the series four times.
Seriously? Back to the drugs? Hae ye nae shame?
Please ban rajkumar. He makes Gilligan look like a fucking genius.
I vote for banning Rajkumar.
He’s not listening, he’s not contributing anything insightful, and he’s just going around and around on the same old delusional shit. He’s a very bad writer, too, and insulting and dishonest.
I used to like reading the responses to him, but it’s gotten to the point where I don’t even read them, because it’s so damn pointless. I hate to see such eloquence wasted.
I hate to skip so much of the thread, and I have lately been avoiding TZT altogether. I feel like he’s driving me out.
He’s said he’s quitting many times, so it’s not like a ban is going to traumatize him.
Amphiox
Yes. And the implications of that get more and more ridiculous the more you think about it.
According to Raj we shouldn’t be able to define sex or have any understanding of it as virgins.
According to Raj LSD can’t exist, because clearly Albert Hoffman can’t have synthesized it without having dropped it first. He would have NOOOO way of knowing what it was.
In a way I think this makes Raj himself more understandable though. His apparent belief that he can’t understand something before he’s shoved it in his mouth explains his total ignorance of almost everything.
I remember my kids going through that age.
And yet people seem to figure out wanking on their own.
I’d like to express my gratitude towards David Marjanović for fixing things for me. I’d also like to register my disappointment with myself for not being able to get anything right in any language whatsoever, even if it’s just replacing one single word from the title of Dvořák’s symphony with another.
*hides head under the sand in shame*
Two hours after leaving Whole Foods, I’m still having heart palpitations.
:(
(I had … something. In there. Again. A panic attack or something. It was very unpleasant. I don’t fucking like that store. And I will never go into one without A.) a detailed list and B.) a list of alternatives in case they don’t have something I expected to get again. Twice now I’ve ended up circling back to the same shelf over and over (today I managed to stop after five times) because that’s where the thing is supposed to be. Usually I get groceries delivered now because of this, but I thought this time I could handle just stopping in for a few days’ worth of groceries because I’m moving soon. Nope.)
I don’t like raj because, among other things, he knows as much about how hot my ass is as he does about god, yet he feels qualified to pontificate about both.
I want that to be included in his dungeon text.
Also, he’s a sexist, ageist twit. And that’s really the worst part.
But the other things too.
Phalacrocorax:
Technically, he titled it in Czech, not German. :/ Maybe that’s not the point, though.
“Z nového světa” Sinfonie (e moll) čislo
89, opus 95.Wiki’s picture of the autograph score
Dump ‘im.
Every argument he raised was well-refuted, he’s been shown to be massively dishonest both in his arguments and in how much respect he expects us to give them, while at the exact same time giving not one shred of respect to any of the arguments that just plain vaporize his. The hypocrisy is obvious and overwhelming.
It’s all there in print for everyone to see if they want to go through the archives, I don’t think there’s any reason left to keep him around, he’s just repeating himself now. Better to keep his record more concise so there’s less to search through to find the (few) important parts.
Getting atheists and freethinkers to agree on -anything- is something that I’ve often seen described as ‘Trying to herd cats’. It’s only those with -really- bad arguments who ever try to claim that atheists are in lockstep with each other. How does it feel Raj, when you can’t get even one person to agree that you’ve got anything worth saying? I know, we’re all just parrots, parroting our Atheist Overlord, repeating our Radical Atheist Dogma. (All the arguments that make it obvious that that’s not true should be disregarded or ignored, of course. That’ll MAKE it true, right?)
Nope. Dump ‘im. It’s been swell, but the swelling’s gone down, you know?
I think the fact that he basically said he’d just sockpuppet with proxy servers and shit if banned seals it.
That looks like a threat to morph.
Well, if some “new” person comes along, and blathers incoherent nonsense about God being the incomprehensible experience of the entire universe (or something similar), we’ll know who it is.
Really, raj, how unrecognizable do you think you’ll be when you use the same damn stupid arguments all the time?
Oh, dear… There’s no chance I can write something correct in Czech, is there?
Okay, google translate says it should become “z třetího světa”. Can this be correct? Perhaps Wiktionary can help me:
* z: “from”. Is followed by genitive case.
So far, so good
* svět: “world”, masculine.
I suppose světa is the genitive form, if that’s what Dvořák originally used.
* třetí: “third”. Masculine genitive is “třetího”.
So, I guess the translation Google provided makes sense. However, I must make sure that the expression “Třetí Svět” really has the same meaning as “Third World”. I’ll see what the Czech Wikipedia can tell me about that:
http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Třetí_svět
Yup, the green sector looks like home to me.
Don’t worry raj, I’ll fill in with the only thing you’ve said that wasn’t stupid:
RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF GOD WHATSOEVER.
There. You’re covered.
Bye.
Hrumpf
That’s about it.
“I’m kajrumar. Can you explain color to a colorblind person, atheist bots?
What? No, I said I’m kajrumar, a totally different person than somebody you’ve banned.”
I think there’s a chance. It looks snazzy. :)
Oh please. If I sneered–and I don’t think I did–it was not at Caine leaving, but at the woe-is-me, people-are-mean-on-the-internet reasons she gave; this after years of…
eh, let’s just say my experience with Caine has been different from yours, and leave it at that.
Chas, shut the fuck up.
The gulf you think exists between your flounce and Caine’s exists in your fucking head.
I’m sure no one will question that.
Of course, I can understand why people would hold a grudge. You haven’t yet apologized for running a turtle-fighting ring in your basement, for example.
The banhammer has breezily swatted rajkumar into the dungeon.
“woe-is-me, the-changes-to-this-blog-over-the-years-are-just-too-much-for-me-to-take
Whoops, mulligan!”
If someone else wants to take up your torch of injured integrity, fine.
But you have no fucking credibility on this particular issue whatsoever. Drop it.
And there was much rejoicing.
Thanks!
Next step (if no Czech-speaker steps in to say I did something wrong): learn how to pronounce it. That will take some time, even if I have already deluded myself into believing that I know how to say the “ř”.
Not as much as there could have been. Would it have killed you to mention that he denied the hotness of my ass based on no evidence whatsoever?
Well, “denied” seems a bit presumptuous, don’t you think?
I thought he called you a fat, old woman.
Where does your ass fit?
No, I don’t.
PZ, consciousness razor is asking for it.
Not in skinny jeans, according to raj.
Honestly, have you people not been paying attention?
*Peeks in*
*Sees banhammered remains of the zombie clown religionista/LSD spokesbot formerly known as rajkumar *
*Performs Irish jig*
(Might I suggest a revision to raj’s dungeon wall? “Creationist” suggests that raj was the mindless, YEC, Answers-in-Genesis parroting kind of troll that are a dime-a-dozen. You know, standard issue from fundie churches. Whereas raj really was a “have you really ever looked at your hand? Like, woah. Therefore, Higher Power, dudes” caliber of stupid. He loved drugs, boobs, and Nameless Unknowable Divine Entity. He loved to repeat himself and hated reading. He loved his abstract idea of colorblindness and hated the fact that “high school science” undermined his wankery. And the flouncing. He loved the flouncing most of all. He was a complicated fellow. An abjectly stupid, complicated fellow.)
anteprepro, if the people from the planet I’m from ever die, I want you to write my eulogy.
I’m in such a foul fucking mood.
But the thought of the idiotic expression on Rajkumar’s face when he tries to come back and post more crap is a small, cold comfort (better than none at all).
Brownian
You got another straight-man?
(Oh dear. Is that still a word?)
We need to pass around a collection jar. We must purchase a gravestone large enough to fit all of this on there.
Brownian, I for one was extremely offended on behalf of your ass. It was outrageous that raj dared to impugn its marvelous flawlessness (which I take as an article of faith as a member of the Queue).
A what now? O.o
Is this like before when SC said Chas was doing stuff and Chas said SC was antiSemitic and they were both joking and everything was okay in the end?
“You people”? Did you just call us “you people”?
But to answer your question: no.
I don’t know. I went to the pub for an after work pint. I stayed at the pub for three after that.
I think that is still a word. Hell, I used it in the sentence before the one before this one.
I know, right? Beautiful.
ἀπεχθάνομαι, ἀπεχθήσομαι, ἀπηχθόμην, ἀπήχθημαι.
To be hated, or to incur hatred.
Greek vocabulary for our times.
Okay actually it’s Greek vocabulary for my exam tomorrow. But it seemed timely.
As they say, good riddance to bad rubbish.
There’s shit I’m not inclined to listen to at all, and then there’s shit I’m not inclined to listen to from you, Chas. After your most recent flounce, which appears to have been nothing more than an excuse to inform the frequent posters about how much you hate us all, sniping about Caine’s reasons for flouncing falls firmly in the second category. “Passive-aggressive”? From you? Really? Fuck off.
Yes, I was joking. It’s a bit like how Chas/Sven/etc. has been strawmanned and run through the mill for years now.
I’m in fact not defending everything he’s written, since I’ve agreed with some things and not others, since I’ve probably forgotten some episodes and since I wouldn’t be able to cite most of it now anyway.* (And that’s not really the point anyway is it? Strange that I feel like I have to say all of that here.)
I don’t think it’s just people having personal feuds or forming cliques within the group. Just like everyone else, pharyngulites often behave like a pack, so that misrepresentations or bad arguments on their side are given a pass. I’m prone to it myself, of course, but we can and should do without. I also don’t expect us to be perfect, but there’s plenty of room for improvement. If someone does dissent or even question the consensus on some point, however minor, they quickly find out just what the shark tank can be like — a good example might a recent thread with Stephen Wells (IIRC) but right now I can’t remember which. So it’s not just people in one group or another, or centered around one or a few people who’ve supposedly been instigating this shit — thinking about it that way isn’t going to solve much, if anything.
*PZ or others, has there been any word about whether the old comments will be restored at scienceblogs?
I feel slightly better; I was like “That’s a silly joke! There’s no such thing as a turtle-fighting ring. …Wait, right? There’s no such thing as a turtle-fighting ring?” And now I feel vaguely stupid for having actually asked. But that’s okay.
