And I see the comments on Matt`s video are already awful.
josesays
Here’s a level-headed person. He’s had trouble with both camps here, and he’s just given his reasons each time, no hatred, no nonsense.
Anyhow I’ve noticed a bit of a shift in FTB (nothing drastic) in that you’re addressing more external topics that matter to people outside the “movement”, I hope it continues!
kestrelsays
I’m new… and did not know what his position on this was. Now I am glad I watched – that was terrific and well put. He goes on my list of heroes.
Beatricesays
chigau,
Thanks for the recommendation. I can’t even listen to Matt properly, the hilarious captions are too distracting.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
At the time that I am posting this, Matt’s video has only been up for about an hour and already oner one hundred and eighty comments. Many that have nothing to do with what Matt said.
Here is one example by one blinkered little troll called supermaroilogan.
Whether the “fake jewellery” targeted Amy or not that’s not what Amy addressed in her list of proposed anti-harassment policies. She said it’s NOT OK to make fake jewellery. Like she has a fucking right to make playschool tat and nobody else does.
I have been watching this for a long time, I would be foolish to even try to say I am surprised by anything of this. I am left wondering one thing. Why do people who do not know what actually happened insisted on yelling about their lack of knowledge?
Why are these people so in love with their own ignorance?
·
josesays
Janine,
makes things simpler?
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
Anyhow I’ve noticed a bit of a shift in FTB (nothing drastic) in that you’re addressing more external topics that matter to people outside the “movement”, I hope it continues!
You do not seem to get it. It is not like any of us want to go on about this. Do you think there is any enjoyment from most of our part dealing with this shit?
I just don’t get the absolute head-up-arse stance that Thunderfoot is pushing about feminism in atheism. In all of his past videos I watched he always talked about using evidence instead of faith but for this he prefers to believe that if he doesn’t see anything wrong then everybody that does is evil. What particular ox of his is getting gored? Does he need to believe that all sexual advances should be tolerated? For someone who advocates for the scientific method he sure depends on authority a lot.
jackiepapersays
Jose, I’d like to second that “Fuck you”.
djs67says
I think I will go and watch it again, to make sure I understand it. I think this time I will watch it on a laptop, while I am driving somewhere to save time.
Aratina Cagesays
I think this time I will watch it on a laptop, while I am driving somewhere to save time.
Hopefully on a back country road where no one else is driving. A win-win scenario!
josesays
lol, you’re welcome folks.
I just advocate a different approach against haters is all. Hatred and disagreement are different things, one deserves to be addressed, the other only deserves to be reported as spam, imo. Anyway that was off topic so if you like, let’s take it to the thunderdome >:)
katenralasays
@ jose
Anyhow I’ve noticed a bit of a shift in FTB (nothing drastic) in that you’re addressing more external topics that matter to people outside the “movement”, I hope it continues!
Could you explain what you mean by this sentence?
silomowbraysays
Captions ON, time 01:27:
water digestion warehouse on my face
I just peed myself laughing! O, toilet humour, you never stop being funny. Or I’ve never stopped being juvenile.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
I think Matt’s rebuttal of the thundering fool’s latest video was quite good. He addressed several specific points and explained why tf was wrong. Not that he or his followers are likely to even attempt to understand.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
jose:
Hatred?
Disagreements?
What are you on about?
Did you read thunderf00t’s few posts while he was here? Are you aware of the backstory?
Or pictures of sex positive people doing sex positive things and then calling them hypocrites.
I haven’t watched Thundy’s video, nor do I intend to, but I did read his posts when he was at FTB and the reason for the above is not that those people are hypocrites, that is that they do things that they say are bad, but that they are doing things that the strawman version of them considers bad.
So not only do those people who criticise them misunderstand them* and blast them because of their own misunderstanding (e.g. want anti-harassment policies therefore perceived as wanting to ban all flirting and sex at conventions and criticising them for it) but then they call them hypocrites for not adhering to their misunderstanding of their position (e.g. Oh you’re for harassment policies but you’re flirting/posing for a nude calendar/… therefore you’re a hypocrite), which makes them doubly wrong.
If only they would get off their high horses and recognise that there is a lot of shades of grey between a totally unregulated convention and a the equivalent of a police state convention they just might see that people wanting anti-harassment policies do not necessarily** want the equivalent of a police state during their convention.
Meanwhile those critics will continue blaming sex positive feminists not for their failure to follow the moral standard they advocate (hypocrisy) but for their failure to follow the critic’s misunderstanding of the moral standard sex positive feminist’s advocate.
* being charitable here.
** I haven’t seen any but the qualifier is just in case someone finds a loony extremist.
Anthony Ksays
Theists, why do you insist on redefining marriage?
Anthony Ksays
Wrong thread. Multiple tabs have foiled me again.
Tethyssays
Ahhhh, the CC is so hilarious! Thank you so much for the tip Chigau.
My favorites so far include:
– water digestion warehouse on my facebook page..
– yang bands that post (referring to people who post MRA style)
-hot pollit allies
– Dat iz [athiest} community.
Tethyssays
*facepalm*
Sorry for so overusing the word so, and not noticing in preview. Need moar coffee.
Those youtube comments just drain my will to live. Not only are they hideously dishonest and/or misinformed, but they’ve chosen a venue that makes any serious, prolonged discussion all but impossible, so you can’t properly correct them.
You know what I was thinking about? That one time that Matt Dillahunty was a giant asshole over on the Atheism+ forums and got banned. Apparently he got pissed off about it and made a video, and I don’t think he ever apologized.
The other things I’m pretty sure he never did? He didn’t start a blog for the purpose of attacking A+ and falsely whining about “free speech” and “censorship” and other idiocy. He hasn’t made common cause with bigots in his eagerness to destroy people involved with A+. He hasn’t created dozens of sockpuppets to avoid the ban. He hasn’t posted the home addresses of anyone involved with A+, created fake Twitter accounts impersonating them, or even bothered making personal attacks.
He did wrong, he lost his temper a little bit, and then he moved on with his life, like reasonable people do. T-Footie? The slymepitters? Not so much.
cityzenjanesays
I unsubbed from Thunderfoot YEARS ago. He is dishonest, pig headed, sometimes racist often belligerently wrong. His attacks on ALL Muslims – lumping them all in with terrorists was ridiculous and dangerous. His fanboys generally behave in a scummy way to people they disagree with…and he models completely turd like behavior for anyone young enough to be swayed by his dumb ass dick wagging….which sadly is a lot of people.
=8)-DXsays
I know this is childish, but I just have to say PWNED!
Having unsubbed from TF about a year ago due to his bullshitting concerning “all muslims”, and his petty inabilities to react to ANY criticism from other atheist channels, I’m saddened but not surprised.
One HUGE point TF made in his video was making fun of PZ’s quote about the “war” happening online, the discussion about feminism and women’s rights in scepticism.. and denying any such discussion is happening!. If TF doesn’t see that this is going on every day on blogs and youtube and comments sections of news items, if he doesn’t notice the MRAs and the misogynists and the chauvinist assholes – he’s just totally blind.
cityzenjanesays
Also …..what’s not obvious I guess to some is that he’s a drama whore seeing hits primarily….
Well, after seeing Matts response, I sure as hell do not need to see the latest Thunderblunder. I unsubscribed and I haven’t watched a single video of his since hist fiasco at FtB.
I gave up on trying to converse with people on youtube pretty much the same year I created my youtube account, but nevertheless I am still disappointed that the quality of comments of alleged skeptics and reasonable people is neither more skeptical or reasonable than comments from, say, conservative creationists.
How dissapointing.
cityzenjanesays
“If you EVER GO to a sex party….you’d know….sex parties have rules!” HAHAHAHAAHA
This.
athycosays
…a drama whore seeing hits primarily….
Objection to mind reading. Huge objection to terminology.
Those two objections do not in any way undermine my massive objection to Thunderf00t’s own stampede of self-serving mind reading, well-poisoning terminology, inaccuracies, blind spots, and myriad other flaws, but he gets called on them, not have the same turned on him.
jackiepapersays
Jane, ditto. on #36.
Let’s skip the slut shamey language.
…The jury was out on “dick wagging”, but then I actually recalled a drunk man waving his dick at me as a sort of gesture of anger and frustration. (Wouldn’t give him a ride, oddly enough.) That one seems spot on.
I remember your channel, Jane. I remember it being very nice. I don’t hang out on the tubes anymore though. I just don’t have the stomach for it.
Talking about hipocrisy, I found it hilarious when TF dismissed the “women are seen as eye-candy” thing and then howled about how a convention was totally not worth it if they have Code of conducts that ban booth babes.
And yes, that pesky consent thing that ruins everything. Sad and frightening that he would have to think about consent in those terms…
Also …..what’s not obvious I guess to some is that he’s a drama whore seeing hits primarily…
We don’t use the term ‘drama whore’ here. How about drama llama instead? Thanks.
Eric Osays
LykeX @ #27
Tell me about it! I sometimes get sucked into comment wars on YouTube and I usually end up regretting it. It’s far easier to express lies and misunderstandings in 500 characters or less than it is to address them.
Gnumann+, Invoker of Mansplainingsays
Sally:
Yeah… this seems to be the main problem for TF and most of his fanboys. Fucking libertarians.
It just dawned on me… libertarianism DOES seem to be the problem here, doesn’t it? Holy hell…
=8)-DXsays
@IslandBrewer
That argument (it’s dishonest to criticise a video you haven’t watched) has nothing to do with anti-feminist rhetoric and is perfectly valid in general.
It’s a fact that PZ doesn’t like watching youtube videos. It’s just not his thing, he has a busy schedule and the youtubes just aren’t his cup of tea or whatever. I don’t think PZ criticises things he hasn’t watched, but it would be dishonest to do so, just as it would be dishonest to criticise a book one hadn’t read. Pointing to other people’s valid criticisms (which PZ does) is I think perfectly honest.
@43 etc. To be fair TF did say he was not a libertarian. In that first video he made in response to the whole ftb stuff. It’s true that libertarians seem to be on his side, but i’ve seen plenty of self described liberals as well.
consciousness razorsays
It just dawned on me… libertarianism DOES seem to be the problem here, doesn’t it? Holy hell…
Or nihilism. Or just bargain-basement assholism for the less sophisticated. I really doubt they’re all “libertarians” (though admittedly, that’s a notoriously slippery concept to begin with), but yes, fucking libertarians are definitely a big part of the problem.
IslandBrewersays
@44
I wasn’t actually criticizing PZ for not having watched tf’s vid. I was parodying the criticism from the prior thread. My apologies if the subtlety was lost.
Thunderf00t: Not a misogynist libertarian, but #1 with misogynist libertarians!
Rumtopfsays
Why did I even bother with replying to comments on there. It’s the same bullshit every time with TF fans and this issue and I shouldn’t have expected more than that. I also received a lovely private message from an MRA with a copypasta rant about THE LIBERAL FEMINAZI AGENDA, garnished with a link to bloody GirlSaysWhat, of all assholes. Like Eric O said, it’s much easier to vomit out a string of lies in 500 characters than it is to correct them. I’ve deleted the latest replies in my inbox without looking because I’m just too mad/sad. Fucking Thundies.
“We don’t use the term ‘drama whore’ here. How about drama llama instead? Thanks.”
llama is a substitute for whore? I don’t follow, using llama in this case is childish. But maybe you’re right on the word “whore” in it of it’s self. Too much of a negative on women (when men can be just as whorish, but never the less). What would a proper and catchy term for one that seeks drama in almost a lustful fashion? A drama “sponge”? Or is the word whore, when used in the phrase “drama whore” confusing to anyone here? I think most of us get what the tem means are not thinking TF is selling his body for sex in the payment of drama.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"says
@Caveman
Is it worth having a 30+ post argument over?
chigau (違う)says
Caveman73
We don’t use the term ‘drama whore’ here. How about drama llama instead? Thanks.
consciousness razorsays
What would a proper and catchy term for one that seeks drama in almost a lustful fashion?
Argumentative? Churlish? Theatrical?
Whores don’t have sex simply to get money (or something else)? They must be “lustful” or “almost lustful”?
I liked Matt’s video, and thought he made many of his points very well (I only left one (positive) comment there because i hope to respond more fully in kind).
I just wonder how PZ knows that Matt is being ‘all reasonable’ in this video, though? After all, to watch one video related to your blog you would have to watch EVERY asshole who ever makes a video related to you. At least, this is what i have been told the last few days.
Jim
Rodney Nelsonsays
Noeljim #54
At least, this is what i have been told the last few days.
Who told you this? Because my recollection is that people said the exact opposite.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
Sarcasm, how does it work?
consciousness razorsays
I just wonder how PZ knows that Matt is being ‘all reasonable’ in this video, though?
How did PZ know he gave reasons, which make an evaluation of them possible, for thinking the way he does? He watched the video.
Do you not know what “reasonable” means?
After all, to watch one video related to your blog you would have to watch EVERY asshole who ever makes a video related to you.
Has anyone been telling PZ he must watch Dillahunty’s video?
At least, this is what i have been told the last few days.
How did PZ know he gave reasons, which make an evaluation of them possible, for thinking the way he does? He watched the video.
Ahh i see! Maybe there is hope for the old chap yet?
Jim
hjhornbecksays
noelplum99 @54:
I just wonder how PZ knows that Matt is being ‘all reasonable’ in this video, though?
Presumably, he watched the video.
After all, to watch one video related to your blog you would have to watch EVERY asshole who ever makes a video related to you.
Noooo, Myers is under no obligation to respond to his critics. Nor, for that matter, is he obligated to respond to his supporters. He’s free to watch what he wants, and in this case he (presumably) decided to give Dillahunty a listen.
This does not take a rocket surgeon to grasp. Are you trolling? I hope you’re trolling.
How about this for a controversial idea: we let PZ decide for himself which videos he will watch and which he won’t. He decided to watch Matt’s video, but decided not to watch Thunderf00t’s. Is that a problem for you?
consciousness razorsays
Ahh i see! Maybe there is hope for the old chap yet?
There is hope that your non sequitur makes sense? No, there is no hope of that.
Riddle me this, noelplum99:
(1) If thunderfool were being reasonable in the video, and (2) if you watched the video, and (3) if you are capable of understanding those reasons and explaining them to us, then why haven’t you explained to us what is reasonable about thunderfool’s video?
Is it that at least one of the premises must be false? Or is it that you even though (3) is true and you could explain it to us, you just haven’t actually bothered to do so for whatever reason?
Personally, I think we should encourage dropping the “drama” part too. As a dismissive insult, it carries with it a sexist connotation (cf. “drama queen”>. Also, it’s usually used to belittle the real concerns of (mostly, though I acknowledge, not in this particular case) girls and women. Stephanie touched on both of these points here:
Are you one of the skeptics talking about how tired you are of the “drama” between Rebecca and D.J.? I hate to break it to you, but what you are doing and saying is part of what is dragging these discussions out so long.
Something women and especialy teenage girls thrive on. consisting of any number of situations that have an easy solution, wich would bring a fairly good outcome, but these girls choose another, shitty, bad way to deal with it, again consisting of backstabbing, blackmailing/gossiping/betraying their friends, or the all-too-common “I want to break up with him but i still love him!”
it drives men and what i like to call “normal” girls nuts.
The above definition is the top-rated for “drama” currently at Urban Dictionary. It isn’t a definition you’ll find in the major dictionaries, but it’s a very common use. The next several definitions are similarly gendered. The fact that I’ve seen it in use in skeptical fora and subreddits isn’t surprising. They have already earned reputations as places where misogyny is tolerated.
It is disturbing to see similar characterizations used among the broader community, however, even if many of them don’t intend to evoke the gendered nature of the word. The implication that what is happening right now with D.J. Grothe is some sort of personal tiff between him and Rebecca Watson is…well, it’s discouraging. It is, once again, a reduction of broad societal problems and philosophical disagreements on the shape of our movements to a he-said/she-said that can be endlessly argued over in minute detail without ever addressing, much less resolving the actual issues involved.
The word we should be using if we want to accurately describe what’s going on is “conflict”. Yes, I know conflict isn’t any more appealing for a lot of people. It’s uncomfortable and messy. It involves sorting through words and claims, not just their emotional valences, to identify the issues rather than the personalities involved. Still, if there’s any hope of settling these issues–if not broadly then on a community-by-community basis within the movement–those issues have to be both identified and discussed.
I say, use “conflict” or “hostility”, or, as I suggested to lilandra “malice”. For someone seeking attention, why not “attention seeker” or “trouble maker” or “contrarian” or “saboteur” etc.
Minestucksays
It’s not often I think disabling comments on videos is a good idea, but after reading the comments there, I don’t believe anything of value would be lost. The comment section of that video has become nothing but a forum for TFoot’s fan base to try to be the biggest misinformed asshole in 500 characters or less.
After all, to watch one video related to your blog you would have to watch EVERY asshole who ever makes a video related to you. At least, this is what i have been told the last few days.
Oh, really? That’s the message you’ve taken away?
How about if we each choose which videos we watch and which we don’t?
Matt’s a friend, I’ve enjoyed his videos in the past, I had expectations that this one would be worthwhile, so I watched it.
Thunderf00t has proven to be an assh0le, his anti-feminism videos in the past have been dishonest shit, so I didn’t watch it.
Thunderf00t has proven to be an assh0le, his anti-feminism videos in the past have been dishonest shit, so I didn’t watch it.
Why is all that so hard to understand?
!)Because you were writing a blog piece related to his video, just maybe?
2)Of course there is clearly on big difference between you and I, PZ. Personally speaking, I would be more inclined to watch the video I expected to disagree with than the video I expected to agree with. However, I realise that most people are not like this (which is precisely why 95% of the comments you get on your blog are positive and 95% of comment Tf00t gets on his video are positive) so i refer back to number 1 above.
Maybe i need to let this one die. I have said my bit, I still find it baffling but don’t want to become even more of a bore than i already am!
Because you were writing a blog piece related to his video, just maybe?
Again? Really? Haven’t we dealt with this already?
What’s wrong with you people? Are you actually this stupid or do you just find some perverse pleasure in this rampant dishonesty? I honestly don’t get it. It’s like we’re different species or something.
This makes me sad. Matt Dillahunty and Thunderf00t/Phil Mason are both great guys and valuable members of the atheist cause. I think Thunderf00t is the one who has done more harm to Dillahunty than vice versa and therefore I think he should be the one to make the first move. By the looks of Twitter, that looks unlikely. Still, I hope they can resolve this. Of course, PZ and FTB will gloat regardless.
don’t want to become even more of a bore than i already am!
From where I sit, that would be quite a task for you.
I’m not one who usually insults here (others are far better at it), but I’ve read all of your comments on several threads now, and you have yet to make much sense in any of your arguments. It’s not just that I don’t agree with you: I often cannot even understand just what the hell it is you are trying to argue. And then you make your senseless arguments again and again, never seeming to learn when others explain things to you, and never answering others’ arguments worth a damn.
John Moralessays
noelplum99:
Because you were writing a blog piece related to his video, just maybe?
And if he’d addressed the substance of the video instead of writing almost exclusively on peoples reactions to it, I (and probably others) would agree. Since his only comment was to call it a rant, we don’t.
John Moralessays
Matt125:
Matt Dillahunty and Thunderf00t/Phil Mason are both great guys and valuable members of the atheist cause.
That you think the Thunderpod is a great guy is your own perception, not a fact.
Oh I am so sorry John! I was unaware I was spokesperson of Every Person In The Atheist Community™. I can only claim to represent my own opinion. If other opinions weren’t welcome, PZ wouldn’t allow comments on his blog.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Jebus, noelplum/Jim joined the discussion, and it became an incoherant mess because of him. Try silence Jim. You add nothing but confusion, and absolutely nothing of cogency. Why are you still here?
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Jim:
PZ wrote this blog entry about Matt’s video, not Thunderf00t’s. To comment on Matt’s video, you think PZ has to watch Thunderfoot’s? That makes no sense.
Just as it makes no sense to require PZ to watch Thunderf00t’s video to criticize the MRA responses it got.
If other opinions weren’t welcome, PZ wouldn’t allow comments on his blog.
Consider this. I allow comments that aren’t welcome, because I like to see idiots expose themselves, and I also enjoy the spectacle as they’re fed to the lions.
Don’t assume that just because you’re allowed to comment, that I therefore like your comments.
John Moralessays
Actually, this is PZ’s second post relating to a response to that video.
(A clever contrast)
—
Matt125, relax. I’m noting your opinion is just that, the which you don’t dispute.
No, he’s offering his usual waste of bandwidth, to a never ending degree. We have pages of his contrarian crap littered all over the place. ‘noelplum’ doesn’t approve of Pharyngula, you see, and we get to read about it constantly. If PZ wrote “the sky is blue”, that idiot would find a way to disagree.
PZ, I don’t assume that. This is your house, your rules. I don’t abuse other commenters but I know that those with different ideas don’t always follow the same ethic.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Noelplum is offering a different perspective. I
Since I can’t figure out his perspective from his fuckwittery, I beg to differ. His fuckwittery is nothing but confused thinking, pretending to be contrary. for trolling purposes, is my conclusion based on myriad evidence.
Sure have at it, I’m morbidly curious to what issues you have with the phrase “drama whore”.
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
Noelplum is offering a different perspective.
No, Noelplum is deliberately obfuscating an earlier post by PZed in which the subject of the post was not the content of the video but the reaction to and support of the video by a group with an odious anti-human rights stance. And Noelplum’s continued obtuseness, despite multiple explanations, with examples, xe still insists derailing every damn thread until it becomes a discussion of Noelplum rather than the original post.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Matt:
Uninformed opinions are justifiably criticized. What qualities does Phil Mason possess that makes you think he is a great guy?
Personally, I think he is an asshole. He dismisses the concerns of women. He doesn’t believe the evidence of sexual harassment of women at conventions. He uses copyrighted images without attribution and is an ass when called on it. He doesn’t support sexual harassment policies at conventions (remember he dismisses womens concerns). He dishonestly used the FtB back channel after he was fired. He lies, cherry picks, and engages in dishonest tactics. His Islamophobia is detestable.
Really…what is so great about him?
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
Sure have at it, I’m morbidly curious to what issues you have with the phrase “drama whore”.
It is, as others have shown, a gendered insult. What more is needed?
@85 I realise that watching videos from those deemed to be unworthy is seen by some here to be a bit against the grain, but if you tried to sit through at least one I think you’d find Noelplum isn’t a troll, but has valid points and can recognise arguments from both sides. His YouTube channel predates any of this so he can’t be accused of any kind of duplicity.
Sure have at it, I’m morbidly curious to what issues you have with the phrase “drama whore”.
FFS. Here it is in crayon for you: The Pharyngula community does not use or encourage or enable the use of any type of gendered slurs or insults*. The same goes for racist or ableist or sexist insults or slurs. It’s very fucking simple. If you can’t handle that, you might consider going elsewhere.
*Yes, we know both men and women can be whores. Not the fucking point. It’s a form of slut shaming, so it does not get used and when some clueless idiot insists on using it anyway, they will be called out for it, every. single. time.
His YouTube channel predates any of this so he can’t be accused of any kind of duplicity.
The hell he can’t. What about we have pages of his contrarian crap littered all over the place in one thread after another do you not fucking understand? Stop being such a fuckwit.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
but if you tried to sit through at least one I think you’d find Noelplum isn’t a troll, but has valid points and can recognise arguments from both sides.
No, xe is nothing but a troll. A concern/tone troll who can’t shut up. And offers nothing to the discussion. There are words to describe those who talk out of both sides of their mouths instead of one like normal people. I like Don Imus’s term “weasel”.
@88 His ‘Why do people laugh at creationists?’ series for one. It is more than a lot of people, including myself, have done to further the rational cause. In his videos, he doesn’t dismiss sexual harrassment. He takes issues with alarmism, such as the view that a large proportion of atheists are like wolf packs, out to rape women. I think it is accusations like these that inflame him and make him go further off the rails. Like a lot of us, he’s susceptible to emotion and being strawmanned is bound to provoke a reaction from him. I can’t comment on the back channel fiasco because I’m not privy to that information, but if my reputation was trashed all over the internet I don’t know how I’d react. Lastly, Islamophobia? It is a nonsense term. He doesn’t hate Muslims, but he hates Islam as I hope most if not all of us do. It is a wicked mind parasite. It is not irrational to fear such a virus. This view is hardly controversial – Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens were all behind. However, I realise those names are worth fuck all around here.
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
Matt125:
And yet Noelplum (a) continues to deliberately misunderstand that the posts made by PZed are about the REACTIONS to the videos and (b) when asked flat out refuses to actually address any of the evidence supplied by both PZed and some of the commenters regarding ThunderFoot’s stance on women’s issues within the atheist community. This, along with the fact that Noelplum has a long reputation of doing this (making the thread about Noelplum rather than the OP), is why xe is regarded by many of us as a troll.
We have pages of his contrarian crap littered all over the place. ‘noelplum’ doesn’t approve of Pharyngula, you see, and we get to read about it constantly. If PZ wrote “the sky is blue”, that idiot would find a way to disagree.
Consider this. I allow comments that aren’t welcome, because I like to see idiots expose themselves, and I also enjoy the spectacle as they’re fed to the lions.
I just spoke to Ken Ham and he asked me to remind you that you still have his spectacles.
The rose-tinted ones.
PS: I particularly love Nerd’s ‘savagings’, I think everybody does!
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
but he hates Islam as I hope most if not all of us do. It is a wicked mind parasite. It is not irrational to fear such a [weak] virus.
Fixed that for you bigot.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
You [I am] are full of shit:
Fixed that for you confused troll. Try again with real logic. Like silence…can’t go wrong or be accused of trolling with silence…
I’m a bigot? Huh? Let me rewind that. I have not made any claims against a group of people, but a superstitious, backward, violent, anti-scientific, misogynistic, homophobic and ultimately misanthropic ideology. I don’t know you but I am prepared to bet my life that you would think it is not bigoted to criticise Christianity. I criticise Islam. What’s the difference?
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
such as the view that a large proportion of atheists are like wolf packs, out to rape women.
This is a strawman that was erected (and torn down (and rebuilt)) again and again and again during the earliest discussion of Rebecca Watson and her evil and over-the-top demand that men disembowel themselves ‘Guys, don’t do that’ talk. Thunderfoot, and others, continue to erect this strawman even though they can supply no evidence for it (other than quotes taken out of context).
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervishsays
There are people who read noelplum99’s comments? Huh.
Anyhoo, my suggestion for an alternative to drama whore/llama/whatever: ‘shit-stirrer’; it’s a very Australian term that conveys the same meaning – someone simply out to incite controversy while adding nothing of substance.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
I criticise Islam.
I criticize both, but hate neither. When you defend known islamophobic bigots like TF, and call Islam a virus due to hatred of it, and call that hatred rational, what other conclusion is there? That is bigotry. You are sounding like SteveOR, except you haven’t called for bombing yet.
My what a kind a sweet response. Well IF….if you would have read my previous post (#50) you would have had a clue to what I was asking. The word “whore” I have no issue with it being a hurtful word to some. My curiosity is the phrase “drama whore” and why some might elude it to sex or degradation of women. When used do you think or women and sex or do you think of someone hogging the drama, grabbing after it like ravenously.
Islam is a virus, just like all religion. It is not bigotry to hate it. You remind me of Tommy Davis in John Sweeney’s Scientology documentaries, he uses the ‘bigot’ word to try to avoid the arguments and character assassinate his opponent when all else fails.
(b) when asked flat out refuses to actually address any of the evidence supplied by both PZed and some of the commenters regarding ThunderFoot’s stance on women’s issues within the atheist community.
You mean like when i came out in video at the very beginning, before i had made a single post on FtB, and said that it would be sensible to have an harassment policy, even if only to allay fears?
One more thing, why have you suddenly all started calling me ‘xe’? I am male and i am not offended by you calling my ‘he’, fuck knows you usually call me a whole lot worse!
This, along with the fact that Noelplum has a long reputation of doing this (making the thread about Noelplum rather than the OP)
I make an argument and some of you house trolls then spew out endless ad hominems, attacking me rather than the argument I made. THAT is what makes posts about me.
You say Caine is full of shit, and then right in the same comment attempt humor at PZ’s expense. You then make a shit-stirring statement (I like ‘shit-stirring’ very much; thanks, Wowbagger!) aimed at Nerd. You are, without a doubt, and with no reasonable defense, a deliberate, condescending, and BORING troll.
It tells me you’re too stupid to get one. You’re not worth bothering with – you’ve had an explanation from multiple people and you still want to argue. You’ve declared yourself a fuckwit, so welcome to being ignored.
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
One more thing, why have you suddenly all started calling me ‘xe’? I am male and i am not offended by you calling my ‘he’, fuck knows you usually call me a whole lot worse!
I did not remember your gender. I apologize. Rather than be wrong, I figured it was better to be safe.
I make an argument and some of you house trolls then spew out endless ad hominems, attacking me rather than the argument I made. THAT is what makes posts about me.
Your ‘argument’ was answered, many times, on a completely different thread. And your argument was nonsense there, so why give you anything here but grief for being obtuse? And now you bring the same argument here? Why should we bother answering it again?
Er, but I didn’t say Caine was ‘full of shit’ for attempting humour, I said they were full of shit for claiming every post I make on Pharyngula totally disagrees with PZ Myers.
I did stir some shit wrt Nerd, but Nerd is a fucking idiot. Nerd actually holds the record for the most insane response i have ever received on the internet after rejecting, as evidence that i have vocally denounced online threats (to people like RW), a video of me vocally denouncing online threats, and further informing me that only peer reviewed journals count as evidence (that i had vocally denounced online threats)!!
I realise that sounds too stupid to be true, but it is true! This is why i always look forward to my inevitable response by Nerd, i just never know what new pearl of wisdom it will bring.
Anyway, 3:30 am, time for bed!
Awwww Caine was it something I said? Is language a sore spot for you? Tell you what I will cry some tears for you in my martini you wanna be internet tough girl…guy…person… whatever!
Noelplum: You said good night, but I bet you’re typing — again! — right now. As far as I’m concerned, your response about Nerd just makes it more clear what a troll you are. I notice others are mostly just ignoring you. They are much smarter than I am. I will try my best to imitate them.
Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doomsays
Caveman @ #114: You’re really kinda slow here. The term “whore”, regardless of the qualifier you use, is viciously misogynistic. The hatred for sex workers causes death, mostly of women. When you make being one out to be a bad, low, insulting thing, you are aiding that. Cut it the fuck out, you skidmark.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
(Mental note: Caveman73 is an assclam.)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
a video of me vocally denouncing online threats,
Like your OPINION on a video is meaningful evidence *snicker*. Nothing but bullshit, like vanity press, and worthless as real evidence. And I never watch videos for that reason. Videos are for abject losers like yourself to throw OPINION around.
I like how Noelplum dodged all of your(including PZ) responses shredding the original (non)argument he made to this thread. Again. I guess complaining about how meeeaaann you are to him was more important. Again.
And this is partly why I usually just scroll on by his comments.
WHORE
(dictionary)
noun
1.
a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.
verb (used without object)
2.
to act as a whore.
3.
to consort with whores.
verb (used with object)
4.
Obsolete . to make a whore of; corrupt; debauch.
Origin:
before 1100; Middle English, Old English hōre; cognate with German Hure, Old Norse hōra; akin to Gothic hors harlot, Latin cārus dear
DRAMA WHORE (for #118)
(Urban Dictionary)
A person, male or female; who sees any aspect of their personality or actions in their life as interesting topics. Often the drama whore will send out messages with absolutely no content except for something inflammatory or retaliatory directed at another person(s) they dislike.
Now you all can play the “it doesn’t matter it’s a naughty and mean word” game and you are right in that the word whore is a disrespectful thing to say to anyone that is not in fact a whore… BUT the phrase is not the same thing as the word alone. so chill out on your shit talk, it doesn’t help your cause. So how about you take that stick out of your ass and deal with a little thing called reality, you might like it.
You know, Caveman 73, you are saying exactly what a whole lot of others before you have said. You also assume we are all much stupider than you are.
It’s already been explained to you (I think, but this has happened so often, I might be mis-remembering) that ‘drama’ is another word used to put women in their places, so ‘drama whore’, whoever it’s aimed at, is just not an acceptable phrase to use here. If you don’t like that, fuck off and go somewhere else.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
Assclam73, pulling out a dictionary still does not take away the fact that the word “whore” is used to demean women.
Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doomsays
Caine: *hugs back* I fail at flouncing. :)
Paul K @ #124: Sure seems that way.
Caveman: Seriously, you shouldn’t be using the term period. No, not to sex workers. It’s still a fucking slur. A dehumanizing, vicious slur. And the fact that you think dictionaries (let alone UD) are neutral, it goes to show you’re dumber than dogshit.
No, the phrase is not acceptable. Not with your cute (also misogynist) qualifiers. It’s just a sexist slur.
strange gods before me ॐsays
Matt125,
Lastly, Islamophobia? It is a nonsense term. He doesn’t hate Muslims, but he hates Islam as I hope most if not all of us do. It is a wicked mind parasite. It is not irrational to fear such a virus.
If Islamophobia is a nonsense term then there is no such thing as an irrational fear of Islam or Muslims.
Do you believe that all fears of Islam and Muslims are rational fears? Or will you admit that there exist irrational ones?
Caveman73, “accuracy” is not the issue. Even if you were to call a sex worker a “whore”, it would still be wrong. It’s a dehumanizing insult, it implies contempt and a value judgment of its object, and it doesn’t lose that connotation even when paired with the word “drama” (and drama is a word that is commonly used to minimize real issues).
You mean the phrase “dramawhore”(and the similar “drama queen”) doesn’t, in reality, exist in a complete social vacuum, free from any history of being used primarily against women to shut them up and imply that their complaints or concerns are insignificant? Wow! /s
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Noelplum:
When you come back, I hope you will address my points @77.
Sorry, I haven’t learned the blockquote function yet.
“If Islamophobia is a nonsense term then there is no such thing as an irrational fear of Islam or Muslims.”
Correct.
“Do you believe that all fears of Islam and Muslims are rational fears? Or will you admit that there exist irrational ones?”
There exist irrational fears of Muslims, yes. Here in the UK we have the English Defence League, who seem to be a 21st century incarnation of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. But instead of harrassing Jews, they seem to be into harrassing Muslims. That is irrational to say the least, and abusive to put it just right.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker)says
Wow, so adding a qualifier magically erases a word’s historical and cultural baggage? Who knew!?
Caveman73, you are an internet douchebag.
Rob Grigjanissays
Ibis3 @110: “Here in Canada (not sure if it’s a Canadianism or not) we use the similar “shit-disturber”.”
Having been brought up badly, I prefer “wanker” or “prat”, sometimes qualified with “obtuse”, “fucking” or both. Any or all combinations would apply to the troglodytic commenter.
Rumtopfsays
Rob Grigjanis, “prat” is slang for female genitals.
Anrisays
Now you all can play the “it doesn’t matter it’s a naughty and mean word” game and you are right in that the word whore is a disrespectful thing to say to anyone that is not in fact a whore… BUT the phrase is not the same thing as the word alone. so chill out on your shit talk, it doesn’t help your cause. So how about you take that stick out of your ass and deal with a little thing called reality, you might like it.
In other words:
“I know the expression ‘sand nigger’ has a bad word in it, but if I don’t mean it in a bigoted way, you can’t call be bigoted for using it! ‘Cause it totes doesn’t mean the same thing as just plain ‘nigger’!”
Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doomsays
Hmm, I always heard the term “shit-disturber” in a more positive light. As in a person who is doing something about the shit lying around, if in a confrontational fashion.
Rob Grigjanissays
Rumtopf @139: First I’ve heard that. I thought the original meaning was buttocks. The usage I grew up with meant roughly “One who expends much energy to no discernible constructive purpose”. Maybe you’re thinking of “twat”?
Someone better call JK Rowling and pretty much every other established British author and writer and tell them prat is a word that means vagina and is therefore misogynist. Seriously, I wish people here would stop assuming they get to dictate what words mean.
Anrisays
Matt:
In his videos, he doesn’t dismiss sexual harrassment.
I haven’t seen him do that in his videos. He did enough of it in his comments that I don’t actually need to verify if he’s done it in video format.
He takes issues with alarmism, such as the view that a large proportion of atheists are like wolf packs, out to rape women.
May I ask, who is espousing such a view?
Those ‘silly women’ again?
Should we all just accept that if they’d just stop thinking they can know anything for themselves about harassment and just listen to people like TFoot (who, being male, has a better, more logical brain and a far better understanding of the situations women face), they’d all be better off? Is that your point?
Why the assumption that if women are alarmed about a situation, and TFoot isn’t, the women are wrong?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to assume women know more about being women than TFoot does?
And that therefore, his lack of alarm is a sign of an inferior, rather than a superior, viewpoint on this issue?
You know the old saying “If you’re not angry, you haven’t been paying attention.?”
TFoot’s not angry about women being harassed.
Many women are.
Cyranothe2ndsays
The entemology of “prat” is for the Latin “pratum” which is a trickster or deceiver. For a long time it meant “fool” or “foolish talker”. Wiki says its also a slang for a woman’s genitals but I’ve never heard is used that way. Has anyone else?
Rumtopfsays
It has been used for buttocks as well as female genitals, in the UK anyway, like “fanny”, maybe? Except fanny means buttocks in the US and female genitals in the UK. Female genitals is the first meaning for prat that comes to mind for me.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
If someone has links handy (hard for me to do on the phone) to Thunderf00t’s incendiary initial posts can they post them here? It is clear Matt is has not witnessed TFs assholishness.
Matt:
I have seen no one claim that massive amounts of angry, rabid atheists are out to rape women. What has been said over and over and over and over again:
Atheist/Skeptic conventions have problems with sexual harassment of women. At the time of Thunderf00t becoming part of FtB, several organizations had no anti harassment policies in place. Women were complaining. Women were opting not to go. Women were having their concerns dismissed in some cases (here’s looking at you JREF). Women were looking for anti harassment policies.
Since you didn’t quite understand why I think he is an asshole, I shall try again.
1- Thunderf00t was very vocally against that. He made it apparent that he feels that would impede any ‘fun’. He treated his desire to have ‘fun’ as more important than creating a safer environment for women. No one advocated no flirting. No one said no sex. Thunderf00t has consistently created a straw version of the arguments against him.
2- he used a pic that was owned by someone else (Surly Amy, I think) on his blog. When asked to remove it, he was an asshole. I believe he complied in time, but that does not excuse his behavior.
3- as seen in his latest video, TF has no problem taking his opponents comments out of context to attack them. This is intellectually dishonest.
4- I used to think as you do about Islamophobia. I thought that since phobia means fear and Islam is a religion, then ‘Islamophobia’ meant fear of Islam. I had it pointed out that the usage of the word by people-similar to the use of homophobia-grew beyond just fear of that religion. The use of ‘Islamophobia’ is often meant to describe an irrational fear or dislike of Muslims. Just as homphobia frequently means ‘an irrational fear or stong dislike of gay people’.
Thunderf00t has shown himself to be an Islamophobe. This bigoted opinion he holds is not rational and is one more reason why he is NOT a great guy.
Now, I have listed four big problems I have withThunderf00t that speak directly to his morals and ethics.
Since you think he is a great guy, can you please explain what qualities he has that makes him so?
Making a video about how creationism is a flawed, idiotic idea does nothing to explain why TF is a great guy. If that is how you judge the quality of others, you are setting the bar low. What other sexist, bigoted, irrational, intellectually dishonest people do you consider to be “great”?
owlglasssays
Not having booth babes at conventions is an excellent point on the agenda. I can see where TF is coming from in some other points, but there he flies off the handrail. It might be true that certain conventions “are that way” but that’s hardly an argument, especially if it can feel like running the gauntlet for women. I only have experience in the *other* community stereotyped as being composed of sexist nerds, the video games one, and it really is an issue and it is an issue that can (or could) be addressed well at conventions. Interestingly, similar feminist trends came up there last year as well, but alas concious raising wasn’t as effective as it seems to be in the atheist community. The change, in my view, comes with inclusiveness. If women (among others) feel welcomed and are more present, the sexist idiots may realize that they actually aren’t at a bachelor’s party. The other points don’t make much sense to me, I don’t know the context of “fake jewelry” but it did sound weird. I’m sure you don’t want me to wear real diamond earrings? And since when do you need to point out that grabbing asses is not okay? How about grabbing tits, kicking balls and playing Kancho? How about the rule to “don’t be a sexist, and don’t to be an asshole either”? Thereby you can save the time enumerating etiquette rules. I also don’t particularily like Rebecca Watsons claims. This was rather condescending bullshit (what she says about women not noticing it, really?) The elevator stunt was also a display of wrong priorities. Being asked in an elevator might be super awkward, but if the guy goes with a double entendre it doesn’t sound intrusive by my standards (compared to really intrusive situations). Priorities matter. And since we are sciency and critical, feminist theory can use a serious overhaul. It’s as useful as theology, and as relevant *cough*. //my one cent.
I just looked at a dozen or so dictionary definitions, including Oxford, and all of them say the original meaning for prat was buttocks. The Oxford online definition dates it to the 16th century, origin unknown. I saw nothing for women’s genitals.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Not me. I’ve only ever heard it used in the fool sense.
That’s been my sense, especially in mystery novels set in the UK or its ex-colonies.
mythbrisays
@owlglass #148
You’re new to a conversation that is nearly two years old, with LOTS of history and side-discussions. I would be wary, if I were you, of assuming that Thunderf00t provided the complete (or any) context for the points that you’ve mentioned.
If you want people to take your comments seriously, I recommend that you do some research to see what has already been said.
Oxford gives the date of origin for the ‘fool’ definition as 1961. But what about ‘pratfalls’? Old slapstick comedy term. Didn’t that mean falling on your hinder?
mythbrisays
@Paul K #153
I always assumed that “prat” came from “pratfalls” – I do believe it means to foolishly fall on one’s ass.
Rumtopfsays
Probably a local thing then, but I’m not redefining anything thanks, Matt125. My mum even used it, with fanny, when referring to washing xD And obviously I have heard it used in the fool sense as well.
Maybe “prat” became what some people defensively claim the word “cunt” has become in the UK, you know the old “it’s not sexist in Europe!” line that pops up all the time.
Fanny is also a word with differing meanings. Where I grew up (Minnesota, USA), it was a more or less polite word for buttocks. I know that it has a very different meaning, and is not polite, in the UK (and elsewhere?)
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Matt:
Instead of continuing to display your lack of empathy for the people hurt, shamed or insulted over sexist or misogynist terms, why not go edas insultsucate yourself on the topic. Many of the commenters here have read-extensively-and come to a reasoned conclusion about the harmful nature of certain slurs. You are basing your dislike of us ‘dictating what words mean’ on your personal experiences, rather than reading up on the literature that explains why certain slurs are wrong.
Do you understand why ‘fag’, ‘dyke’, ‘nigger’, or ‘kike’ are offensive slurs and do you understand why people should not use those words as insults? If you do, then not using words like ‘slut’, ‘whore’, ‘bitch’, or ‘cunt’ as insults should be easy to understand.
Rumtopfsays
Yes Paul K, that’s what I was trying to say when I mentioned it in #146, d’oh. I’m not so great at writing.
Rob Grigjanissays
I have no problem not using the word here if it offends anyone. The great thing about language is that there are always other options. Not a hill worth dying on :)
Oh, I don’t know, Rumtopf, I’d say there was a better chance it was my reading!
chigau (違う)says
*sigh*
If this keeps up we will all be forced (forced, I tell you!) to actually say why we object to something that someone said.
Rumtopfsays
I do get a weeny twinge of ick when I see it used as an insult, but nothing like with “cunt”, and apparently that particular meaning wasn’t nearly as common as I thought. It seems that, for me, any ickiness is down to specifically having the word used in that way by a parent. So it’s probably fine. I’ll shh now.
I do get a weeny twinge of ick when I see it used as an insult
How about substituting git?
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Owlglass:
Any chance you could explain why feminist theory needs to be overhauled? Merely asserting that it does is insufficient for making a case for said overhaul. You will need to establish a clear definition of what you mean by ‘feminist theory’ as well.
I don’t get the ick feeling, but I want to respect it. I do find it interesting that so many of our words, especially those used as insults, come from names for body parts. ‘Git’ seems to come from ‘get’, short for ‘beget’, meaning offspring.
(I’m way off topic here, and will stop.)
strange gods before me ॐsays
The elevator stunt
Explain what part constitutes a stunt.
was also a display of wrong priorities. Being asked in an elevator might be super awkward, but if the guy goes with a double entendre it doesn’t sound intrusive by my standards (compared to really intrusive situations). Priorities matter.
She didn’t say it was intrusive. (Although it is.)
She didn’t say it was of higher priority than [whatever you’ve dreamed up in comparison to support your strawman argument].
And she was justified in expressing her irritation about it. You are wrong to distort what happened, and you are wrong to insinuate that it was of such low priority that she should have kept silent about it. (Indeed, if it were of such low priority, then your late commentary on the matter is of even lower priority, and therefore by your own standard you should not be speaking about it.)
And she was justified in expressing her irritation about it. You are wrong to distort what happened, and you are wrong to insinuate that it was of such low priority that she should have kept silent about it. (Indeed, if it were of such low priority, then your late commentary on the matter is of even lower priority, and therefore by your own standard you should not be speaking about it.)
QFMT. I’ll add that it’s not our job to completely rehash the whole of e-gate to educate someone so late to it all. That’s on them – it’s all out there, go read.
“QFMT. I’ll add that it’s not our job to completely rehash the whole of e-gate to educate someone so late to it all. That’s on them – it’s all out there, go read.”
Well fuck you Caine! Not all of us live on the internet you simple minded fuck. Maybe they need a debrief on on the horrible nonsense about a woman being hit on in an elevator by a “creepy” and awkward guy.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Caveman:
You’ve been given advice on conduct here that seeks to not insult minority groups and instead of accepting that words can do unnecessary damage to people already marginalized by society, you decide to act like a petulant pissant?
Fuck. Off.
Rinse and repeat. Elsewhere.
What minority Tony? Women? Last I checked they out number us. If not them them please specify. Oh and for the record I see a hell of a lot of negative words and barbs slung in every direction so what exactly are YOU enforcing?
How about you grow some thicker skin and let the minions here know that if they sling it they better damn well be able to DEAL WITH IT! OK Tony the QUEER shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Caveman:
It is presumptuous for you to expect that it is anyone’s job to fill you in on backstory. If you want to get involved in a discussion involving prior events, the onus is on you to make some attempt to learn the history of the topic under discussion. Neither this thread, nor the commenters exist to cater to you and your desires.
Oh I read up on it and what exactly do you want me to fill up on? I posted my opinion on a phrase that was DEEMED tabu “drama whore” and golly fucking GEE some people lost their shit….. Not my issue or fault for their short comings.
Assclam73, someone some rather perceptive words up at #160. I would suggest you read them and try to understand.
I have no problem not using the word here if it offends anyone. The great thing about language is that there are always other options. Not a hill worth dying on :)
What’s the matter? Not capable of using different words? Is it just a little bit beyond your resources?
consciousness razorsays
Maybe they need a debrief on on the horrible nonsense about a woman being hit on in an elevator by a “creepy” and awkward guy.
It’s not that they haven’t already learned about it.* It’s that they refuse to learn and insist their bullshit distortions and assumptions about it are just as relevant as what actually happened. This phenomenon, in case you haven’t noticed, also didn’t start with fucking Elevatorgate, or last Tuesday, or whatever the fucking cultural memory is of people who don’t give a fuck about it anyway.
*Except the part about awkwardness, which is not in evidence and would be irrelevant even if it were.
Erm, never mind, Janine. I read you totally wrong. Yikes. I’m sorry.
strange gods before me ॐsays
I think Janine’s point is that Caveman73 ought to be capable of the same.
strange gods before me ॐsays
Aaaand I should have refreshed.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
Caine, I was directing that quote at Assclam(Cavemen)73, that he should read it. I did say that it was perceptive.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
Sorry. All the comments came in while I was composing mine.
strange gods before me ॐsays
Jinx!
(or something like that.)
*runs away*
jacksulsays
As a fan of both TF and PZ I’m really saddened and actually getting physically sick that you two still cannot work this out. You’re both skeptics. You’re both scientists (basically professional truth seekers.) You are both sane, competent, rational, able, capable and intelligent people. This shouldn’t be hard. Here’s what you do:
1) Thunderf00t, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might have a point. They might have legitimate concerns and hypothetically if they do then you would want to know it.
2) PZ, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless. They might not have legitimate concerns and hypothetically if any of that is true then you would want to know it.
Now, you can’t both be right. So stop acting like tribal apes, sit down, and figure out who is right about what like true skeptics. Bring each other back into your circles of moral concern. Enough with the mutual excommunication.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Caveman:
If you do not understand that women have minority status this ain’t the blog for you.
If you do not understand the difference between an insult [you are a fuckface] and a gendered slur [you are a pussy], this ain’t the blog for you.
No one has lost their shit. This is a community that is strongly opposed to offensive language that is based on gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, age, gender orientation, race, or ethnicity. Part of the appeal of Pharyngula is that it functions as a safe space.
That means:
Gay people will find hateful or homophobic language criticized harshly here, where they might have to put up with it IRL.
Women will find that sexist language or gendered insults will be castigated here, unlike IRL.
If you are mentally ill, you find people will shout down insults based on mental illness.
If you are transgendered, people here will not allow anyone to get away with trans*phobia.
Do you get it yet?
As a gay man, I am proud to be part of a community that roundly criticizes language that is insulting to minority groups.
We curse. We insult. We do not use insults based on innate physical or mental characteristics. Y
If you want to be the asshole who does, you are better off doing so elsewhere.
You are both sane, competent, rational, able, capable and intelligent people.
What does that have to do with TF posting lies, quotemines and distortions in his YT videos that are based on his hate of anything A+ or FTB? I mean yeah, he’s shown himself to be a competent liar and ankle-gnawer indeed. You have a point, I guess.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
You’re both scientists (basically professional truth seekers.) You are both sane, competent, rational, able, capable and intelligent people.
TF’ latest video is so full of distortions, lies by omission and outright distortions, it is difficult to call him a truth seeker.
As it stands, what jacksul wants is wishful thinking. He also seems to be willing to hand wave away the real concerns that real women have.
2) PZ, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless. They might not have legitimate concerns and hypothetically if any of that is true then you would want to know it.
As a 55 year old woman who has been raped and has experienced decades of harassment, may I politely suggest you take your idiocy and shove it? That’s all it’s worth. As a woman, reading all the utter crap Tfoot wrote, the degrading, toxic, sexist shit he vomited all over (and continues to vomit at every opportunity), I felt sickened. Physically sickened. Tfoot advocates that I be treated as lesser than human, my concerns to be trivial at best and hysterical at worst. PZ looks at that and says “bullshit!” I’ll stick with PZ on this, thank you.
Until Tfoot can manage to figure out that yes, women are human and yes, things happen to women which don’t happen to him, and yes, it’s important for him to shut the fuck up for a moment to actually listen to women and think about what they have to say, I’ll keep my distance and my opinion that he’s a raving, sexist asshole who enables and encourages the most toxic sexism.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Jacksul:
PZ needs do no such thing. One of the many problems in our sexist society is the dismissal of womens concerns. If a woman says she has been sexually harassed…believe her. Chances are, given that only SHE is in the position to determine if she was harassed, believing her is the most reasonable position to take.
Who the hell are you to tell someone else they are overreacting about a situation that doesn’t involve you? If your mother, sister or daughter told you some guy told them he wanted lick them from head to toe, would you believe them, or doubt them? That shit would be sexual harassment and I hope you would roundly denounce anyone who did that. If you would in that case, why not accept that women at these conventions are being harassed? You think it is better to doubt them? Women get that all the fucking time. Thats part of the reason some of them do not go to conventions. Not because skepticism “is a guy thing”, but because they don’t want to deal with harassment ESPECIALLY if they know they will not be believed.
I reiterate:
Too often, women are dismissed.
Their concerns are ignored.
Their desires are ignored.
Their thought and ideas are ignored.
This shit needs to stop. People like you, who contribute to a culture that ignores women are part of the problem. Acting as if PZ and TF have arguments that are equal is dishonest, sexist and illogical.
jacksulsays
What does that have to do with TF posting lies, quotemines and distortions in his YT videos that are based on his hate of anything A+ or FTB? I mean yeah, he’s shown himself to be a competent liar and ankle-gnawer indeed. You have a point, I guess.
Even as a TF fan, I will easily admit that his last video is certainly full of quotemines and distortions. But I don’t think he is being intentionally dishonest. I think he is being lazy, and a dick, and insufficiently self-critical, and only seeing what he wants to see. We all have mountains of cognitive biases which is why we need science, but that is different from dishonesty.
As it stands, what jacksul wants is wishful thinking. He also seems to be willing to hand wave away the real concerns that real women have.
I am certainly not willing to do this. I’m not sure how you could think such a thing from my comment. “If” was the important word. If the ontological argument is true I would certainly want to know it. I don’t think it. If evolution is true, many creationists would not want to know it. They can’t even entertain the suggestion.
Rumtopfsays
Jacksul, it ain’t likely. Don’t act like PZ never attempted to reach TF in the past and that TF hasn’t budged since. Lilandra, TF’s friend and Aron Ra’s wife, said in the other recent Thunderfoot thread:
IMO it is a matter of perception with him. He is now entrenched in this position and quite defensive of it after it escalated out of control. Much of this is his own doing. I am not sure he has ever in his life been convinced by another person he is wrong about anything much less publicly where it is more humiliating. We tried privately, he is quite stubbornly fixated by this.
Emphasis added for doing skepticism wrong. PZ has, on the other hand, pretty consistently admitted to messing up when he has been rightly called out for it in the past, over several issues. PZ isn’t wrong about this issue, a one-on-one between the two of them isn’t required to work this out, nor are the two “sides” equal.
So basically, until TF has a little moment for introspection and changes his mind and stops with the anti-feminist stuff, the minimising of important issues, dismissing or denying legitimate concerns/experiences of women and the spreading of lies and misinformation yadda yadda, don’t expect much.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Jacksul:
Unless you are a mind reader, how can you know if TF is beimg intentionally dishonest or not? All we can judge him on are his words and deeds, not whatever intentions we wish he had. His words show dishonesty. Attempts to mitigate that are based on what you hope is the case, though you have no way of knowing that.
A. Noydsays
jacksul (#190)
PZ, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless.
Yes, because a true skeptic would ignore all the evidence in his favor in order to accommodate an arrogant dipshit who rides around on the “both sides” argument like a it’s a goddamn trick pony because xe doesn’t like to see hir heroes fighting.
Why don’t you ask for PZ to admit the possibility that all the oxygen molecules in the room where he’s reading the thread from could suddenly relocate to the side where he’s not sitting, killing him with hypoxia? That would be about as meaningful as telling him to assume, even for the sake of argument, that all the women making complaints of intimidation and/or harassment are irrational liars.
jacksulsays
As a 55 year old woman who has been raped and has experienced decades of harassment, may I politely suggest you take your idiocy and shove it?
I’m very sorry to hear that. I think that we should probably talk about it. I am just a person who sees two people that he respect fighting with each other and wants to be fair and resolve the fight. But I don’t want to cause you any pain. My grandmother is deeply religious and I wouldn’t speak frankly or objectively about my atheism in front of her because it would hurt her too much and I don’t want to hurt anybody.
If you’re feeling like this then I think we should not talk about this issue. I personally think both PZ and TF are basically good people, but probably TF is just very confused about women and women’s issues and I don’t blame him for being confused. (PZ probably isn’t perfect either) But now I feel like a scientist coming into a meeting of abolitionists and saying “Hey you know there might actually be a physical difference in average intelligence between black and white people. We should look objectively at the evidence and make up our minds.” That would be a good skeptical attitude, but I wouldn’t say it in that setting because I don’t want to hurt people.
jacksulsays
I think that we should probably talk about it
Sorry! I meant to say “we should probably NOT talk about it”
jacksulsays
Tony the Queer Shoop:
You’re right I don’t know it. I think it’s a simpler explanation for his behavior than the idea he is being intentionally deceptive. He seems so full of Orwellian fear that the evil feminists are out to destroy his rights and I’m guessing he honestly thinks that, but that’s only my suspicion.
mofasays
Integralmath’s response to Matt’s Video is brilliant, just like Les Mis was brilliant and they were both done live! Matt you are losing respect and support on both sides of the divide.
If you’re feeling like this then I think we should not talk about this issue. I personally think both PZ and TF are basically good people, but probably TF is just very confused about women and women’s issues and I don’t blame him for being confused.
Oh FFS! Tfoot isn’t the least bit confused – he’s unapologetic about being sexist, don’t you fucking comprehend that?
As for me “feeling like this” – like what? Angry? Jesus Christ, you’re being a sexist asshole, treating me like I’m a fragile little doll, unable to cope with this absolute bullshit. I will not be silenced about sexism and as long as Tfoot is going to proudly parade around espousing his sexism, I’ll say something about it. I’m not the least bit interested in your need to make peace – there is no making peace with someone who insists on viewing women as objects who don’t have the requisite brains to know what we’re talking about.
There’s a rule on the ‘net, jacksul. It’s called the first rule of holes. Heed it.
dontpanicsays
I think he is being lazy, and a dick, and insufficiently self-critical, and only seeing what he wants to see.
[sigh] Because it has to be done each and every time … Lest the horde be called hypocrites… We don’t use dick as an insult here because its gendered. Goose/Gander, you know. Last time one of these got left uncontested (being at the tail end of a thread), the got’cha crowd tried to make some hay out of that oversight.
mofasays
Has anyone come to the defence of PZ over the clip Thunderf00t showed in his video which showed PZ sexualising a situation? I have not found one yet in the thread. If you have seen Thunderf00t’s video (the one Matt is responding to) you would not have missed PZ with a pack of cards, suggesting to the participant, a female, that she have sex with him later if the cards fall the wrong way.
mofa, you fuckwitted idiot, that has been addressed multiple times and if you buy the chopped up crap Tfoot and Paden and others are spoonfeeding you, for shame.
Rumtopfsays
Other thread, Mofa, “The company you keep”. Go read it, including responses from PZ, and you’ll see how important context is and how scummy TF was for completely leaving it out. And he goes after creationists for quote mining! Ha
A. Noydsays
jacksul (#200)
I am just a person who sees two people that he respect fighting with each other and wants to be fair and resolve the fight.
False balance is not “fair,” you ignorant waste of sperm.
(#202)
I think it’s a simpler explanation for his behavior than the idea he is being intentionally deceptive.
If ThunderDouche has been corrected dozens of times over and he still spouts the same lies, the “simpler explanation” is that his dishonesty is unintentional. But if women are complaining of intimidation and harassment in a society where intimidation and harassment of women is the norm, PZ should assume that they’re all irrational liars.
What the fuck are you smoking? You’re like the worst skeptic ever.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Mofa:
::heavy sigh::
PZ needs no defending. People need to watch the original video (not this one by thunderf00l) so they get the full context. As is typical of TF, he took that scene out of context to make his point.
****
And yes, dontpanic is correct. No using dick as an insult. Gendered slur.
****
Jacksul:
I’m sure TF believes that, but he must have used up all his rational brain cells creating anti religion videos, because his opposition to feminism is completely irrational.
Also, please see my post @147 for specific examples why I do not think Thunderf00t is a good person. You are the second person in this thread to make value judgements about his character without referencing any of his actions. Take a look at what he says and how he acts. He is a self centered, sexist, asshole.
jacksulsays
Yes, because a true skeptic would ignore all the evidence in his favor in order to accommodate an arrogant dipshit who rides around on the “both sides” argument like a it’s a goddamn trick pony because xe doesn’t like to see hir heroes fighting.
Why don’t you ask for PZ to admit the possibility that all the oxygen molecules in the room where he’s reading the thread from could suddenly relocate to the side where he’s not sitting, killing him with hypoxia? That would be about as meaningful as telling him to assume, even for the sake of argument, that all the women making complaints of intimidation and/or harassment are irrational liars.
I once encountered a creationist online and I asked him this: “If evolution happened would you want to know it?” He went through the next 10 comments ignoring my question and I just kept asking. I had to post it in all caps 3 times in a row before he finally answered: “No I cannot answer the question because I cannot accept the possibility that evolution is true.” Well what else could I say? We were done. There’s no point in continuing the discussion. When one or both sides declare themselves closed minded then whats the point in continuing?
There are tens of thousands of Christian denominations because they wont listen to each other. I naively thought that a bunch of skeptics would do better. I try arguing your case to TFs fans and get endless abuse. What will the next split be? Free will? Genetic medicine? How many little factions will we split into if we don’t listen to each other? Why can’t we just resolve this???
John Moralessays
jacksul:
Why can’t we just resolve this???
Because some of us can actually make decisions (TF is full of shit) and don’t resort to the the golden mean fallacy.
In my view we are resolving it. People like TF and Stefanelli are ballast falling off the wagons, while the A+ movement leaps forward. “Resolving it” to me means getting rid of those who think ankle-gnawing and being sexists is a right or a free speech issue.
A. Noydsays
jacksul (#211)
I once encountered a creationist online and I asked him this: “If evolution happened would you want to know it?”
Cool story. If you were minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women, would you want to know it?
Here’s an idea – why don’t you run off to the “we” that is Tfoot, Stefanelli, Paden, Hoggle and the slymepit and the rest and tell them to fucking resolve it, and while they’re at that, they can knock off the over a year long harassment and rape threats and other loveliness they’ve been perpetrating, eh? Go on, we’ll wait while you get it all settled.
jacksulsays
False balance is not “fair,” you ignorant waste of sperm.
I don’t know what you think I am proposing but I am just an honest person who is trying to be objective and getting lots of abuse from both sides. If you’re just going to insult me then I’m not going to reply to your points.
Actually I think PZ is probably closer to the truth than TF. When I go on youtube, I try to argue for PZ’s case against all of TFs fans. I get a lot of this crap spewed at me by them too. But frankly I think the abuse and insults I get here are similar, even though youtube is supposed to be the cesspool.
jacksulsays
Cool story. If you were minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women, would you want to know it?
Obviously I would. I would be happy to. It would give me some peace that I could finally decide who was right. Now look at all of my comments and find a place where I was minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women. In fact I’ll give you my youtube ID and you can find hundreds of places where I try to encourage people to take the intimidation and harassment of women seriously.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Jacksul:
You are not paying attention. This is not a disagreement over whether Checkers is better than Connect Four. This is one group saying ‘we are tired of being dismissed, our concerns ignored and sexually harassed’, while the other group says ‘there is no problem, stop complaining’. You are not even trying to step away from your limited understanding of the issue. Thunderf00t is contributing to sexism and misogyny by his words and deeds. I cannot make it any clearer to you that this is intolerable. There is no middle ground to be found. PZ and the commentariat here support full economic, social and political equality for women.
Phil Mason, aka Thunderf00t does not. Hell, he doesn’t even understand what feminism is.
jacksulsays
Here’s an idea – why don’t you run off to the “we” that is Tfoot, Stefanelli, Paden, Hoggle and the slymepit and the rest and tell them to fucking resolve it, and while they’re at that, they can knock off the over a year long harassment and rape threats and other loveliness they’ve been perpetrating, eh? Go on, we’ll wait while you get it all settled.
I’m trying. They’re proving just as open to changing their minds as you guys are.
I think that almost certainly there is a harassment problem but probably it is not so bad that everybody needs to go around with buddies to avoid rape gangs. But I don’t know enough to decide. Fill me in. Give me the data. Direct me to the evidence. I’m open to all kinds of possibilities. I feel like the only person who doesn’t claim omniscience on either side.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Jacksul:
You are getting abuse because you are defending TF. There is no defense for sexism. You are also not being objective. If you were, you would have an informed opinion of TF. You do not. Go search through the archives here, and Almost Diamonds, and Blag Hag, and Lousy Canuck, and Butterflies & Wheels. Look for the discussions of sexism. There is a wralth of evidence pointing to a problem with sexism in the movement. Accepting that and speaking out against it is the reasonable position to take. Arguing against it is irrational and unskeptical. Stop acting like there are two equivalent sides here.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Jacksul:
I am trying really hard to be polite to you, but I have reached my limit. No one here is claiming omniscience so take your condescending arrogant bullshit and shove it. You know how to do a google search. Get off your ass and stop expecting us to do the work for you. Do a search for women harassed at atheist conventions. Do a search for Surly Amy @ TAM. Search for Rebecca Watson. Go click on any of the blogs I listed above.
We are none of us saying we know everything. What we are doing is believing the women who come forward and complain about being harassed. Fucking just stop with this false equivalence. What we want to do benefits everyone by creating safer environments. What they want to do alienates women by asking for environments to not be safe spaces. Fuck. This shit isn’t that hard.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
And stop whining about being insulted. This is a rough and tumble blog. You have ben saying some ignorant, stupid shit and have earned the insults. If you cannot handle it, buh bye.
jacksulsays
You are not paying attention. This is not a disagreement over whether Checkers is better than Connect Four. This is one group saying ‘we are tired of being dismissed, our concerns ignored and sexually harassed’, while the other group says ‘there is no problem, stop complaining’. You are not even trying to step away from your limited understanding of the issue. Thunderf00t is contributing to sexism and misogyny by his words and deeds. I cannot make it any clearer to you that this is intolerable. There is no middle ground to be found. PZ and the commentariat here support full economic, social and political equality for women.
Phil Mason, aka Thunderf00t does not. Hell, he doesn’t even understand what feminism is.
Personally I am trying to understand. I’m planning on talking to a few feminist grad students soon, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make here. I just want these two to make up. I thought that it would be so simple for each of them to assume the other might be right for the sake of argument, as painful or tedious as that might sound, and figure it out like adults. But it really feells like a lost cause. Mutual excommunication it is then! Both sides will go away believing themselves to be right and believing the other side is dishonest/unreasonable.
eigenpersonsays
#217 jacksul:
Now look at all of my comments and find a place where I was minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women.
Try post #190, where you wrote:
2) PZ, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless. They might not have legitimate concerns and hypothetically if any of that is true then you would want to know it.
You just said that if women feel intimidated and/or harassed, they might not have legitimate concerns and be overreacting to something harmless.
That is minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women, because you are implying that harassment is so nearly harmless that women might (frequently?) confuse “something harmless” with it.
jacksulsays
Fucking just stop with this false equivalence. What we want to do benefits everyone by creating safer environments. What they want to do alienates women by asking for environments to not be safe spaces. Fuck. This shit isn’t that hard.
Well sorry for frustrating you. That was certainly not my intention. TF may just be a dishonest asshole who is obviously wrong about everything, while PZ is obviously right about everything. I’ve always called myself a feminist and when push comes to shove on policy you can probably count me as a friend, if an annoyingly idealistic one.
jacksulsays
Try post #190
“If” is the key word. If Allah is the one true God and Muhammad is his prophet then I also want to know about it. If 9/11 was a conspiracy then I want to know about it.
I don’t believe those things, and I don’t believe that harassment is so nearly harmless that women might (frequently?) confuse “something harmless” with it.
eigenpersonsays
#226 jacksul:
“If” is the key word. If Allah is the one true God and Muhammad is his prophet then I also want to know about it. If 9/11 was a conspiracy then I want to know about it.
I don’t believe those things, and I don’t believe that harassment is so nearly harmless that women might (frequently?) confuse “something harmless” with it.
But Allah doesn’t exist, and Muhammad is not the prophet of anything, and 9/11 was only a conspiracy in the sense that members of Al Qaeda conspired to commit it. It is not a possibility that Allah exists — it is a falsity.
You said that PZ needed to “admit the possibility” that women complaining about harassment were wrong. That is not a possibility — it is a falsity. PZ should not “admit” something that is false, and if you encourage him to “admit” it, you are implicitly claiming that it is true.
Maureen Briansays
Jacksul @ 217,
Now look at all of my comments and find a place where I was minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women.
You are unconvincing. Why? A few posts before that you made a unilateral decision on whether or not Caine should talk about being raped.
I can only see two possible reasons for that. Either you lack the stomach to deal with the hard facts of life as experienced by people who are not you or – and I think this more likely – you were automatically down-grading her knowledge* of what had happened to her nearly 40 years ago to the “needs to be checked and questioned” category. Just as Rebecca Watson’s experience in the elevator was.
So you are not being honest, either with yourself or with us. You are not neutral and you are not acting from devotion to peace and harmony.
You have just outed yourself as member of that tribe which wants “peace” OK but only according to your own scenario – the one where women never mention the bad behaviour of some men, where you can go on spreading myths about rape and about female sexuality and where your need to be a hero trumps all.