@Cipher
[From previous thread]
I was at one point vaguely interested in werewolf legends and other shapeshifting legends, and I recently found a list of werewolf stories that I’d written on a sticky note for later research (and most of them were old enough to be available for free on Google books, so I have snarfed them all)(and of course, I found a lot more related material on Google books — did you know that Charles Dickens edited something called “Household Words”? And that at least some people spelled the word “wehrwolf”, which is how he has it in there?).
Anyway, wasn’t there some classical-era shapechanger legend about someone putting a wolf skin down and pissing around it, and then changing into a wolf? Or am I thinking of something else?
Cipher, sorry that was unclear. Also, the bulk of my last comment wasn’t really directed at you, by the way, though I kind of made it look like that.
I’m not sure; there was definitely a story in the Satyrica by Petronius about a guy taking off his human clothes, pissing around them, and turning into a wolf. And then the clothes turned to stone for some reason. But in the Satyrica the story is being told by one of the people at the dinner with Trimalchio, and there’s already an ongoing thing with people getting legends slihgtly wrong at that dinner. So maybe :)
Ah, that sounds like what I was (mis)remembering.
I actually was thinking something like “wasn’t it his own clothes? But why would pissing around your own clothes turn you into a wolf? No, it must have been a wolfskin.”
I second-guessed my own memory. Because memory is like a whatchacallit.
Holy crap, rajkumar is finally banned!
@anteprepo
Congrats, your eulogy actually made it into the dungeon!
Anteprepro, check the dungeon. I think you’ll be pleased. I know I am.
At least he died doing what he loved.
(wipes tear)
@ Teh Ebil Oberlawd
[picking up from last fetid corpse of TZT]
A ringing endorsement of the leadership of TZT’s Official Policy!
百花齐放，百家争鸣! Brilliant!
Totaler Krieg! This is going swimmingly.
I have proposed to the People’s Central Committee that you be promoted for services to TZT. You are hereby elevated to the rank of Generalissimo and given the use of the Minitrue corporate jet.
.
It is this kind of dedication to the TZT cause that leads to this:
TZT #1 on FTB !
We shall now commence with preparations to launch an IPO.
.
{theophontes calls agent to sell off Minitrue assets, including corporate jet, and transfer procedes to own, numbered, North Korean bank account. Orders champagne, cigars and dancing tardigrades. Calls yacht broker…}
I always wanted to be a werewolf, so badly.
Coincidentally, last night I had yet another of my ‘all fours’ dreams. It’s the closest thing to a recurring dream I have. I simply cannot run on two legs in my dreams.
This one was different though, this time I went WAY low to the ground till I was almost crawling on my belly like a reptile.
Congratulations Anteprepo. The only thing holding back the awesome of your epitaph for rajkumar is the fact that the arrogant twit will probably be flattered. Rajkumar , if you are still reading (and I do not doubt for a second that you are), don’t be flattered. Your brain is filled with bullshit, and you have the bad habit of letting it leak out in public. Worse than that though, you do not listen to explanations of why your claims are bullshit, and won’t even bother to try supplying evidence for them. Try moar hard.
@ Chas / Brownian
Originally it was intended as a means to
satisfy theophonte’s craving for unrestrained powerrecycle godbots, trolls and menZ. A kind of purgatory – rather than instant banning. The “incarceration” part was to have cage fights between trolls that had been sent here. Sadly the various trolls have been too sympathetic to each others variegated forms of bigotry, woo, etc,… We have – to date – not been able to get a single fight going between them.I do not think this is a failure of the basic concept. Perhaps we should be casting our nets wider. If TZT can be giving its own blog settings, we could become a holding area for the whole of FTB.
Failing trolls could eventually get banned and winning trolls could regain commenting rights on other threads. That could add some frisson to the proceedings.
My favorite so far was Illithid. I don’t like giving excessive compliments, but the way Brownian whipped him into a lathery rage and then made him flounce was just beautiful.
I expect him to come back at some point here, because no one ever sticks the flounce. But so far, nothing that I can see.
What an excellent idea. Trolls! Calling all trolls! Come one, come all, to the only thread where you can just be yourselves. Face off in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. First place earns you commenting rights everywhere but TET. Runner up gets temporary rights to post on TZT. All others: complimentary porcupines for your abysmal, failing efforts.
And I shall name teh kitteh, “raj.”
http://videohall.tumblr.com/post/22947862416/
—–
(Apologies if the link is messy. )
@ Chas
I read Caine’s comment rather straightforwardly. Are you not perhaps reading far too much into things?
@
Aaaah… the penny drops! Raj has been compulsively hoggling onto hir keyboard and letting hir spellcheck do the rest.
Not sad to see it go. (Though I was interested to see if teh Horde would ever just start ignoring . I somehow doubted it. The SIWOTI is just too strong.)
.
Raj, you really need to fuck up BIG time to get banned on TZT. Well done and good riddance of you.
Most of the better comments were the result of the spellchecker.
Raj, I think this is the closest you will get to the endorsement of asked for by Wowbagger @249. Not impressive.
That has happened in the past, yes. As for lasting friendships or alliances, I’m German and fairly simple-minded, so I just use the beer test. “Would I want to have a beer with that person ?”. Has so far very rarely failed me IRL.
I like the idea. But at the same time, it looks like this is to be my new lounge, so I’d hate to see it invaded by dimwits…
For the record, I would have recommended allowing Raj one, and only one, chance to redeem himself. Namely, by addressing the comments that I repeatedly requested him to do so in full which could be found at http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/30/tzt-9/comment-page-1/#comment-349173 and http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/30/tzt-9/comment-page-1/#comment-349179. Other commenters would have also put up similar links to their own stuff they’d have liked Raj to address if they so wished. The test would have simply been that Raj didn’t make any more lame excuses as to why those comments were not worthy of his attention, but he’d actually address them in full.
Regardless though, I consider myself pretty happy with Raj’s ban. I was almost certainly THE most patient and civil guy when dealing with Raj, and how did he repay me for that? By his comment on #145:
Charming. And then when it became clear he was about to be banned, he turned into a snivelling little wretch begging PZ directly that he be not banned, rather than look to actually CORRECT the practices of his that had LEAD to him being banned.
So yeah, in conclusion: Fuck the guy and his baseless PR threats. Frankly, I’ll consider it to be the cherry on top of the icing on the cake if we end up seeing him on Conservapedia or in some other fuckwit religious insane house website crying about “persecution” while doing the standard religious tactic of leaving out the key details about why he actually got banished from the site.
Jon
Oh, and PZ? Is it possible you could include links to the pages for the Mollies and the Dungeon? Up until now, I wasn’t aware those pages actually existed.
jonmilne, links to those pages are at the top of the page. Blue tabs, above the giant “Pharyngula”.
You have to check out Sciblogs (assuming they are still up (I haven’t been recently)) to see the past dungeon offenders.
@ rorschach
For very broad definitions of “lounge”. Obviously one can chat and drink beer too.
Speaking of Sciblogs, what’s this about Tet Zoo v2 being completely deleted?
Good morning
cm
I don’t want to “other” anybody or declare this a slimepit. I think we can acknowledge that grown adults can have serious conflicts but that those conflicts make neither party a slimepitter.
cr
I expressed myself badly and didn’t notice that we were talking a bit past each other last night (it was night for me and late at that, too). So let me try to clarify: Caine was talking about taking a break from Pharyngula as a whole, and the interactions between individuals happen all over the blog and not just on TET and TZT, but there, too. How do you say “X” doesn’t post on TET/TZT? Because they didn’t do so on the last thread? Last 200 comments? That’s only always true until that person posts there again. So I can understand why this would stress somebody out. Again, I’m not speaking for her and I’m actually not interested in explaining things for her. I thought Chas’ putting the boot in was an asshole move and therefore decided to comment on it.
*Peeks in*
*Sees compliments.*
*Blushes*
*Applies for job as obituary writer.*
If it makes you feel better, I was also particularly galled by that statement of his, given that his only prior objection to your comments was “tl; dr”. But this shouldn’t have surprised you. He had already outed himself as an obtuse, fuckwitted troll before he was banished to TZT (hence, you know, being banished to the TZT ). He has been here in virtually every installment, ever-stupid, unrelenting, establishing dishonesty, idiocy, and blatant trollishness far, far before this thread. Or even the thread where you first started to give him his last few chances to be taken seriously by someone. So, just so it is clear, he was a lost cause. That doesn’t mean you wasted your time, but it does mean that, if you were convinced that he had an intellectually honest bone in his body, you might want to consider re-calibrating your trolldar.
By the way: don’t fool yourself into thinking that civility and patience will buy you any credit from the religious in a religion debate. It doesn’t matter how soft-spoken and polite you are. Forever and for always, you are automatically considered ruder and meaner entirely because you are debating against religion. Remembering that, emphasizing that in your mind, will save you a lot of headache and heartache when dealing with the religious.
This ^
Infighting…
I have been fascinated by the history of the Spanish civil war of late. This, in part, in that it gives a fascinating glimpse into the conflict between the authoritarian sensibility and a range of more progressive sensibilities (Republicans *,liberals, socialists, communists, anarchists etc) that took hold of Spain shortly before the Second World War.
What stands out particularly is the fractal nature of the DEEP RIFTS that cleaved Spanish society. Not just into a socialist/authoritarian dichotomy, but (particular among the Republicans) also between the myriad parties of the fractious left. It got to the stage of a veritable civil war being fought between allies even as they engaged in an extremely violent struggle against the fascist forces.
Everyone agreed to fight against Franco’s nationalists **, but at the same time they tore themselves apart over how (and to what ends) the battle would be fought.
/aside
.
* Obviously the Spanish Republicans were a completely different kettle of fish to what ‘Merkins understand to be .
** He remained in power until near the end of 1975 (with much applause from the USA). His version of nationalism serving as example, I have little doubt, to the early Afrikaner Nationalists in South Africa.