Besides, to be an honest broker in this fight your would need a firm grasp of what happened in Dublin. And what happened since. You do not have it and you are not convinced that you need it so stop bigging yourself up and give us all a rest from that ego of yours.
——————-
*And if you are unable to believe Caine ‘cos she’s a woman, then the US government has the trial transcript and all of the appeals. Would you believe those?
Even as a TF fan, I will easily admit that his last video is certainly full of quotemines and distortions. But I don’t think he is being intentionally dishonest.
So, we’Re both talking about the guy who made himself a name by slicing through every single one of those tactics taking creationists apart, who knows that stuff from the ff, who can probably explain to you what a quotemine is if you wake him at 3am after he drank too much and who is after all a trained and published scientist who knows well about the importance of such things and you still think that if he’s doing it it’s accidentially?
but probably TF is just very confused about women and women’s issues and I don’t blame him for being confused.
We have very different ideas about what good people are. I would think that good people don’t dismiss half the world’s population. And yeah, women, mysterious creatures.
That would be a good skeptical attitude, but I wouldn’t say it in that setting because I don’t want to hurt people.
Wrong, it wouldn’t be any more skeptical than creationism is skepical.
Sorry! I meant to say “we should probably NOT talk about it”
Translation: STFU, Caine. Don’t actually mention that you suffered. Don’t ever mention that rape happens because it makes poor jacksul uneasy.
I just want these two to make up
Because it’s all about you. If the concerns of women get thrown under the bus, who cares?
mofa
Has anyone come to the defence of PZ over the clip Thunderf00t showed in his video which showed PZ sexualising a situation?
Read the threads, do your own homework. Why sould we do it for you. Yes, I know the answer to your question, I just ain’t telling you.
jacksulsays
But Allah doesn’t exist, and Muhammad is not the prophet of anything, and 9/11 was only a conspiracy in the sense that members of Al Qaeda conspired to commit it. It is not a possibility that Allah exists — it is a falsity.
You said that PZ needed to “admit the possibility” that women complaining about harassment were wrong. That is not a possibility — it is a falsity. PZ should not “admit” something that is false, and if you encourage him to “admit” it, you are implicitly claiming that it is true.
You expect Muslims to consider the possibility that there is no God, right? You expect them to consider that they might be wrong, but you refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong? Christian’s accuse me of being an atheist because I hate God, or because I want to get away with sinning, so I decide in advance that there is no God. But that isn’t why I became an atheist. I became an atheist because I considered the evidence. I was open to the possibility that God might exist, I examined the claim, and I found no evidence. So I dismissed it.
TF should consider the possibility that he is wrong, because he probably is wrong. But how can you expect him to consider that possibility if you wont do the same? That wouldn’t be fair.
jacksulsays
You are unconvincing. Why? A few posts before that you made a unilateral decision on whether or not Caine should talk about being raped.
What??? I did no such thing! I politely suggested that specifically Caine and I should not talk about this issue because I didn’t want to hurt her! I don’t want to hurt anybody. Ever. Period.
If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her and it is more important to protect her from hurtful comments than for me to get at the truth so I was proposing that the two of us stop. It is the same reason I wont discuss God with my very religious Grandmother.
Look I am a nice guy here. I don’t know why you’re trying assumed I’m on TFs side. I’m on nobody’s side. If I had to pick a side it would probably be PZs, not that it matters to my arguments.
Matt Penfoldsays
So if women feel unwelcome at atheist/sceptic conventions because they receive unwanted attention, they are not to be believed ?
We know women are subjected to unwanted attention at conventions, so why should we disbelieve a women when she says it has happened to her ? And why should we disbelieve women when they say such unwanted attention makes them less likely to attend conventions ? This problem is not restricted to atheist/sceptic events, and we know the type of measures that can be put in place to help deal with the problem. We know what the problem is, we know (partly at least) how to solve it, so why would people not want to put measure in place to fix it ?
jacksulsays
Translation: STFU, Caine. Don’t actually mention that you suffered. Don’t ever mention that rape happens because it makes poor jacksul uneasy.
Oh my God. How in the world could you think that is what I meant????????? You’re joking right? What is wrong with you? The woman was RAPED! I feel sick that I need to explain this but I was trying to protect her from being hurt. If she insisted on arguing with me I would have left because obviously protecting a rape victim from being hurt is more important that getting PZ and TF to reconcile. (my purpose)
I can’t understand what you are doing. I can’t understand how you’d interpret my words that way. It’s like you’re assuming every word out of my mouth must be some sick insult. Why? What did I say to convince you I must be the out-group?
jacksulsays
So if women feel unwelcome at atheist/sceptic conventions because they receive unwanted attention, they are not to be believed ?
I don’t know where you got that idea. I never said anything like that.
We know what the problem is, we know (partly at least) how to solve it, so why would people not want to put measure in place to fix it ?
That sounds good to me. I think that’s an excellent idea. I still think PZ and TF should try to reconcile via my proposed method.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)says
I’ve always called myself a feminist and when push comes to shove on policy you can probably count me as a friend, if an annoyingly idealistic one. – jacksul
If you pat yourself on the back any harder, jacksul, you’ll dislocate a shoulder blade.
TF should consider the possibility that he is wrong, because he probably is wrong. But how can you expect him to consider that possibility if you wont do the same? That wouldn’t be fair.
Yes, it would. Because the only way PZ could be wrong about there being a serious problem of many women being sexually harassed at atheoskeptical events is if there really was a feminazi conspiracy to destroy the atheoskeptical movement. Just like the only way I could be wrong about evolutionary biology being basically right and creationism a crock of shit is if there really is an atheist conspiracy to suppress and distort scientific evidence; and the only way I could be wrong about the Shoah being a real event is if there really is a vast Jewish conspiracy to slander Hitler and take over the world.
Matt Penfoldsays
I don’t know where you got that idea. I never said anything like that.
Please try to remember what you have said:
2) PZ, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless. They might not have legitimate concerns and hypothetically if any of that is true then you would want to know it.
That sounds good to me. I think that’s an excellent idea. I still think PZ and TF should try to reconcile via my proposed method.
Why ? Why would, and why should, PZ try to make-up with someone who has made it clear he holds women in contempt ?
A. Noydsays
jacksul (#216)
I don’t know what you think I am proposing but I am just an honest person who is trying to be objective and getting lots of abuse from both sides.
No, I know what you’re proposing. I don’t think you know what you’re proposing. You think that ThunderChode saying “these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might have a point” and that they “might have legitimate concerns” is somehow (morally? factually? aesthetically?) equivalent to PZ saying “these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless” and that they “might not have legitimate concerns.”
That’s about as “honest” and “objective” as it would be to say that supposing all the oxygen molecules in the air around you will suddenly rush off to the other side of the room is the equivalent of supposing all the oxygen molecules in the air around you will maintain an even distribution.
Contrary to what you so clearly believe, an affection for simple-minded symmetry doesn’t make you a better skeptic. A good skeptic looks at the relative likelihood of opposing hypotheses and weights them accordingly.
(#217)
Now look at all of my comments and find a place where I was minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women.
I’ve quoted or paraphrased one of them multiple times, but here you go again: “PZ, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless. They might not have legitimate concerns”. You think it’s worthwhile that PZ ignore evidence of harassment and intimidation and concede that the women talking about harassment and intimidation could all be irrational liars. In order to make up with a guy who makes YouTube videos. Because it hurts your feelings that PZ won’t get along with him.
I realize you said you’d want to know if you’re minimizing, but you can say that and not mean it. Or you can say it and hold such high expectations for evidence that nothing reasonable can get through to you. This? What I’ve pointed out here? This is so obviously an example minimizing that it should go in a goddamn textbook. But you did yourself one better in #231 (quoted below).
In fact I’ll give you my youtube ID and you can find hundreds of places where I try to encourage people to take the intimidation and harassment of women seriously.
If I gave you a million slices of cheesecake and then shot your dog, my generosity with cheesecake wouldn’t negate the fact that your dog was dead.
(#231)
If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her and it is more important to protect her from hurtful comments than for me to get at the truth so I was proposing that the two of us stop.
If!? Why the fuck is there an “if” there!? And, what? You’ll protect her from the hurtful interrogation you need to conduct before you’ll believe her, but you won’t spare her the hurt of doubting her? Or the hurt of your patronizing assumption that you could make her tell something she didn’t want to tell in the first place? Or the hurt of deciding for her what’s protecting her and what isn’t? I’m sure in Caine’s case she’s used to that sort of shit, but it’s no excuse for you to wallow in it.
When you say “if she was raped” about a woman who said she was raped, you are minimizing it. Hell, you’re actually denying it; you’re just leaving enough weasel room to fool yourself into thinking otherwise.
I’m tired and going to bed. Why don’t you go polish a stickleback with your face?
Then at least you’ll get a point, if not the point.
Maureen Briansays
Any one who needs to say “Look I’m a nice guy” in the middle of a heated argument is playing out of his league.
How did you know that talking about it would upset Caine? I cannot be the only one, who knows Caine a little better and respects her as a person, to be falling off my seat with laughter at the very suggestion. The woman uses her gruesome experience to very good effect and quite deliberately. That doesn’t make it any less gruesome. It just represents the learning opportunity which TF is so keen to avoid.
Do you know what does hurt women? Being told not to talk about their experience, even when they want to! That’s at the root of women not reporting rape for fear they won’t be believed. It’s behind the idea that rape is very rare – “so it can’t have happened to you, dear” – and that the legal definition of rape in most jurisdictions doesn’t count if someone claims miscommunication.
Like most women I speak and act on my own behalf. I have no need of some filter with a Y chromosome to edit and re-interpret what I say and do. When I screw up, I and no-one else takes responsibility for it. You do not get to define my existence, my thinking or my bona fides.
So, in the immortal phrase – Up yours, Buster!
Koshkasays
Jacksul,
Your suggestion that Caine should not talk about her rape is inconsiderate and offensive. Take a moment to consider how she and other people might take it.
Let’s call it empathy.
If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her and it is more important to protect her from hurtful comments than for me to get at the truth so I was proposing that the two of us stop.
What an asshole you are, jacksul. “If” I was raped? Golly gee, I guess I better get all the proof together just for you, so you can know absolutely for sure if I was raped.
I don’t want your worthless pity, you sexist asswipe. What the hell good is that? Is that your idea of being a feminist? Your idea of being an idealistic ally? “Oh, poor little thing, she might have been raped, and if she was, well, I can see why she’s so hysterical and shrill – shhhh, we better protect her, poor fragile, fluffy brained little animal.”
Here’s a clue, fuckwit: I don’t need protection, either. Certainly not from you. I spent years as an advocate for other rape victims and I’ve heard one hell of a lot shit over the decades. I’m willing to bet I’m tougher than you – I’m certainly smarter than you are. Christ, you can’t argue your way out of wet paper bag. Just what truth is it you’re after? Are you one of those extra special douchey fuckwits who want all the details of a rape? Because if that’s what your after, you aren’t going to get it. What is it, exactly, do you need to know outside of the fact that I was raped? Oh, let me guess – you want to know if I was raped at an atheoskeptic con, right? No, I wasn’t. I don’t have trouble talking about what happened to me, because it’s happened to a whole lot of women – more than you know. However, I’m not knocking myself out to prove it to you, especially as assuming most women lie about being raped tends to be the mindset of particularly loathsome sexists. You find better things under slime covered rocks than these particular…people. With every word, you’re looking more like one of them.
Do you even hear yourself? Do you have any idea of what a noxious, sickening, sexist smear you are? You’re walking around with two fists full of ugly and head filled with smegmarmalade. No wonder you’re here, defending your fellow sexists.
Oh my God. How in the world could you think that is what I meant????????? You’re joking right? What is wrong with you?
Well, because you want to shut a woman up who tells you about her experience?
The woman was RAPED! I feel sick that I need to explain this but I was trying to protect her from being hurt.
So, I will take you at face value and believe that that was your intention.
Now listen and listen hard and understand and remember:
Never, ever again try to shut up a rape victim about their assault.
Never ever tell them that “we should not talk about it”.
If they tell you their stories voluntarily, STFU and listen.
Telling them to stop HURTS them even more, it VICTIMIZES them again
And it’s condescending as hell on top of it if you assume that you know better than them when they should talk about it or not.
If she insisted on arguing with me I would have left because obviously protecting a rape victim from being hurt is more important that getting PZ and TF to reconcile. (my purpose)
Well, that’s at least a good intention. But intent isn’t magic.
I can’t understand what you are doing. I can’t understand how you’d interpret my words that way. It’s like you’re assuming every word out of my mouth must be some sick insult. Why? What did I say to convince you I must be the out-group?
Well, walk a mile in our shoes. You’re not the first person who comes here and wants to tell us what a good guy TF is and that his sexism isn’t that bad and if everybody was just reasonable everything would be fine.
I have no need of some filter with a Y chromosome to edit and re-interpret what I say and do.
QFMFT and I don’t think I need to tell you just how I’m feeling about the particular fuckwitted Ychromosome filter who is trying to inform everyone of how I need to be treated.
*spits*
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
But I don’t think he is being intentionally dishonest.
Sorry, patent lies and bullshit were found and called out. Why are you being deliberately obtuse?
Matt Penfoldsays
Sorry, patent lies and bullshit were found and called out. Why are you being deliberately obtuse?
And even if there was not dishonesty originally, given how many times he has been corrected and has failed to correct himself, there most certainly is dishonesty now.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Look I am a nice guy here.
A nice guy wouldn’t keep playing “golden mean” and defending TF. A nice would admit being wrong, and shutting the fuck up here, and go rag on TF and his psychophants.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
What is wrong with you? The woman was RAPED! I feel sick that I need to explain this but I was trying to protect her from being hurt. I
Sorry, this is you trying not to feel sick and hurt. You don’t appear to be honest with your motives. It’s always “be nice, don’t make me sick, don’t rock the boat”. But the boat needs rocking on these issues. Either join us or get out of the way. If you can’t do either, just quit bothering your betters and let us do what needs to be done.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
That sounds good to me. I think that’s an excellent idea. I still think PZ and TF should try to reconcile via my proposed method.
The only way reconcilation will happen is when TF admits he has been a horses ass on the issues, and apologizes to FtB for his actions. End of story.
strange gods before me ॐsays
your betters
Ugh. No.
carliesays
PZ, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless. They might not have legitimate concerns”
And what,exactly, would that do? Let’s go ahead and go to bizarro world, where for some reason women make up stories about being intimidated and feeling harassed while at conferences. What do you think is the payoff they’re expecting? What they are in fact getting is hundreds of rape and death threads, doxxing threats, and in general being harassed and hounded every time it comes up. So what do you think they’re angling for that would make that worth it? What is their nefarious scheme? What have they asked for?
Well, what they’ve asked for is for men to think for a minute about what they say to women and how they treat women, and to address their ideas rather than their bodies. So, the down side to this would be… what, exactly? Let’s say, for the point of argument only (because it isn’t true), that they are lying. Now let’s say they get what they want, which is to be treated more like men treat…other men, in that they listen to what they’re saying. How is this causing the very fabric of society to be rendered asunder such that it’s worth fighting to the death to keep it from happening?
owlglasssays
@Tony the Queer Shoop (165), feminist theory
In my view, the priority should be equality, which isn’t as clear cut as it sounds. In a nutshell, which ideal is used that mediates this equality? Shall women become like men, should men become like women? Meet on the middle ground? Should there be some other ideal and so forth. A lot of feminism comes from the outer left field of raised-fist-marxism, some have tendencies of utopist “engineering” of society, which I don’t find appealing. Likewise, I am not very fond of such things as “Herstory” which should not to be confused with a balanced account of history. Hey, let’s invent shebalism, how to study the medical properties of plants from a woman point of view! So if atheism wants to piggyback feminism, there is indeed some work to do.
/
It gets more complicated if set against humanism, which is in part at least grounded in a tradition of “taming the beast of (hu)mankind” with yet other ideals, and this —too— is not as easy as it sounds. Throw in nurture vs. nature, what actually is “being a woman or man” and in fact, what makes a (good) human, which isn’t all that clear at all, as well. Then contrast this with “don’t grab asses” or “don’t do double entendres in an elevator” or “don’t wear fake jewelry”. Either go high-brow, or go street-level. What I saw there looked quite botched.
/
If you begin enumerating rules and start defining what is okay and what isn’t you are walking a fine line between the sensible and “self-imposed immaturity” (the rather clunky translation for Kant’s “Unmündigkeit”). There is some area called responsiblity for one’s own’s actions. You can’t possibly want to make all negotiations between individuals a matter of poltics and rules or drown it all in ideology. Don’t forget cultural differences. The US centric view sometimes feels like three steps back in a way.
/
I am happy to repeat: no booth babes policies, anything that ensures that people don’t mistake a convention as a “hunting ground” is splendid and a very good start! But it would be much better if certain behavior would earn strong disapproval at the place, instead of treating people like little kids. But who wants to attend conventions where, according to Rebecca Watson, you have to travel in flocks to prevent being hunted down by nerd-wolves, and where grabbing asses was considered normal behavior. I certainly won’t. But I am happy to hear what’s next on the atheist-feminist agenda after such pressing issues as “fake jewelry” are resolved and a matter of herstory. //end of polemics :D
mofasays
Caine, Fleur du mal you called me a fuckwit idiot? You are a baboon. Get Franc to explain to you the full implications of being a baboon.
Being an ally is not a destination. It’s a process. Everyone fucks it up sometimes. I have made some spectacular fuckups myself, and that’s with trying to be very, very careful and aware. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card; there is no Magical Incantation. If you catch yourself thinking that of course you’re not like those men, stop and take a good hard look at yourself, because statistically speaking, chances are good that you might be patting yourself on the back and forgetting that you have to walk the walk as well as talking the talk.
If you consider yourself an ally, and you wind up doing or saying something that gets a really strong negative reaction, and you see one of your friends saying something along the lines of “it’s okay, he’s one of the good guys, it’s not like that”, that should be a warning sign that it’s time to immediately apologize. A real apology, not an “I’m sorry if you were offended” — because that kind of language isn’t an apology at all. You clearly did offend someone, or else the dogpile wouldn’t have happened. “I’m sorry that I offended you, and I’d like to make sure I understand why, so it doesn’t happen again; what I’m getting is that it was such-and-such, and I’m sorry I did that, and if that wasn’t it, I’d like to listen to anything else you have to say…”
If you hear a guy who says “I’m a feminist”, but who behaves in ways that trip women’s creepdar, call him on it. It is a very sad fact that nine times out of ten, people with privilege, who are exercising that privilege in a way that makes other people feel uncomfortable, will not hear the fact that they are making other people uncomfortable until it’s pointed out to them by someone with the same privilege. They literally will not process what people are saying. It happens all the time, and it is so subtle and pervasive that people don’t see it even when someone calls them on it. You can, however, use this for good in terms of pulling another guy aside and saying: dude, you’re being a creep. The sad fact is, that guy is way more likely to listen to you.
Women — in person and on the internet — hear, day in and day out, implicitly and explicitly, that their experiences don’t count. That they need a man to come along and Explain Things. And it might not always stem from overt sexism — personally, I view a lot of this behaviour as a sort of human male version of the peacock preening behaviour. “Look! Look at me! I’m smart! I’m smart! Let me show you how smart I am! I want to impress you!” Because, you know, brains are sexy!
But to a woman’s ears, that sounds a whole lot like “Let me come along and tell this woman (who cannot possibly be as smart as a man) about all the things that she thinks she knows. Because she can’t possibly know them. She hasn’t had them explained to her by a man. It is my duty to come do her this service.” Whether or not that’s what you mean, that is what women hear.
If you are ever, ever in a conversation about anything relating to gender expression, sexism, male/female relations, etc, and you catch yourself thinking, “She doesn’t understand, and I need to explain this to her,” stop. Walk away from the discussion (if it’s online) or shut your mouth (if it’s in person), and ask yourself: is it really that “she doesn’t understand”? Or is it that she’s coming from a place so different than yours that you feel like she doesn’t understand your position? Do you think she doesn’t understand your position because she doesn’t agree with your position?
In the case of clear-cut facts, there is an objective truth: you can reasonably expect to find the “right” answer. When it comes to personal perception of the world around you, there is no right answer. There’s my right answer, and there’s your right answer. Resist the urge to explain to women how “the world works”. No, really. Women know how their world works. For us, it works kinda shitty at times, thanks.
It’s okay to fuck up. I tell you three times. It’s going to be a painful process for you, because you are probably going to get your skin torn off in the immediate reaction, but if you shut up, listen, and actually process and engage with the truth being conveyed by that dogpile, you will be able to ameliorate the damage caused your fuckup — or at least not make it worse.
There are things you don’t know. There are things you can never know. You can be told about them, and you can, as you start to open your eyes and observe and listen, start to see and hear them, but you can never experience them firsthand. It’s okay if you don’t immediately understand the true reality of women’s experiences and perceptions about sexism, sexual assault, fear, history of being silenced, etc, etc. You’re not going to viscerally get it when it’s explained to you. You can start to understand, but it will never be your world the way it is for a woman. (Hell, it’s not the same world for every woman, and that’s an important point to remember too.)
You will learn to be able to see that truth, and you will learn to recognize it when it is spoken to you (even if it’s whispered), and you will learn, slowly, that this is someone else’s truth even if it isn’t your own. But it’s not going to happen overnight. When you fuck up, and accidentally behave in a way that invalidates or dismisses the perspective and experience and worldview of the women around you, apologize.
And then stop and listen to what is being said to you, and imagine, as hard as you can, that the world being described to you is your world, and work from there. Even if it’s not your world. Even if it’s not the world and the experiences of your wife/girlfriend/best friend/sister/etc. Don’t be the guy who says “this can’t be true, I would have noticed”, because people are telling you — loudly — that it is true. Work from the perspective of: this is not my experience, but it clearly is her experience, and her experience is just as valid for her as mine is for me. Too many times, women speak up to try to educate men, and men say “you must have misunderstood” or “you must be imagining things” or “that’s not possible”. She didn’t misunderstand. She’s not imagining things. It is possible. You just don’t see it, because you have the privilege of ignoring it if you want to. Failing to recognize it makes you That Guy.
And women don’t owe you an education — see point #1 — but, you know, a lot of us want to try. There are those of us who want you on our side, because we think that you do have the capability to understand it — really understand it, actually have that moment of “oh holy fucking shit, I get it, and I thought this was all being exaggerated and overdramatized before, but now I see that it’s not and holy fucking shit how is it that nobody else is fucking outraged about what life is like for a woman sometimes?” We want you to have that moment. Because that’s when you start realizing that things should change.
When you fuck up (and everybody fucks up; I fuck up, you fuck up, we all fuck up), it’s probably going to feel like getting hit in the face with a very large, very wet, very unhappy cat. There will be hissing and clawing and spitting and you may walk away bleeding. Please don’t let this discourage you from trying. You’re not expected to get it perfect all the time. The rage will be directed at you, but it’s really a spontaneous explosion of the rage that comes from knowing that the world we live in is broken, and your accidental fuckup has been the latest manifestation of a more systemic brokenness. The women reacting probably don’t hate you personally (unless they know you personally); they hate the systematic failure that your particular actions were exhibiting. I want you to understand the reasons for that rage. Because if you see that things are broken, and you see how badly it’s hurting us, you’ll want to help try to fix it.
I thought that it would be so simple for each of them to assume the other might be right for the sake of argument, as painful or tedious as that might sound,
It is painful and tedious. See, I think I get what you’re saying: you want start with basic hypothesis formulation. You want to look at the options, assume (for the sake of argument) that they might both be true, and then investigate which is the case, right?
The problem with that is that we’ve already done that. We’ve spent a long time talking about this subject, gathering evidence and coming to conclusions, and now you want us to go back to square one and start over from scratch because one over-rated internet celebrity didn’t like the way the conclusion turned out.
Even if we do as you suggest, then what? Wait for the next nitwit to come along, so we can go back to square one, again? How many times will we have to do that? How often do we have to go back to the kindergarten level to pick up the slack? At what point can we say “good enough” and actually proceed to the stage where we’re going to do something about the problem?
Will we ever?
The fundamental problem here is not that there’s insufficient data or competing, reasonable explanations. The problem is that some people don’t like the conclusion. In that respect, it’s actually quite like the creationism debate: The evidence is in, but some people don’t like where it’s pointing, so they ignore the evidence, misrepresent the theory and invent “facts” to suit themselves.
I don’t want to hurt anybody.
Too bad, you are hurting people. I know you don’t intend to, but you’re still doing it. Every time you ask for fairness and balance, you’re hurting people. When you try to find a middle ground, you’re hurting people. If you were to keep silent, you’d be hurting people.
When you do anything other than taking a strong stand against sexism, you’re hurting all the victims of sexism.
Look I am a nice guy here. I don’t know why you’re trying assumed I’m on TFs side. I’m on nobody’s side.
That means you’re on TF’s side. That’s the point. There are two groups here: those who want to fight sexism and those who don’t. There’s no middle ground here. If you’re not part of the solution, you very much are part of the problem.
Did you used to hate it when your mother and father had arguments jacksul?
Because it sounds to me like the reason that you want everyone to make up and stop arguing is because you personally find the thought of two people, whom you claim to like, at odds with each other to be stressful. It sounds like you don’t want the issue to be solved, or for TF to learn something, you just want the fighting to stop so that it doesn’t disturb you personally any more.
Now I admit I don’t enjoy it when people I like fight with each other. But I do not, and will not, demand that either of them sacrifice their integrity merely for keeping the peace.
And as for ‘nice guy’. You might not want to hear my, and possibly others around here’s opinions on ‘nice guys’. (The people who frequently use it to describe themselves are rarely kind or good.)
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
I did no such thing! I politely suggested that specifically Caine and I should not talk about this issue because I didn’t want to hurt her! I don’t want to hurt anybody. Ever. Period.
Actually, you did. And you just did it again. You suggested that her rape not be talked about because you to not wan to hurt her.
If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her and it is more important to protect her from hurtful comments than for me to get at the truth so I was proposing that the two of us stop. It is the same reason I wont discuss God with my very religious Grandmother.
If she was raped? If she was raped?
Also, who appointed you protector of women, protecting her from hurful comments?
I feel sick that I need to explain this but I was trying to protect her from being hurt.
It is not your job to decide, unilaterally, what hurts her and whether she can, or can not, talk about her past.
You’re not nearly as clever as you think you are; and you’re not witty at all.
In my view, the priority should be equality, which isn’t as clear cut as it sounds.
Yes, it is.
In a nutshell, which ideal is used that mediates this equality? Shall women become like men, should men become like women? Meet on the middle ground? Should there be some other ideal and so forth.
What’s the point of this kind of stupid blather? Equality means treating people as whole human beings, on their individual merits, whatever their gender, ethnicity, orientation, bodily form…
A lot of feminism comes from the outer left field of raised-fist-marxism, some have tendencies of utopist “engineering” of society, which I don’t find appealing.
Oh, you mean some feminists are dissatisfied with the status quo whereas you, who happen to do pretty well out of it through no particular merit of your own, are not.
Likewise, I am not very fond of such things as “Herstory” which should not to be confused with a balanced account of history. Hey, let’s invent shebalism, how to study the medical properties of plants from a woman point of view!
Hey, yes! Let’s light on a rather silly (or possibly intentionally humorous, I don’t know) neologism from several decades ago, invent another one, and pretend we’ve said something clever!
At this point, I felt obliged to stop before I lost the will to live.
Likewise, I am not very fond of such things as “Herstory” which should not to be confused with a balanced account of history. Hey, let’s invent shebalism, how to study the medical properties of plants from a woman point of view!
I’m not fond of people with the mentality of a 12 year old blowing smoke out of their ass.
thetalkingstovesays
You can’t possibly want to make all negotiations between individuals a matter of poltics and rules or drown it all in ideology.
Owlglass, you sound just like Thunderfoot. “Oh no, sexual harassment policies will mean I’m not allowed to flirt without filling in a form in triplicate!”
It’s nonsense. Nobody is trying to control all interactions between individuals. Flirting can be great. Sex can be great. But individuals don’t get to blithley make other people feel uncomfortable in their pursuit of these things, and if they do then the person on the receiving end should have a recourse. What is so dreadful about this?
n my view, the priority should be equality, which isn’t as clear cut as it sounds. In a nutshell, which ideal is used that mediates this equality? Shall women become like men, should men become like women?
It’s equality, not identity.
A lot of feminism comes from the outer left field of raised-fist-marxism
Meanwhile, back in the real world…
Likewise, I am not very fond of such things as “Herstory”
Doesn’t anybody actually say that unsarcastically? I mean, besides people who are trying to strawman feminists.
Hey, let’s invent shebalism, how to study the medical properties of plants from a woman point of view!
I thought herbalism already did that. After all, the frail women were the ones gathering the plants, while the big, hairy cavemen were out killing elephants with their stone spears. Any other stereotypes we can throw in the mix?
As it happens, there’s a very real problem of medical research using men as subjects and then just generalizing the results to women. Heart attack symptoms is a well-known case where there are gender differences.
But of course, it’s much more fun to bash at a strawman than it is to talk about actual, real-world problems. Never mind what feminists are actually saying. It’s much easier to debate them if you just make up their side of the story without any reference to their actual opinions.
dobbersays
Owlglass, your post has made me just a little bit more of a raised-fist feminist. Thank you. Posts like yours serve to energize the movement.
Actually, I need to cut back on my use of the word “actual”.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitternesssays
But I don’t want to cause you any pain. My grandmother is deeply religious and I wouldn’t speak frankly or objectively about my atheism in front of her because it would hurt her too much and I don’t want to hurt anybody.
So…you’re stance on feminism and rape is SO offensive, so different than what is the standard here, it’s like the blasphemy of atheism for fundamentalist Christians?
Good to know. So much for that “I’m a feminist too!” bullshit.
I did no such thing! I politely suggested that specifically Caine and I should not talk about this issue because I didn’t want to hurt her! I don’t want to hurt anybody. Ever. Period.
If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her and it is more important to protect her from hurtful comments than for me to get at the truth so I was proposing that the two of us stop.
So….from these comments, I’m guessing you’ve been as ass to a rape victim before. You just automatically assume there’s going to be a detailed discussion about what Caine went through, when all she did was mention her perspective as someone deeply effected by anti-feminists/rape apologists/misogynists/abusers. What can’t handle hearing about real people? Can face real victims?
What someone actually try to talk to you about their experience and you started asking stupid questions like “Why were you out late at night?”, and “Why were you dressed like that?”.
You’re just a nice guy so I’m sure you see nothing wrong with these “innocent” questions.
Ugh. What a fucking douchebag. Silence is the default for victims. Society’s status quo is all about silencing victims.
Getting a victim to stop talking about their experience is never a problem. Creating a safe place where they feel comfortable enough to talk about it is the goal, the progress we want to make.
And that’s what this place is for a LOT of victims. So you not only tried to silence and shame Caine, but every other victim who posts/lurks here.
FUCK YOU. Stupid, worthless dingleberry. Get flushed to the sewers where you belong.
vaiytsays
megalol @ mofa referencing Franc Hoggle. Wow, that sure stings.
@jacksul
If she was raped
Stop right there, assclam. “IF”? Why do you feel the need to assume she might be lying?
Fuck you in the nose with a burning poker.
Oh, and by the way, chivalry is not an acceptable substitute for equality, so drop the “protecting” bullshit.
And that’s what this place is for a LOT of victims.
I’m afraid our Nice Guy™ would faint if he had the slightest idea of how many people at Pharyngula have been raped (women and men, Mr. Nice Guy) and that doesn’t even begin to cover all the victims outside of this blog. Not at all.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottlesays
If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her and it is more important to protect her from hurtful comments than for me to get at the truth
WOW. “IF” she was raped? Fucking “IF”? “protect her”? Fucking “PROTECT HER”?
I think this might be the very first case of a misogynistic whiteknight. Go fuck yourself, ass stain.
dobbersays
But I am happy to hear what’s next on the atheist-feminist agenda after such pressing issues as “fake jewelry” are resolved and a matter of herstory
Proof that Owlglass knows nothing about feminism. Not even one example of their goals. So you’re just having a bit of fun with this, huh? Do you do with racism too? Talk to POC about what antiracism means: should we be all black or white or somewhere in the middle? Do you make jokes about travelling in “flocks” to prevent beatings from white-wolves? Good to see life’s been so swell to you that you can be good-humoured about the life experiences of others who for some reason can’t be quote as relaxed as you. You are an example to us all.
vaiytsays
@owlglass
“don’t wear fake jewelry”
There we go again. The “fake jewelry” people were wearing fake jewelry that was made to parody Surly Amy’s in order to target, shame and hurt her. If you don’t even know this much, and you still repeat the argument directly from AVFM’s straw factory, that says more about you than you might have wanted to tell.
Louissays
If?
Yes because being raped is, like, just an extraordinary claim made to score points on the internet.
{Near fatal eyeroll}
Look, can I PLEASE change species now? I want to be a gibbon for at least a week, the brachiating alone should cheer me up.
Louis
dobbersays
oops. That should be “quite as relaxed as you”.
owlglasssays
Nick Gotts (258) said: What’s the point of this kind of stupid blather? Equality means treating people as whole human beings, on their individual merits, whatever their gender, ethnicity, orientation, bodily form…
Treating people as “as whole human beings…” is meaningless phraseology and a claptrap. Being treated on my “invidual merits” won’t improve equality of women, because, newsflash, the issue aren’t individual merits (or lack thereof) but a systematic disadvantage of women.
Nick Gotts (258) said: Oh, you mean some feminists are dissatisfied with the status quo whereas you, who happen to do pretty well out of it through no particular merit of your own, are not.
Being dissatisfied with a status quo does not make certain utopist ideas any more viable, and you won’t win hearts with an overly bookish attitude and simplistic bogeymans. Telling men not to be chauvisnists and asking them to refrain from behavior that never (relatively speaking) was appropriate in the first place isn’t really the gold standard. And ithen it happens from time to time, that people disagree on topics that are actually complex. I’m fine with polemics and snarky comment, but insults are just brutish. You’re welcome.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottlesays
The “fake jewelry” people were wearing fake jewelry that was made to parody Surly Amy’s in order to target, shame and hurt her. If you don’t even know this much, and you still repeat the argument directly from AVFM’s straw factory, that says more about you than you might have wanted to tell
No no no, see, a bitch said something, therefore she must be lying and overreacting and getting all hysterical and shit. Listing the fact that owlglass intentionally left out in order to mislead and diminish only proves that Amy is hysterical and lying! Beacuse reasons!