Theophontes, there were two paseados in my family, back in the day. It is not something that people, to this day, speak much about.
(People came to one’s house, “suggested” you take a friendly little walk with them. You never came back)
Fuck you, ex-raj. There are an artiste ministry of boolsheet fighting toreros at Stadia Pharyngula, all worthy of the Order el Matadores.
You are the boolsheet(from wikipedia, mwua-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaaa):
I, rajkumar the slaughtered, I am the artiste boolsheetores, and you are a painter of outhouses tank.
For the record.
Heh. Well, there goes the rajamuffin.
(No more absent-minded slaps-in-passing from me to it, such a loss!)
—
Cue musical interlude: Bolero
As always, the night before an early final, I have lost my ability to sleep. So I just lay in bed for four hours stressing. And now I am going to my final.
Cipher, you got this far, and I’m betting you will go even further.
(Of course you’re stressing; it’s reasonably serious stuff!)
Cipher, don’t take it personally. I just don’t like Caine, OK? I have what I consider excellent reasons for disliking Caine. Watch as I do not drag them all out. (FWIW I’m certain she’d say it was mutual. And it’s not a recent development.)
Now if I was trying to be nice and social, I would have followed Thumper’s father’s advice and not said nothing at all. But I wasn’t and didn’t.
I’m sorry that I upset you.
Brownian, I think you’re full of shit–my stated reasons were far less hypocritical–but whatever. You say “Drop it,” I say “ja vol!”
This is the place to contest nonsense claims like hers, and I agree with his assessment.
I suspected that Caine, Giliell, and some others in the gang would find it hard to accept if this became a place where people can talk honestly about their bullshit and defend themselves against their mischaracterizations, and sure enough. I don’t think Caine is a terrible person; I find her pattern of behavior toward sg and me perplexing.
***
Giliell, as long as this remains a place for people to speak freely and as long as I’m commenting here, I’m going to respond honestly to statements and say things about subjects that you don’t like. At least right now, the comments section here is not your lounge, living room, or clubhouse. You can continue to attack and misrepresent people and make false claims all you like at TET – I probably won’t even be aware of most of it – and people (including Chas) will speak as we want to here. You’re not required to chat nicely with anyone, and I’d prefer that you ignore me.
You’ll do great, I’m sure.
Cipher, you won’t see this in time – but good luck! Hope you knock(ed) their socks off!!! ::cheers for Cipher::
[Does morning dungeon check, sees raj giving hoggling lessons to yec123] YES! Misognyraj is gone! [Jumps up and down]
I’m not sure if “simple-minded” is exactly what you want to say here. :)
SC
Wow, I’m a gang-member now, cool.
So, can you show me anything I have written that somehow indicated that I have a problem with that?
So, I’m not allowed here? I’m not allowed to comment? I should go over and be mean on TET?
Fuck you.
Yes, I’m pretty OK with the division between TET and TZT. I like the idea of a safe space. Many things have happened over in TET that I find incredible and good that would not have been possible, I think, with the conflicts here on TZT going on over there. That doesn’t make the conflicts inherently bad, I don’t think they are, it means that you can’t have both on one thread.
So, since this is not a lounge I can take a piss on the floor any time I like.
Chas is absolutely free to spew his bullshit here and I’m absolutely free to reply to it. You can’t have it both ways.
As for your “misrepresentations and attacks”, if I think you to be an uncaring better than thou asshole, that’s not a misrepresentation, that’s my assesment of your character based on my interactions with you. If you don’t like it, run to mummy and complain that I’ve been mean. Or maybe think why I might have that opinion. Or just don’t give a fuck.
If I was unclear, I meant that you can continue to spout your nonsense anywhere, and you’ve all made TET a particularly good place to do so uncontested. It’s unlikely that I would respond (or post in general) on TET because it’s not a space for honesty or contesting misrepresentations. You’re of course free to play your little loaded-questions and false-statements games where you’re not looking for information but for an opportunity to attack and misrepresent people anywhere you like. I probably won’t see them unless you do it here or in a substantive thread, but if I choose to respond it almost certainly won’t be at TET. That’s a safe space for your bullshit, but its rules do not apply here.
If people talking honestly here makes some people uncomfortable about commenting on TET, that’s something they’ll have to find a way to deal with, because as things stand your silencing and marginalizing techniques are not going to work here.
Yes. He was/is a Trollodon mystikus.
And, as an experiment, I will try to ‘write’ like raj (randomly pound on the keyboard and hope that spellcheck recognizes something):
Damn. It almost worked. I think I made more sense, though.
Are you kidding? I, personally, am so straight you could use me when hemming my trousers.
Well, whatever else they were, we can say for certain that your reasons were somewhat untrue, since here you are, reading and commenting again.
But it was a good performance. My disbelief was totally suspended, if only for the moment.
Oh, and you distinctly asked people to tell you to “fuck off” should you start commenting again, and well, we see how that worked.
So how’s this: when people flounce, they’re usually at an emotional point, and what they say may not be the most cogent and rational, and maybe it’s not necessary to hold their feet too closely to the fire.
After all, it’s highly likely that someone might be back within the month, as if nothing they said at the time even mattered.
Bloody lucky the tea was still in the mug and not in my mouth, and the mug was on the desk and not in my hand. Keyboards don’t replace themselves, you know.
I could support this, if it applied across the board.
SC, the only reason I’m bringing up Chas’ flounce, as the last time I did he said “don’t mind me” and I haven’t since, is that he’s now decided he’s the Flounce Police.
Interesting choice of words.
SC
How’s the air up there?
So, according to you TET is for all us pathetic dishonest people who can’t handle an argument while TZT is for you good and honest people.
Talk about creation of fractions, othering and dishonesty, yeah.
Cause there’s nothing either in Teh Rulez™ nor in the realities of these threads that supports your bullshit the least.
It was not people talking “honestly” that made people uncomfortable on TET. It was constant high level fighting that made all other forms of communication and especially the sharing of very intimate and important stories impossible. And the request was that it was taken here instead. That’s something people seem to be able to live with, except for you who has to make this about being better than the rest of us all again.
I think his problem was with the claims she made in that post and not with the flounce itself. I suspect his response would have been the same had she simply made those claims without flouncing.* I understand what you’re saying about people’s emotional state, and I know that it’s a genuine concern because I remember you were the only person (or one of a very few) who had a problem with the “potshots from opportunistic trolls” that followed my leaving last year. I think it would be a good policy going forward if universal.
*And, as I said, I agree with his assessment.
No, no, it’s true. Brownian has me in a genuine gotcha. He has exposed my Pharyngula problem for all to see. I accept the tu quoque and all the shame attendant to it.
And then I repeat what I said to Giliell in the first place: my own behavior is not relevant to what I had to say about Caine’s stated reasons for that particular flounce. So your gotcha is gratuitous, but taking it at face value anyway: I’ll spot you ‘passive-aggressive’ and to save trouble I’ll even stipulate ‘narcissistic’. But nothing I typed while flouncing under emotional duress was ‘hypocritical’ or ‘dishonest’, whereas I stand by my claim that Caine’s comment was both.
Look, I’m not presenting myself as the Flounce Police, I just said something I thought was true about something Caine said. That’s it. It doesn’t even matter that she said what she said while flouncing; see above.
You can defend the statements I took issue with, but threadcopping me with the misdirected tu quoque is pointless, as is spanking me for being mean to the otherwise universally beloved Caine.
@ John Morales
That they still cannot speak about it, says a lot about how terrifying the situation was then. And then the same malign undercurrents swirled for so many years after the war.
The fascists in South Africa tried to conscript my brother (via the acting headmaster at the time) who told them politely to fuck off. As it was, a classmate of his was seduced – as came to light a few years later.
(He had joined the Students Representative Council and had played a major role in instigating riots on campus so that the police could take action and crack a few heads. He later felt terrible about what he had done and confessed his role.)
.
.
.
A light musical interlude: Spanish Bombs – The Clash (features footage from the war – La Pasionaria appears at about 1:47)
The Manic Street Preachers “if you tolerate this your children will be next” also deals with the Spanish Civil War.
heh, thanks SC.
Noted in passing:
PZ just banished another “obtuse and intransigent” troll to TZT here.
Crossposted from the Compendium thread (yes, joey was still going):
And there was much rejoicing! For Our Squidliness hath ordained in his wisdom that his blog shall have many Threads, and that trolls shall be cast into TZT that the Threadizens may snine their coats and sharpen their fangs thereon. Praise Cthulhu.
Anyone can read the past few Threads and determine who’s telling the truth. sg and others have linked to and quoted from many posts there and here by Caine and others that show that your problem was with sg and me posting there and that you were perfectly happy to stir up arguments so that you could then collectively attack and misrepresent us and then use our responses to suggest that our presence was ruining your lounge.
I don’t like some of the message PZ sent while doing it, but I’m happy there’s a space where we don’t have to put up with this nonsense. You got what you wanted and cheered: sg was banned from TET and I (and I think others, from what I can tell) are not interested in responding to you there. But that wasn’t enough for Caine. Her #19 on the previous ZT was gratuitous bullying and she went out of her way to do it. People here were not engaged in any effort to make her feel uncomfortable on this blog. They were standing up to the bullying and hypocrisy, and it’s been a place where sg and I can speak our minds in a context that isn’t unremittingly hostile and dishonest, and that evidently made her uncomfortable.
This makes no sense at all. I like it here.
SC
Put up or shut up.
Point to any place where I cheered that sg was banned from TET or admit that here you are misrepresenting me and paint me as a bully.
I’m waiting patiently.
Rejoice!
Joey, how’s your side arm? You’re one of those pseudo-polite scamfaps, as I recall, acting ever so pseudo-genuine and naive as you discourse digested debri. Did you ever resolve that anus/mouth mix-up? Or did you just get used to sitting on your food to eat, I wonder.
it’s all so very, something.
It sure is.