++\
Being dissatisfied with a status quo does not make certain utopist ideas any more viable, and you won’t win hearts with an overly bookish attitude and simplistic bogeymans.
Translation: Thinking is hard. Bitches ain’t shit.
owlglasssays
LykeX (261) said: Meanwhile, back in the real world…
Yes, exactly. Also see (1) “@feminist theory”, in the headline. Also see (2) “no booth babes policies […] good start!”. Ask the next random woman what she thinks about feminism. Your mileage may vary. Perhaps, in your country you had better luck with the feminist opinion leaders. In the so-called real world, social pressure and disapproval of one’s lifestyle doesn’t always come from evil men, you know. Stuff out there tends to be a little bit more complex.
dobbersays
A struggle for social, legal, political and economic equality for women is Utopian? Well, that will be disappointing for a lot of us. I thought there was a chance, but a man on the Internet told me to dream on.
Nothing I’ve seen on these comments is anywhere near as brutish as telling people that equality is a pipe dream.
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
the issue aren’t individual merits (or lack thereof) but a systematic disadvantage of women.
Right you are. The systemic disadvantage of women means that society does not judge women on their individual merits. Women are judged through the stereotype of women, they are not judged as individual human beings.
vaiytsays
@owlglass
Treating people as “as whole human beings…” is meaningless phraseology and a claptrap. Being treated on my “invidual merits” won’t improve equality of women, because, newsflash, the issue aren’t individual merits (or lack thereof) but a systematic disadvantage of women.
That’s where feminism comes in!… right? You were making our point for us, right? Right?
Being dissatisfied with a status quo does not make certain utopist ideas any more viable,
What utopist idea? The idea that maybe one day women won’t be treated like shit, and if they do it will be by individuals rather than society as a whole? If that’s your gold standard for utopia, your imagination seems to be lacking.
I’m gonna have to ask you for some citations to support your claim that marxism is rampant in feminist circles. It sure as hell is not anything I’ve experienced. While you’re at is, a citation for non-sarcastic use of “herstory” would also be helpful. Bonus points if you can find one from this side of the year 2000.
Bottom line, I’d like you to demonstrate that you’re not simply talking straight out of your ass.
dobbersays
Oh Owlglass, it’s complex, is it? Then forget it. I would never understand complex things. Not like those random ladies, who seem to get it so right. And what’s this about disapproving of people’s life-styles? Are these anti-feminists or feminists? It’s all so obscure and mysterious. What with bogeymen and unlucky feminist leaders in a faraway land. I so wish I could understand your argument. I’m sure I would be dazzled with the multi-facetedness of it all.
Pteryxxsays
Women aren’t judged as individuals, *or* as human beings.
Hello by the way, *waves*, fellow rape victim here. I’m not Caine and I decided on my own recognizance to mention it, glory be. Do I get automatic protective smothering or does that require a genital check first?
In the so-called real world, social pressure and disapproval of one’s lifestyle doesn’t always come from evil men, you know. Stuff out there tends to be a little bit more complex.
And once you poke your head out from the little straw-feminism diorama up your ass, you might find that’s all been addressed (by actual research yet!) back in Feminism 101. See the sidebar with links. Condesplaining douchepellet.
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
Pteryxx:
Shhh. You’ll disturb yourself.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)says
owlglass,
Treating people as “as whole human beings…” is meaningless phraseology and a claptrap.
I could have fleshed it out a bit more with “rather than just a set of genitalia”, but I thought even you might manage to fill that in for yourself. My mistake.
Being treated on my “invidual merits” won’t improve equality of women, because, newsflash, the issue aren’t individual merits (or lack thereof) but a systematic disadvantage of women.
You weren’t talking about “improving equality of women” (with each other? with leprechauns?) ; you were talking about “equality” per se, and showing that you hadn’t the faintest idea what it means – you appeared to think it means women and men becoming more alike. Certainly, systematic disadvantage is a key issue, which the rest of your post indicated you hadn’t any interest in addressing.
Being dissatisfied with a status quo does not make certain utopist ideas any more viable
What “utopist ideas”? Why the deliberate vagueness?
with an overly bookish attitude and simplistic bogeymans
I’m not the one dragging Kant into my comment or blathering about “raised-fist-marxism”.
I’m fine with polemics and snarky comment, but insults are just brutish.
Insults? Gently pricking the bubble of your ego scarcely counts as insult.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Stuff out there tends to be a little bit more complex.
Yep, so complex you don’t get it, can’t get it, and won’t get it, because you don’t know how to shut the fuck up and listen. And guess what? We got it, and we live in the real world, not a pretend world like you. Come back when you actually have something cogent to say. Like, “I’m sorry”.
Being dissatisfied with a status quo does not make certain utopist ideas any more viable
What “utopist ideas”? Why the deliberate vagueness?
One might even say that it’s so vague as to be meaningless phraseology and claptrap.
owlglasssays
Dobber (275) said: A struggle for social, legal, political and economic equality for women is Utopian?
That’s not true and that is also not what I wrote. There is noticable progress and we seem to be getting there (I always live/lived in Northern Europe mind you), and the debate is more nuanced as well. Educate the men that grabbing asses is not appropriate and tell people that they can’t insult someone by wearing stickers, shirts, jewelry or whatever this was about. I thought that parents would provide the basic knowledge and rules of decency, but I am glad that this atheist community helps out. My apologies, it seems to be very different in the US and I leave it at that.
rqsays
Wow. I barely got past the part where owlglass (@272) said that men shouldn’t be asked to refrain from inappropriate behaviour, because… uh, yeah. Having trouble with that one. Because it’s not a gold standard, and so? So… Carry on being assholes, because… It’s not like their behaviour is the problem anyway…?
I seem to be missing something here.
*sigh*
Carry on, you lot. One day I shall join your ranks and eat trolls raw with my teeth bared. Tonight, though, I’m fixing dinner, so – busy.
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
That’s not true and that is also not what I wrote.
But you wrote:
Being dissatisfied with a status quo does not make certain utopist ideas any more viable, and you won’t win hearts with an overly bookish attitude and simplistic bogeymans.
I’m fine with polemics and snarky comment, but insults are just brutish.
An idiot and a Tone Troll. How unimpressive.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitternesssays
tell people that they can’t insult someone by wearing stickers, shirts, jewelry or whatever this was about.
Yeah, that’s like totally taking it seriously and like, caring about the issues a lot or whatever.
Jackass.
My apologies, it seems to be very different in the US and I leave it at that.
It’s not just the U.S.
Idiot.
dobbersays
We don’t all live in the US. But I’m glad you are starting to step away from your half-arsed comments. I could tell your heart wasn’t really in it, because it didn’t make any sense.
No one is looking to court you, Cupcake. You’re supposed to be using your brain. To think.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Oh, my bad. I didn’t know Europeans were so much better at feminism than Americans. You clearly do not know that many of the commenters on this blog are from varied locations across the world.
FFS. This is the internet and Pharyngula is global. Many of the people responding to you are not American and not in the U.S. – they don’t have any trouble grasping the issues at hand. Christ.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitternesssays
I thought that parents would provide the basic knowledge and rules of decency, but I am glad that this atheist community helps out.
Society at large is fucking sexist and treats women as property so putting it all on the parents shoulders as if this is just a few boys being boys is fucking bullshit.
dobbersays
Nick Gotts
with an overly bookish attitude and simplistic bogeymans
I’m not the one dragging Kant into my comment or blathering about “raised-fist-marxism”.
Bravo!
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitternesssays
and the debate is more nuanced as well.
Is nuance like “complexity” and “reasoned”? Just some bullshit excuse for educated white guys* to use big, polite words to talk over the experience of women who are saying, “Stop being a douchebag and treating us like shit.”
*with chill girlz bringing sammichez and drinks for them, donchaknow
Gnumann+, Invoker of Mansplainingsays
Oh, my bad. I didn’t know Europeans were so much better at feminism than Americans. You clearly do not know that many of the commenters on this blog are from varied locations across the world.
Tony, on behalf of Europe I would like to say it’s ok.
You are not generally known for knowing things that isn’t true, and we don’t want you ever to change.
dobbersays
Telling men not to be chauvisnists and asking them to refrain from behavior that never (relatively speaking) was appropriate in the first place isn’t really the gold standard.
That contradicts this:
Educate the men that grabbing asses is not appropriate
Funny how he hasn’t thought it through yet he was full of advice. Also, I am still confused about why you can’t tell chauvinist men to stop behaving badly because their behaviour was never appropriate in the first place. Does anyone get this?
Gnumann+, Invoker of Mansplainingsays
Funny how he hasn’t thought it through yet he was full of advice. Also, I am still confused about why you can’t tell chauvinist men to stop behaving badly because their behaviour was never appropriate in the first place. Does anyone get this?
Of course! We’re a postfeminst society. There is no chauvinism or misogyny. Any misogyny you might encounter is merely a figment of your imagination. Since they’re just figments of your imagination and not real in any way it’s wrong to interact with them. Even to take their hand off your arse.
I see you have specifically asked me to come back and answer this point (so if everyone else could refrain from slagging me off for doing so, or for bringing up dead arguments ate, THIS IS A REQUEST!!)
PZ wrote this blog entry about Matt’s video, not Thunderf00t’s. To comment on Matt’s video, you think PZ has to watch Thunderfoot’s? That makes no sense.
I didn’t say that to watch Matt’s video he had to watch thunderf00ts. the point is that PZ had managed to watch Matt’s video WITHOUT having to watch hundreds of other videos. When i criticised him for not watching Tf00ts video then making a blog entry relating to it his response was that he cannot be expected to watch endless YT videos. My point of commenting was that his faulty logic seemingly went out the door when it came to Matts video, whereby he suddenly gained the ability to only watch the relevant video.
This is my last comment here btw, i have a video uploading outlining my main thoughts on all three protagonists, so i have no need to further my thoughts here.
Jim
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
to only watch the relevant video.
I really am considering calling you names. The relevance was not the video but the lovefest certain groups had for the video. As has been explained. Multiple times.
Gnumann+, Invoker of Mansplainingsays
Noelplumnumbers
This is my last comment here btw
Promise?
Promise? Pretty please!
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
so i have no need to further my thoughts here.
And there goes my first Irony Meter of the year. And that was the super-duper-reinforced one that goes all the way up to 11.
When i criticised him for not watching Tf00ts video then making a blog entry relating to it his response was that he cannot be expected to watch endless YT videos
My emphasis of continuing lies.
Anyway, adopting the policy of letting random commenters dictate which videos he watches will have exactly that result: an endless stream. The alternative would be to take video requests only from some, not others, which is essentially the same as PZ just deciding for himself.
So, as far as I can tell, you’re basically just whining because PZ wouldn’t take orders from you.
Anyone wanna bet noel the plum idiot immediately shows up in the new youtube thread?
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
Anyone wanna bet noel the plum idiot immediately shows up in the new youtube thread?
No bet.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
so i have no need to further my thoughts here.
How can one further what one doesn’t have? That has been your problem. So, back to vanity land, where nobody will challenge your idiocy.
owlglasssays
First off, there were different discussion threads, one dealing with feminist theory. It is loaded with all kinds of political ideas (and utopias), one must not automatically approve of just because the label “feminist” is on it. This is about political ideas, not etiquette and goals and the like! You are invited to make up your own mind, and see what you find useful. I do object to a couple of things and agree with other tools (for example the use of quotas, if used both sided). The complexities as mentioned are things like settting up new issues, where women are pushed into a new set of social expectations, like successfully managing job and family. Others involve peer pressure that does exist among women and so on. So please get out of my hair.
/
Regarding sexual harrassment: there are “sexual harrrassment” codes in place, with legal consequences. So take a deep breath understand first that it is NEVER okay, whether or not a symbolic token point (“grabbing ass is not allowed”) is on a list or not. However, by calling out such behavior on some list sends a devastating message. It tells me that this form of harassment apparently happened a lot, telling me that I certainly don’t want to attend in the future. Further, it gives me the impression that attendees may then think that other forms of harrassment may be permitted, as they aren’t explicitly stated on the list. Reminder, they are NOT. I am also led to believe that people on such conferences just restrain themselves because they were reminded beforehand. In summary, it does not make the conference seem more welcoming to women, but the total opposite. So this type of policy failed in my view. OTOH, banning of sexualized adverstisment, not allowing booth babes,I deem as very effective and GOOD.
/
There is not just one way to deal with issues like these, and disagreeing on the policies and strategies is not the same as disagreeing with the general feminist goals. For example, I would prefer if inappropriate behavior is called out on the spot, and actions are taken that are deemed appropriate. If people wear offensive shirts, sticker, jewelry etc., I would prefer when staff asks them to remove it. I don’t like if whole groups of people are called out publically because of individuals who suck.
Maureen Briansays
Did you speak with any actual, living women with experience of conferences before you wrote that middle paragraph, owlglass, or did you just pull it of your arse in a great long string.
Did you speak with any actual, living women with experience of conferences
Don’t be silly, Maureen. You know there’s no speaking with women, all they ever want to do is talk about herstory and stuff.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
Caine, you forgot utopias.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottlesays
First off, there were different discussion threads, one dealing with feminist theory. It is loaded with all kinds of political ideas (and utopias), one must not automatically approve of just because the label “feminist” is on it.
This is meaningless without a specific example.
I do object to a couple of things and agree with other tools (for example the use of quotas, if used both sided).
Who wants “quotas”, again? Oh right, no one. This is just more baseless bullshit. Quelle Surprise.
So please get out of my hair.
Translation: I’m a delicate snowflake who can’t handle being disagreed with. Mainly because even I know I’m full of shit.
However, by calling out such behavior on some list sends a devastating message. It tells me that this form of harassment apparently happened a lot, telling me that I certainly don’t want to attend in the future. Further, it gives me the impression that attendees may then think that other forms of harrassment may be permitted, as they aren’t explicitly stated on the list. Reminder, they are NOT. I am also led to believe that people on such conferences just restrain themselves because they were reminded beforehand. In summary, it does not make the conference seem more welcoming to women, but the total opposite. So this type of policy failed in my view. OTOH, banning of sexualized adverstisment, not allowing booth babes,I deem as very effective and GOOD.
Translation: bitches shouldn’t ever talk about sexual harrassment, because that makes sexual harrassers feel bad. And bitches should just put up with sexual harrassment because talking about it makes imaginary other people not want to go to the convention. And clearly stated policies against sexual harrassment are bad because I just decided they don’t work based on no evidence whatsoever, so there’s that.
makes perfect sense to a diship misogynist, I’m sure.
There is not just one way to deal with issues like these, and disagreeing on the policies and strategies is not the same as disagreeing with the general feminist goals.
But telling women to STFU and accept sexual harrassment totally works!
For example, I would prefer if inappropriate behavior is called out on the spot, and actions are taken that are deemed appropriate. If people wear offensive shirts, sticker, jewelry etc., I would prefer when staff asks them to remove it. I don’t like if whole groups of people are called out publically because of individuals who suck.
And what owlglass likes and doesn’t like should be the standard by which all people act because he’s the alpha and omega of douchey, dishit misogynists.
FOAD already.
Rumtopfsays
Ew, that comment from Owlass @313 reminds me of DJ Grothe accusing Rebecca Watson of scaring women away from TAM for talking about sexism in the atheist community.
Fuck. You know what I think when I see a good sexual harassment policy in place? Sweet! The organisers of this event care about the convention goers and have a protocol for potential harassment, that harassment won’t be tolerated if it were to happen and harassers will be ejected from the event. It doesn’t tell me anything at all about the prevalence of harassment at previous events, but it sure lets me know that if anything happens, I’m covered and the event organisers will listen to me and take my concerns seriously. But what do I know, being a woman and all, ya shitcake.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottlesays
But what do I know, being a woman and all, ya shitcake.
You know nothing. Just let owlglass’ three remaining brain cells do all the thinking for you. it’ll be REAL quick.
Damn, I forgot! We’re never going to get New Amazonia built this way…
mythbrisays
@owlglass #313
Regarding sexual harrassment: there are “sexual harrrassment” codes in place, with legal consequences. So take a deep breath understand first that it is NEVER okay, whether or not a symbolic token point (“grabbing ass is not allowed”) is on a list or not. However, by calling out such behavior on some list sends a devastating message. It tells me that this form of harassment apparently happened a lot, telling me that I certainly don’t want to attend in the future. Further, it gives me the impression that attendees may then think that other forms of harrassment may be permitted, as they aren’t explicitly stated on the list. Reminder, they are NOT. I am also led to believe that people on such conferences just restrain themselves because they were reminded beforehand. In summary, it does not make the conference seem more welcoming to women, but the total opposite. So this type of policy failed in my view. OTOH, banning of sexualized adverstisment, not allowing booth babes,I deem as very effective and GOOD.
Have you ever actually read an anti-harassment policy? Are you employed? Were you not acquainted with the one that your employer uses upon your hire?
A convention or conference with an anti-harassment policy that is effectively implemented would make me feel extremely safe to attend (I’m a woman – does that give me more or less credibility to comment on whether any given woman would appreciate the existence of an anti-harassment policy at a con for which she is paying a great deal of money to attend?).
There is not just one way to deal with issues like these, and disagreeing on the policies and strategies is not the same as disagreeing with the general feminist goals. For example, I would prefer if inappropriate behavior is called out on the spot, and actions are taken that are deemed appropriate. If people wear offensive shirts, sticker, jewelry etc., I would prefer when staff asks them to remove it. I don’t like if whole groups of people are called out publically because of individuals who suck.
Yeah, and how about when the staff of the convention DOESN’T call out inappropriate behavior or ask attendees to remove offensive clothing or jewelry, because they haven’t been trained to recognize and deal with it? That would require some kind of written program. Almost like an anti-harassment policy.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Jim:
When i criticised him for not watching Tf00ts video then making a blog entry relating to it his response was that he cannot be expected to watch endless YT videos.
Your criticism of PZ makes NO sense.
Why should he have to watch TF’s video when he wasn’t commenting on it?
He was commenting on the REACTION to Thunderf00t’s video.
He doesn’t need to watch TF’s video to make comments about the MRAs who support it.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
As I believe michaeld stated somewhere (I paraphrase):
If I don’t watch a movie, but read a review of it, am I not allowed to comment on the review?
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Jim:
Did you mean that was your last comment in this thread or at Pharyngula?
One can only hope for the latter.
Any chance we could get that last post in English? Let me show you what I mean:
First off, there were different discussion threads, one dealing with feminist theory. It is loaded with all kinds of political ideas (and utopias), one must not automatically approve of just because the label “feminist” is on it.
No mention of which threads. No mention of which ideas/utopias, who brought them up or who claimed that you had to approve of them, whatever they were.
I do object to a couple of things and agree with other tools (for example the use of quotas, if used both sided).
You object to a couple of things and agree with others… but you only mention one thing and doing so in such a vague fashion that I’m not sure what it actually covers.
The complexities as mentioned are things like settting up new issues, where women are pushed into a new set of social expectations, like successfully managing job and family.
Why is that a “complexity”? More to the point, why is it a complexity for women, specifically? Aren’t men involved in the whole family thing? Don’t men also have to juggle jobs and family? Hell, haven’t women already been doing this for decades? My mother certainly did and both my grandmothers as well. This isn’t a new development, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Look, I’m really not trying to bash you here. I’m trying to explain that what you’re saying isn’t making a whole lot of sense. I feel like maybe you wrote a post fully describing your views, then deleted 80% of it at random and posted the mess that was left.
Some of those sentences seem to be literally taken right out of a larger paragraph. It’s as if there was supposed to be something more before and after, explaining things, but you left that out. I don’t know how to respond because I don’t understand what you’re saying.
jacksulsays
LykeX and JAL,
I am simply at a loss… I don’t know how you turned my kind concern into this horror story where I was telling a rape victim to shut up. I don’t think I’ve ever told another human being to shut up in my adult life. I can’t even read all the that disgusting stuff that you accused me of because it’s painful and frankly it feels disrespectful to Caine.
I have never seen anything like this. I just witnessed you two inventing accusations out of nowhere, spinning innocent phrases into hurtful dribble. I never would have believed it was possible. Utterly shocked.
I owe Tony the Queer Shoop an apology because he was trying to explain things to me and I didn’t take the time to read his comments carefully or look up his points.
Tony: I’m sorry and I will look up the speakers that you referenced. Thank you again for your patience.
But LykeX and JAL, I think you two owe me an apology for these disgusting accusations. Anybody can go read my words and come to their own conclusions. If you want me to clarify something that I said then just ask. I’ll give you one for free, the sentence “If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her…” was never meant to cast doubt on her story at all. That was just sentence structure.
Would you please point out exactly what it is you want me to apologize for? A direct quote would be nice because at the moment, I have no idea what “disgusting accusations” you’re referring to.
I’ve made exactly one comment directed at you, right here. Please quote the part you find problematic because I don’t see it.
I’ll give you one for free, the sentence “If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her…” was never meant to cast doubt on her story at all. That was just sentence structure.
Good, but don’t blame other people for pointing out your extremely poor choice of words. You sounded like you were questioning the story and that’s not tolerated around here. You didn’t mean it that way and that’s a good thing. You might want to be more careful with that sentence structure in the future, though.
Ogvorbis: uselesssays
jacksul:
I am male. I was raped, repeatedly, by my scoutmaster. Others here are rape victims. When you told Caine not to talk about her rape in order to protect her from pain, what pain do you refer to? I live with the scars of my abuse (and abusive) past in ways that I hope you cannot imagine. I live with the pain, the humiliation, the guilt. It is starting to ease since I actually realized what happened, but for the previous 30 plus years I had protected myself from that pain and it didn’t work. That pain is part of me. How does not talking about it protect me from pain?
How dare you. How dare you doubt that she was raped. And before you protest otherwise, you wrote:
If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her and it is more important to protect her from hurtful comments than for me to get at the truth so I was proposing that the two of us stop.
“If she was raped.” If. Right there, you expressed doubt that she was raped. Which helps perpetuate rape culture and makes it marginally more likely that a victim will do as I did and not report what happened. That was just sentence structure? ‘If’ was just sentence structure? You have got to be kidding me.
How dare you. How dare you appoint yourself as her guardian. She did not ask you to feel sorry for her, did she? But you do that anyway. And then you decide, you, not she, decided that the conversation should cease in order to protect her. That is called silencing.
How dare you take your kind concern and use it as a weapon. You should try reading all of that ‘disgusting stuff’ because in there, multiple times by multiple people (some of us victims of rape), just how your comment was viewed as an attempt to silence her. It may not be what you intended, but intent is not magic.
I am a rape victim. I do not want, and do not need, anyone on the internet looking out for my pain — pain that exists whether I am here or not. I do not want, nor do I need, anyone on the internet protecting me. Sometimes I get triggered but that is my fault, not yours, not anyone else’s.
A. Noydsays
jacksul (#326)
I can’t even read all the that disgusting stuff that you accused me of because it’s painful and frankly it feels disrespectful to Caine.
Know what’s disrespectful? You ignoring Caine who is speaking for herself. (See #240, #242, and #252.)
You wouldn’t know respect if it reared up and nipped off all your squishy bits.
Maureen Briansays
Completely OT.
Ogvorbis, I’ve always liked you but lately I sit in open-mouthed amazement at just how fucking great you are!
Right, folks. Carry on!
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitternesssays
But LykeX and JAL, I think you two owe me an apology for these disgusting accusations. Anybody can go read my words and come to their own conclusions. If you want me to clarify something that I said then just ask. I’ll give you one for free, the sentence “If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her…” was never meant to cast doubt on her story at all. That was just sentence structure.
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttt.
I did read your words and come to my own conclusions. Then I quoted you exactly in my comment so there’s no confusion about what statements I was responding to. I don’t give a shit if you never told anyone the exact words “shut up”. You told Caine to NOT talk about her experience. I don’t give a shit what your intent was, you condescending jerkface, intent is not magic. And considering all of your statements, I don’t believe you at all regarding your sincerity.
And seriously, “sentence structure”? You couldn’t have just left out the “if” and said,” She was raped and I feel…” The “if” casts doubt automatically, because the statement,” If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her..”, holds out for the possibility that she wasn’t raped, so then you wouldn’t feel extremely sorry for her.
While we’re at it, I was wondering about another thing: Why me and JAL specifically? Plenty of people responded to you, so I’m curious. I mean, it’s oddly flattering in a way, but I don’t get it.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Anybody can go read my words and come to their own conclusions.
Yep, you are wrong. Now go away.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitternesssays
I can’t even read all the that disgusting stuff that you accused me of because it’s painful and frankly it feels disrespectful to Caine.
How is it disrespectful to Caine to agree with her regarding you?
Besides, like I said your statements effected ALL rape victims to stay quiet regarding their experiences.
Yeah, I said we. I’m a rape victim. This is my safe place and I’ll be damned if some little weasel-y Nice Guy tries to silence me by claiming talking about my own experience would harm me.
You know what harmed me? Being raped and beaten. Repeatedly. Over years.
You know what continued to hurt me? Being shamed and silenced. Forced to deal with my experiences alone.
You know what helped me? Talking about it here with my friends and stand up to rape enabling, misogynist douchebags.
So I’m not trying to talk for Caine or put words in her mouth. I’m talking for my damn self and fuck you for trying to take that away from me. For my own protection. What a crock of shit.
athycosays
…I can’t even read all the that disgusting stuff that you accused me of because it’s painful and frankly it feels disrespectful to Caine.
Disrespectful to Caine?!?
Caine….I cannot imagine how you’d feel any less disrespected by this ass. He arrived at comment 190. By 200/201 (for a correction), he declared “should NOT talk about this” unilaterally with you. Didn’t ask… no, no, no. Just determined for you. You laughed at his white knighting ass in 204, and others let him know that he was on the wrong track. In 219, he quoted you, but without comment number or name, and said THIS HAPPY CRAP:
But I don’t know enough to decide. Fill me in. Give me the data. Direct me to the evidence. I’m open to all kinds of possibilities.
In 231, he talked ABOUT you as if you weren’t even here. He did it again in 233. Captain FUCKING Oblivious!
I do hope that you’d rather me talk to you than to talk to him, Caine. I know that I’d much rather talk to you.
Maureen Briansays
As she was raped …
Because she was raped …
Considering that she was raped ….
Discovering that she was raped …
Especially as she was raped …
Finding out that she was raped ….
Given that she was raped …
Hearing that she was raped …
Just because she was raped …
Knowing that she was raped …
Learning that she was raped …
Mindful that she was raped …
Noting that she was raped …
Obviously, as she was raped …
Perceiving that she was raped …
Queasy that she was raped …
Righteously angry that she was raped …
Sensitive to the fact that she was raped …
Totally aware that she was raped …
Unsettled by the fact that she was raped …
Very mindful that she was raped …
Well aware that she was raped …
eXtremely sensitive to the fact that she was raped …
Yes, I accept that she was raped …
ZOMG, I do not know how to address someone who was raped.
Sentence structure, my arse!
Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularismsays
jacksul, some rape victims don’t want to talk about what happened, because they’re still trying to come to terms with it.
Some rape victims don’t want to talk about what happened, because they’ve gotten burned when they’ve attempted to.
Some rape victims do want to talk about what happened.
By assuming that rape victims all fall into one category, you are not helping. Caine has talked about her rape. More than once. To – as others have said – great rhetorical success in dealing with trolls and misogynists.
To demand that she not talk about it – to put the decision to discuss it or not anywhere else other than firmly in Caine’s court is part and parcel with the denying, the minimizing, the intrusive “prove yourself” demands that rape victims are faced with every day.
That is why people are angry with you. Because the decision to make that an off-limits topic of conversation was not yours to make. And you decided to make it anyway. Overruling the wishes of someone else, and enforcing your desires on them.
Which, given the topic, is a rather … ironic … decision.
And Noelplum is gone right when I have this important moral dilemma for him.
Maybe somebody else can help me out.
Some weeks ago I talked to my cousin about the new Bond movie. Now I hadn’t seen it and he had, and he was ranting about Daniel Craig as Bond, having emotions and stuff and also needing to do some physical work, in short, “ruining Bond”.
I dared to point out that
A) I like Daniel Craig as Bond and indeed enjoyed the other movies a lot.
B) I like the changes they made to Bond as a character
C) the critiques were very good for this Bond and that even though he might not enjoy the new Bond he’s hardly the most important audience in this world and should just deal with it.
Do you think that I should call him up and apologize?
thecollaboratrixsays
Hey Jacksul, if you actually gave a fuck, you’d just straight-up say you’re sorry and maybe take a break from commenting instead of whining like a dog with a hurt paw and making this all about your poor, hurt fee-fees. You talked over a rape victim and showed your ass all over this thread, and now *you’re* demanding apologies? You really are beneath contempt.
owlglasssays
@LykeX, Rest
When I first commented I made a passing remark on feminist theories. Feminism in my book is not the same as Women’s Rights. Even Wikipedia, on the first sentence manages to point out that feminism is: “a collection of movements and ideologies”. When everyone touts feminism, all the ideologies are not a petty detail, and they aren’t straw men either (here one could argue that people who hold such views apparently not only don’t know that different ideologies exist, they also don’t take them seriously). I didn’t question women’s rights. Ever. But I don’t endorse all those feminist ideologies and I made the mistake to say so. I wanted to remain brief and on topic, even with the implications, so I noted “complexities”. It was already a bit too heated to actually discuss fine print at this point, so some examples had to do the trick (and they didn’t, got it). /// Sexual harassment and discrimination laws are in place in my country. A one liner “don’t grab asses” is not an effective sexual harassment policy. Neither did I say that you can’t call out harassers, nor did I say that such behavior should be tolerated or permitted. I did say that sexualizing conventions in one way or the other is, in my opinion not the right way to go. In my very personal view I wrote that I would not attend a convention when I get the impression that “grabbing asses” is apparently common and where I would have to travel in flocks to not get assaulted. And this impression was given. And no, I also don’t agree with Thunderf00t that sexual harassment rules would spoil social interaction (I am not sure if he holds that view, to be fair). You can call out groups–wrong idea. You can call out individuals–right idea. You can pour ideologies over everything, sexualize, and then impose some superficial rules–wrong idea. Or you can educate people and create the right climate and not sexualize–right idea. Putting sex issues on agendas, wrong idea. Removing booth babes, right idea. That was botched, I know blasphemy right there. Btw, educating people and holding them responsible also has a lot to do with humanism, where I originally started off. I’m done with this topic unless annoyed again.
@owlglass
I think you would benefit greatly from a course in writing technique and I think taking a break is a very good idea.
mofasays
I can’t wait for Noelplumb99’s response to Matt’s video. I am hangin’ out for it cos Noel is one of my heros. Hurry up Noel.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
I am hangin’ out for it cos Noel is one of my heros. Hurry up Noel.
And if ever a video is out, do all of us here a favor. Keep it to yourself. Jim is a fuckwitted idjit without cogency. You appear to be following someone that nobody here is interested in the inane OPINIONS of.
I can’t even read all the that disgusting stuff that you accused me of because it’s painful and frankly it feels disrespectful to Caine.
:gathers jaw off floor again, superglues back together for yelling purposes:
Disgusting stuff? What disgusting stuff, jacksul? Disgusting stuff like having massive assholes like you handwave our lives away because, of course, it’s only jacksul that matters, it’s only his feelings that count, right?
How dare you decide what is disrespectful to me? YOU ARE ACTING AS THOUGH I AM INVISIBLE, YOU ASSCLAM IN SMEGMARMALADE SAUCE. You are not only utterly denying me personhood, you are denying that to Pteryxx and Ogvorbis and JAL and every other person here who has been raped – we are legion, motherfucker, and we will not be silenced.
I have the utmost respect for Pteryxx, Ogvorbis, JAL, Maureen, LykeX, Athyco, A. Noyd, Giliell, Esteleth and every other person who has told you in no uncertain terms that you do not get to decide how or when or even if a person who has experienced rape, assault or harassment deals with that or whether they speak out about it or not.
Just who in the fuckety fuck do you think you are, little Cupcake? You do not speak for me. You do not speak for anyone else. You speak only for yourself – and you have shown yourself to be a craven heart, shriveled in a shield of bubble wrap, hiding from reality and burying yourself in the screeds of a liar.
I wouldn’t even donate my spit towards you as a sign of contempt. You get nothing of me. Nothing.
I do hope that you’d rather me talk to you than to talk to him, Caine. I know that I’d much rather talk to you.
Of course I’d rather talk to you – you don’t pretend I’m not here! Seriously, you are not around enough. Stop by the lounge and fill me in about what’s been happening, okay?
Ogvorbis, you are wonderful. In so many ways. ♥ and so many hugses.
athycosays
Caine, my son came in to tell me how angry he is at his boss about his work schedule for next week, giving me the perfect opportunity to say, “He’s totally an assclam in smegmarmalade sauce, isn’t he?”
When he superglued his jaw back on, it was to laugh and then ewwwwwwwww! alternately until his blood pressure was certainly lowered. I do know that Nepenthe is to be credited for the “smegmarmalade,” but your extra fillip leads to that kiss-gathered-fingers-spread-them-in-your-direction gesture.
Oh and lest I forget, jacksul. About that “unfortunate sentence structure” – you are a liar. You’re on fire with your lies. Maureen pointed out beautifully that there’s only one single possible answer to your claim – you are a liar.
“If she was raped” means one thing and one thing only. You do not get to claim “oh, er, uh, erm…sentence structure! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
When he superglued his jaw back on, it was to laugh and then ewwwwwwwww! alternately until his blood pressure was certainly lowered.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, thank you so much for that delightful story. Now you can tell your son that every time he sees his boss he’s going to have a certain image in his head…oh, we be evil.
It’s so good to see you back here again.
Ze Madmaxsays
jacksul,
In case you’re still reading, let me point something out. In #326 you said:
I have never seen anything like this. I just witnessed you two inventing accusations out of nowhere, spinning innocent phrases into hurtful dribble. I never would have believed it was possible. Utterly shocked.
There is nothing innocent about minimizing systemic discrimination. There is nothing innocent in making an unilateral decision not to talk about a subject. There is nothing innocent about suggesting a rape victim is lying about her experience.
In short, whatever your impression of yourself may be, you’re not just using innocent phrases*. Whether you realize it or not, you’re so busy propping yourself as a Nice Guy™ that you’re unaware just how deep of a hole you’ve dug.