It was a reference to the gang collectively, who thanked PZ for the changes, which presumably included the banning. If you personally did not in fact cheer it, inwardly or outwardly in any way, then fine, I retract “and cheered.” Caine quite obviously wanted sg driven off TET, and more.
Your bullying and misrepresenting of me is evident beginning here. You certainly knew there was no response I was going to give that you weren’t going to attack me for, and the question seemed pretty much designed to elicit a response for me or from others similarly in agreement with you about my position and about me. Further, you couldn’t have done better if your intent was to start a fight. My response to your loaded, out-of-nowhere question was calm and meant to inform (after several rounds of being bashed and misrepresented on the subject, I’ll add), and in response you went on the attack. (You did the same thing with your statement about farmed animals and damage.) It’s pretty rich for you to be complaining about fights being the problem.
Again, if you really do want to understand where I’m coming from and learn more about this, I highly recommend the book Mad in America. But you seem more interested in going after me.
@ chigau (違う)
*cough*
As sg wondered at the time
Why were you posing that question there?
For the record, what I said at the time was that Pharyngula comments were making me too angry too often, I didn’t like that, and therefore I was “going for the permanent flounce”. Far from promising to never come back, I predicted my own backslide and requested fucking-off asistance. Since then, I repeatedly proved too weak to keep away from the crackteat, and finally formally rescinded my request (to make Morales happy). These are facts and I’m not proud of them.
And all of them are utterly irrelevant to anything I said about Caine.
Quote where I did that, fucker. Find the fucking quote, brainiac. Scroll on up, cockwad. Show it to me.
I’m spanking you because you’re a fucking douchewad who pops in with one-liners we can only assume you think are pithy and insightful, that is when you’re not whining about how much this place isn’t like the old days.
It’s not that Caine is universally beloved, it’s that even if she were the biggest asshole on the planet, she’d could only ever tie for that position because you’ve firmly set up base camp on the No 1. podium and you ain’t ever leaving.
And as for tu quoque (not like you’ve never complained about ‘internet logicians’), the only fucking reason you’re complaining about Caine at all is that you have a bug up your ass about her.
Because, as always, it’s only ever worth it for you to talk about if it’s one of your pet peeves, Chas. And anyone who’s familiar with your history here knows this.
SC may be right about Caine.
But you’re just a narcissistic prick.
Jesus, fucking Christ.
theophontes (坏蛋)
Gesundheit!
Giliell,
These are contradictory ideas. “I think you sleep around” and “I think you are uncaring” both include clauses about the external world, clauses which can be misrepresentations if they’re false.
Let’s dissect this hypothetical:
“Giliell, I think you to be a halfwit and a bigot; that’s my assessment of your character based on my interactions with you.”
This is both 1) a misrepresentation, since you are evidently not a halfwit and probably not much of a bigot,
and 2) an assessment of your character based on my interactions with you, well, a hypothetical assessment anyway.
It is both things at once. You suggest a false dichotomy when you imply that if something is the latter then it isn’t also the former.
Your statement about SC is a misrepresentation, while it is also your evidence-free assessment of her character.
well, if you juxtapose it like that…
But it doesn’t count as a different gotcha. It’s the same (irrelevant) one twice.
I wish there were a *topic* killfile so I could prevent myself from reading this argument. That thing about emotional agitation probably applies double or something when sleep deprivation is added to the mix. And I keep failing my Will saves…
—
That said, thanks to everyone for the encouragement and vote of confidence on the exam! I think it mostly went okay. My hand was a little less than under conscious control (I kept skipping letters and misspelling things (which I do not do) because my brain was going a lot faster than my hand was), but my brain seemed mostly there. I did mess one thing up pretty badly (decided to come back to translate half a sentence that was looking really strange to me later and then… uh… didn’t), but it shouldn’t count for too much. I can’t decide whether to sleep now or study for the other exam that I haven’t studied for or, hell, try to work on my paper for a while.
Also I’m super hungry but it’s not lunchtime. Stupid confused body.
Brownian: As for #360, yes I guess I made that part up or misattributed it to you; I’m sorry.
The rest of it, well, OK, I’m sorry you feel that way I guess. Yeah sometimes I get pissed off enough at somebody over time that I snipe at them seemingly out of the blue. I think you probably know what I’m talking about.
Have a nice day.
Now, given that this did in fact include a misrepresentation:
I’m intrigued that it’s followed by this:
It is another example of the recently observed pattern,
“I will speak falsehoods about you, and if you object, then you’re just weak / tone-trolling / crying about people being mean to you.”
The way objection is taken as weakness — it appears to be a type of hazing, since the target is expected to demonstrate stoic strength and quiet endurance by not responding to the untruths.
Falsehood-hazing?
It’s possible to make one that’d be sorta useful.
It would check whether hidden comments are quoted in other comments, and hide those comments too. Maybe it’d also run them through ssdeep to find a few more comments which aren’t exact quotes but are probably on the same topic.
I don’t have any real plans to implement this, since it’s a little harder than I’m making it sound, but I just thought I’d toss it out there; if anyone else wants to implement it we can host it on the wiki.
Chas, I do have a very sincere apology owed to you. Some time ago, I made some very over-the-top comments to the effect that you should fuck off and die, or something like that.
They were out of line and of course undeserved, and I’m deeply sorry for making them. I’m a real shit sometimes.
Again, I’m sorry.
@Brownian
Are you shitting me?
In what way?
SC
So, let’s see what you got:
Sweet. How lucky you are for the English language to be so ambiguos. In a conversation with me about me suddenly one you means the gang.
Note the word “presumably”. That’s your interpretation and yours alone. It’s not an interpretation that is based on evidence unless you’Re talking about specific individuals who clearly said so.
But you misrepresenting people is somehow Ok…
So, how am I supposed to justify myself against alleged “inwardly cheering”? You seem to have decided that I did and only if my heart is pure of all sin you will retract that.
See, there’s a little problem here: I’m not Caine. I like Caine a lot, but I don’t follow her, worship her, lick her toes. So if you want to jerk off about Caine, don’t try to accuse me of things you think Caine did.
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read this and so is my computer.
You know, it’s not always about you. You were not present in that thread at all, in the more than 500 posts before mine. The last thing you posted in the incarnation before was about some music. My post was not adressed to you and you can believe me or not, “eliciting a response from you” so that people could attack you was really not on my mind. I’m bad at playing chess because I lack the skills that are required to make such plans. And you’re really not that important to me.
I did not “certainly know” anything about your response because I was not trying to get a response from you. I got a pretty interesting response from Louis and for all I care the whole discussion could have ended there. Again, it’s not about you.
But since that is your primary example, let’s take a look at it:
Passive-agressive bullshit par-excellence. Gaslighting gallore.
No, I was not nice and kind in my reply to you. I explained there what problems I have with the reply and the sources linked.
I was giving a very personal example about somebody dear and close to me and you did not come off as somebody who gave even a flying fuck about him, but very interested in making your point.
Where on earth did I say I hadn’t taken part in it? The fact that I participated in a good amount of it doesn’t mean it didn’t contribute to turning TET into a not-safe space and that it isn’t better IMO the way it is now.
You have a seriously disturbed perception of these things. I’m not going after you. Again, you’re not that important.
I commented here in reply to Chas and what I considered to be an asshole move. You were the one who talked about me making some serious allegations about me and accusing me of quite nasty things. What’s that, are you the G.W. Bush of Pharyngula now carrying out pre-emptitive strikes against people neither talking to or about you in self-defense?
Believe it or not, because there are actually people in whose opinion I was interested. Again and again, it’s not about you. I’m really not interested in reading books I have no other interest in reading just because of you.
lilapbwl
Just in case you’re talking to me or trying to talk with me, you’re wasting your time. As I said several times before, I’m absolutely not interested in having any kind of exchange with you.
Should you be talking about me, feel free to continue.
“gaslighting galore”?
lol
OK thanks Brownian
My goodness. With all this “bullying” and serial flouncing round here, how can I retain my crown as Most Obnoxious Asshole? You can’t take it from me. I made it myself from tinfoil and glitter.
Giliell bullshitting,
Haha! Nope, that’s unbelievable.
Who in that discussion did you think would answer “yes”?
Nothing to do with important, Giliell. My interest in replying to you is not an indication that I think you’re important. Someone is wrong on the internet.
In that instance, you did troll and start a personal fight with SC, about her person instead of just the issues. That does qualify as going after her.
+++++
Trust me, Giliell, I am capable of determining for myself whether or not responding to your bullshit is a waste of my time.
I get such warm and fuzzy feelings watching this thread. It’s like being all snuggled up in an alpaca cardigan, doused in kerosene and set on fire.
Rev, there’s hugs and grog and recipes over at the clubhouse.
(darn, there’s that snark again!)
Is there fire?
Giliell,
There is some ambiguity happening here, but it’s not being generated singlehandedly by SC.
See, you said this:
All of these bolded phrases are ambiguous groupings.
You’re fine with that ambiguity when it suits you, but then you act like it doesn’t exist when you respond:
Huh. How did that response come up? Let’s see:
Guh.
The reasons why Caine was mentioned to you by SC was because you were talking about Caine earlier on this subthread, and so this is a valid part of the topic when addressing you on this subthread, and SC was responding to your ambiguous-group comment above.
It is a sensible reading of your comment to think that you were saying Caine was one of those uncomfortable on TET, and that she was uncomfortable not because people were talking honestly, but only because they were fighting.
If you’re going to attempt to talk about who said what when to whom and why, try to keep up. I know it isn’t easy, but you have to try.
Yeah, it’s interesting how quickly “gaslighting” went from a potentially useful word with a specific meaning, to whatever Giliell is trying to make it mean here.
Not primarily her fault, of course. I’ve seen other people use it very weirdly.
Oh well; maybe some people will keep on using it in the meaningful sense.
Not apropos of the ongoing discussion, but Giliell, my comment @#188 was a request to Chas, not a rebuke to you. (Sorry it’s taken so long to clarify, but I can’t post from work, and it’s been a long day.)
antigodless sighting
cm
No problem. I understand long days :)
pitbull:
For what it’s worth, in the volcano thread (I think), its usage triggered my “no, that’s not what that means” detector, too.
I also owe you an apology! In the “darling” deba{t,cl}e, I hadn’t even read the “social justice” thread. I’m not even sure I knew it had been re-railed from there. So, erm, sorry.
And I didn’t reply to your “imported American offensive words” question, either. Let me do so now:
1. I can’t think of any, but
2. The one you offered, we just tend to think is funny
No, it was primarily about Caine and the gang as a whole. You guys certainly did not openly oppose the banning, and several people thanked PZ. Saying that you support one action and oppose another is easy enough to do.
What are you talking about? You’ve been part of the gang going after us for weeks, you didn’t oppose the banning, and you were happy to continue there as though nothing problematic happened. This all gives me the impression that it was something you wanted and were happy about. If you inwardly did not support it, then my comment doesn’t apply to you and is retracted in your case.
Again, I was referring to you collectively. The initial discussion was about Caine, though, and she very plainly was happy about the ban and wanted more.
The recent discussion on the other thread had been specifically about “schizophrenia” and drugs prescribed/enforced for it. The previous discussion on the Thread was not about so-called psychotic disorders, and I don’t think there was anyone there arguing anything close to my position about the drugs – in fact, everyone was pretty much agreeing with one another on a very different general position. Then you asked:
To whom was this addressed? Were you expecting that the others there were going to answer that in the affirmative? I’m finding it hard to believe that your question had nothing to do with a knowledge of my arguments previously or elsewhere, but I’ll try to accept it if you say so. It does make your question seem a bit odd, though, quite frankly. Coincidental and odd…
…But this would still be a problem. Louis doesn’t know your cousin, either, but he answered in a way that didn’t challenge your preconceptions, so you had no problem with his response. (“Well *I’m* certainly never going to tell you he’d be better without drugs. I think pharmacotherapy is an essential part of many/most management/treatment programmes for serious mental illnesses. And in most cases the evidence supports that….”) You didn’t accuse him of anything. The difference in the substance of our responses to you was that Louis just mentioned evidence and I linked to some, and I also talked about the problems with an anecdotal/clinical approach.
Giliell, you know that followed a fairly long substantive response to your question. I don’t think anyone who witnessed those exchanges in the past would say that I was wrong to not want to continue it on the Thread. PZ had shut down the Thread after the blow-up the previous time. I was trying to avoid a repeat, which is exactly what happened. I shouldn’t have to put up with those attacks and mischaracterizations to talk about a problem that’s important to me because it’s important to people’s lives.
That’s absolutely correct. You used my willingness to respond to your question informatively to attack my character. Neither Louis nor I nor I assume most people on that thread know your cousin (who deserves more privacy than that; having mental problems doesn’t mean it’s OK for family members to discuss you on the internet). All anyone could do is answer it like it was an honest question in a general way. You had a lot of nerve attacking me (again, as part of a gang) for answering your question.
And I responded to you. It was a baseless attack and showed that there was no response from me that you wouldn’t use to misrepresent me and my motives.
I care as much about him as I do anyone (outside those I know personally or myself if that applies) who’s struggling and diagnosed with mental illnesses and their families. That I care about them is why I think psychiatry is a major social justice issue, and want as many people as possible – and especially people with these diagnoses and their families – to read about the evidence and the situation. I can’t remember the last book that made me as furious as Mad in America. I see real harm, and if someone asks I want to talk about it. I was and still am surprised that you don’t seem interested in learning but primarily in attacking me. And this isn’t convincing anyway since Louis gave you a similar response but without evidence (just one that didn’t challenge your thinking), and you didn’t accuse him of anything.
I didn’t say that you did. If you think the problem was simply fights and not caused by sg or me, that would imply that you don’t agree with sg’s banning, since he’s just as capable of abiding by rules as anyone. It’s not too late to say that you don’t support that.
I thought you would be particularly interested in reading it because of your cousin, about whom you’d asked.
I’m going out to the garden to get some catnip. There have been bears in the vicinity of the garden in recent weeks. If you don’t hear back from me shortly, worry.
OK, I’m back. No bears.
Could you maybe try to use less, I don’t know, colorful language? Because just…no.
http://www.enviro.co.za/
You should have been more worried about cats. ;)
SC
Have you ever heard about the concept of Clan Custody? You could have invented it. I don’t consider myself to be part of a “gang”. I still consider myself to be able to think and speak for myself. And I consider your insistence of labelling me as part of a gang to be an asshole move.
Blatant lie.
If, by “us” you mean you and sg, it is a pretty obvious lie since I refrain from engaging with sg since quite some time. Actually I had him killfiled until pretty recently, so I can hardly have been part of “a gang going after him”.
Unless you count my frequent requests to leave me alone as “going after him”.
As for you, the last interaction I had with you before that was ages ago about the rabbits. I did not engage you over in TET, I did not engage you here. How that consists “going after you” is a mystery to me.
A discussion I haven’t been part of. Maybe you are incapable of seeing people as individuals once you’ve labelled them as a gang, but that’s your problem.
So, if you actually do accept that, what’s left of your narrative of me going after you?
And pretty much my style. Half-rhetorical questions are something use frequently.
Yes, it was simply a turd laid onto a heap of stuff I actually did read with interest. It didn’t damage the content of the sources you gave, although my evaluation of them is still different from yours, but it made me doubt your intentions quite a lot. Claiming that people who disagree with you to be irrational and not capable of discussing those things preemtively just doesn’t make you look like you’re actually interested in discussing those things.
I’m not interested in discussing my cousin’s situation with you. Because, as said before, I don’t trust you.
Oh wait, suddenly now that’s a factor when you’re going to use it against me?
Stupid bullshit again. I attacked you for answering my question the way you did and I certainly did not act as a member of a gang but as an individual who was pretty pissed off by you. And who still is. I’m not speaking for anybody else nor do I need them to help me.
Again, you’re thinking yourself to be way more important than you actually are. I have zilch interest in going after you and misrepresenting you. No, I actually don’t believe that you really care and I’m just happy to live my life without any input from you. I thought and still think that my reaction was justified.
That’s still your twisted version of events. I looked at your evidence and came to a different conclusion than you. Others with more medical education confirmed my layperson objections.
That you can’t deal with the fact that other people are not convinced and think again that they’re blocking because of you is your problem.
And then we can be friends again or what? I didn’t say anything about that because I’m refraining from engaging with sg as mentioned before. And personally I think it’s bad taste to voice my opinion about somebody I’m not willing to engage with. That’s why I didn’t and will not say anything about sg on that matter.
See, that’s the problem I have with you again. First I should read that book because of you, but when I decline it’s suddenly because of my cousin.
The picture of the one drinking from the bottle is painfully cute.
I could, but I don’t want to.
Apparently, Guinness has little to say on the topic, yet Guinness, does provide the answer to a long one.
Is there enough light by the fire to read and get groggy, Rev. BigDumbChimp?
@SteveV, I’ll sound the call. Battle stations, Battle stations!
Notice how when Giliell says she is being misrepresented, it’s just a reasonable complaint, which any ol’ ever so humble person could make.
OTOH, when someone else complains about being misrepresented,
that complaint can only mean the person is insufficiently humble.
cm’s changeable moniker, thanks.
SC, one thing to remember might be that Giliell (and I) live in countries with socialised health insurance and reasonably strong governance over funding for drug prescriptions, and strong prohibitions about direct-to-consumer advertising.
For me, NICE does a reasonable job of keeping marginally-likely-to-be-beneficial (and usually very expensive) drugs out of people’s way.
I have no idea about Germany, but I’d suspect it’s similar.
Obviously, the US is a different story.
Can you define “the gang”? Cause I know I called bullshit on a Post Ex Facto ruling on SG
Does that mean you didn’t know they were happening at all, or that you weren’t actively commenting on it?
I don’t care. You’ve been acting as part of a gang.
Except that you’ve obviously supported the gang’s representation of him as the problem. Your refusal to address him and your support for Caine’s presentation of the situation is indirectly continuing this.
I pointed to evidence of it. We’ve been discussing it.
Everything aside from that, obviously. But I’m having a hard time believing that in any case.
What you said was that it “confirmed” your “suspicions.” So obviously you went into it with preconceived notions about me, which you were quite happy to share in a context in which Caine and Ms. Daisy Cutter had already started. IIRC, you sent Ms. Daisy Cutter a “*hug*” after her nasty comment about how I’d triggered her, when you were the one who asked a question about psychiatric drugs. You could have thanked me and said you disagreed with various specific points and weren’t interested in going further with your investigations but appreciated the response.
Do you think, as she and Caine and others were suggesting, that I’m denying the existence of experiences and behaviors that get diagnosed with mental illnesses or that these can be terrible, or that I’m suggesting that people should just “snap out of it”? Because if you don’t agree with that, you should have spoken up rather than joined in with your own form of attack. Otherwise, it looks like you don’t care if people are misrepresented at all.
And really, you can’t treat psychiatry and psychiatric drugs as a question simply of private, personal choice. People (including children) are being made to take these drugs, the labels are stigmatizing, and the model affects how we think about people diagnosed with these alleged illnesses, about ourselves, and about social problems and social struggles.
It wasn’t preemptive. (And I think I was talking about the responses; do you have a quotation from me saying people who disagree with me are irrational, or are you just going along with someone else’s misrepresentation?) It was firmly based in extremely stressful prior experience, both on Pharyngula and when Ms. Daisy Cutter started it elsewhere. It’s something I very much think there needs to be a public discussion about. I don’t jump into every single conversation about it on the Thread (you’ll note that I didn’t say anything about the previous discussion before your comment), but you asked a question. I was discussing it despite the attacks and misrepresentations I thought would likely ensue, because I care about it and because you asked a question.
Then don’t, but this has nothing to do with my arguments or reading suggestions.
No, it just didn’t occur to me at the time. Most of us are used to doing this – treating people with these diagnoses as though they have fewer claims to respect. I’ve done it myself in the past, and it’s a problem.