—
*And before you even THINK about saying “but I didn’t mean it that way” go forth and read about how intent is not fucking magic.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)says
Owlglass:
I am ever so disappointed you are done with this topic. I quite enjoyed you talking at people and redefining words and being douchey McDouche. Do come back from time to time to dazzle us with your unfettered ignorance.
nightshadequeensays
Owlmirror:
Citations or gtfo.
Perferably gtfo.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Owlmirror:
You mean Owlmirror, OM, or Owlglass, idjit? I suspect the latter.
Caine, your #346 shows that in addition to being a woman of knowledge and conviction you are also made of pure truth and righteous anger. And possibly also (in addition) of angry truth.
But otherwise, I must say that I have seen “White Knights,” and they do tend to be both stupid and wrong, but they wish so well. But jacksul here? He is the first “Black Knight” I have seen, trying to ‘protect’ the poor little ladies by making them shut up and not talk so much about the actual stuff we are talking about.
Mind you, there are several other unflattering thing we can call him besides, but I just thought it was a bit…suitable, I guess.
But as long as he is long and fondly remembered for all the shit he has said here I’ll be happy.
Also, I notice that owlglass writes some manner of stuff with expectations of a response, but since they do write worse than a concussed fifteen-year-old I’ll leave it to the people with experience with teens and/or other upon-the-internets-near-literates to handle that shit.
He is the first “Black Knight” I have seen, trying to ‘protect’ the poor little ladies by making them shut up and not talk so much about the actual stuff we are talking about.
Yeah, it’s a first for me too. The whole thing has left me gobsmacked. I have no idea what he thinks will happen if we talk about our experiences when it comes to being harassed, assaulted or raped. It’s ridiculous. He’s also studiously ignoring the two men who have spoken up about being raped. I guess they don’t deserve “fingers in the ears, la la la la la la la” protection.
And thank you!
athycosays
Feline,
But otherwise, I must say that I have seen “White Knights,” and they do tend to be both stupid and wrong, but they wish so well. But jacksul here? He is the first “Black Knight” I have seen, trying to ‘protect’ the poor little ladies by making them shut up and not talk so much about the actual stuff we are talking about.
Yes, I thought about maybe putting “white” in quotations for the white knight part of my comment because it has most recently been co-opted as a scornful term for feminist men speaking in support of women. I decided to go ahead and use it since the white knight–whether well-wishing or preventing a woman to be visible in her own right–has as his underlying purpose to make the topic all about the view through his visor.
But the Black Knight makes me think of Monty Python. I wonder if jacksul feels that way now?
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
If jacksul were more like the Black Knight, he would not have stopped.
cicely (The Less Sore of Two Measles)says
Late to the party, but just for perspective, jacksul, consider:
If the victims of almost anything—domestic violence, child abuse, use of torture, racial or ethnic discrimination, poverty, whatever—are to be denied the right to speak of those experiences, allegedly to spare themselves the possibility of feeling bad for those bad things that they experienced; if the “proper” approach is always to “keep it inside the family”…when will those bad things ever be addressed?
NEVER.
That’s when.
–
hypatiasdaughtersays
I have never seen anything like this. I just witnessed you two inventing accusations out of nowhere, spinning innocent phrases into hurtful dribble. I never would have believed it was possible. Utterly shocked.
O.K. jacksul, this made me laugh. You are offended and “utterly shocked” by the visceral reaction (mostly lots of “fuck”) to your posts by the bloggers here but cannot understand why why PZ & TF can’t make up & be BFF?
Because TF has been on an attack campaign since his FTB blowup.
Go read “The Company you keep” thread from Jan 1st where the posters cover a lot of the lies and distortions in TF’s video. In it, he attacks and distorts the words and behavior of individuals by name. He wants these people blacklisted from skeptic/atheist conferences. The video is MUCH worse than anything said to you here; it was put on a high profile site (YouTube) and TF posted links to it on an infamous misogynist blog. He has become obsessive, hateful and irrational on the subject of FTB and feminism.
It is so damn annoying that someone who can get so offended by some harsh comments and rude words to lecture others that THEY should overlook worse behavior and kiss and make up.
ednazsays
Hello All!
I was just catching up on the Matt Dillahunty thread and I must second a bow to The Horde for their collective AWESOMENESS.
Also, thanks to Athyco’s story, I now understand without a doubt what smegmarmalade means.
: D : D : D : D
ednazsays
Oh FFS! #365 posted to the wrong thread.
Gen, Uppity Ingrate.says
OMG, I thought I couldn’t be stunned into silence to the point of having to take a break and smoke a sigarette to try to make sense of this shit anymore after everything I’ve seen from the PUA scum and the MRA scum and the TERF scum and the incest promoters and the gang-raping football players and and and all that that never seems to fucking end or even pause, and then BAM.
I literally can not believe what has happened here. And that then jacksul CONTINUES TO IGNORE Caine!!! I mean, I don’t even have the words, my mind simply can not make sense…
Perhaps one possible interpretation *could* maybe be that Jacksul is so very, very surprised and just shocked, SHOCKED to encounter a real live rape victim in a conversation he was having.
HEY Jacksul, did you know that 1 in 6 women are raped in their lifetime? Do you have >6 female relatives? Do you have >6 female friends/acquaintances? Do you converse in groups that contain >6 females, as in this case?
Yeah, think about the implications of that. Really, really think about it. Yes, that would indeed mean that most of the conversations you’ve had that involved more than six women participating probably included at least one rape victim.
And that doesn’t even include male victims of rape, which is one in 33 if I remember correctly.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say this hand-waving, this “maybe the women are over-reacting to something innocent and unfairly calling it sexual harassment” (because hey, we all know women are stupid and/or malicious like that, amirite? I mean, that IS the underlying argument here, isn’t it?) is actively causing more rape and sexual assault victims, and YOU are contributing to that.
Let’s do a thought experiment. What’s the worst that could happen if TF was right, and what’s the worst that could happen if TF was wrong?
IF it was true that women lie and/or exaggerate the incidence of sexual abuse, what then? Do we not still implement policies? Do we not still make sure that the incident is never greater than ZERO? I mean really, what makes the numbers (whether it’s higher or lower) significant when it comes to prevention and policies? Is any number greater than zero not UNACCEPTABLE? So what’s the worse that would happen IF it were true that women lie/and or exaggerate the incidence of sexual abuse (which isn’t the case, but for the sake of argument granting your hypothesis)?
Now let’s ask what IF they are NOT lying/exaggerating that incidence? WHAT IF IT’S ACTUALLY TRUE and all of these delays and hyper skepticism is only serving to create more victims? What’s the worst that would happen if what TF and his band of merry deniers were actually WRONG?
Why make such a HUGE deal about the precise numbers to the 10th decimal, preferably verified with supporting documents, affidavits and signed off on by the “This is true yo for realz” commission if the result is to create even more victims (though that may not be the intent, it most certainly IS the result)?
Real people are being harmed in real life because of thunderdolt and his acolytes. This is not some shit that some kind of “middle ground” can be reached.
carliesays
Oh, man. I got nothing to contribute that hasn’t already been handled in ways that are orders of magnitude above what I can muster. But I’ll add to the chorus.
Jacksul. What you are doing is trying to “protect” others and their fragile feelings, yes? And you don’t understand why people are attacking you for that now, when you were just trying to be so nice, yes?
Think of it this way: what you are doing is imposing your own view of what you think other people want onto them.
I’m trying to think of some analogy that might work. Let’s say one day a friend comes to visit. “Oh, jacksul”, they say, “You don’t look well. I think you should stay home from work today.” But you say “No, I’m fine, and I have an important presentation to make today! If I don’t go to work, I will get fired!” “Oh no,” they say, “You definitely cannot leave the house. You are pale, and have bags under your eyes, you must go back to bed.” And you proceed to try to argue with them that you are fine, and you need and want to go to work and are perfectly capable of working today, but they say “Jacksul, my dearest, I am only protecting you. I know best what you need, and what you need is to go back to bed RIGHT NOW.” And then they lock the front door. Wouldn’t you be frustrated? Wouldn’t you try to tell them that no, they do not know best for you, that you know your own body and your own mind and you can make your own decisions, and they need to leave you alone and let you do what you need to do? And then they would get all hurt and say “But I was just TRYING to protect you, because I KNOW going to work would be bad for you today, so there’s no point fighting about it.”
That’s what you’re doing. You’re declaring what would be “good” or “bad” for rape victims based on your own feelings and interpretations, without considering any input from actual rape victims. You are ignoring what they are saying because you think you know better than they do. You do not.
And as for the “if she were” construction.. hoo, boy. Yes, I actually believe that you did that unintentionally. But guess what? That construction by definition is setting up the sentence as a hypothetical that may or may not have happened. And I bet you would not have used that construction in sentence of another type, say, “Oh jeez, since you lost your eye in a bar fight…” rather than “If you lost your eye in a bar fight, then…” That’s an example of unconscious sexism, right there. That’s the sexism that scares me most. It’s the kind you don’t even notice, and you’d argue to the death that you don’t have because you believe so strongly that you don’t have it, but it’s right there. Watch yourself for the next few months, jacksul. Notice what kinds of rhetoric you use with women v. men. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you use different phrasing with each, and you don’t even know you’re doing it. But it’s there, because it’s so ingrained in you in hundreds of tiny little ways.
I respect Matt but I disagree with him on this. TF raised some goods points about the hypocrisy of RW’s views, and PZ Meyers views. They ARE hypocritical using the banstick when they ignore their own “rules” Matts being disengenuous saying TF wants to “change the rules” or whatever. Blocking people from talking about the hypocrisy is a sign of guilt in my book. Who the fuck is RW to tell women what they can and cant wear anyway?? Isnt feminism about personal choice? RW is ruining atheism.
It is pretty much par for the course in the comment section. I tried reasoning with them yesterday. It is indicative of how misinformed a lot of people there are by Thunder…
1.I was called a sexist for focusing on half of the population for talking about harssment and its relationship to rape culture. I told them would I be prejudiced for focusing on minorities rather than talking about everyone. Smae accusation.
2. I was 6told people rape threated RW not because of sexism in the atheist community but because…
a. RW brought it on herself for being a bigot and “feminist” (sic)
b. Rape threats are trolling why don’t I get that?
c. I should be focusing on death threats because they affect everyone and are more serious.
d. why do femsinists blather on about rape?
e. the statistics that half of rapes are unreported are “bullshit” because how can you count them if they are unreported.
f. it wasn’t atheists that made those threats
Plus plenty more it was pretty much fruitless. I do know people becuase of Aron that are mainly youtubers who think that feminism is ruining the movement who are intelligent people who have been fed tripe. RW herself didn’t recognize that harassment was a problem when she was younger. I think becuase there is a lack of awareness of how sexist our culture still is.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
I do know people becuase of Aron that are mainly youtubers who think that feminism is ruining the movement who are intelligent people who have been fed tripe. RW herself didn’t recognize that harassment was a problem when she was younger.
I doubt that Rebecca Watson was making rape threats when she was younger and not as enlightened.
Lilandra, I realize that. But you threw the bit about Rebecca Watson just after you said that many of the people throwing abuse at you were intelligent people fed tripe. Sounded like equivocation.
Also, why aren’t these “intelligent” people unable to think for themselves.
No I said I know people in real life who have been misinformed by Thunder. It is a lack of awareness of how sexist our culture still is. Although I don’t know him personally. Dawkins in a good example.
I don’t know exazttly how much of the youtube commenters are misinformed or just unintelligent.
That’s an example of unconscious sexism, right there. That’s the sexism that scares me most. It’s the kind you don’t even notice, and you’d argue to the death that you don’t have because you believe so strongly that you don’t have it, but it’s right there. Watch yourself for the next few months, jacksul. Notice what kinds of rhetoric you use with women v. men. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you use different phrasing with each, and you don’t even know you’re doing it. But it’s there, because it’s so ingrained in you in hundreds of tiny little ways.
That was a sterling post, Carlie, and I’m quoting this part, because if jacksul doesn’t take away anything else, he needs to take this away until it is so thoroughly pounded into his brain, it pops up before he ever writes or says another word, for the rest of his life.
AtheistPowerliftersays
@266 Caine
JAL:
And that’s what this place is for a LOT of victims.
I’m afraid our Nice Guy™ would faint if he had the slightest idea of how many people at Pharyngula have been raped (women and men, Mr. Nice Guy) and that doesn’t even begin to cover all the victims outside of this blog. Not at all.
Not stalking you Caine – promise – but your comments are always so…on point.
I am a male who also experienced rape (I have difficulty calling myself a rape victim, which is certainly what I was, because…FUCK that guy. That’s why. I won’t be his victim. I don’t mean to minimize others who use the word though).
I don’t like to talk about the abuse I suffered for a number of years as a young boy. Not because it hurts me, but because it’s ancient history. It was at a time when these things were simply not talked about so I felt I didn’t really have “someone to tell” (I did, but my 12 year old brain said it would hurt my parents to tell them. Go figure. Stupid early 1970’s macho mindset). It ended when I had to resort to an unspeakable act of violence to end it. And – sickly – this is one of the reasons I hate the fucker…that he pushed me into that corner. He’s an old man now, and can’t hurt me anymore.
I understand that this is just a comment section on a (somewhat) obscure blog. But it’s a safe place. And it’s becoming easier to speak out safely because of the efforts of people like many of the regular commentors here. Every voice helps. I’d bet most would be surprised to know the number of lurkers who find some solace and strength in something as simple as this comment section.
Do you know how hard it is to have the appearance of a large menacing person (jesus that sounds arrogant…it’s not meant to…my wife says I’m really working the “biker” look…we joke all the time how I get judged by my appearance) who works with sports teams, and to talk openly about my rape experince? You can’t. You get the same shit you hear here “you shouldn’t talk about it”, “I don’t really want to hear that stuff – it probably hurts you to talk about it”. They are so WEAK. Just listen, and try to understand what you can do – in small ways – to minimize this culture and the chance that this may happen to others. I don’t plug my ears when my brown athletes tell me about racism they have experienced…I’m not worried about them being “hurt”. I want to HEAR them so that I can maybe understand my own privlege and their point of view.
Ugh. Sorry. Getting ranty.
Not even sure why I posted, except to say that if I ever do decide to talk about my experience, I don’t need a hug or protection from (is it “white knight”?) idiots.
You could fill a thimble with all the fucks I give about thunderfoot and matt…but I love these comment sections…and I value being able to lurk here. As I said before I am constantly surprised as my consciousness is raised (as lame as it is – this is the 1st time I have heard “white knight”…need to go do some reading).
Do you know how hard it is to have the appearance of a large menacing person (jesus that sounds arrogant…it’s not meant to…my wife says I’m really working the “biker” look…we joke all the time how I get judged by my appearance) who works with sports teams, and to talk openly about my rape experince? You can’t. You get the same shit you hear here “you shouldn’t talk about it”, “I don’t really want to hear that stuff – it probably hurts you to talk about it”.
I can only imagine how much more difficult that makes it for you to talk out about your experience. Thank you for sharing and bringing your perspective to what is always an important discussion. I’ve found that men who are willing to talk about their experience of being raped have immense value when addressing boys*. Boys often find themselves caught in an agonizing inner torment, because of what they’ve been taught and absorbed about being masculine. The effects are different and no one can address this as well as a man. So thank you, thank you very much.
*And other times and to all audiences!
AtheistPowerliftersays
Thank you.
AP
Josh, Official SpokesGaysays
AP:
Thanks for talking about it. I was raped too, and it took me a long time to be able to say it (or even think it). On the opposite end of the spectrum I worried about people writing it off because I was just a slutty, drunk 17-year-old fag who was “asking for it.” No matter where you fall on the macho-femme spectrum the patriarchy will blame you.
You know, I hope Mr. Nice Guy does wander back in to this thread, so he can see, for himself, that rape can not only happen to anyone, but we are indeed legion and no, we will not be silenced.
AtheistPowerliftersays
Sheeyit. . where my wine at?
Haha great minds think alike…I just poured myself a finlandia vodka…usually prefer “russian standard” but I figure the Finns might know their vodka too (though they should re-think the name…”finlandia’? Really?).
Cheers to you from the east coast of Canada.
AP
Tony the Queer Shoop (proud supporter of Radical Feminism)says
AtheistPowerlifter:
Thank you for sharing a painful piece of your past with us. The strength you’ve shown in doing so is incredible.
Tony the Queer Shoop (proud supporter of Radical Feminism)says
Josh:
I got yer wine if you fix me a sammich.
Josh, Official SpokesGaysays
I got yer wine if you fix me a sammich.
Comin’ right up, daddy.
Tee-hee.
Tee-hee-hee-hee.
We got spicy seitan (fake meat, but homemade) and 12-grain bread on the grill. That cool?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"says
Sheeyit. . where my wine at?
so drunk right now good posability I drinked it.
Josh, Official SpokesGaysays
so drunk right now good posability I drinked it.
I KNEW somebody drinkeded it. You’re buyin’ next time.
athycosays
Tony:
AtheistPowerlifter:
Thank you for sharing a painful piece of your past with us. The strength you’ve shown in doing so is incredible.
Absolutely ditto.
I’ve thought about when I long ago told my story on a Pharyngula thread. The strength came from two discrete emotions: I wanted to be a part of figuratively sticking a thumb in the eye of some utter cupcake, so there was anger. The second emotion was security. I wanted finally to get it out of my head since I’d never said it aloud or even written it down for myself. It couldn’t be wrong here, and no one would agree with all those “it was my fault because” points I’d harbored.
Tony the Queer Shoop (proud supporter of Radical Feminism)says
Josh:
Two things.
1- fake meat? What kind of gay man are you??
2-Daddy? We are the same age, remember? Plus you look older…::ducks::
Josh, Official SpokesGaysays
1- fake meat? What kind of gay man are you??
The kind you don’t even want to know about.
We are the same age, remember? Plus you look older…::ducks::
Mmm. For values of “older” that include, “OMG, you’re really 38? I thought you were in your 20s! What’s your secret? ” Spray paint.
The strength came from two discrete emotions: I wanted to be a part of figuratively sticking a thumb in the eye of some utter cupcake, so there was anger. The second emotion was security. I wanted finally to get it out of my head since I’d never said it aloud or even written it down for myself. It couldn’t be wrong here, and no one would agree with all those “it was my fault because” points I’d harbored.
There was one thread in particular, back at PharyngulaSciborg, where one of the usual assholes showed up and I told the story of my rape. The outpouring of people on that thread, relating their own stories of rape was overwhelming. Readers came out the woodwork to talk, people who had never commented before along with regular members of the commentariat. It was amazing, and powerful and so very emotional. That memory has never left me and it strengthens my resolve to never be silenced.
athycosays
That was it. I know for you that the strengthened resolve not to be silenced is primary, but I hope you feel a glimmer occasionally of how absofuckinglutely AWESOME you are to us (former and current) woodwork denizens for having led that charge.
Caine:
I don’t think you’re “a fragile little doll.” I don’t think that you need protection, but I did not want to cause you any harm. I don’t know you yet. The first words out of your mouth to me were that you were rapped. I have never encountered a rape victim and so my heart sank. I simply didn’t want to hurt you so decided to play it safe and recommend that you and I, specifically you and I, do not engage in debate with each other directly on any issues that had any chance of hurting you. That is, unless you wanted to. Basically it is your choice. Of course, and I though obviously, I wasn’t trying to shut you up. I wasn’t trying to dictate anything to you (or anybody else.) I wasn’t trying to imply that you would be blinded by the horror of past experiences and unable to be objective. If you thought I was trying to do any of those things then I apologize to you personally.
You and I do have disagreements You think that there is no making peace with someone who insists on viewing women as objects. I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody. This is an argument I am willing to have with you, but only if you want to.
I saw many people who I respected on youtube and many people who I respected on FTB fighting each other and I felt sick. I hated it. I wanted everybody to just get along. In this argument I don’t have enough information, yet, to decide who to support. (that is not an equivocation, it is an expression of personal ignorance)
Again, I’m sorry to you personally. I never had any reason to cast doubt on your story and if that was implied by my slightly confusing sentence structure then I am sorry.
carlie:
We agree and disagree.
Here is where we agree. I think you are right about “the kind you don’t even notice, and you’d argue to the death that you don’t have because you believe so strongly that you don’t have it.” That is the most dangerous and I hope you keep fighting against it.
Here is where we disgree. I still maintain that my statement didn’t cast any doubt on Caine’s story. I just talk like that. I often say things like: “If climate change is caused by human activity, then we have a responsibility to repair it,” OR “If evolution is a fact, then there is no clear line between a 6 month fetus and an 8 month fetus,” without casting any doubt on climate change or evolution, but perhaps it is time to stop writing in this CS style since it can obviously lead to misunderstanding.
John Moralessays
[meta]
jacksul:
Here is where we disgree. I still maintain that my statement didn’t cast any doubt on Caine’s story. I just talk like that. I often say things like: “If climate change is caused by human activity, then we have a responsibility to repair it,” OR “If evolution is a fact, then there is no clear line between a 6 month fetus and an 8 month fetus,” without casting any doubt on climate change or evolution, but perhaps it is time to stop writing in this CS style since it can obviously lead to misunderstanding.
Your heartfelt apology is severely undermined by this feeble excuse.
Look: I still maintain that my statement didn’t cast any doubt on Caine’s story.
It was quite literally phrased as a conditional, though you imagine you were making a statement, because you tried to be orotund. People have tried to tell you how it came across, and you persist in seeking to excuse yourself on the basis of good intent.
(You’re not getting it)
—
My unsolicited advice: when you can make a simple statement, be literal — not metaphorical or rhetorical — until you get the feel for this place.
(Also, try to be clear as to what you hold as factual, what is your inference, and what is your opinion)
John Moralessays
[meta]
PS It irks me when people misuse words; ‘if’ and ‘given’ are not interchangeable!
PPS Welcome to Pharyngula, jacksul.
Pteryxxsays
jacksul:
I have never encountered a rape victim and so my heart sank.
You have, though – it’s statistically inevitable that you haven’t – but you didn’t know it, because they weren’t talking about it. That’s why it’s so important not to assume, not to talk about rape as some rare exception or abstract concept, and especially not to use thoughtless doubt-reflecting phrases like “IF x was raped” whether or not you personally meant anything by doing so. Clear?
But now you know, eh? It’s a start.
(even racists, misogynists, and neo-nazis, hmm? *headshake* This is where I guess you don’t belong to any of the groups likely to get racist/misogynist/queer-hatred/ablism’d at, who likely take it more seriously than you do. But I’m sure we’ll all get to that very shortly. Good luck.)
You think that there is no making peace with someone who insists on viewing women as objects. I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody.
O.o
Wha?
Think about what you are saying here! A person who views you as an object is not very likely to listen respectfully to you, are they? Duh. How will these peace negotiations work?
Seriously, you need to get a grip.
bargearsesays
Jacksul
You think that there is no making peace with someone who insists on viewing women as objects. I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody.
You don’t get out much do you?
Maureen Briansays
I know! Let’s do jacksul a helpful reading list. My suggestions are
Both are available from many other outlets, as the BBC is obliged to say.
Louissays
You and I do have disagreements You think that there is no making peace with someone who insists on viewing women as objects. I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody.
It’s puff-puff-PASS. That amount of weed isn’t good for anyone, son.
But seriously, I, for one, would really, REALLY, value your insight on science, reason and especially Enlightenment ideals as they pertain to racism, misogyny, Nazism and creationism. How can one value science, for example, and be a creationist? The very act of being a creationist, of making creationist claims, or adhering to those beliefs, is precisely to violate the very processes that underpin science. To be a creationist one must abandon science, reason and Enlightenment ideals. And that’s just the simplest example. Racism and misogyny and Nazism all fall foul of these things you claim to hold so dear.
It’s pretty clear to me that your desire to avoid interpersonal conflict (if indeed you are sincere at all) outstrips your ability to reason, and the understanding of the topics you are discussing. Sorry if that’s a little harsh, but anyone ill-informed enough (and that is the most charitable interpretation of your words) to claim that you would be happy to make “peace” (whatever that means) with the oxymoronic “science loving, reason based, Enlightenment idealist creationist” of your dreams is someone in dire need of some actual understanding of those words and concomitant subjects.
There is a reason you are attracting opprobrium from the assembled Horde of Phrayngula, and that’s because your claims/ideas thus far are not merely wrong, they’ve yet to achieve the lofty heights of being wrong, they are incoherent, internally contradictory, and thus, laughable. Wrong would be a step up. Couple that to your (perhaps inadvertent) dismissal of the testimony of well known posters here who have been raped and, well, you’re in for a hard time.
My advice, for what it’s worth, a whole lot more readybooky-thinky, a whole tonne less posty-whiny.
Louis
Maureen Briansays
Hooray for Louis!
mildlymagnificentsays
So if jacksul (and the countless others like him) think they’ve never met a rape victim, hmmmmm.
I wonder if they’ve also never met a person who’s suffered domestic violence. Because those numbers are a bit larger.
Or are these mysterious people all supposed to live and work and shop and study and travel anywhere except where jacksul (and others) happen to pass their time. If you know more than 4 women, then you almost certainly know at least one who’s been on the receiving end of domestic violence.
As for ….
I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody.
You really need to be clear on what words like science and skepticism mean. Anyone who claims to be skeptical who also is convinced that there is any merit at all in racism and/ or misogyny or believes themselves to be immune from cultural messages about such things –
– is doin’ it rong.
And if they are not skeptical or scientific or honest or decent in the way they think and the way they talk, would you still think it worthwhile to compromise or to accommodate them? I hope not.
Tony the Queer Shoop (proud supporter of Radical Feminism)says
Jacksul:
That was an apology?
Dude, an apology is when you say
“I am sorry.”
It doesn’t matter what you ‘meant’ to do. We do not know what goes on in your head, only what we see here. A statement beginning with ‘If’, such as the one you produced, immediately casts doubt on what follows. You do not understand how certain words in the English language work. You would do well to ho learn and come back with a real apology, not a half hearted politician type notpology.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody. This is an argument I am willing to have with you, but only if you want to.
Ah, you obviously don’t get it. Those who value science, skepticism and enlightenment can’t be racists, misogynists, creationists, etc., which requires one to presuppose idiocy. They aren’t anybody I care to associate with, or make peace with, until they renounce their idiocy. And you for this idiocy.
There is nothing to argue. You have a fallacious presuppostition, and until you renounce it, there is nothing to discuss.
Louissays
I’m still reeling from the admonition from our excitingly pacific chum that there exists such a thing as a science and scepticism valuing, Enlightenment ideal adhering creationist.
I mean, racists and misogynists might take a little bit more effort to realise they’re anti-Enlightenment anti-evidence bozos. But I’d have thought even the most neophyte “sceptic” and science advocate would have worked out by now that creationism isn’t exactly derived from a principled and evidence based study of the relevant science.
More than that, the lack of self reflection involved in a statement that would include making peace with the modern day equivalent of Josef Mengele (a science valuing Nazi of yore), borders on the arse quakingly staggering.
I have to second PZ with his recent use of Voltaire’s ‘”I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.’. Seriously, anyone shallow enough and clueless enough about the actual nature of science, reason, scepticism and especially the Enlightenment (presumably the Scottish and other European ones) who would make “peace” with Mengele and Hovind because those guys talked a nice game about their love of science…seriously this is fractally wrong. Where the hell does one even begin with mammering, wilful stupidity of this nature? Statements like this don’t merely show someone accidentally being a bit daft, they show someone throwing the very things they claim to value behind them as they flee even the slightest conflict. This isn’t cowardice, this is borderline pathology.
I can only mock it. I certainly can’t take this sort of thing seriously.
If you thought I was trying to do any of those things then…
Bloody hell. And you were doing so well, too.
Again, I’m sorry to you personally…
Much better, except
…if that was implied by my slightly confusing sentence structure then I am sorry.
Then you do it again.
Seriously. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don’t mean to sound like an asshole, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is in fact what you sound like.
Try using “since” or something. Or if in doubt, just a plain “I’m sorry”. Sometimes, less is more. E.g.
I never had any reason to cast doubt on your story and if that was implied by my slightly confusing sentence structure then I am sorry.
Shorter, to the point, less chance for misunderstandings. It doesn’t have to be difficult.
I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody.
You can make peace with racists and misogynists over there, far away from me.
@Pteryxx
Very handy link. There’s one bit that’s particularly relevant for this situation:
Use direct, declarative statements. Look at the next few statements below. There is a huge difference between them. The first one acknowledges that you recognize you did something wrong, and takes ownership and responsibility for that action. The next few do not take responsibility. They don’t say that you believe you did anything wrong. They can imply you aren’t even aware of what you actually did wrong, and can seem like you’re shifting blame to the other person for being easily offended:
Good: “I’m sorry I was offensive.”
Bad: “I’m sorry if I was offensive.”
A. Noydsays
jacksul (#400)
[A] I don’t think that you need protection, but I did not want to cause you any harm. … [B] I simply didn’t want to hurt you so decided to play it safe and recommend that you and I, specifically you and I, do not engage in debate with each other directly on any issues that had any chance of hurting you.
You need to spend some time learning how words work. B directly contradicts the first half of A. When you “play it safe” because you don’t want to hurt someone, you are trying to protect them. Like, if you wrap padding over the exposed corners of your glass coffee table before your sister brings her 18-month-old over, you’re protecting your niece or nephew. Also, you’re still assuming you have some sort of power over Caine, like you could make her do anything she doesn’t want.
I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody.
So you’re willing to sacrifice billions of people on the altar of your god, skepticism. And for what? What is so great about skepticism that we should make concessions to the skeptics who hurt people?
Your fanaticism is exactly why you need to hear stories like Caine’s—you need to know what the cost is of being chums with misogynists and their cheerleaders. You don’t want to cause harm to rape victims? What the fuck do you think it does to value skepticism before doing right by other people? (And don’t you dare go off on how skepticism will make us all better people if we just do it “right.”)
It’s attitudes like yours that prevent people from ever doing skepticism “right”—the attitude that skepticism is a set of formulas that you can apply to anything, and that as long as you’re applying them, you’ve the superior position. I mean, look at you with your bullshit false equivalences and the “wouldn’t you want to know if you were wrong?” question you think works regardless of context.
In this argument I don’t have enough information, yet, to decide who to support.
Then where the fuck do you get off telling everyone to kiss and make up!? Would you step into a violent domestic dispute without knowing the situation behind it, tell both members of the couple just to get along and consider the other might be in the right, and send them home together?
jacksul, I see you still don’t understand. Anything. Seeing your idea of an apology to me, I have one thing to say: that is not an apology. You don’t know anyone who has been raped? Oh my. I’m afraid you do, jacksul. 1 in 6 women are raped and that’s not including the stats of men and children who are raped. You know plenty of people who have been raped. You simply don’t want to know. That’s not their problem, it’s yours. A problem you might want to get busy fixing.
As for your “kiss and make up” program, that’s a big fat NO. There are all manner of people who believe things which do nothing but damage and harm. I’m not playing kissy love with them. Ever. You’re the guy who would stuff his hands in his pockets, look at the ground, and turn your back when others were being dragged off screaming, aren’t you? Never thought I’d see such a specimen in the wild.
I’ll tell you what I’ve told others – rather than showing up here, scolding those of us who fight for right, go off and scold those who wish to deny certain people the status of human being. Here’s a wee challenge – read this post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/21/an-experiment-why-do-you-despise-feminism/ – note there are 1,380 comments. Read every single fucking one of the comments, jacksul. Once you have done that, unleash your magic formula for enlightenment on all those who hate us uppity bitches and the manginas who support us. Go ahead. We’ll wait.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Here’s a wee challenge – read this post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/21/an-experiment-why-do-you-despise-feminism/ – note there are 1,380 comments. Read every single fucking one of the comments, jacksul. Once you have done that, unleash your magic formula for enlightenment on all those who hate us uppity bitches and the manginas who support us. Go ahead. We’ll wait.
I’ll mark a probable response for sometime after 2015.
What ideals are those? They sound like shitty ideals
They also bear zero resemblance to any enlightenment. I’m afraid yet another person has shown up with no working knowledge of history whatsoever. Any enlightenment which worked as “Hey, okay, look, we’ll play doormat. Everything alright now, old chap?” would be news to me.
I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody.
Making peace with any of these groups will mean that I have to deny my rights and my humanity.
Also, none of them values science, skepticism and enlightenment values.
Jacksul, just an other fool who does not know the argument yet feels that he should dictate how we shall act.
Hitler as Philosophe: Remnants of the Enlightenment in [Nazism]
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that’s what jacksul’s getting at. He seems rather anxious to defend his “we should be nice to everyone, no matter what” notion of how to deal with any and all people and any and all ideas and ideologies.
This is all very odd for me. I have never run across anyone who has taken Nice Guy Syndrome to such extremes. It’s difficult for me to take it seriously because all I’m seeing is the absurdity of it all.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six absurd things before breakfast.
strange gods before me ॐsays
Could be. My guess was that jacksul has the vague notion that {all good modern things} depend upon the Enlightenment, and in such a way that we have to uncritically accept everything which ever invoked the Enlightenment or else {terrible things} will happen.
Obvious point of my link is: Nazism may indeed be predicated upon some Enlightenment values.
My implicit point, now explicit for jacksul’s sake: that doesn’t mean we have to be nice to Nazis. Civilization did not collapse because of the Nuremberg trials. (Biblical fundamentalists are afraid of picking and choosing. Skeptics ought not be.)
Nepenthesays
@Maureen, 314
Did you speak with any actual, living women with experience of conferences before you wrote that middle paragraph, owlglass, or did you just pull it of your arse in a great long string.
Bloody tapeworms!
I must protest! Tapeworms are beautiful and intricately built creatures. Owlglass’s paragraph was ugly, awkward, and nonsensical. You have slandered a worthy invertebrate!
@Caine, 346
I hope I’m at least 40% as kick-ass as you when I grow up.
@jacksul, 400
have never encountered a rape victim and so my heart sank.
Ah, that explains why your writing sounds so weird. You clearly have no experience speaking with other humans. Is English similar to Wolf? How’s the learning curve between those languages? I mean, it’s hard enough to learn tonal Chinese, I can’t imagine dealing with a smell-based language.
I simply didn’t want to hurt you so decided to play it safe and recommend that you and I, specifically you and I, do not engage in debate with each other directly on any issues that had any chance of hurting you. That is, unless you wanted to. Basically it is your choice.