Thank you for acknowledging that.
You don’t have to have an “interest in” it to do it.
You’re wrong. Other people can read the exchange and make their own determination. But that won’t help you to answer your questions.
You skimmed a site about the Open Dialogue program and then talked about how it was in Norway and your cousin isn’t so that wouldn’t help him. Of course, I had no way of knowing where your cousin is, and I wanted first to address the drugs. If you ask about similar programs in Germany (I know Soteria-House-inspired programs exist in Switzerland), I would look into it. But to understand why such programs are better and necessary, you’d have to read more, and I’ve given you recommendations. If you don’t want to talk about it with me or read any books I’ve recommended for whatever bogus reason having to do with your wrongheaded ideas about me personally, I don’t think that helps you answer your own questions about your cousin.
Do you really think your statements haven’t suggested that you’re blocking because of your notions about me? Further, you haven’t read any of the books. You can’t say you’re convinced or not, because you’ve just skimmed a tiny fraction of the materials.
No.
I don’t. I don’t think it would be in bad taste to express disagreement with PZ’s action towards sg if you disagree with it, regardless of your personal interaction or lack thereof with sg. I don’t like or interact with Stephanie Zvan, but I’ll speak up if I think she’s being misrepresented or treated unfairly.
When did I say you should read it because of me? I think everyone should read it, and I thought you in particular would be interested because of your family member.
I do know this, and it’s a huge problem in the US that has to be dealt with, as I’ve said elsewhere.
They do a decent job. Could be better. (By the way, here’s Ben Goldacre in 2008 talking about the serotonin hypothesis of depression being a myth. He understates it, but it’s true.)
I’m actually writing a post right now about Ireland. Amnesty International Ireland has, to their credit, made the “mental health” system a central focus, and the public discussion there seems to be open to critical challenges, which is good.
Germany is quite good comparatively, I think. But the influence of the brain-disease model extends there as well. Irving Kirsch, in The Emperor’s New Drugs talks about the European regulatory environment, but primarily with regard to antidepressants. The possibilities for nondrug approaches in Germany are definitely there.
The US is a nightmare, and it’s spreading its model around the world.
Oh, one especially. It’s like people here being afraid of terrorism…
Norway
Finland. Open Dialogue is in Finland. I do this every single time.
theophontes & chigau: My mede-Politburo-lede: So lyk dit soos tzt geword het om die amptelike Pharyngudrama draad. Is dit goed of sleg? Persoonlik dink ek dit kan kry in die pad van ons uiteindelike doelwitte vir die draad (deurlopend trol eksplisiete Cage Fighting), maar dit hou ook die draad aan die gang, en op die top van die FTB mees aktiewe lys. Gedagtes?
At a minimum (and talking about behavior towards both sg and me), Caine, Ms. Daisy Cutter, I think kristinc, Giliell, Setar, Matt Penfold, Ichthyic, and Pteryxx. I can remember conversations, but I don’t always remember names attached to comments, and I’m not a great grudge holder so I only recall more recent discussions.
I really don’t want this to become some ridiculous group war. I think sg and I have been misrepresented and then blamed for challenging those misrepresentations, and I’m happy to have a place to contest that.
I think it’s a good thing.
Then there’s the assholes like me and Chas. :)
… and who could forget truth machine?
Giliell, from the linked thread:
That’s an insightful point. Especially if you try to apply it without labels. (That does not mean claiming some simplistic thing about all mental distress being a political statement or every diagnosis solely a means of oppression.) It’s the germ of a critical, social justice perspective.
A.R, and by association theophontes and chigau: fuck you for the language games, the ingroup bullshit, and the implicit tribalism.
Chas: I don’t think you understand, back when TZT was started, theophontes, chigau and I spent quite a bit of time scheming to start troll fights on TZT. It’s all something of a joke, with no tribalistic intention.
It bothers me that you asked this question and we answered it without any discussion of his wishes. I’m ashamed about that. He could say the drugs are great (and I’d disagree), but it’s a huge problem for this conversation to take place about him and without him (to follow a slogan).
A. R and theophontes (OM)
私は、 “ページダウン”を使用します。
それは “計画”を妨害してはいけません。
chigau, indeed. Ye killfiles are for those who are weak.
That exam was very unpleasant. I think the worst moment was probably pushing myself through the essay section, sighing with mixed relief and unhappiness because I was done but I felt really bad about it, flipping my exam closed to hand it in, and discovering there was another essay section on the back.
Also, I forgot to eat first, so now I am nauseous with hunger, but my fucking landlady is in the kitchen so I can’t eat.
chigau: Agreed.
Hmmm… with the exception of parachuting into the social justice thread and getting sucked into the darling debacle, I haven’t been around much for nearly a month, owing to having become Overcome by Events™ IRL. Now I find that there are New Rulez© (I never actually understood the TZT concept to begin with, and now it’s… different) and people are fighting and leaving, and I’m too damned (multi)threadrupt to even begin to know how I should feel about it all.
I think I’m just gonna fade away. I’m not flouncing: I’m not mad at anyone (I don’t know enough about what’s going on to know who to be mad at, even if I wanted to be), nor is it too hot for me in the kitchen… but I’m going to be increasingly busy between now and the elections anyway, and this seems like an opportune moment to refocus the time I’ve been spending here over the years on Other Shit®. Mebbe I’ll drift back this way at some point; mebbe not. In any case, y’all take care of yourselves, OK?
(X-posted TZT/TET)
John Morales
and it ain’t that hard to have a tab open on Google translate, since accuracy is neither required or desired.
—-
Cipher
Eat anything.
Crackers, petrified fruit, that thing at the bottom of your backpack that was once a chocolate bar.
Hunger nausea is awful.
Oh hell, I just realized I have literally eaten only one very small snack all day.
GEE I WONDER WHY I DON’T FEEL GOOD.
Sadly, chigau, I don’t have any food at all in my room :( Nothing whatsoever.
Bill, hey.
It’s never trivial to see a luminary depart, but you owe this place nothing, in truth and I guess shit happens.
Oh well.
(Perhaps I’ll read you again, somewhere, somewhen.
“Live long and prosper”)
Cipher, I guess you’re not a Survivor Type.
I went and got food and brought it to my room. If my landlady has a problem with that, she can go fuck herself.
Fortunately, I’m only going to be here for four more days. When I come back to LA I will make sure that if I have to live with someone, they’re a reasonable fucking human being who doesn’t try to dictate what I do in my own room.
Cipher,
You don’t have a drum-kit, do ya?
(Not everything you do in your room stays in your room; others are to be considered too)
No, I do not have a fucking drum kit.
The real problem is that she didn’t decide to tell me about the “no eating in your room” rule until after I’d a.) moved in, b.) showed her the tray I was eating in my room with, and c.) lived here for several months. And then when she did, she claimed she’d told me right away, which I know for a fact wasn’t true because I know my own eating issues, I knew when I came here that I could very well stop eating again, and if she had told me that when I moved in, I wouldn’t have moved in.
@Cipher:
Do you know what good food is that you can keep in your room?
Chocolate.
Get a plastic food container (Tupperware or whatever). Fill it with baking chocolate — a bar, or maybe chocolate chips.
When hungry, eat some.
I’m surprised not to see Happiestsadist in that list.
I’m also a little surprised to see Ichthyic in that list — he’s never struck me as being part of any group, being more the stubborn and uninhibited independent sort. If he’s sniped at you/sg, it was purely out of his own personal feelings, not out of solidarity with anyone else. Or does something like that matter to you?
Would you describe yourself and sg as a “gang” of your own? Especially when you’re tag-teaming a shared value like vegan-advocacy?
Does “gang” have a particular sociological definition, I wonder?
Cipher, now I have more information my generic quibble is obsolete. ;)
Contracts are important.
(If it ain’t in the contract, it’s ipso facto disputable)
—
PS I wish you good luck at finding good accommodation!
Yes. This. Next time, I will be very careful about that.
And I have to learn that just because someone says something to me, that doesn’t mean I have to actually fuckin’ listen to them.
And also thanks :)
It seems that the easiest way to find out if someone secretly howls at the moon is to live with them or rent from them. If only it were easier to tell that beforehand.
I hope you have better luck with that in LA.
[meta]
I imagine PZ will need to adopt base nine to properly illustrate the quantity of zombie threads slay3d, in times to come.
(Each block is 3×3 headshot zombie images*)
—
* I’m no digital artist, but others are.
Commiserations, Cipher. Probably the happiest moment in my life so far is the day I got my own place and began the joyous experience of living alone and (as much as I’m able, given it’s a block of units with a certain set of conditions) by my own rules.
When I used to live in walk-ups I’d go around back to the parking lot on weekday evenings to take a look at the cars there. If the lot was full of pick-ups and muscle cars and/or the vehicles had a lot of right-wing and/or sexist bumper stickers I’d try somewhere else. Not a perfect test, but it did narrow my searches somewhat.
Also, there’s rules-lawyering.
No eating?
How about drinking? Protein and energy drinks and smoothies?
@ Chas
Easy Tiger! You’ll be taking away the kiddies’ toys next.
If you do not enjoy the ongoing , scroll past. You don’t need to have a big cadenza about it.
I don’t think anyone takes PZ’s blasting away of zombie-jesus at the end of each iteration of TZT too seriously. Nor do I think the idea of a microscopic, inveterate, invertebrate trying to seize the reins of power on this thread is taken particularly seriously. Nor the fellow conspirators, nor the mindless myrmidons… (It’s just for fun, damnit!)
@ John Morales
By your leave my liege: 3×3 grid = 9 zombies
cr
I knew they were happening in the broader sense of meaning, but I didn’t read or follow the discussions closely. Dunno how much you remember that time, but for me personally it was a very stressfull time because of severe health problems.
SC
You’re a fucking liar. You seem to think that you are entitled to say what I was or am thinking or feeling, knowing better than myself. I have never supported Caine’s presentation because I don’t talk about somebody I’m unwilling to interact with.
By now your definition of “bullying and going after somebody” has become “doesn’t talk to or about somebody”.
sg is not entitled to a fucking second of my time or a letter of my writing. I have no duty of care towards him.
Yeah, I sent a hug out to somebody who was having a hard time. Guess what, that’s what I’m always doing when somebody on TET says they’re feeling bad. It’s an acknowledgement of sombody hurting, not support for a position. I know how bad it is to be triggered.
But somehow it’s now my fault that you triggered her? No, it doesn’t work that way. You triggered her and that’s not my responsibility. Your level of reasoning is akin to that of my daughter but she’s four.
My preconceived notions about you? Yeah, do you expect that after interacting with you for quite a time people don’t form an opinion of you? And no, my opinion of you wasn’t very high at that point and it didn’t go up afterwards.
What, I could have thanked you for painting me as somebody incapable of rational discourse before I even said something about whether I agree/disagree with you? You really have a twisted idea of human interaction.
You could have done without your passive-agrressive bullshit in the first place instead of painting yourself as a martyr. It’s time you take responsibility for your own actions.
Bullshit. I attacked you for my own reasons as explained and stated. I don’t have a duty of care towards you either and I don’t accept your constant “you should have done X to support Y and if you don’t you’re a bullying gang-member”. Yeah, if you’re not in favour of me you’re against me. Simple, simple, simple.
I did read your suggestions. I disagreed with them.
Nope, that’s true. But for acting as a “gang” with the goal of bullying you as you claim I have to have an interest in doing so. You think that at that time I wrote what I wrote in order to bait you into a reply so that people could attack you further. That presupposes intent and planning. Neither was or is present.
It’s Finland. And Switzerland is not Germany either. Yeah, not reasonable to think that the seriously ill family-member of a German woman lives is Germany. Europe may be small compared to the USA, but there’s a big lot of countries here.
WTF?
What I’ve read so far hasn’t convinced me, that’s a simple fact. I haven’t read all materials about the existence of several thousand gods either but so far none of the stuff I have read has convinced me.
So, do you think it’s just possible to disagree about that? Or are you the final and ultimate arbiter of wrong or right?
That’s really rich when my behaviour towards sg consists of not having any and the last two interactions between the two of us consisted in you adressing me. You can remember conversations but not who took part in them but you feel very comfortable in labelling people for connections that exist in your head solely.
Says the person who has been talking about the existence of a “gang” who’s out there to get you.
That’s why I said “at a minimum.” :)
I don’t see these as mutually exclusive, and I don’t think anyone has acted purely out of solidarity and not based on their own feelings. Since Ichthyic has mostly (if not entirely) been on other threads, it’s possible that he didn’t appreciate how his comments played into the ganging up, in which case I’d distinguish him from the gang. Not sure.
No. And I can’t imagine that you would, either. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this rhetorical false equivalency.
In this case, my definition is people who’ve initiated or joined in attacks on and misrepresentations of sg, me, or both; have suggested or argued that our attempts to discuss certain subjects from our points of view, to contest oppressive language, or simply to oppose misrepresentations of ourselves and our statements are disrupting “their” social space; and have ignored or refused our or others’ attempts to get them to defend, acknowledge, or retract the stream of misrepresentations.
Since you’re pointing to happiestsadist and suggesting inclusion in the list, though, it would appear you already have a pretty good sense of what I’m talking about.
***
I’ll respond to the rest later, Giliell, but
I repeat my question:
Do you think, as she and Caine and others were suggesting, that I’m denying the existence of experiences and behaviors that get [people] diagnosed with mental illnesses or that these can be terrible, or that I’m suggesting that people should just “snap out of it”?
Because that’s the basis of the ridiculous “triggering” accusation, and it’s demonstrably false and was so at the time, as more than one person pointed out. You responded positively to her post at the time, and now you’ve again sought to validate her triggering claim. Do you or don’t you believe that’s an accurate representation of my views? It’s a simple question.
Hey Giliell, if you keep going at this pace you’ll end up with an ulcer… Slow down a bit maybe ?
Nice to see Mr Owlmirror a bit more active around the place again !
Especially because we should be busy fighting other groups together, it’s not that there isn’t shit to do, or that people aren’t wrong on the internet as we speak. This TZT reminds me of the Star Trek episode with the Borg where Picard is like “As long as they are busy looking for us, they can’t harm anyone else”. That’s how the slimepitters, homophobes and Christians must be feeling right now.
As to gangs on Pharyngula, I doubt they consciously exist beyond some flexible temporary alliances. Or maybe they do ? The recipe-swappers, the snipers, the anarcho-communo-vegans, the innocent bystanders, the radfems, the bewildered lurkers, the elder statesmen, the still-have-no-idea-what-i-have-gotten-myself-into-by-becoming-a-regular-here newish regulars, the cynics, the I’m-really-over-this-period-of-my-life-but-will-still-occasionally-pop-in-to-check-and-wave folks to name a few…Maybe there are gangs here after all !
Sorry, just rambling freely here. I went to bed at 930pm last night, only to awaken fresh and ready to tackle the new day at…1130pm. That did not work out well for my 8am shift today, let’s leave it at that.
I’m disappointed. I’m not a member of the “Let’s Gang Up on SG Gang.” Nobody loves me for my dislike of a self-centered, prissy, arrogant bully who disrespects everyone who isn’t him.
<snivel>
Er, wow.
SC, after reading Giliell’s comment at #441, I can only conclude that you’ve gone off the deep end and have joined the likes of Alex Jones, Art Bell and 9/11 Troofers in the “if you don’t agree with me 9001% you’re PART OF THE EVIL CONSPIRACY AND MUST BE DESTROYED” cellar.
You know all those MRAs and slimepitters who are complaining about how anti-harassment policies are OMFSM TALIBAN and any dissenters are bullied and shouted down by the evil gangs of Rebecca Watson supporters?
You sound exactly like them.
Look at your own fucking writing. You’re complaining about sg being pushed out of TET for engaging in unacceptable conduct and yet you turn around and blast Giliell for giving support to someone who was triggered. Seriously. I don’t know how that doesn’t scream fucking horrible to you, especially considering that from what I know of you you’d be one of the first to stand up and say “HEY, STOP THAT” if you saw someone else doing exactly that.
(My apology earlier stands, but I doubt you’ll ever accept it now.)
SC
Actually, you’re just denying that she was triggered. Which you are no fucking judge of. I have no interest in rehashing things other people said. I understand that you seem to think that it’s all important than I chastize people properly the way you deem fit, but I disagree.
Ms. Daisy said she was triggered. This was consistent with what I know about her and her personal story. I therefore had no reason to doubt her claim and sent hugs because she was hurting.
That does not mean that you did intentionally hurt her because triggers are notoriously bad to guess unless you know a lot about that person.
So I don’t think that the claim “I was triggered” was demonstrably false. Their perception and representation of your position might have been.
So, there are some possibilities:
Ms. Daisy was triggered and I sent hugs because she was hurting.
Ms. Daisy lied about being triggered and I fell for it and sent hugs.
Ms. Daisy lied about being triggered, I understood that she was lying but sent hugs to kick you.
But I’m going to gang up on me all by myself and bully myself out of this discussion now because rorschach is right and this is leading nowhere.
For my part I think I have demonstrated that I was neither ganging up on sg, because I fucking can’t do so by not engaging with him, that I’m also not ganging up on you because all past interations have been initiated by you.
And I deny that I posted my question in order to lure you into a fight so other people could attack you.
Good thing it detects the language. I just awoke, and did you know about half the Japanese characters have Chinese meanings?
Very muggy yesterday.
Was it John Morales that said you used to bounce at the International? Was that up 118th? The York is closed down now as well? (I live 3 blocks North almost exactly) Cecil is long gone, and darn it, the one on 118th ave and about 80st – it began with a ‘C’? (Update – I’m thinking of the Transit) is over, also.
Fuck, is my mind in the gutter. This thread is getting to me. I’ve always remembered this since I heard it:
“Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people.”
The author is listed as unknown, so I’ll take the credit for that quote. [bs]It’s from my second autobiography, ‘Kindergarten is Hell.’ I hadn’t the maturity, at the age of 6, to understand that zombies talk about “aaarrrgghhhh.”[/bs]
You participated in those conversations and said nothing about the misrepresentations. When that sort of climate of misrepresentation is created and your response is to explicitly refuse to address the person being misrepresented, you’re acting as part of the gang. Further, not only did you actively join in the attacks on and misrepresentation of me, but you refused sg’s requests for you to defend your baseless claim that I’m uncaring.
The result, in that climate of attacks and misrepresentation, is that you’re supporting a group attack. In any event, this was originally about your response to his banning from TET. Your actions suggest that you were fine with that. It’s also about your actively attacking me in the same climate, which you’ve acknowledged.
Yes.
You were suggesting that the statement at the end of my post (which had nothing to do with you) “made me doubt your intentions quite a lot.” But in fact you’ve said that it merely somehow confirmed your preexisting suspicions. It’s OK if it was a misunderstanding on your part – if you were simply ignorant of the history that led me to want simply to make some recommendations and not to get into an exchange about it in that specific context, as you appear to be, but you should acknowledge that this history exists (as I pointed out, that argument led to the closing of TET last year) and that your interpretation reflected a lack of knowledge about this. Can you acknowledge that?
Or were you aware of those previous discussions and the views I’d expressed on the subject in the past? Can you answer that?
No, for answering your question with some information. Again, that remark wasn’t about you. And again, it was about the responses. You still have not provided quotations from me saying people are “incapable of rational discourse.”
Once again, thank you for acknowledging.
You might not accept it, but it’s true. In this case, it’s not primarily about what you failed to do but what you actively did: you attacked me personally. That might have been due (in addition to your preexisting prejudice against me) to your ignorance about the history and uncharitable misinterpretation of the statement at the end of my post as being about you. You also validated vicious misrepresentations of my views, which you’ve continued to do unapologetically.
No, you haven’t. I’ve suggested books.