I like that this is your reaction to Caine of her own free will bringing up her experiences, as if she somehow doesn’t know what she’s doing with this whole talking thing and can’t protect herself if she needs to. And by “like” I mean “find repellant”. *
*This paragraph may not make sense. I can’t figure out how to make it clearer and I’m sorry.
mildlymagnificentsays
Caine
This is all very odd for me. I have never run across anyone who has taken Nice Guy Syndrome to such extremes. It’s difficult for me to take it seriously because all I’m seeing is the absurdity of it all.
OK. Nice Guy Syndrome is usually obscuring some pretty toxic notions about women (or whatever) and in the atheo-skepto world the language often moves in the hyper-skeptic direction.
But there’s no real reason why NGS can’t be the icing hiding the wishy-washy cake of new agey notions – which unfortunately bear much too close a resemblance to a stereotypical granny’s notions of ‘nice’ people don’t talk about ‘that sort of thing’. Unfortunately the wishy-washy hybrid also tries to obscure the fact that some things really are absolutely wrong whether you do or don’t want to talk about them and you must choose which people you will support and which people you will oppose. And you cannot avoid doing this openly and standing your ground when the opposition comes back at you.
Behind closed doors and whispers behind hands are the behaviours that have allowed these evils to survive and to thrive in our cultures. jacksul and others who get the vapours when all of us in your face loudmouths get up a head of rage should stay right out of the way. Flapping and faffing about trying to get everyone everywhere to be nice to everyone else anywhere is pointless and you might just get caught up in a stampede.
strange gods before me ॐsays
If jacksul does not have enough good sense to shut the fuck up,
then jacksul should explain what bad things will happen if we do not make peace with neo-Nazis et al.
Nepenthesays
[OT]
Everyone pretend that the word “languages” appeared in my comment at 432 behind the word “Chinese” in the real world and not just in my head.
owlglasssays
Here are the sources, that I should bring on. Emphasis on occasion by me. Links looked funky, so I removed the http.
Wikipedia: Feminism“Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.” (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism)
SEP: Feminism Topics Standford Encyclopedia observes that: “[…] Feminists disagree about what sexism consists in, and what exactly ought to be done about it; they disagree about what it means to be a woman or a man and what social and political implications gender has or should have. […] Although most feminists would probably agree that there is some sense of “rights” on which achieving equal rights for women is a necessary condition for feminism to succeed, most would also argue that this would not be sufficient. This is because women’s oppression under male domination rarely if ever consists solely in depriving women of political and legal “rights”, but also extends into the structure of our society and the content of our culture, and permeates our consciousness”(Source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics)
Feminist Theory, An Overview“[…] Socialist feminists agree with Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels that the working class is exploited as a consequence of the capitalist mode of production, but they seek to extend this exploitation not just to class but also to gender. (Source: sociology.about.com/od/Sociological-Theory/a/Feminist-Theory.htm)
The Raised Fist.“The graphic symbol was popularized[…] to advance revolutionary social causes. […] For example, a hammer and sickle combined with a raised fist is part of communist symbolism, while the same fist combined with a Venus symbol represents Feminism, and combined with a book, it represents librarians [Against DRM]” (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_fist)
Debora L. Spar: “The Woman’s Problem” “These expectations have been generated from feminism, embraced by our mother’s and grandmother’s generations, blasted continuously at us by the media, and carved into our psyches nearly from birth,” she said. “These are powerful expectations and they are doomed to fail. […] Feminism, she said, was supposed to be about granting women power and equality and then harnessing that power for positive change: it was a social movement. Instead, she noted, many women have turned away from feminism’s external and social goals, and have instead turned in on their own lives.” (Source: harvardmagazine.com/2012/10/debora-l-spar-the-woman-s-problem)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Yawn, what were you trying to prove fuckwit? I see nothing but bullshit, as we cannot easily confirm what you claim. Funny how we still have no evidence refuting PZ’s definition, or that PZ’s definition isn’t found in broader claims. Almost like it doesn’t exist except in the paranoia of MRA fuckwits.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
I will be sure to inform the both the anarcha-feminists and mainstream feminists that they are actually marxists.
Gnumann+, Radfem shotgunner of inhuman conceptssays
I’m not any more Marxist than your run of the mill socialist.
What a shocker, people who subscribe to one social justice issue also frequently subscribe to others.
Yes, you’ll find a lot more Marxist-feminists than libertarian-feminists. That’s because one of those is supported by evidence and coherent, the other is not. And feminism is about breaking the stranglehold of the rulers over the ruled, not reinforcing it.
I think owlglass presumes to much. For example that the word “Marxist” is a dirty one…
I think owlglass presumes to much. For example that the word “Marxist” is a dirty one…
I was in University during the ‘Nam war and the radicalization of campuses (including mine). Most of what liberturds and RWA fuckwits call “Marxist” is nothing but liberal/progressive in American politics, but they think if they can make the label stick they demonstrated extremism. But the extremism is theirs, not the feminists….
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
“pisscake”
Try to market that!
I knew that my mom was angry when she gave me a pisscake for desert.
Heh. My way of saying urinal cake. There is that scene in Just Visiting where Andre discovers a urinal cake, breaks it up into small pieces and offers everyone a “mint”. Hunter is the only one who happily crunches on one besides Andre.
Ogvorbis: ບໍ່ມີຫຍັງຫັກ, ຕົກຕໍ່າ, ແລະມູນຄ່າ.says
Is pisscake similar to beerbread?
It is a little more, shall we say, processed? than beer bread.
What was all that from owlglass. I ideology a bad word now as well? Here’s a secret skepticism is an ideology too O.O!
Gnumann+, Radfem shotgunner of inhuman conceptssays
I was in University during the ‘Nam war and the radicalization of campuses (including mine). Most of what liberturds and RWA fuckwits call “Marxist” is nothing but liberal/progressive in American politics, but they think if they can make the label stick they demonstrated extremism. But the extremism is theirs, not the feminists
It’s even more funny because the practical politics of the US leftwing is roughly equal to the right wing in my neck of the woods.
And if Oliver Crangle is to be believed, our taxes are lower.
Tony the Queer Shoop (proud supporter of Radical Feminism)says
Owlglass:
Ok, so now you have sources. What opinion are you trying to support with them?
Nepenthesays
Here are the sources, that I should bring on. Emphasis on occasion by me.
Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularismsays
Hmpth.
I have never been raped. I was, however, abused as a child.
Here are various things I have been told on the topic:
(1) It doesn’t count because my abuser was female.
(2) It doesn’t count because it wasn’t sexual.
(3) It doesn’t count because it was a relative.
(4) It doesn’t count because she was only like that when she was on drugs, and it stopped when she got clean.
(5) It doesn’t count because I decided that clean-person deserved to be forgiven for the crimes that on-drugs-person did, after clean-person approached me and sincerely apologized.
[etc]
I can guess as to what I would have gotten had it been sexual / done by a man, and I don’t think it would have been whole-hearted support.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
What is wrong with these people; abuse is abuse. It leaves a mark on the child.
Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularismsays
Ah, but telling a lonely autistic child that the entire world hates them? Totes not that bad, amirite?
owlglasssays
437 Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls wrote Yawn, what were you trying to prove fuckwit? I see nothing but bullshit, as we cannot easily confirm what you claim. Funny how we still have no evidence refuting PZ’s definition, or that PZ’s definition isn’t found in broader claims. Almost like it doesn’t exist except in the paranoia of MRA fuckwits
PZ’s definition!? And where did you pull that from? I have no problem with calling the campaigning for woman’s rights and fair treatment as “feminism”, if this was your point. But that doesn’t hold water when people (i.e. comment section) get holier than the pope, are routinely and needlessly rude, and claim it was all clear and easy and everyone would agree on everything but the douches. EEEK. Wrong. Now you’ve got quotes from wikipedia, Stanford Encyclopedia, an article from Harvard Magazine TELLING YOU that you are mistaken. Do I need to come over and read it out loud for you? Here is what you said, when I wrote it was “complex”:
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:Yep, so complex you don’t get it, can’t get it, and won’t get it, because you don’t know how to shut the fuck up and listen. And guess what? We got it.
Evidently not. Either you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, or you got something wrong (since I wasn’t discussing with you at that point). In which case, it’s quite bad to be that rude. And nope, I am not using Marxism to make feminism look bad. Feminist theory has a history in the political left spectrum and in social science, humanities, i.e. Geisteswissenschaften and there are historically some issues with natural sciences (even recently there were discussions on the validity of philosophy). Then consider that atheism is often (unfairly) conflated with communism anyway, because its ideology also contains atheism and a science-based approach, and you see why socialist or marxist feminism comes to mind. I am not judging, I was asking questions (because things aren’t clear and easy at all). If you frame issues with this perspective, then unfair treatment of women and aforementioned systematic disadvantages are around “property”, and religious issues like virginity, Purity Ball, or Woman in Islam are technically symptoms. That’s one reading.
· · ·
Personally, I am an Anti-Theist. In a nutshell, religions are based on irrationality (core problem) where people are then prone to all kinds of bullshit told to them by authorities and tradition, which are outdated, and then often homophobe and misogynist. When the influence of religion wanes, I observe that the situation for both women and homosexuals tends to improve. Other than that, I lean towards Evolutionary Humanism, where the problems between Humanities and natural sciences are at least identified.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
This is why I watch what I say to children. I do not like to say anything that implies that they may be stupid, unloved or anything like that.
I do try to tune down my sarcasm and bitterness.
Nepenthesays
In a nutshell, religions are based on irrationality (core problem) where people are then prone to all kinds of bullshit told to them by authorities and tradition, which are outdated, and then often homophobe and misogynist.
Well that neatly takes care of misogyny and homophobia in the atheist community.
Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularismsays
Cupcake, can you please demonstrate how the (non-polemic of) those quotes conflict with PZ’s definition?
owlglasssays
Nepenthe, in my opinion moderators, organizers and staff does, unless there are structural issues. For example, when there is lack of women speakers at conventions, the organizers have to invite more of them. Sexist behavior must be dealt with where it occurs, it must be reported, there must be easily accessible channels where reports are taken seriously and then there must be some consequence to the offender.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Nepenthe, in my opinion
You are pretending your OPINION is anything other than abject BULLSHIT. It is bullshit. Who care what an IDJIT thinks? Try again with real evidence, and real cogency. Starting, I’m sorry I’m a fuckwitted idjit….
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
And PZ’s definition of Feminism, which we are all using:
Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.
Show your links to refute this definition, not your straw definition, or shut the fuck up as the abject loser you are….
owlglasssays
That’s a good definition I find agreeable. Where is your issue?
Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularismsays
Your issue seems to be that you don’t think that this is the definition. Or something. You seem to be blathering incoherently.
Here’s an idea:
1) Summarize your basic point
2) Give your argument
3) Provide any relevant sources to solidify your premises
4) Summarize your point
All in the same post, so its completely clear to everyone. So far, the main problem seems to be your inability to express yourself clearly, so try to do something about that.
Nepenthesays
Nepenthe, in my opinion moderators, organizers and staff does, unless there are structural issues.
Notice how I didn’t say sexual harrassment or obvious sex-based bias or literal gay bashing, I said sexism and homophobia. I fail to see how moderators, organizers and staff are going to prevent any of the millions of attitudes and microaggressions that constitute those.
@Nerd
No, we are not all using that definition, but thanks for playing.
jacksulsays
Re: PZ v. Thunderf00t
I’m trying to read all of your comments but it is difficult. It’s hard to empathize with all of you individually. I sometimes try to imagine how I would deal with someone that would not stop trying to be “neutral” between creationism and evolution. I’m sure it would be tiring. I’m sure I’d be tempted to just write the person off.
Re: what my comments meant or implied about rape
There’s only one person in the universe who actually knows what I meant by my comments. That’s me. There has been much speculation since. I’m starting to understand why politicians speak is such an odd way. I just speak my mind and don’t worry about being misinterpreted, which can sometimes lead to personal relationship problems, but it works so long as everybody gives everybody else the benefit of the doubt. I’m right here. If you want to know what I meant by something then just ask me. It is very simple.
PS I noticed thunderf00t released a new video “Why ‘Feminism’ is poisoning Atheism (Part 2).” Even though he was trying to paint the woman as absurd, I found myself agreeing more with her case than his. Everything she said sounded entirely reasonable and fair. If anybody knows her name (he didn’t post it) then I’d like to know. She seemed like the kind of fair-minded skeptic that I’d like to support.
Once again: the fact that I am able to make this post proves that FTB is not “afraid of criticism” and doesn’t ban people just because they disagree with some made up FTB doctrine. I’ll remind youtube of that… again.
strange gods before me ॐsays
If you want to know what I meant by something then just ask me. It is very simple.
I just speak my mind and don’t worry about being misinterpreted, which can sometimes lead to personal relationship problems…
By Jove! I think we have some insight appearing. Traditionally, I would now ask “and how’s that workin’ out for you, Sparky?”
…but it works so long as everybody gives everybody else the benefit of the doubt.
Oh. Well, that answers that question. So what you’re saying is that in situations like this, where we have no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt, it doesn’t work. Is it painful to be that un-self-aware?
I note that giving you the benefit of the doubt here requires us to assume that you may speak a version of English where if does something other than introduce a conditional clause. That’s a pretty strong requirement for suspension of disbelief.
jacksulsays
I did already.
Right you did. My fault. There have been so many comments here it is hard to keep up with.
I don’t know that anything bad will happen, but I thouhg that we skeptics have this method for working out controversial issues.
Assume that you have a disagreement with a neo-nazi holocaust revisionist. What can you do? There’s probably no hope of getting through to him. (they are usually guys)
But if the holocaust revisionist you encounter is a skeptic, then it is an entirely different game. You both agree on standards of evidence and have defined methods for getting at the truth. You can sit down and talk to this person. You can be confident that they will come to the conclusion that the holocaust did in fact happen. We have very good evidence for it, but it was worth the effort. It doesn’t matter what you believe or what they believe or what is more desirable. The evidence and the truth will determine what you believe.
I’m open to the possibilities but I’m happy that the real evidence of biology, evolutionary psychology and sociology points against racism and neo-nazis! The real evidence also points towards social justice. As free exchange of ideas grows, the status of women will grow (and has been growing). If you think women are less intelligent then men, then that’s ok. Lets examine your theory. Lets give it a fair trial in the peer reviewed literature. Well it turns out your theory was wrong. All the evidence points to women being just as intelligent as men. The only way that you can argue women are less intelligent than men is to seal your society off from criticism and discourse like North Korea. Your backwards ideas about male superiority are simple, objectively, wrong.
Neo-Nazis are only worth talking to if they are also skeptics. As skeptics, then they wont remain neo-nazis for long.
Janine: Hallucinating Liarsays
You reach out to the skeptical neo-nazis.
I want nothing to do with them.
strange gods before me ॐsays
don’t know that anything bad will happen
Then you have no basis on which to claim that they are worth trying to make peace with. There is no downside to not making peace with them.
You can be confident that they will come to the conclusion that the holocaust did in fact happen.
Right, so your definition of a skeptic is one that excludes people who do not come to reality-based conclusions when confronted with evidence.
That’s fine. I’m inclined to agree with your definition.
But then here’s the thing: we’ve already gone around and around with Thunderfoot. It turns out that he is not a skeptic.
A. Noydsays
jacksul (#465)
I just speak my mind and don’t worry about being misinterpreted, which can sometimes lead to personal relationship problems, but it works so long as everybody gives everybody else the benefit of the doubt.
No.
The benefit of the doubt is something you have to earn. It’s not something you get to demand to make up for the fact that you’re a sloppy thinker and shitty writer. And anyway, if you knew the first damn thing about sexism, you wouldn’t ask that. We all grew up in a society steeped in sexism, where misogyny is normalized, so it’s foolish and pointless to assume people we don’t know aren’t sexist or, at least, unwittingly carrying around a lot of sexist baggage.
“Not sexist” is not the default. “Not sexist” is not something you can just decide to be and you’re done—poof, no longer sexist. It’s an ongoing process of hard work deconverting your mind from the sexist defaults. So, unless you’re willing to show evidence of that work, like everyone else around here does, you don’t get the benefit of the doubt.
If you want to know what I meant by something then just ask me. It is very simple.
It’s very simple for you, maybe. What’s very simple for the rest of us is taking you at your word. If you don’t like that, then start worrying about being misinterpreted just like everyone else who cares about how they come off to others.
(#468)
But if the holocaust revisionist you encounter is a skeptic, then it is an entirely different game. … You can be confident that they will come to the conclusion that the holocaust did in fact happen.
*facepalm* Not only do you not know how language works, you don’t know how people work, either.
Neo-Nazis are only worth talking to if they are also skeptics. As skeptics, then they wont remain neo-nazis for long.
Remember how up in 417 I asked “What is so great about skepticism that we should make concessions to the skeptics who hurt people?” And how I followed it a few sentences later with, “(And don’t you dare go off on how skepticism will make us all better people if we just do it ‘right.’)”? Yeah…
You need to try again. Like, pay attention to how the world actually works. Maybe, I dunno, stop naively believing that when people call themselves skeptics they are, or ever will be, fair-minded people who act in line with skeptical values.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
but it works so long as everybody gives everybody else the benefit of the doubt.
Why should we do so for you? You haven’t earned it with your concern trolling and “golden middle” bullshit. You and your thoughts are given their due respect, which is shoveled into the trash.
Lets examine your theory. Lets give it a fair trial in the peer reviewed literature.
Why are you saying that here? Why not at the Slymepit, where they will laugh at you, mock you, and ignore the evidence that doesn’t fit their presuppositions. THEY AREN’T LISTENING. Meanwhile, shut up over here, as you aren’t saying anything cogent until you acknowledge the fact they aren’t rational, or behaving rational.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
But if the holocaust revisionist you encounter is a skeptic, then it is an entirely different game. You both agree on standards of evidence and have defined methods for getting at the truth
This imaginary premise you’re supposing here is just fucking sad. For you and everyone’s benefit, just stop it.
It’s making you and whatever point you’re trying to make come off as anything but skeptical. It’s making you come off as a magical thinker.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Jacksul, you are pretending that if a person is skeptical about one thing, they are skeptical and rational about all things. This is a fallacious presupposition on your part, showing prima facie evidence for your own lack of skeptical thinking on this subject. There is a myriad of data showing skeptics have “blind spots” where they don’t apply their skepticism to, and won’t apply their skepticism to, no matter how much data and rational argument you shovel their way, including you. This is just sad on your part.
jacksulsays
You need to try again. Like, pay attention to how the world actually works. Maybe, I dunno, stop naively believing that when people call themselves skeptics they are, or ever will be, fair-minded people who act in line with skeptical values.
A. Noyd: You’re right. This whole TF PZ thing has finally convinced me that you’re right.
I can’t figure out why but this thread and this argument has been dominating my thinking. I think about it at work, on the trains, at home. I can’t stop. I’m obsessed with the fact you people can’t just figure it out and get to a consensus. I think you hit it.
Years ago when I first became an atheist I got so excited about the books by Michael Skermer and Carl Sagan about this wonderful self-correcting method. When someone asked, “how can you evolutionists be so damned confident?” then I could anwser them: “We have a method for getting to the truth.”
Since then I have been eagerly awaiting a really big argument within the skeptic/atheist community so I could see how this will work in practice. There would be no straw-manning, rigorous self-criticism, thought experiments framed and agreed on by both sides.
But you’re right. Carl Sagan sold me on an ideal that doesn’t seem to exist. I’ve sense got involved in some scientific peer review (needing lots of proofreading as you can see) and real peer review is, in fact, a messy political process. Similarly when real skeptics fight each other, inside the academy or outside the academy, we don’t act like Mr. Spock. We act like tribal apes.*
*I’m don’t mean to imply that both sides are acting equally like tribal apes
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Since then I have been eagerly awaiting a really big argument within the skeptic/atheist community so I could see how this will work in practice. There would be no straw-manning, rigorous self-criticism, thought experiments framed and agreed on by both sides.
Gee, idealism, not reality. I noticed that 20+ years ago. Why is it taking you so long to notice? Somehow, the inability to shut the fuck up and listen appears to be absent.
Tony the Queer Shoop (proud supporter of Radical Feminism)says
jacksul:
Have you come to understand that “if she was raped…” implies that you think maybe she was raped” or “maybe she wasn’t raped”? Do you yet see how fucked up it is to doubt someone who tells you they have been raped? Do you understand what a conditional word is?
jacksulsays
Gee, idealism, not reality. I noticed that 20+ years ago. Why is it taking you so long to notice? Somehow, the inability to shut the fuck up and listen appears to be absent.
I have no idea why it took so long. Carl Sagan’s presentation skills?
Have you come to understand that “if she was raped…” implies that you think maybe she was raped” or “maybe she wasn’t raped”? Do you yet see how fucked up it is to doubt someone who tells you they have been raped? Do you understand what a conditional word is?
Tony, I never doubted it. But yes, I understand that the way I phrased it could carry that implication. I never had any reason to doubt it. Not only would doubting it be fucked up, it would be absurd. There is no reason to doubt it. But it was really, honestly, just a poor choice of words. I know half the people on FTB wont believe me, but that’s the truth. Do you believe me at least?
Pteryxxsays
Since then I have been eagerly awaiting a really big argument within the skeptic/atheist community so I could see how this will work in practice. There would be no straw-manning, rigorous self-criticism, thought experiments framed and agreed on by both sides.
Yeah… if only.
If you’re relatively new to this particular fight, I suggest having a skim over one sub-kerfuffle which has a convenient timeline here:
It’s pretty clear where actual research and information came forth and where, very shortly, the resistance to same began.
Also keep in mind that a great deal of personal bias is unconscious. People really believe they’re being rational and fair when their unconscious bias is operating in full swing, and that’s true for everyone, no matter how loudly they say ‘But I treat everyone equally!’ (See the link roundup in the sidebar for research on unconscious bias.)
Remember that Sagan also addressed how difficult it is for even scientists, who ideally should know better, to let go of their cherished assumptions?
The hard but just rule is that if the ideas don’t work, you must throw them away. Don’t waste any neurons on what doesn’t work. Devote those neurons to new ideas that better explain the data. Valid criticism is doing you a favor. – Carl Sagan
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Carl Sagan’s presentation skills?
I don’t think so Tim. Look in the mirror. Idealism run rampant.
*I’m don’t mean to imply that both sides are acting equally like tribal apes
Given that both sides are composed of tribal apes, I think that’s an implication that’s inescapable.
You’re asking the wrong questions.
Is there something wrong with acting like a tribal ape?
Does acting like a tribal ape necessarily reflect on the quality of the argument said ape is presenting?
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitternesssays
Since then I have been eagerly awaiting a really big argument…
So….you’ve had your head in sand since listening to Sagan?
Really, after all the shit that’s gone down in the past year alone, how oblivious to you have to be?
Tony, I never doubted it. But yes, I understand that the way I phrased it could carry that implication. I never had any reason to doubt it. Not only would doubting it be fucked up, it would be absurd. There is no reason to doubt it. But it was really, honestly, just a poor choice of words. I know half the people on FTB wont believe me, but that’s the truth. Do you believe me at least?
(my emphasis)
could be? There’s no other way to understand the phrase “if she was raped…”. Seriously.
That’s not an apology.
That’s dismissal and denial. You didn’t use “if” once, which is an improvement but you are still being a weeble-wobble. And contrary to the marketing add, those do fall down.
You don’t seem to understand anything being explained to you.
Oh, and are you still defending your words by demanding an apology from me and LykeX?
If so, hahahahahaahahah NO.
jacksulsays
There’s no other way to understand the phrase “if she was raped…”. Seriously..
What do you want from me? Do you want me to apologize for casting doubt on a rape? I know very well that I never doubted the rape. I never intended to cast doubt on the rape. The apology would be a lie.
Richard Dawkins says things like: “If evolution happened…” I know what he means. Please, please, please understand that I never doubted the rape. Why in the world would I???
chigau (無味ない)says
jacksul
Why in the world would I???
Why did you?
[ask yourself]
jacksulsays
Why did you?
When I ask myself, I get only one answer: I didn’t. (at least I didn’t intend to)
Why does Richard Dawkins cast doubt on evolution?
What am I missing here?
Also the link to ‘how to apologize’ I posted up at #414. Just apologize *for what you said*, not what you supposedly meant or thought or intended, and don’t do it again.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitternesssays
I know very well that I never doubted the rape.
I’m not a psychic so your claim is shit to me. I can’t know that unless I believe in your character – which I don’t.
I never intended to cast doubt on the rape.
Your intention doesn’t mean shit. If you accidentally bump into someone, when you didn’t intend to, don’t you say, “Opps! I’m sorry!”. Because you bumped into them.
If you say, “Happy Birthday!” to someone and they respond with “It’s not my birthday.”, wouldn’t you say, “Oh, I’m sorry’.
Adding “I didn’t mean too” means nothing. Adding “if” completely turns it into a notapology.
Obviously, this is nothing compared to what you did here (and really the “if she was raped…” is only one thing on a long list) but I’m trying to keep it simple enough for you to understand.
The apology would be a lie.
So you’re an asshole who isn’t sorry for casting doubt on rape survivor.
Funny on how you could easily do this apology correctly in #225:
Well sorry for frustrating you. That was certainly not my intention.
Yet you cling to your iffy wording excuse and exclaim: fuck actually apologizing to those rape victims I questioned and tried to silence.
I know what he means. Please, please, please understand that I never doubted the rape. Why in the world would I???
See Sally’s #482
Pharyngula does clue by fours and is known as the shark tank. You want someone to coo and aww over your Nice Guy bullshit act, go somewhere else. Or learn it here the hard way – it’s been quite effective for others but I doubt you’ll last, chew toy.
Tony the Queer Shoop (proud supporter of Radical Feminism)says
jacksul:
I know very well that I never doubted the rape. I never intended to cast doubt on the rape. The apology would be a lie
Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?
It has been explained MULTIPLE fucking times:
Your use of the word “IF” does cast doubt on Caine’s rape. Period. There is no escaping it.
You say you never doubted that she was raped.
Yet the fucking words you typed out clearly show that you doubted it.
You didn’t believe her based on your words.
And you still don’t understand what a conditional word is.
“If…then” Go fucking look it up for chrissakes.
Let me frame this differently.
3 years ago today, I found my best friend dead of a drug related heart attack (a few weeks before his 30th birthday).
It fucking sucked. It was the absolute worst loss of my life.
Having revealed that, if you said:
“If your best friend died 3 years ago…” I would be incensed. There is no “IF”. It is a fact. Just like it is a fact that Caine’s rape happened.
No “if”.
Never an “if”.
“IF” casts doubt.
Don’t want to cast doubt?
Don’t use “IF”.
Do you get it now, you insulting shithead?
jacksulsays
Also the link to ‘how to apologize’ I posted up at #414. Just apologize *for what you said*, not what you supposedly meant or thought or intended, and don’t do it again.
The apology wouldn’t be honest. I can’t apologize for intentionally making an accusation, when I know that I did not intentionally make that accusation. It would be a non-pology like “I’m sorry my meaning was not clearly expressed by my poor choice of words.”
As for doing it again: I will not to do it again on this blog. On other forums, I might do it again. I’ll feel free to use the same sort of rhetoric that Dawkins uses in his books, and I will trust people to give me the benefit of the doubt in the same way that I give every one of you the benefit of the doubt.
Tony the Queer Shoop (proud supporter of Radical Feminism)says
jacksul:
I suspect you don’t understand the context of whatever quote you’re using from Richard Dawkins. Until you provide the full context, we cannot know if he used “IF” in the same manner as you did.
It also doesn’t change the fact that your use of the word “IF” implies that doubt.
End of story.
jacksulsays
Sorry I change my mind given one point by carlie
“That’s the sexism that scares me most. It’s the kind you don’t even notice, and you’d argue to the death that you don’t have because you believe so strongly that you don’t have it, but it’s right there.”
carlie: I should add that you might be right. I grew up in a sexist society. So of course it is still it is possible that some sexist ideas have crept in to my mind without me knowing. I don’t think that is what happened here, but it must happen sometimes. All we can do is try to purge such ideas from ourselves when and if we catch them.
Pteryxxsays
I can’t apologize for intentionally making an accusation
Apologize for accidentally making an accusation.
On other forums, I might do it again. I’ll feel free to use the same sort of rhetoric that Dawkins uses in his books,
Then you’ll hurt and silence other rape victims, because there are a hell of a lot of us, even though most don’t feel safe saying so because of people who say “IF you were raped” and similar.
IF you actually care about not hurting rape victims, then learn not to use the ‘if’ construction when speaking about rape. It’s hurtful regardless of your personal private not-telepathically-broadcast intentions.
Ze Madmaxsays
jacksul @ #491
I can’t apologize for intentionally making an accusation, when I know that I did not intentionally make that accusation.
addendum: and don’t use the ‘if’ construction when apologizing, either. That’s in the how-to-apologize, too.
Good: “I’m sorry I was offensive.”
Bad: “I’m sorry if I was offensive.”
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitternesssays
I can’t apologize for intentionally making an accusation, when I know that I did not intentionally make that accusation.
AN APOLOGY DOESN’T IMPLY INTENT, YOU DUMBFUCK.
It would be a non-pology like “I’m sorry my meaning was not clearly expressed by my poor choice of words.”
That’s what you’ve been doing, you insensitive jackass!
As for doing it again: I will not to do it again on this blog. On other forums, I might do it again. I’ll feel free to use the same sort of rhetoric that Dawkins uses in his books, and I will trust people to give me the benefit of the doubt in the same way that I give every one of you the benefit of the doubt.
Newsflash: you aren’t Dawkins and Dawkins isn’t a fucking saint. If he said, “if she was raped…” he’d get the same fucking treatment.
Go jump in the slympit, you sleezy stubborn douchebag. See, this clinging to “I’ll do it on other forums” shit really, really makes me think (just like I suggested up thread) that you have pulled shit this on other victims and hurt them by it. Given how many rape survivors there are, it’s practically guaranteed. And I’d bet money every time he doubled down and spit in their faces like he has here.
Nepenthesays
I seriously don’t understand people like you jacksul. I’ve apologized to mannequins many times for running into them. Why is this so difficult?
Say “I’m”. Then say “sorry”. Now run them together quicker and you have “I’m sorry.”
Even that would be a start.
Say “I’m sorry Caine. I understand what I did wrong and I won’t do it again” and you’d really be going somewhere.
I’ll have to watch this later on a real computer.
(But for huge laughs, I suggest that y’all turn on the closed captioning.)
That probably should have ended “no no no you’re done.”
Nice to see he picked up on some of the same points I picked up on and talked about some of the context behind some of the events I hadn’t followed.
Ah, but isn’t it hypocritical to present a vid from someone who watched a video that you didn’t even watch?
Wait, how did that argument go again? Damn, I can’t get these feminist-denial arguments right.
And I see the comments on Matt`s video are already awful.
Here’s a level-headed person. He’s had trouble with both camps here, and he’s just given his reasons each time, no hatred, no nonsense.
Anyhow I’ve noticed a bit of a shift in FTB (nothing drastic) in that you’re addressing more external topics that matter to people outside the “movement”, I hope it continues!
I’m new… and did not know what his position on this was. Now I am glad I watched – that was terrific and well put. He goes on my list of heroes.
chigau,
Thanks for the recommendation. I can’t even listen to Matt properly, the hilarious captions are too distracting.
At the time that I am posting this, Matt’s video has only been up for about an hour and already oner one hundred and eighty comments. Many that have nothing to do with what Matt said.
Here is one example by one blinkered little troll called supermaroilogan.
I have been watching this for a long time, I would be foolish to even try to say I am surprised by anything of this. I am left wondering one thing. Why do people who do not know what actually happened insisted on yelling about their lack of knowledge?
Why are these people so in love with their own ignorance?
·
Janine,
makes things simpler?
You do not seem to get it. It is not like any of us want to go on about this. Do you think there is any enjoyment from most of our part dealing with this shit?
Fuck you!
Janine
Because getting well informed and actually thinking about the issue is hard?
Janine #8
no consequences?
I just don’t get the absolute head-up-arse stance that Thunderfoot is pushing about feminism in atheism. In all of his past videos I watched he always talked about using evidence instead of faith but for this he prefers to believe that if he doesn’t see anything wrong then everybody that does is evil. What particular ox of his is getting gored? Does he need to believe that all sexual advances should be tolerated? For someone who advocates for the scientific method he sure depends on authority a lot.
Jose, I’d like to second that “Fuck you”.
I think I will go and watch it again, to make sure I understand it. I think this time I will watch it on a laptop, while I am driving somewhere to save time.
Hopefully on a back country road where no one else is driving. A win-win scenario!
lol, you’re welcome folks.
I just advocate a different approach against haters is all. Hatred and disagreement are different things, one deserves to be addressed, the other only deserves to be reported as spam, imo. Anyway that was off topic so if you like, let’s take it to the thunderdome >:)
@ jose
Could you explain what you mean by this sentence?
Captions ON, time 01:27:
I just peed myself laughing! O, toilet humour, you never stop being funny. Or I’ve never stopped being juvenile.
I think Matt’s rebuttal of the thundering fool’s latest video was quite good. He addressed several specific points and explained why tf was wrong. Not that he or his followers are likely to even attempt to understand.
jose:
Hatred?
Disagreements?
What are you on about?
Did you read thunderf00t’s few posts while he was here? Are you aware of the backstory?
I haven’t watched Thundy’s video, nor do I intend to, but I did read his posts when he was at FTB and the reason for the above is not that those people are hypocrites, that is that they do things that they say are bad, but that they are doing things that the strawman version of them considers bad.
So not only do those people who criticise them misunderstand them* and blast them because of their own misunderstanding (e.g. want anti-harassment policies therefore perceived as wanting to ban all flirting and sex at conventions and criticising them for it) but then they call them hypocrites for not adhering to their misunderstanding of their position (e.g. Oh you’re for harassment policies but you’re flirting/posing for a nude calendar/… therefore you’re a hypocrite), which makes them doubly wrong.
If only they would get off their high horses and recognise that there is a lot of shades of grey between a totally unregulated convention and a the equivalent of a police state convention they just might see that people wanting anti-harassment policies do not necessarily** want the equivalent of a police state during their convention.
Meanwhile those critics will continue blaming sex positive feminists not for their failure to follow the moral standard they advocate (hypocrisy) but for their failure to follow the critic’s misunderstanding of the moral standard sex positive feminist’s advocate.
* being charitable here.
** I haven’t seen any but the qualifier is just in case someone finds a loony extremist.
Theists, why do you insist on redefining marriage?
Wrong thread. Multiple tabs have foiled me again.