You’ve acknowledged that you attacked me. You’ve validated others’ falsehoods and refused to defend those falsehoods. Your actions speak for themselves.
I’ve already corrected that above.
Did you stop reading after the word “Switzerland”?
Holy shit, this is stupid.
And what you’ve read so far is, again, a tiny fraction of the materials. I’ve recommended a few books, one in particular. I thought you were interested in learning about the best way to deal with this (and again I’m not happy talking about someone who’s not part of the conversation in this context), but all of your responses seem to be about why you’re not actually interested in that. Louis’s response didn’t add anything to your knowledge on this specific subject, and you expressed appreciation for it. I have to conclude that you’re not actually interested, so I don’t understand why you posed those questions.
Well, I think if you have a position you should be able to defend it. If you think someone’s being misrepresented or treated unfairly, not speaking up about it because you’re not speaking to that person condones misrepresentation and unfairness, and that’s wrong. But I suspect that you had no problem with sg’s banning, and this is all so much nonsense.
What on earth? I said that – followed by “and learn more about this” – because a) You seem to hold a false belief that people can support the use of drugs for this for ethical and caring reasons, but that opposing the drugs is inherently unethical and uncaring. Reading that book (and the others) would help you to appreciate the ethical, humane case for opposing the drugs and the model. And b) As I said, they explain why different approaches are better and necessary.
I really don’t know how you got that impression.
Then I guess we all agree. But that’s not what SC was saying.
Sure, they “might have been” demonstrably false — meaning you apparently still don’t know what her position is. I figured you’d somehow make that simple question more complicated than it needed to be.
Ms Daisy Cutter said:
That is a false presentation of my views, as she should well have known (and if she didn’t she could have asked). It’s a terrible accusation. A claim that you’ve been triggered based on a complete misrepresentation of someone’s actual statements and views is wrong, and you were wrong to validate it, Giliell. These constant misrepresentations of both me and sg were pointed out again and again, and you and the others have simply refused to acknowledge or retract them and continued to blame and berate us for opposing this pattern. You’re a gang of bullies who pat yourselves on the back for your compassion.
I miss Raj
Kevin, Barb, the Titanoboa floodists, anyone at this point really. (btw, the Titanoboa comments are gone from Sb, that is a major tragedy)
what the fuck?
That is a real shame
cr
As I already told SC, I’m going to remove myself from this discussion.
I think I made my points and defended myself against the accusations of being abullying gang-member to the best of my abilities. I hope you can respect that.
To answer your questions:
I took the phrase “ridiculous “triggering” accusation” as a denial of the claim by Ms. Daisy that she was triggered. It think that’s a reasonable interpretation.
No, it means that I’m refusing again as I have been before to rehash this old discussion, to defend or speak for anybody except myself. So, yes, I’m setting my boundaries. Because I’m actually not a member of a hivemind bullying gang. As said before, SC seems to think we’re playing chess when I’m admittedly playing tictactoe.
I take responsibilities for my actions and words, but not for things other people said and did.
So far my crimes seem to amount to not talking to sg, posting something SC found bad and not acting the way she deems fit and sending hugs to somebody who was hurting.
You’re having the discussion right now. You could’ve just said “honestly, I don’t know how to answer that, because I’m clueless,” instead of all of this evasive bullshit.
It was a ridiculous accusation because its premise was a nasty false claim. Again, this and other public misrepresentations were called to everyone’s attention over and over, and both sg and I (as well as Jadehawk and cr) asked that it stop. You’ve made it very clear that you’ll support and engage in the misrepresentations and that you think I’m weak or childish for contesting them. You’re a bully.
You’ve rehashed it plenty.
Lie.
Bye, now.
I apologize for my drunken grump last night. Members of the self-styled Inner Party should feel free to continue to send each other pseudo-sekrit messages without interference from me.
Chas, they should?
(What, you’re using reverse psychology?)
well, yeah. They should feel free. Open Thread.
Here, I’ll re-phrase:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
eh, that’s not quite what I was trying to say. Here:
In the future I will not comment on any silly games anybody wants to play. (As long as it doesn’t involve lying.)
Games Without Frontiers
Hello all. Just found out that I’ve been exiled into this thread. So, what exactly is this thread and what are the rules?
joey, this is the kumbaya, lovey-dovey, mutual admiration thread.
(Enjoy!)
no rules, joey. You may troll.
[chew it, Fido!]
Joey, still no evidence that there is a problem for your solution to solve….Stop mentally wanking start showing evidence.
Am I allowed to comment on subjects of other threads? Or is that a bannable offense?
Yes, joey. It’s an open thread.
By “yes” I mean yes you can comment on subjects of other threads, not yes it’s a bannable offence. Obviously.
Joey, you can continue your fuckwitted “philosophy” here. We will still point an laugh at your presuppositional idiocy.
joey
Just don’t be boring.
Poodle bites
This isn’t “stick sharp” joey, is it?
SC,
Yes it is. He was a blast on the Compendium thread, believe me.
Well, if you’re sufficiently boring for a sufficiently long time – and I’ve little doubt you will be, judging by your past performances – the Squidlord may ban you altogether. But getting banned that way takes dedication. Direct threats of violence, outing commenters’ real names or other personal details, or sufficiently vile expressions of bigotry might also call down the banhammer, but, again judging on your past performance, you’re unlikely to offend in those ways. So troll away!
Damn.
joey taints for me Eric Idle’s beautiful attempt at a mellifluous Welsh accent. Let’s hope that the trolling improves.
Emrysmyrddin, so far its been more like this match-up, and as you can see, it’s still a good, fun, workout.
This zombie is not moving.
(Kicks zombie in the ribs.)
[Probably not a good idea.]
Apparently zombies can hibernate, or seem apparently dead-dead – I saw it in Osombie, so it must be true.
I do hope this one is less repetitive than the last zombie. It just kept repeatedly bumping into the same spot on the wall at different angles. Boring.
I laughed really hard.
—
FWIW, I’m not sure about the instance in question because I don’t live inside Daisy’s head, but I think it could be pretty easy to misunderstand what someone says and then get triggered by it, especially if the subject is already an emotional one for you. I’ve already written this whole comment somewhere else that I’m too uncaffeinated to find about how triggering doesn’t necessarily equate to wrong because of the whole “triggers can be really weird” thing.
—
I don’t like the new zombie. *childish pout*
Hmm, so I guess I am the “zombie”. What do you guys expect me to do around here? Get up and do a little jig for your entertainment? Lol.
I still have no clue what this thread is about, but alas I’m stuck here.
It’s an open thread! I think everybody already told you that. You can just talk about whatever. Although I really don’t particularly want you to because you are obnoxious and an asshole.
In my opinion Ms. Cutter used the loaded word ‘trigger’ inappropriately (much like somebody used ‘gaslighting’ for effect, but incorrectly, the other day). Usually it refers to memories of trauma evoked in trauma survivors. Ms. Cutter seems to have meant something more like ‘remembering what it was like to be depressed’, which I think is a devaluation of the concept. (Yes, I know what it feels like to be depressed.) And the reason she said it was apparently to get other people to stop talking about something by using evocative language to shame them into shutting up, or something. It was pretty much bullshit any way you slice it.
Another language issue: For consistency, I think it’s best not to call a fetus a ‘girl’. It’s a female fetus. (Where ‘female’ refers to phenotypic sex, not gender.)
Come sit by me, ‘Tis Himself. We can talk about how the limitations of text-only discussions seem to only exacesbate the (already ridiculous and holy crap really fucking tedious) bickering.
Or we could watch paint dry while we drink.
No, you’re not. You can fuck off any time you want, and not return. I do assure you, you won’t be missed in the slightest.
Well, you could pick up where you left off in the thread you got thrown out of.
Or you can respond to the substance of comments appearing in other threads or PZs posts, but post them in here instead wherever you would have posted them if you were not banished.
Or (obviously) you can give up on commenting and lurk.
I was wondering about that myself.
The balloons would look funny though :D “It’s a female fetus!”
(I know, the balloons already aren’t helping. We should make ones that say “Yay, a baby!”)
joey
Talk about whatever you want.
Well, have you tried looking around? (Hint: type ‘look’)
Perhaps you’re carrying something useful with you. (Hint: type ‘inventory’)
Maybe there’s nothing you can do here (yet), so you should try somewhere else first. (Hint: type ‘north’, ‘south’, ‘east’, ‘west’, ‘up’, ‘down’ to try to move in one of those directions.)
Have fun!
chigau
Okay.
Anyone actually rooting for Lebron James and the Miami Heat?
Hehehehe Brownian :D
>There is no a Lebron James and the Miami Heat here.
What did you want to do?
>
That can happen, but in this case it seems pretty willful. She probably knew something of my previous posts, she could have read my links, and she could have asked for a clarification. Instead, as she typically does, she went on the attack. The hyper benefit of the doubt she receives is strange. As (I think) cr said above, it’s possible that she could be so intentionally ignorant about what she’s shouting about that it wouldn’t be a lie, but the willful failure to investigate or pay attention to what people are actually saying is intellectually dishonest, and that she launches into these tirades without trying to get the facts is not OK.
I understand that people can react that way (I’d thanked Josh for asking for a clarification in the discussion on the other thread), and it’s possible that it wasn’t originally an intentional attempt to misrepresent, but the untruth of her statements was brought to everyone’s attention by more than one person. She simply carried on her way – no acknowledgement, no retraction, no apology – while others (including Caine) joined in. People can be mistaken, and their judgment can be impaired on emotional topics, but the attitude of several people clearly seems to be “I want you to shut up and leave, so I’ll represent you and your position however I want, in the worst manner possible and truth be damned, and I’ll then berate you when you object.” That’s not OK to do to anyone, regardless of how you feel about them personally.
Alright, no NBA fans in here. What about golf? Any picks for the US Open? McIlroy? Woods? Watson?
Brownian, can anybody else provide input or is joey the only player?
There’s something really funny about joey’s getting tossed in here. It’s like absurdist theater.