Ahhhh, the CC is so hilarious! Thank you so much for the tip Chigau.
My favorites so far include:
– water digestion warehouse on my facebook page..
– yang bands that post (referring to people who post MRA style)
-hot pollit allies
– Dat iz [athiest} community.
*facepalm*
Sorry for so overusing the word so, and not noticing in preview. Need moar coffee.
Those youtube comments just drain my will to live. Not only are they hideously dishonest and/or misinformed, but they’ve chosen a venue that makes any serious, prolonged discussion all but impossible, so you can’t properly correct them.
Julien
Pretty much. All the while claiming that everyone else see’s things in simple binaries and won’t acknowledge their actual views.
Holy crap, those captions won.
Also, I liked what Dillahunty had to say.
You know what I was thinking about? That one time that Matt Dillahunty was a giant asshole over on the Atheism+ forums and got banned. Apparently he got pissed off about it and made a video, and I don’t think he ever apologized.
The other things I’m pretty sure he never did? He didn’t start a blog for the purpose of attacking A+ and falsely whining about “free speech” and “censorship” and other idiocy. He hasn’t made common cause with bigots in his eagerness to destroy people involved with A+. He hasn’t created dozens of sockpuppets to avoid the ban. He hasn’t posted the home addresses of anyone involved with A+, created fake Twitter accounts impersonating them, or even bothered making personal attacks.
He did wrong, he lost his temper a little bit, and then he moved on with his life, like reasonable people do. T-Footie? The slymepitters? Not so much.
I unsubbed from Thunderfoot YEARS ago. He is dishonest, pig headed, sometimes racist often belligerently wrong. His attacks on ALL Muslims – lumping them all in with terrorists was ridiculous and dangerous. His fanboys generally behave in a scummy way to people they disagree with…and he models completely turd like behavior for anyone young enough to be swayed by his dumb ass dick wagging….which sadly is a lot of people.
I know this is childish, but I just have to say PWNED!
Having unsubbed from TF about a year ago due to his bullshitting concerning “all muslims”, and his petty inabilities to react to ANY criticism from other atheist channels, I’m saddened but not surprised.
One HUGE point TF made in his video was making fun of PZ’s quote about the “war” happening online, the discussion about feminism and women’s rights in scepticism.. and denying any such discussion is happening!. If TF doesn’t see that this is going on every day on blogs and youtube and comments sections of news items, if he doesn’t notice the MRAs and the misogynists and the chauvinist assholes – he’s just totally blind.
Also …..what’s not obvious I guess to some is that he’s a drama whore seeing hits primarily….
Well, after seeing Matts response, I sure as hell do not need to see the latest Thunderblunder. I unsubscribed and I haven’t watched a single video of his since hist fiasco at FtB.
I gave up on trying to converse with people on youtube pretty much the same year I created my youtube account, but nevertheless I am still disappointed that the quality of comments of alleged skeptics and reasonable people is neither more skeptical or reasonable than comments from, say, conservative creationists.
How dissapointing.
“If you EVER GO to a sex party….you’d know….sex parties have rules!” HAHAHAHAAHA
This.
Objection to mind reading. Huge objection to terminology.
Those two objections do not in any way undermine my massive objection to Thunderf00t’s own stampede of self-serving mind reading, well-poisoning terminology, inaccuracies, blind spots, and myriad other flaws, but he gets called on them, not have the same turned on him.
Jane, ditto. on #36.
Let’s skip the slut shamey language.
…The jury was out on “dick wagging”, but then I actually recalled a drunk man waving his dick at me as a sort of gesture of anger and frustration. (Wouldn’t give him a ride, oddly enough.) That one seems spot on.
I remember your channel, Jane. I remember it being very nice. I don’t hang out on the tubes anymore though. I just don’t have the stomach for it.
“Life… has rules.”
–M. Dillahunty
Yeah… this seems to be the main problem for TF and most of his fanboys. Fucking libertarians.
Talking about hipocrisy, I found it hilarious when TF dismissed the “women are seen as eye-candy” thing and then howled about how a convention was totally not worth it if they have Code of conducts that ban booth babes.
And yes, that pesky consent thing that ruins everything. Sad and frightening that he would have to think about consent in those terms…
Cityzenjane:
We don’t use the term ‘drama whore’ here. How about drama llama instead? Thanks.
LykeX @ #27
Tell me about it! I sometimes get sucked into comment wars on YouTube and I usually end up regretting it. It’s far easier to express lies and misunderstandings in 500 characters or less than it is to address them.
Sally:
Seconded. Libertarianism poisons everything.
It just dawned on me… libertarianism DOES seem to be the problem here, doesn’t it? Holy hell…
@IslandBrewer
That argument (it’s dishonest to criticise a video you haven’t watched) has nothing to do with anti-feminist rhetoric and is perfectly valid in general.
It’s a fact that PZ doesn’t like watching youtube videos. It’s just not his thing, he has a busy schedule and the youtubes just aren’t his cup of tea or whatever. I don’t think PZ criticises things he hasn’t watched, but it would be dishonest to do so, just as it would be dishonest to criticise a book one hadn’t read. Pointing to other people’s valid criticisms (which PZ does) is I think perfectly honest.
@43 etc. To be fair TF did say he was not a libertarian. In that first video he made in response to the whole ftb stuff. It’s true that libertarians seem to be on his side, but i’ve seen plenty of self described liberals as well.
Or nihilism. Or just bargain-basement assholism for the less sophisticated. I really doubt they’re all “libertarians” (though admittedly, that’s a notoriously slippery concept to begin with), but yes, fucking libertarians are definitely a big part of the problem.
@44
I wasn’t actually criticizing PZ for not having watched tf’s vid. I was parodying the criticism from the prior thread. My apologies if the subtlety was lost.
Thunderf00t: Not a misogynist libertarian, but #1 with misogynist libertarians!
Why did I even bother with replying to comments on there. It’s the same bullshit every time with TF fans and this issue and I shouldn’t have expected more than that. I also received a lovely private message from an MRA with a copypasta rant about THE LIBERAL FEMINAZI AGENDA, garnished with a link to bloody GirlSaysWhat, of all assholes. Like Eric O said, it’s much easier to vomit out a string of lies in 500 characters than it is to correct them. I’ve deleted the latest replies in my inbox without looking because I’m just too mad/sad. Fucking Thundies.
“We don’t use the term ‘drama whore’ here. How about drama llama instead? Thanks.”
llama is a substitute for whore? I don’t follow, using llama in this case is childish. But maybe you’re right on the word “whore” in it of it’s self. Too much of a negative on women (when men can be just as whorish, but never the less). What would a proper and catchy term for one that seeks drama in almost a lustful fashion? A drama “sponge”? Or is the word whore, when used in the phrase “drama whore” confusing to anyone here? I think most of us get what the tem means are not thinking TF is selling his body for sex in the payment of drama.
@Caveman
Is it worth having a 30+ post argument over?
Caveman73
We don’t use the term ‘drama whore’ here. How about drama llama instead? Thanks.
Argumentative? Churlish? Theatrical?
Whores don’t have sex simply to get money (or something else)? They must be “lustful” or “almost lustful”?
I liked Matt’s video, and thought he made many of his points very well (I only left one (positive) comment there because i hope to respond more fully in kind).
I just wonder how PZ knows that Matt is being ‘all reasonable’ in this video, though? After all, to watch one video related to your blog you would have to watch EVERY asshole who ever makes a video related to you. At least, this is what i have been told the last few days.
Jim
Noeljim #54
Who told you this? Because my recollection is that people said the exact opposite.
Sarcasm, how does it work?
How did PZ know he gave reasons, which make an evaluation of them possible, for thinking the way he does? He watched the video.
Do you not know what “reasonable” means?
Has anyone been telling PZ he must watch Dillahunty’s video?
No it isn’t.
rodney @55
In response to it being suggested tio PZ that he maybe should have watched Thunderf00ts video (the one video his blog pertained to, he wrote:
If that is the ‘exact opposite’ then maybe you can enlighten me as to how that works?
noelplum99
Are you truly happy commenting here?
This looks like a good site for you.
http://perrystreetpalace.com/
Or maybe not
consciousness razor @57
Ahh i see! Maybe there is hope for the old chap yet?
Jim
noelplum99 @54:
Presumably, he watched the video.
Noooo, Myers is under no obligation to respond to his critics. Nor, for that matter, is he obligated to respond to his supporters. He’s free to watch what he wants, and in this case he (presumably) decided to give Dillahunty a listen.
This does not take a rocket surgeon to grasp. Are you trolling? I hope you’re trolling.
@noelplum99
How about this for a controversial idea: we let PZ decide for himself which videos he will watch and which he won’t. He decided to watch Matt’s video, but decided not to watch Thunderf00t’s. Is that a problem for you?
There is hope that your non sequitur makes sense? No, there is no hope of that.
Riddle me this, noelplum99:
(1) If thunderfool were being reasonable in the video, and (2) if you watched the video, and (3) if you are capable of understanding those reasons and explaining them to us, then why haven’t you explained to us what is reasonable about thunderfool’s video?
Is it that at least one of the premises must be false? Or is it that you even though (3) is true and you could explain it to us, you just haven’t actually bothered to do so for whatever reason?
Personally, I think we should encourage dropping the “drama” part too. As a dismissive insult, it carries with it a sexist connotation (cf. “drama queen”>. Also, it’s usually used to belittle the real concerns of (mostly, though I acknowledge, not in this particular case) girls and women. Stephanie touched on both of these points here:
I say, use “conflict” or “hostility”, or, as I suggested to lilandra “malice”. For someone seeking attention, why not “attention seeker” or “trouble maker” or “contrarian” or “saboteur” etc.
It’s not often I think disabling comments on videos is a good idea, but after reading the comments there, I don’t believe anything of value would be lost. The comment section of that video has become nothing but a forum for TFoot’s fan base to try to be the biggest misinformed asshole in 500 characters or less.
Oh, really? That’s the message you’ve taken away?
How about if we each choose which videos we watch and which we don’t?
Matt’s a friend, I’ve enjoyed his videos in the past, I had expectations that this one would be worthwhile, so I watched it.
Thunderf00t has proven to be an assh0le, his anti-feminism videos in the past have been dishonest shit, so I didn’t watch it.
Why is all that so hard to understand?
PZ Myers @67
!)Because you were writing a blog piece related to his video, just maybe?
2)Of course there is clearly on big difference between you and I, PZ. Personally speaking, I would be more inclined to watch the video I expected to disagree with than the video I expected to agree with. However, I realise that most people are not like this (which is precisely why 95% of the comments you get on your blog are positive and 95% of comment Tf00t gets on his video are positive) so i refer back to number 1 above.
Maybe i need to let this one die. I have said my bit, I still find it baffling but don’t want to become even more of a bore than i already am!
Jim.
Again? Really? Haven’t we dealt with this already?
What’s wrong with you people? Are you actually this stupid or do you just find some perverse pleasure in this rampant dishonesty? I honestly don’t get it. It’s like we’re different species or something.
This makes me sad. Matt Dillahunty and Thunderf00t/Phil Mason are both great guys and valuable members of the atheist cause. I think Thunderf00t is the one who has done more harm to Dillahunty than vice versa and therefore I think he should be the one to make the first move. By the looks of Twitter, that looks unlikely. Still, I hope they can resolve this. Of course, PZ and FTB will gloat regardless.
From where I sit, that would be quite a task for you.
I’m not one who usually insults here (others are far better at it), but I’ve read all of your comments on several threads now, and you have yet to make much sense in any of your arguments. It’s not just that I don’t agree with you: I often cannot even understand just what the hell it is you are trying to argue. And then you make your senseless arguments again and again, never seeming to learn when others explain things to you, and never answering others’ arguments worth a damn.
noelplum99:
No. It’s related to the reception of his video.
Noelplum
And if he’d addressed the substance of the video instead of writing almost exclusively on peoples reactions to it, I (and probably others) would agree. Since his only comment was to call it a rant, we don’t.
Matt125:
That you think the Thunderpod is a great guy is your own perception, not a fact.
Oh I am so sorry John! I was unaware I was spokesperson of Every Person In The Atheist Community™. I can only claim to represent my own opinion. If other opinions weren’t welcome, PZ wouldn’t allow comments on his blog.
Jebus, noelplum/Jim joined the discussion, and it became an incoherant mess because of him. Try silence Jim. You add nothing but confusion, and absolutely nothing of cogency. Why are you still here?
Jim:
PZ wrote this blog entry about Matt’s video, not Thunderf00t’s. To comment on Matt’s video, you think PZ has to watch Thunderfoot’s? That makes no sense.
Just as it makes no sense to require PZ to watch Thunderf00t’s video to criticize the MRA responses it got.
I wrote a blog piece related to the response to his video. And to do that, I plunged into the odious scum of AVfM.
Maybe that was more than enough villainy and stupidity to give me material to talk about.
@76
‘Confusion’? Noelplum is offering a different perspective. Ignorance is Strength, I guess.
Consider this. I allow comments that aren’t welcome, because I like to see idiots expose themselves, and I also enjoy the spectacle as they’re fed to the lions.
Don’t assume that just because you’re allowed to comment, that I therefore like your comments.
Actually, this is PZ’s second post relating to a response to that video.
(A clever contrast)
—
Matt125, relax. I’m noting your opinion is just that, the which you don’t dispute.
No, he’s offering his usual waste of bandwidth, to a never ending degree. We have pages of his contrarian crap littered all over the place. ‘noelplum’ doesn’t approve of Pharyngula, you see, and we get to read about it constantly. If PZ wrote “the sky is blue”, that idiot would find a way to disagree.
Ok lets try this,
Do you have to watch a movie before you can comment on a review of it?
PZ, I don’t assume that. This is your house, your rules. I don’t abuse other commenters but I know that those with different ideas don’t always follow the same ethic.
Since I can’t figure out his perspective from his fuckwittery, I beg to differ. His fuckwittery is nothing but confused thinking, pretending to be contrary. for trolling purposes, is my conclusion based on myriad evidence.
@ 52,
Sure have at it, I’m morbidly curious to what issues you have with the phrase “drama whore”.
No, Noelplum is deliberately obfuscating an earlier post by PZed in which the subject of the post was not the content of the video but the reaction to and support of the video by a group with an odious anti-human rights stance. And Noelplum’s continued obtuseness, despite multiple explanations, with examples, xe still insists derailing every damn thread until it becomes a discussion of Noelplum rather than the original post.
Matt:
Uninformed opinions are justifiably criticized. What qualities does Phil Mason possess that makes you think he is a great guy?
Personally, I think he is an asshole. He dismisses the concerns of women. He doesn’t believe the evidence of sexual harassment of women at conventions. He uses copyrighted images without attribution and is an ass when called on it. He doesn’t support sexual harassment policies at conventions (remember he dismisses womens concerns). He dishonestly used the FtB back channel after he was fired. He lies, cherry picks, and engages in dishonest tactics. His Islamophobia is detestable.
Really…what is so great about him?
It is, as others have shown, a gendered insult. What more is needed?
@85 I realise that watching videos from those deemed to be unworthy is seen by some here to be a bit against the grain, but if you tried to sit through at least one I think you’d find Noelplum isn’t a troll, but has valid points and can recognise arguments from both sides. His YouTube channel predates any of this so he can’t be accused of any kind of duplicity.
caveman73:
FFS. Here it is in crayon for you: The Pharyngula community does not use or encourage or enable the use of any type of gendered slurs or insults*. The same goes for racist or ableist or sexist insults or slurs. It’s very fucking simple. If you can’t handle that, you might consider going elsewhere.
*Yes, we know both men and women can be whores. Not the fucking point. It’s a form of slut shaming, so it does not get used and when some clueless idiot insists on using it anyway, they will be called out for it, every. single. time.
Have a clue yet?
The hell he can’t. What about we have pages of his contrarian crap littered all over the place in one thread after another do you not fucking understand? Stop being such a fuckwit.
No, xe is nothing but a troll. A concern/tone troll who can’t shut up. And offers nothing to the discussion. There are words to describe those who talk out of both sides of their mouths instead of one like normal people. I like Don Imus’s term “weasel”.
@88 His ‘Why do people laugh at creationists?’ series for one. It is more than a lot of people, including myself, have done to further the rational cause. In his videos, he doesn’t dismiss sexual harrassment. He takes issues with alarmism, such as the view that a large proportion of atheists are like wolf packs, out to rape women. I think it is accusations like these that inflame him and make him go further off the rails. Like a lot of us, he’s susceptible to emotion and being strawmanned is bound to provoke a reaction from him. I can’t comment on the back channel fiasco because I’m not privy to that information, but if my reputation was trashed all over the internet I don’t know how I’d react. Lastly, Islamophobia? It is a nonsense term. He doesn’t hate Muslims, but he hates Islam as I hope most if not all of us do. It is a wicked mind parasite. It is not irrational to fear such a virus. This view is hardly controversial – Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens were all behind. However, I realise those names are worth fuck all around here.
Matt125:
And yet Noelplum (a) continues to deliberately misunderstand that the posts made by PZed are about the REACTIONS to the videos and (b) when asked flat out refuses to actually address any of the evidence supplied by both PZed and some of the commenters regarding ThunderFoot’s stance on women’s issues within the atheist community. This, along with the fact that Noelplum has a long reputation of doing this (making the thread about Noelplum rather than the OP), is why xe is regarded by many of us as a troll.
Caine @82
You are full of shit:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/30/accommodationists-are-so-easy-to-outguess/comment-page-1/#comment-523821
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/27/is-innumeracy-a-prerequisite-to-being-an-mra/comment-page-1/#comment-521578
Two recent examples but i could find you more.
PZ Myers @80
I just spoke to Ken Ham and he asked me to remind you that you still have his spectacles.
The rose-tinted ones.
PS: I particularly love Nerd’s ‘savagings’, I think everybody does!
Fixed that for you bigot.
Fixed that for you confused troll. Try again with real logic. Like silence…can’t go wrong or be accused of trolling with silence…
I’m a bigot? Huh? Let me rewind that. I have not made any claims against a group of people, but a superstitious, backward, violent, anti-scientific, misogynistic, homophobic and ultimately misanthropic ideology. I don’t know you but I am prepared to bet my life that you would think it is not bigoted to criticise Christianity. I criticise Islam. What’s the difference?
This is a strawman that was erected (and torn down (and rebuilt)) again and again and again during the earliest discussion of Rebecca Watson and her
evil and over-the-top demand that men disembowel themselves‘Guys, don’t do that’ talk. Thunderfoot, and others, continue to erect this strawman even though they can supply no evidence for it (other than quotes taken out of context).There are people who read noelplum99’s comments? Huh.
Anyhoo, my suggestion for an alternative to drama whore/llama/whatever: ‘shit-stirrer’; it’s a very Australian term that conveys the same meaning – someone simply out to incite controversy while adding nothing of substance.
I criticize both, but hate neither. When you defend known islamophobic bigots like TF, and call Islam a virus due to hatred of it, and call that hatred rational, what other conclusion is there? That is bigotry. You are sounding like SteveOR, except you haven’t called for bombing yet.
And who exactly is making such a claim, again? How do you get from “we need sexual harassment policies” to “atheist rape gangs”?
@ 91,
My what a kind a sweet response. Well IF….if you would have read my previous post (#50) you would have had a clue to what I was asking. The word “whore” I have no issue with it being a hurtful word to some. My curiosity is the phrase “drama whore” and why some might elude it to sex or degradation of women. When used do you think or women and sex or do you think of someone hogging the drama, grabbing after it like ravenously.
How’s that fucking clue?
@102
Islam is a virus, just like all religion. It is not bigotry to hate it. You remind me of Tommy Davis in John Sweeney’s Scientology documentaries, he uses the ‘bigot’ word to try to avoid the arguments and character assassinate his opponent when all else fails.
@95 Oggvorbis
You mean like when i came out in video at the very beginning, before i had made a single post on FtB, and said that it would be sensible to have an harassment policy, even if only to allay fears?
One more thing, why have you suddenly all started calling me ‘xe’? I am male and i am not offended by you calling my ‘he’, fuck knows you usually call me a whole lot worse!
I make an argument and some of you house trolls then spew out endless ad hominems, attacking me rather than the argument I made. THAT is what makes posts about me.
Jim.
Noelplum, 96:
You say Caine is full of shit, and then right in the same comment attempt humor at PZ’s expense. You then make a shit-stirring statement (I like ‘shit-stirring’ very much; thanks, Wowbagger!) aimed at Nerd. You are, without a doubt, and with no reasonable defense, a deliberate, condescending, and BORING troll.
caveman73:
It tells me you’re too stupid to get one. You’re not worth bothering with – you’ve had an explanation from multiple people and you still want to argue. You’ve declared yourself a fuckwit, so welcome to being ignored.
I did not remember your gender. I apologize. Rather than be wrong, I figured it was better to be safe.
@Wowbagger
Thanks for your contribution. Here in Canada (not sure if it’s a Canadianism or not) we use the similar “shit-disturber”.
Noelplum at 106:
Your ‘argument’ was answered, many times, on a completely different thread. And your argument was nonsense there, so why give you anything here but grief for being obtuse? And now you bring the same argument here? Why should we bother answering it again?
Paul K @107
Er, but I didn’t say Caine was ‘full of shit’ for attempting humour, I said they were full of shit for claiming every post I make on Pharyngula totally disagrees with PZ Myers.
I did stir some shit wrt Nerd, but Nerd is a fucking idiot. Nerd actually holds the record for the most insane response i have ever received on the internet after rejecting, as evidence that i have vocally denounced online threats (to people like RW), a video of me vocally denouncing online threats, and further informing me that only peer reviewed journals count as evidence (that i had vocally denounced online threats)!!
I realise that sounds too stupid to be true, but it is true! This is why i always look forward to my inevitable response by Nerd, i just never know what new pearl of wisdom it will bring.
Anyway, 3:30 am, time for bed!
Jim
Those questions I just asked were rhetorical; please don’t answer them! PLEASE!
Awwww Caine was it something I said? Is language a sore spot for you? Tell you what I will cry some tears for you in my martini you wanna be internet tough girl…guy…person… whatever!
Ogvorbis @109
fair enough, no harm done :)
Well, crap, you answered them.
Noelplum: You said good night, but I bet you’re typing — again! — right now. As far as I’m concerned, your response about Nerd just makes it more clear what a troll you are. I notice others are mostly just ignoring you. They are much smarter than I am. I will try my best to imitate them.
Caveman @ #114: You’re really kinda slow here. The term “whore”, regardless of the qualifier you use, is viciously misogynistic. The hatred for sex workers causes death, mostly of women. When you make being one out to be a bad, low, insulting thing, you are aiding that. Cut it the fuck out, you skidmark.
(Mental note: Caveman73 is an assclam.)
Like your OPINION on a video is meaningful evidence *snicker*. Nothing but bullshit, like vanity press, and worthless as real evidence. And I never watch videos for that reason. Videos are for abject losers like yourself to throw OPINION around.
Happiestsadist! *pouncehug*
I like how Noelplum dodged all of your(including PZ) responses shredding the original (non)argument he made to this thread. Again. I guess complaining about how meeeaaann you are to him was more important. Again.
And this is partly why I usually just scroll on by his comments.
@ 199,
Cute doesn’t address what I am asking though.
Here let me assist with the definition of “whore”
WHORE
(dictionary)
noun
1.
a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.
verb (used without object)
2.
to act as a whore.
3.
to consort with whores.
verb (used with object)
4.
Obsolete . to make a whore of; corrupt; debauch.
Origin:
before 1100; Middle English, Old English hōre; cognate with German Hure, Old Norse hōra; akin to Gothic hors harlot, Latin cārus dear
DRAMA WHORE (for #118)
(Urban Dictionary)
A person, male or female; who sees any aspect of their personality or actions in their life as interesting topics. Often the drama whore will send out messages with absolutely no content except for something inflammatory or retaliatory directed at another person(s) they dislike.
Now you all can play the “it doesn’t matter it’s a naughty and mean word” game and you are right in that the word whore is a disrespectful thing to say to anyone that is not in fact a whore… BUT the phrase is not the same thing as the word alone. so chill out on your shit talk, it doesn’t help your cause. So how about you take that stick out of your ass and deal with a little thing called reality, you might like it.
Happiestsadist, 118:
I’m getting the idea that Caveman73 would be okay with that.
Here’s yet another reaction: No, I Was Not Bullied into Not Being an Asshole.
Ooh! A dictionary!
You know, Caveman 73, you are saying exactly what a whole lot of others before you have said. You also assume we are all much stupider than you are.
It’s already been explained to you (I think, but this has happened so often, I might be mis-remembering) that ‘drama’ is another word used to put women in their places, so ‘drama whore’, whoever it’s aimed at, is just not an acceptable phrase to use here. If you don’t like that, fuck off and go somewhere else.
Assclam73, pulling out a dictionary still does not take away the fact that the word “whore” is used to demean women.
Caine: *hugs back* I fail at flouncing. :)
Paul K @ #124: Sure seems that way.
Caveman: Seriously, you shouldn’t be using the term period. No, not to sex workers. It’s still a fucking slur. A dehumanizing, vicious slur. And the fact that you think dictionaries (let alone UD) are neutral, it goes to show you’re dumber than dogshit.
No, the phrase is not acceptable. Not with your cute (also misogynist) qualifiers. It’s just a sexist slur.
Matt125,
If Islamophobia is a nonsense term then there is no such thing as an irrational fear of Islam or Muslims.
Do you believe that all fears of Islam and Muslims are rational fears? Or will you admit that there exist irrational ones?
Happiestsadist:
I’m so glad you do. ♥
caveman is a full blown Cupcake.
Caveman73, “accuracy” is not the issue. Even if you were to call a sex worker a “whore”, it would still be wrong. It’s a dehumanizing insult, it implies contempt and a value judgment of its object, and it doesn’t lose that connotation even when paired with the word “drama” (and drama is a word that is commonly used to minimize real issues).
John Morales
To add to that there’s also a number of the contributes saying they weren’t coerced over at ophelia’s blog.
I posted it near the end of another Ebil Feminazia thread, but this is very handy: a checklist! How many types can you spot?
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-14-kinds-of-sexist-commenters-20120607-1zyii.html
You mean the phrase “dramawhore”(and the similar “drama queen”) doesn’t, in reality, exist in a complete social vacuum, free from any history of being used primarily against women to shut them up and imply that their complaints or concerns are insignificant? Wow! /s
Noelplum:
When you come back, I hope you will address my points @77.
@129
Sorry, I haven’t learned the blockquote function yet.
“If Islamophobia is a nonsense term then there is no such thing as an irrational fear of Islam or Muslims.”
Correct.
“Do you believe that all fears of Islam and Muslims are rational fears? Or will you admit that there exist irrational ones?”
There exist irrational fears of Muslims, yes. Here in the UK we have the English Defence League, who seem to be a 21st century incarnation of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. But instead of harrassing Jews, they seem to be into harrassing Muslims. That is irrational to say the least, and abusive to put it just right.
Wow, so adding a qualifier magically erases a word’s historical and cultural baggage? Who knew!?
Caveman73, you are an internet douchebag.
Ibis3 @110: “Here in Canada (not sure if it’s a Canadianism or not) we use the similar “shit-disturber”.”
Having been brought up badly, I prefer “wanker” or “prat”, sometimes qualified with “obtuse”, “fucking” or both. Any or all combinations would apply to the troglodytic commenter.
Rob Grigjanis, “prat” is slang for female genitals.
In other words:
“I know the expression ‘sand nigger’ has a bad word in it, but if I don’t mean it in a bigoted way, you can’t call be bigoted for using it! ‘Cause it totes doesn’t mean the same thing as just plain ‘nigger’!”
Hmm, I always heard the term “shit-disturber” in a more positive light. As in a person who is doing something about the shit lying around, if in a confrontational fashion.
Rumtopf @139: First I’ve heard that. I thought the original meaning was buttocks. The usage I grew up with meant roughly “One who expends much energy to no discernible constructive purpose”. Maybe you’re thinking of “twat”?
I’ve always heard it as “pot-stirrer.”
Someone better call JK Rowling and pretty much every other established British author and writer and tell them prat is a word that means vagina and is therefore misogynist. Seriously, I wish people here would stop assuming they get to dictate what words mean.
Matt:
I haven’t seen him do that in his videos. He did enough of it in his comments that I don’t actually need to verify if he’s done it in video format.
May I ask, who is espousing such a view?
Those ‘silly women’ again?
Should we all just accept that if they’d just stop thinking they can know anything for themselves about harassment and just listen to people like TFoot (who, being male, has a better, more logical brain and a far better understanding of the situations women face), they’d all be better off? Is that your point?
Why the assumption that if women are alarmed about a situation, and TFoot isn’t, the women are wrong?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to assume women know more about being women than TFoot does?
And that therefore, his lack of alarm is a sign of an inferior, rather than a superior, viewpoint on this issue?
You know the old saying “If you’re not angry, you haven’t been paying attention.?”
TFoot’s not angry about women being harassed.
Many women are.
The entemology of “prat” is for the Latin “pratum” which is a trickster or deceiver. For a long time it meant “fool” or “foolish talker”. Wiki says its also a slang for a woman’s genitals but I’ve never heard is used that way. Has anyone else?
It has been used for buttocks as well as female genitals, in the UK anyway, like “fanny”, maybe? Except fanny means buttocks in the US and female genitals in the UK. Female genitals is the first meaning for prat that comes to mind for me.
If someone has links handy (hard for me to do on the phone) to Thunderf00t’s incendiary initial posts can they post them here? It is clear Matt is has not witnessed TFs assholishness.
Matt:
I have seen no one claim that massive amounts of angry, rabid atheists are out to rape women. What has been said over and over and over and over again:
Atheist/Skeptic conventions have problems with sexual harassment of women. At the time of Thunderf00t becoming part of FtB, several organizations had no anti harassment policies in place. Women were complaining. Women were opting not to go. Women were having their concerns dismissed in some cases (here’s looking at you JREF). Women were looking for anti harassment policies.
Since you didn’t quite understand why I think he is an asshole, I shall try again.
1- Thunderf00t was very vocally against that. He made it apparent that he feels that would impede any ‘fun’. He treated his desire to have ‘fun’ as more important than creating a safer environment for women. No one advocated no flirting. No one said no sex. Thunderf00t has consistently created a straw version of the arguments against him.
2- he used a pic that was owned by someone else (Surly Amy, I think) on his blog. When asked to remove it, he was an asshole. I believe he complied in time, but that does not excuse his behavior.
3- as seen in his latest video, TF has no problem taking his opponents comments out of context to attack them. This is intellectually dishonest.
4- I used to think as you do about Islamophobia. I thought that since phobia means fear and Islam is a religion, then ‘Islamophobia’ meant fear of Islam. I had it pointed out that the usage of the word by people-similar to the use of homophobia-grew beyond just fear of that religion. The use of ‘Islamophobia’ is often meant to describe an irrational fear or dislike of Muslims. Just as homphobia frequently means ‘an irrational fear or stong dislike of gay people’.
Thunderf00t has shown himself to be an Islamophobe. This bigoted opinion he holds is not rational and is one more reason why he is NOT a great guy.
Now, I have listed four big problems I have withThunderf00t that speak directly to his morals and ethics.
Since you think he is a great guy, can you please explain what qualities he has that makes him so?
Making a video about how creationism is a flawed, idiotic idea does nothing to explain why TF is a great guy. If that is how you judge the quality of others, you are setting the bar low. What other sexist, bigoted, irrational, intellectually dishonest people do you consider to be “great”?
Not having booth babes at conventions is an excellent point on the agenda. I can see where TF is coming from in some other points, but there he flies off the handrail. It might be true that certain conventions “are that way” but that’s hardly an argument, especially if it can feel like running the gauntlet for women. I only have experience in the *other* community stereotyped as being composed of sexist nerds, the video games one, and it really is an issue and it is an issue that can (or could) be addressed well at conventions. Interestingly, similar feminist trends came up there last year as well, but alas concious raising wasn’t as effective as it seems to be in the atheist community. The change, in my view, comes with inclusiveness. If women (among others) feel welcomed and are more present, the sexist idiots may realize that they actually aren’t at a bachelor’s party. The other points don’t make much sense to me, I don’t know the context of “fake jewelry” but it did sound weird. I’m sure you don’t want me to wear real diamond earrings? And since when do you need to point out that grabbing asses is not okay? How about grabbing tits, kicking balls and playing Kancho? How about the rule to “don’t be a sexist, and don’t to be an asshole either”? Thereby you can save the time enumerating etiquette rules. I also don’t particularily like Rebecca Watsons claims. This was rather condescending bullshit (what she says about women not noticing it, really?) The elevator stunt was also a display of wrong priorities. Being asked in an elevator might be super awkward, but if the guy goes with a double entendre it doesn’t sound intrusive by my standards (compared to really intrusive situations). Priorities matter. And since we are sciency and critical, feminist theory can use a serious overhaul. It’s as useful as theology, and as relevant *cough*. //my one cent.
Cyranothe2nd:
Not me. I’ve only ever heard it used in the fool sense.
I just looked at a dozen or so dictionary definitions, including Oxford, and all of them say the original meaning for prat was buttocks. The Oxford online definition dates it to the 16th century, origin unknown. I saw nothing for women’s genitals.
That’s been my sense, especially in mystery novels set in the UK or its ex-colonies.
@owlglass #148
You’re new to a conversation that is nearly two years old, with LOTS of history and side-discussions. I would be wary, if I were you, of assuming that Thunderf00t provided the complete (or any) context for the points that you’ve mentioned.
If you want people to take your comments seriously, I recommend that you do some research to see what has already been said.
Oxford gives the date of origin for the ‘fool’ definition as 1961. But what about ‘pratfalls’? Old slapstick comedy term. Didn’t that mean falling on your hinder?
@Paul K #153
I always assumed that “prat” came from “pratfalls” – I do believe it means to foolishly fall on one’s ass.
Probably a local thing then, but I’m not redefining anything thanks, Matt125. My mum even used it, with fanny, when referring to washing xD And obviously I have heard it used in the fool sense as well.
Maybe “prat” became what some people defensively claim the word “cunt” has become in the UK, you know the old “it’s not sexist in Europe!” line that pops up all the time.
Mythbri#154:
Yeah, when I first heard prat on its own, I thought of pratfall. I honestly was not sure if it meant fool or ass, which was kind of nice.
Matt125
Then you affirm the following:
p = “Islamophobia is a nonsense term”.
q = “there is no such thing as an irrational fear of Islam or Muslims”.
p → q.
Then you affirm the following:
q is false.
Therefore, via modus tollens, you affirm that p is false. You admit that Islamophobia is not a nonsense term.
Rumtopf:
Fanny is also a word with differing meanings. Where I grew up (Minnesota, USA), it was a more or less polite word for buttocks. I know that it has a very different meaning, and is not polite, in the UK (and elsewhere?)
Matt:
Instead of continuing to display your lack of empathy for the people hurt, shamed or insulted over sexist or misogynist terms, why not go edas insultsucate yourself on the topic. Many of the commenters here have read-extensively-and come to a reasoned conclusion about the harmful nature of certain slurs. You are basing your dislike of us ‘dictating what words mean’ on your personal experiences, rather than reading up on the literature that explains why certain slurs are wrong.
Do you understand why ‘fag’, ‘dyke’, ‘nigger’, or ‘kike’ are offensive slurs and do you understand why people should not use those words as insults? If you do, then not using words like ‘slut’, ‘whore’, ‘bitch’, or ‘cunt’ as insults should be easy to understand.
Yes Paul K, that’s what I was trying to say when I mentioned it in #146, d’oh. I’m not so great at writing.
I have no problem not using the word here if it offends anyone. The great thing about language is that there are always other options. Not a hill worth dying on :)
Oh, I don’t know, Rumtopf, I’d say there was a better chance it was my reading!
*sigh*
If this keeps up we will all be forced (forced, I tell you!) to actually say why we object to something that someone said.
I do get a weeny twinge of ick when I see it used as an insult, but nothing like with “cunt”, and apparently that particular meaning wasn’t nearly as common as I thought. It seems that, for me, any ickiness is down to specifically having the word used in that way by a parent. So it’s probably fine. I’ll shh now.
Rumtopf:
How about substituting git?
Owlglass:
Any chance you could explain why feminist theory needs to be overhauled? Merely asserting that it does is insufficient for making a case for said overhaul. You will need to establish a clear definition of what you mean by ‘feminist theory’ as well.
I don’t get the ick feeling, but I want to respect it. I do find it interesting that so many of our words, especially those used as insults, come from names for body parts. ‘Git’ seems to come from ‘get’, short for ‘beget’, meaning offspring.
(I’m way off topic here, and will stop.)
Explain what part constitutes a stunt.
She didn’t say it was intrusive. (Although it is.)
She didn’t say it was of higher priority than [whatever you’ve dreamed up in comparison to support your strawman argument].
She said “guys, don’t do that.”
And she was justified in expressing her irritation about it. You are wrong to distort what happened, and you are wrong to insinuate that it was of such low priority that she should have kept silent about it. (Indeed, if it were of such low priority, then your late commentary on the matter is of even lower priority, and therefore by your own standard you should not be speaking about it.)
SG:
QFMT. I’ll add that it’s not our job to completely rehash the whole of e-gate to educate someone so late to it all. That’s on them – it’s all out there, go read.
@ 131,
So for me to call you a fucking hemorrhaging asshole would be wrong… BUT accurate right?
How about drama stud, Is that better? Or Drama Gigallo? There we go is that ok for the PC morons out there?
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος’s spellchecker)
You are internet irrelevant.
“QFMT. I’ll add that it’s not our job to completely rehash the whole of e-gate to educate someone so late to it all. That’s on them – it’s all out there, go read.”
Well fuck you Caine! Not all of us live on the internet you simple minded fuck. Maybe they need a debrief on on the horrible nonsense about a woman being hit on in an elevator by a “creepy” and awkward guy.
Caveman:
You’ve been given advice on conduct here that seeks to not insult minority groups and instead of accepting that words can do unnecessary damage to people already marginalized by society, you decide to act like a petulant pissant?
Fuck. Off.
Rinse and repeat. Elsewhere.
*an elevator
What minority Tony? Women? Last I checked they out number us. If not them them please specify. Oh and for the record I see a hell of a lot of negative words and barbs slung in every direction so what exactly are YOU enforcing?
How about you grow some thicker skin and let the minions here know that if they sling it they better damn well be able to DEAL WITH IT! OK Tony the QUEER shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)
Caveman:
It is presumptuous for you to expect that it is anyone’s job to fill you in on backstory. If you want to get involved in a discussion involving prior events, the onus is on you to make some attempt to learn the history of the topic under discussion. Neither this thread, nor the commenters exist to cater to you and your desires.
http://everything2.com/title/Sometimes+it%2527s+not+political+correctness%252C+just+respect+and+caring+for+others
Oh I read up on it and what exactly do you want me to fill up on? I posted my opinion on a phrase that was DEEMED tabu “drama whore” and golly fucking GEE some people lost their shit….. Not my issue or fault for their short comings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group
False, dishonest claim.
Some people told you not to use the phrase.
Assclam73, someone some rather perceptive words up at #160. I would suggest you read them and try to understand.
What’s the matter? Not capable of using different words? Is it just a little bit beyond your resources?
It’s not that they haven’t already learned about it.* It’s that they refuse to learn and insist their bullshit distortions and assumptions about it are just as relevant as what actually happened. This phenomenon, in case you haven’t noticed, also didn’t start with fucking Elevatorgate, or last Tuesday, or whatever the fucking cultural memory is of people who don’t give a fuck about it anyway.
*Except the part about awkwardness, which is not in evidence and would be irrelevant even if it were.
Janine:
Um, Rob was saying he was just fine using different words.
Erm, never mind, Janine. I read you totally wrong. Yikes. I’m sorry.
I think Janine’s point is that Caveman73 ought to be capable of the same.
Aaaand I should have refreshed.
Caine, I was directing that quote at Assclam(Cavemen)73, that he should read it. I did say that it was perceptive.
Sorry. All the comments came in while I was composing mine.
Jinx!
(or something like that.)
*runs away*
As a fan of both TF and PZ I’m really saddened and actually getting physically sick that you two still cannot work this out. You’re both skeptics. You’re both scientists (basically professional truth seekers.) You are both sane, competent, rational, able, capable and intelligent people. This shouldn’t be hard. Here’s what you do:
1) Thunderf00t, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might have a point. They might have legitimate concerns and hypothetically if they do then you would want to know it.
2) PZ, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless. They might not have legitimate concerns and hypothetically if any of that is true then you would want to know it.
Now, you can’t both be right. So stop acting like tribal apes, sit down, and figure out who is right about what like true skeptics. Bring each other back into your circles of moral concern. Enough with the mutual excommunication.
Caveman:
If you do not understand that women have minority status this ain’t the blog for you.
If you do not understand the difference between an insult [you are a fuckface] and a gendered slur [you are a pussy], this ain’t the blog for you.
No one has lost their shit. This is a community that is strongly opposed to offensive language that is based on gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, age, gender orientation, race, or ethnicity. Part of the appeal of Pharyngula is that it functions as a safe space.
That means:
Gay people will find hateful or homophobic language criticized harshly here, where they might have to put up with it IRL.
Women will find that sexist language or gendered insults will be castigated here, unlike IRL.
If you are mentally ill, you find people will shout down insults based on mental illness.
If you are transgendered, people here will not allow anyone to get away with trans*phobia.
Do you get it yet?
As a gay man, I am proud to be part of a community that roundly criticizes language that is insulting to minority groups.
We curse. We insult. We do not use insults based on innate physical or mental characteristics. Y
If you want to be the asshole who does, you are better off doing so elsewhere.
@ 190,
What does that have to do with TF posting lies, quotemines and distortions in his YT videos that are based on his hate of anything A+ or FTB? I mean yeah, he’s shown himself to be a competent liar and ankle-gnawer indeed. You have a point, I guess.
TF’ latest video is so full of distortions, lies by omission and outright distortions, it is difficult to call him a truth seeker.
As it stands, what jacksul wants is wishful thinking. He also seems to be willing to hand wave away the real concerns that real women have.
This is so fucking tedious!
jacksul:
As a 55 year old woman who has been raped and has experienced decades of harassment, may I politely suggest you take your idiocy and shove it? That’s all it’s worth. As a woman, reading all the utter crap Tfoot wrote, the degrading, toxic, sexist shit he vomited all over (and continues to vomit at every opportunity), I felt sickened. Physically sickened. Tfoot advocates that I be treated as lesser than human, my concerns to be trivial at best and hysterical at worst. PZ looks at that and says “bullshit!” I’ll stick with PZ on this, thank you.
Until Tfoot can manage to figure out that yes, women are human and yes, things happen to women which don’t happen to him, and yes, it’s important for him to shut the fuck up for a moment to actually listen to women and think about what they have to say, I’ll keep my distance and my opinion that he’s a raving, sexist asshole who enables and encourages the most toxic sexism.
Jacksul:
PZ needs do no such thing. One of the many problems in our sexist society is the dismissal of womens concerns. If a woman says she has been sexually harassed…believe her. Chances are, given that only SHE is in the position to determine if she was harassed, believing her is the most reasonable position to take.
Who the hell are you to tell someone else they are overreacting about a situation that doesn’t involve you? If your mother, sister or daughter told you some guy told them he wanted lick them from head to toe, would you believe them, or doubt them? That shit would be sexual harassment and I hope you would roundly denounce anyone who did that. If you would in that case, why not accept that women at these conventions are being harassed? You think it is better to doubt them? Women get that all the fucking time. Thats part of the reason some of them do not go to conventions. Not because skepticism “is a guy thing”, but because they don’t want to deal with harassment ESPECIALLY if they know they will not be believed.
I reiterate:
Too often, women are dismissed.
Their concerns are ignored.
Their desires are ignored.
Their thought and ideas are ignored.
This shit needs to stop. People like you, who contribute to a culture that ignores women are part of the problem. Acting as if PZ and TF have arguments that are equal is dishonest, sexist and illogical.
Even as a TF fan, I will easily admit that his last video is certainly full of quotemines and distortions. But I don’t think he is being intentionally dishonest. I think he is being lazy, and a dick, and insufficiently self-critical, and only seeing what he wants to see. We all have mountains of cognitive biases which is why we need science, but that is different from dishonesty.
I am certainly not willing to do this. I’m not sure how you could think such a thing from my comment. “If” was the important word. If the ontological argument is true I would certainly want to know it. I don’t think it. If evolution is true, many creationists would not want to know it. They can’t even entertain the suggestion.
Jacksul, it ain’t likely. Don’t act like PZ never attempted to reach TF in the past and that TF hasn’t budged since. Lilandra, TF’s friend and Aron Ra’s wife, said in the other recent Thunderfoot thread:
Emphasis added for doing skepticism wrong. PZ has, on the other hand, pretty consistently admitted to messing up when he has been rightly called out for it in the past, over several issues. PZ isn’t wrong about this issue, a one-on-one between the two of them isn’t required to work this out, nor are the two “sides” equal.
So basically, until TF has a little moment for introspection and changes his mind and stops with the anti-feminist stuff, the minimising of important issues, dismissing or denying legitimate concerns/experiences of women and the spreading of lies and misinformation yadda yadda, don’t expect much.
Jacksul:
Unless you are a mind reader, how can you know if TF is beimg intentionally dishonest or not? All we can judge him on are his words and deeds, not whatever intentions we wish he had. His words show dishonesty. Attempts to mitigate that are based on what you hope is the case, though you have no way of knowing that.
jacksul (#190)
Yes, because a true skeptic would ignore all the evidence in his favor in order to accommodate an arrogant dipshit who rides around on the “both sides” argument like a it’s a goddamn trick pony because xe doesn’t like to see hir heroes fighting.
Why don’t you ask for PZ to admit the possibility that all the oxygen molecules in the room where he’s reading the thread from could suddenly relocate to the side where he’s not sitting, killing him with hypoxia? That would be about as meaningful as telling him to assume, even for the sake of argument, that all the women making complaints of intimidation and/or harassment are irrational liars.
I’m very sorry to hear that. I think that we should probably talk about it. I am just a person who sees two people that he respect fighting with each other and wants to be fair and resolve the fight. But I don’t want to cause you any pain. My grandmother is deeply religious and I wouldn’t speak frankly or objectively about my atheism in front of her because it would hurt her too much and I don’t want to hurt anybody.
If you’re feeling like this then I think we should not talk about this issue. I personally think both PZ and TF are basically good people, but probably TF is just very confused about women and women’s issues and I don’t blame him for being confused. (PZ probably isn’t perfect either) But now I feel like a scientist coming into a meeting of abolitionists and saying “Hey you know there might actually be a physical difference in average intelligence between black and white people. We should look objectively at the evidence and make up our minds.” That would be a good skeptical attitude, but I wouldn’t say it in that setting because I don’t want to hurt people.
Sorry! I meant to say “we should probably NOT talk about it”
Tony the Queer Shoop:
You’re right I don’t know it. I think it’s a simpler explanation for his behavior than the idea he is being intentionally deceptive. He seems so full of Orwellian fear that the evil feminists are out to destroy his rights and I’m guessing he honestly thinks that, but that’s only my suspicion.
Integralmath’s response to Matt’s Video is brilliant, just like Les Mis was brilliant and they were both done live! Matt you are losing respect and support on both sides of the divide.
jacksul:
Oh FFS! Tfoot isn’t the least bit confused – he’s unapologetic about being sexist, don’t you fucking comprehend that?
As for me “feeling like this” – like what? Angry? Jesus Christ, you’re being a sexist asshole, treating me like I’m a fragile little doll, unable to cope with this absolute bullshit. I will not be silenced about sexism and as long as Tfoot is going to proudly parade around espousing his sexism, I’ll say something about it. I’m not the least bit interested in your need to make peace – there is no making peace with someone who insists on viewing women as objects who don’t have the requisite brains to know what we’re talking about.
There’s a rule on the ‘net, jacksul. It’s called the first rule of holes. Heed it.
[sigh] Because it has to be done each and every time … Lest the horde be called hypocrites… We don’t use dick as an insult here because its gendered. Goose/Gander, you know. Last time one of these got left uncontested (being at the tail end of a thread), the got’cha crowd tried to make some hay out of that oversight.
Has anyone come to the defence of PZ over the clip Thunderf00t showed in his video which showed PZ sexualising a situation? I have not found one yet in the thread. If you have seen Thunderf00t’s video (the one Matt is responding to) you would not have missed PZ with a pack of cards, suggesting to the participant, a female, that she have sex with him later if the cards fall the wrong way.
mofa, you fuckwitted idiot, that has been addressed multiple times and if you buy the chopped up crap Tfoot and Paden and others are spoonfeeding you, for shame.
Other thread, Mofa, “The company you keep”. Go read it, including responses from PZ, and you’ll see how important context is and how scummy TF was for completely leaving it out. And he goes after creationists for quote mining! Ha
jacksul (#200)
False balance is not “fair,” you ignorant waste of sperm.
(#202)
If ThunderDouche has been corrected dozens of times over and he still spouts the same lies, the “simpler explanation” is that his dishonesty is unintentional. But if women are complaining of intimidation and harassment in a society where intimidation and harassment of women is the norm, PZ should assume that they’re all irrational liars.
What the fuck are you smoking? You’re like the worst skeptic ever.
Mofa:
::heavy sigh::
PZ needs no defending. People need to watch the original video (not this one by thunderf00l) so they get the full context. As is typical of TF, he took that scene out of context to make his point.
****
And yes, dontpanic is correct. No using dick as an insult. Gendered slur.
****
Jacksul:
I’m sure TF believes that, but he must have used up all his rational brain cells creating anti religion videos, because his opposition to feminism is completely irrational.
Also, please see my post @147 for specific examples why I do not think Thunderf00t is a good person. You are the second person in this thread to make value judgements about his character without referencing any of his actions. Take a look at what he says and how he acts. He is a self centered, sexist, asshole.
I once encountered a creationist online and I asked him this: “If evolution happened would you want to know it?” He went through the next 10 comments ignoring my question and I just kept asking. I had to post it in all caps 3 times in a row before he finally answered: “No I cannot answer the question because I cannot accept the possibility that evolution is true.” Well what else could I say? We were done. There’s no point in continuing the discussion. When one or both sides declare themselves closed minded then whats the point in continuing?
There are tens of thousands of Christian denominations because they wont listen to each other. I naively thought that a bunch of skeptics would do better. I try arguing your case to TFs fans and get endless abuse. What will the next split be? Free will? Genetic medicine? How many little factions will we split into if we don’t listen to each other? Why can’t we just resolve this???
jacksul:
Because some of us can actually make decisions (TF is full of shit) and don’t resort to the the golden mean fallacy.
In my view we are resolving it. People like TF and Stefanelli are ballast falling off the wagons, while the A+ movement leaps forward. “Resolving it” to me means getting rid of those who think ankle-gnawing and being sexists is a right or a free speech issue.
jacksul (#211)
Cool story. If you were minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women, would you want to know it?
jacksul:
Here’s an idea – why don’t you run off to the “we” that is Tfoot, Stefanelli, Paden, Hoggle and the slymepit and the rest and tell them to fucking resolve it, and while they’re at that, they can knock off the over a year long harassment and rape threats and other loveliness they’ve been perpetrating, eh? Go on, we’ll wait while you get it all settled.
I don’t know what you think I am proposing but I am just an honest person who is trying to be objective and getting lots of abuse from both sides. If you’re just going to insult me then I’m not going to reply to your points.
Actually I think PZ is probably closer to the truth than TF. When I go on youtube, I try to argue for PZ’s case against all of TFs fans. I get a lot of this crap spewed at me by them too. But frankly I think the abuse and insults I get here are similar, even though youtube is supposed to be the cesspool.
Obviously I would. I would be happy to. It would give me some peace that I could finally decide who was right. Now look at all of my comments and find a place where I was minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women. In fact I’ll give you my youtube ID and you can find hundreds of places where I try to encourage people to take the intimidation and harassment of women seriously.
Jacksul:
You are not paying attention. This is not a disagreement over whether Checkers is better than Connect Four. This is one group saying ‘we are tired of being dismissed, our concerns ignored and sexually harassed’, while the other group says ‘there is no problem, stop complaining’. You are not even trying to step away from your limited understanding of the issue. Thunderf00t is contributing to sexism and misogyny by his words and deeds. I cannot make it any clearer to you that this is intolerable. There is no middle ground to be found. PZ and the commentariat here support full economic, social and political equality for women.
Phil Mason, aka Thunderf00t does not. Hell, he doesn’t even understand what feminism is.
I’m trying. They’re proving just as open to changing their minds as you guys are.
I think that almost certainly there is a harassment problem but probably it is not so bad that everybody needs to go around with buddies to avoid rape gangs. But I don’t know enough to decide. Fill me in. Give me the data. Direct me to the evidence. I’m open to all kinds of possibilities. I feel like the only person who doesn’t claim omniscience on either side.
Jacksul:
You are getting abuse because you are defending TF. There is no defense for sexism. You are also not being objective. If you were, you would have an informed opinion of TF. You do not. Go search through the archives here, and Almost Diamonds, and Blag Hag, and Lousy Canuck, and Butterflies & Wheels. Look for the discussions of sexism. There is a wralth of evidence pointing to a problem with sexism in the movement. Accepting that and speaking out against it is the reasonable position to take. Arguing against it is irrational and unskeptical. Stop acting like there are two equivalent sides here.
Jacksul:
I am trying really hard to be polite to you, but I have reached my limit. No one here is claiming omniscience so take your condescending arrogant bullshit and shove it. You know how to do a google search. Get off your ass and stop expecting us to do the work for you. Do a search for women harassed at atheist conventions. Do a search for Surly Amy @ TAM. Search for Rebecca Watson. Go click on any of the blogs I listed above.
We are none of us saying we know everything. What we are doing is believing the women who come forward and complain about being harassed. Fucking just stop with this false equivalence. What we want to do benefits everyone by creating safer environments. What they want to do alienates women by asking for environments to not be safe spaces. Fuck. This shit isn’t that hard.
And stop whining about being insulted. This is a rough and tumble blog. You have ben saying some ignorant, stupid shit and have earned the insults. If you cannot handle it, buh bye.
Personally I am trying to understand. I’m planning on talking to a few feminist grad students soon, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make here. I just want these two to make up. I thought that it would be so simple for each of them to assume the other might be right for the sake of argument, as painful or tedious as that might sound, and figure it out like adults. But it really feells like a lost cause. Mutual excommunication it is then! Both sides will go away believing themselves to be right and believing the other side is dishonest/unreasonable.
#217 jacksul:
Try post #190, where you wrote:
You just said that if women feel intimidated and/or harassed, they might not have legitimate concerns and be overreacting to something harmless.
That is minimizing the intimidation and harassment of women, because you are implying that harassment is so nearly harmless that women might (frequently?) confuse “something harmless” with it.
Well sorry for frustrating you. That was certainly not my intention. TF may just be a dishonest asshole who is obviously wrong about everything, while PZ is obviously right about everything. I’ve always called myself a feminist and when push comes to shove on policy you can probably count me as a friend, if an annoyingly idealistic one.
“If” is the key word. If Allah is the one true God and Muhammad is his prophet then I also want to know about it. If 9/11 was a conspiracy then I want to know about it.
I don’t believe those things, and I don’t believe that harassment is so nearly harmless that women might (frequently?) confuse “something harmless” with it.
#226 jacksul:
But Allah doesn’t exist, and Muhammad is not the prophet of anything, and 9/11 was only a conspiracy in the sense that members of Al Qaeda conspired to commit it. It is not a possibility that Allah exists — it is a falsity.
You said that PZ needed to “admit the possibility” that women complaining about harassment were wrong. That is not a possibility — it is a falsity. PZ should not “admit” something that is false, and if you encourage him to “admit” it, you are implicitly claiming that it is true.
Jacksul @ 217,
You are unconvincing. Why? A few posts before that you made a unilateral decision on whether or not Caine should talk about being raped.
I can only see two possible reasons for that. Either you lack the stomach to deal with the hard facts of life as experienced by people who are not you or – and I think this more likely – you were automatically down-grading her knowledge* of what had happened to her nearly 40 years ago to the “needs to be checked and questioned” category. Just as Rebecca Watson’s experience in the elevator was.
So you are not being honest, either with yourself or with us. You are not neutral and you are not acting from devotion to peace and harmony.
You have just outed yourself as member of that tribe which wants “peace” OK but only according to your own scenario – the one where women never mention the bad behaviour of some men, where you can go on spreading myths about rape and about female sexuality and where your need to be a hero trumps all.
Besides, to be an honest broker in this fight your would need a firm grasp of what happened in Dublin. And what happened since. You do not have it and you are not convinced that you need it so stop bigging yourself up and give us all a rest from that ego of yours.
——————-
*And if you are unable to believe Caine ‘cos she’s a woman, then the US government has the trial transcript and all of the appeals. Would you believe those?
jacksul
So, we’Re both talking about the guy who made himself a name by slicing through every single one of those tactics taking creationists apart, who knows that stuff from the ff, who can probably explain to you what a quotemine is if you wake him at 3am after he drank too much and who is after all a trained and published scientist who knows well about the importance of such things and you still think that if he’s doing it it’s accidentially?
We have very different ideas about what good people are. I would think that good people don’t dismiss half the world’s population. And yeah, women, mysterious creatures.
Wrong, it wouldn’t be any more skeptical than creationism is skepical.
Translation: STFU, Caine. Don’t actually mention that you suffered. Don’t ever mention that rape happens because it makes poor jacksul uneasy.
Because it’s all about you. If the concerns of women get thrown under the bus, who cares?
mofa
Read the threads, do your own homework. Why sould we do it for you. Yes, I know the answer to your question, I just ain’t telling you.
You expect Muslims to consider the possibility that there is no God, right? You expect them to consider that they might be wrong, but you refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong? Christian’s accuse me of being an atheist because I hate God, or because I want to get away with sinning, so I decide in advance that there is no God. But that isn’t why I became an atheist. I became an atheist because I considered the evidence. I was open to the possibility that God might exist, I examined the claim, and I found no evidence. So I dismissed it.
TF should consider the possibility that he is wrong, because he probably is wrong. But how can you expect him to consider that possibility if you wont do the same? That wouldn’t be fair.
What??? I did no such thing! I politely suggested that specifically Caine and I should not talk about this issue because I didn’t want to hurt her! I don’t want to hurt anybody. Ever. Period.
If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her and it is more important to protect her from hurtful comments than for me to get at the truth so I was proposing that the two of us stop. It is the same reason I wont discuss God with my very religious Grandmother.
Look I am a nice guy here. I don’t know why you’re trying assumed I’m on TFs side. I’m on nobody’s side. If I had to pick a side it would probably be PZs, not that it matters to my arguments.
So if women feel unwelcome at atheist/sceptic conventions because they receive unwanted attention, they are not to be believed ?
We know women are subjected to unwanted attention at conventions, so why should we disbelieve a women when she says it has happened to her ? And why should we disbelieve women when they say such unwanted attention makes them less likely to attend conventions ? This problem is not restricted to atheist/sceptic events, and we know the type of measures that can be put in place to help deal with the problem. We know what the problem is, we know (partly at least) how to solve it, so why would people not want to put measure in place to fix it ?
Oh my God. How in the world could you think that is what I meant????????? You’re joking right? What is wrong with you? The woman was RAPED! I feel sick that I need to explain this but I was trying to protect her from being hurt. If she insisted on arguing with me I would have left because obviously protecting a rape victim from being hurt is more important that getting PZ and TF to reconcile. (my purpose)
I can’t understand what you are doing. I can’t understand how you’d interpret my words that way. It’s like you’re assuming every word out of my mouth must be some sick insult. Why? What did I say to convince you I must be the out-group?
I don’t know where you got that idea. I never said anything like that.
That sounds good to me. I think that’s an excellent idea. I still think PZ and TF should try to reconcile via my proposed method.
If you pat yourself on the back any harder, jacksul, you’ll dislocate a shoulder blade.
Yes, it would. Because the only way PZ could be wrong about there being a serious problem of many women being sexually harassed at atheoskeptical events is if there really was a feminazi conspiracy to destroy the atheoskeptical movement. Just like the only way I could be wrong about evolutionary biology being basically right and creationism a crock of shit is if there really is an atheist conspiracy to suppress and distort scientific evidence; and the only way I could be wrong about the Shoah being a real event is if there really is a vast Jewish conspiracy to slander Hitler and take over the world.
Please try to remember what you have said:
Why ? Why would, and why should, PZ try to make-up with someone who has made it clear he holds women in contempt ?
jacksul (#216)
No, I know what you’re proposing. I don’t think you know what you’re proposing. You think that ThunderChode saying “these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might have a point” and that they “might have legitimate concerns” is somehow (morally? factually? aesthetically?) equivalent to PZ saying “these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless” and that they “might not have legitimate concerns.”
That’s about as “honest” and “objective” as it would be to say that supposing all the oxygen molecules in the air around you will suddenly rush off to the other side of the room is the equivalent of supposing all the oxygen molecules in the air around you will maintain an even distribution.
Contrary to what you so clearly believe, an affection for simple-minded symmetry doesn’t make you a better skeptic. A good skeptic looks at the relative likelihood of opposing hypotheses and weights them accordingly.
(#217)
I’ve quoted or paraphrased one of them multiple times, but here you go again: “PZ, please admit the possibility that these women who feel intimidated and/or harassed might just be over-reacting to something harmless. They might not have legitimate concerns”. You think it’s worthwhile that PZ ignore evidence of harassment and intimidation and concede that the women talking about harassment and intimidation could all be irrational liars. In order to make up with a guy who makes YouTube videos. Because it hurts your feelings that PZ won’t get along with him.
I realize you said you’d want to know if you’re minimizing, but you can say that and not mean it. Or you can say it and hold such high expectations for evidence that nothing reasonable can get through to you. This? What I’ve pointed out here? This is so obviously an example minimizing that it should go in a goddamn textbook. But you did yourself one better in #231 (quoted below).
If I gave you a million slices of cheesecake and then shot your dog, my generosity with cheesecake wouldn’t negate the fact that your dog was dead.
(#231)
If!? Why the fuck is there an “if” there!? And, what? You’ll protect her from the hurtful interrogation you need to conduct before you’ll believe her, but you won’t spare her the hurt of doubting her? Or the hurt of your patronizing assumption that you could make her tell something she didn’t want to tell in the first place? Or the hurt of deciding for her what’s protecting her and what isn’t? I’m sure in Caine’s case she’s used to that sort of shit, but it’s no excuse for you to wallow in it.
When you say “if she was raped” about a woman who said she was raped, you are minimizing it. Hell, you’re actually denying it; you’re just leaving enough weasel room to fool yourself into thinking otherwise.
I’m tired and going to bed. Why don’t you go polish a stickleback with your face?
Then at least you’ll get a point, if not the point.
Any one who needs to say “Look I’m a nice guy” in the middle of a heated argument is playing out of his league.
How did you know that talking about it would upset Caine? I cannot be the only one, who knows Caine a little better and respects her as a person, to be falling off my seat with laughter at the very suggestion. The woman uses her gruesome experience to very good effect and quite deliberately. That doesn’t make it any less gruesome. It just represents the learning opportunity which TF is so keen to avoid.
Do you know what does hurt women? Being told not to talk about their experience, even when they want to! That’s at the root of women not reporting rape for fear they won’t be believed. It’s behind the idea that rape is very rare – “so it can’t have happened to you, dear” – and that the legal definition of rape in most jurisdictions doesn’t count if someone claims miscommunication.
Like most women I speak and act on my own behalf. I have no need of some filter with a Y chromosome to edit and re-interpret what I say and do. When I screw up, I and no-one else takes responsibility for it. You do not get to define my existence, my thinking or my bona fides.
So, in the immortal phrase – Up yours, Buster!
Jacksul,
Your suggestion that Caine should not talk about her rape is inconsiderate and offensive. Take a moment to consider how she and other people might take it.
Let’s call it empathy.
What an asshole you are, jacksul. “If” I was raped? Golly gee, I guess I better get all the proof together just for you, so you can know absolutely for sure if I was raped.
I don’t want your worthless pity, you sexist asswipe. What the hell good is that? Is that your idea of being a feminist? Your idea of being an idealistic ally? “Oh, poor little thing, she might have been raped, and if she was, well, I can see why she’s so hysterical and shrill – shhhh, we better protect her, poor fragile, fluffy brained little animal.”
Here’s a clue, fuckwit: I don’t need protection, either. Certainly not from you. I spent years as an advocate for other rape victims and I’ve heard one hell of a lot shit over the decades. I’m willing to bet I’m tougher than you – I’m certainly smarter than you are. Christ, you can’t argue your way out of wet paper bag. Just what truth is it you’re after? Are you one of those extra special douchey fuckwits who want all the details of a rape? Because if that’s what your after, you aren’t going to get it. What is it, exactly, do you need to know outside of the fact that I was raped? Oh, let me guess – you want to know if I was raped at an atheoskeptic con, right? No, I wasn’t. I don’t have trouble talking about what happened to me, because it’s happened to a whole lot of women – more than you know. However, I’m not knocking myself out to prove it to you, especially as assuming most women lie about being raped tends to be the mindset of particularly loathsome sexists. You find better things under slime covered rocks than these particular…people. With every word, you’re looking more like one of them.
Do you even hear yourself? Do you have any idea of what a noxious, sickening, sexist smear you are? You’re walking around with two fists full of ugly and head filled with smegmarmalade. No wonder you’re here, defending your fellow sexists.
jacksul
Well, because you want to shut a woman up who tells you about her experience?
So, I will take you at face value and believe that that was your intention.
Now listen and listen hard and understand and remember:
Never, ever again try to shut up a rape victim about their assault.
Never ever tell them that “we should not talk about it”.
If they tell you their stories voluntarily, STFU and listen.
Telling them to stop HURTS them even more, it VICTIMIZES them again
And it’s condescending as hell on top of it if you assume that you know better than them when they should talk about it or not.
Well, that’s at least a good intention. But intent isn’t magic.
Well, walk a mile in our shoes. You’re not the first person who comes here and wants to tell us what a good guy TF is and that his sexism isn’t that bad and if everybody was just reasonable everything would be fine.
Maureen:
QFMFT and I don’t think I need to tell you just how I’m feeling about the particular fuckwitted Ychromosome filter who is trying to inform everyone of how I need to be treated.
*spits*
Sorry, patent lies and bullshit were found and called out. Why are you being deliberately obtuse?
And even if there was not dishonesty originally, given how many times he has been corrected and has failed to correct himself, there most certainly is dishonesty now.
A nice guy wouldn’t keep playing “golden mean” and defending TF. A nice would admit being wrong, and shutting the fuck up here, and go rag on TF and his psychophants.
Sorry, this is you trying not to feel sick and hurt. You don’t appear to be honest with your motives. It’s always “be nice, don’t make me sick, don’t rock the boat”. But the boat needs rocking on these issues. Either join us or get out of the way. If you can’t do either, just quit bothering your betters and let us do what needs to be done.
The only way reconcilation will happen is when TF admits he has been a horses ass on the issues, and apologizes to FtB for his actions. End of story.
Ugh. No.
And what,exactly, would that do? Let’s go ahead and go to bizarro world, where for some reason women make up stories about being intimidated and feeling harassed while at conferences. What do you think is the payoff they’re expecting? What they are in fact getting is hundreds of rape and death threads, doxxing threats, and in general being harassed and hounded every time it comes up. So what do you think they’re angling for that would make that worth it? What is their nefarious scheme? What have they asked for?
Well, what they’ve asked for is for men to think for a minute about what they say to women and how they treat women, and to address their ideas rather than their bodies. So, the down side to this would be… what, exactly? Let’s say, for the point of argument only (because it isn’t true), that they are lying. Now let’s say they get what they want, which is to be treated more like men treat…other men, in that they listen to what they’re saying. How is this causing the very fabric of society to be rendered asunder such that it’s worth fighting to the death to keep it from happening?
@Tony the Queer Shoop (165), feminist theory
In my view, the priority should be equality, which isn’t as clear cut as it sounds. In a nutshell, which ideal is used that mediates this equality? Shall women become like men, should men become like women? Meet on the middle ground? Should there be some other ideal and so forth. A lot of feminism comes from the outer left field of raised-fist-marxism, some have tendencies of utopist “engineering” of society, which I don’t find appealing. Likewise, I am not very fond of such things as “Herstory” which should not to be confused with a balanced account of history. Hey, let’s invent shebalism, how to study the medical properties of plants from a woman point of view! So if atheism wants to piggyback feminism, there is indeed some work to do.
/
It gets more complicated if set against humanism, which is in part at least grounded in a tradition of “taming the beast of (hu)mankind” with yet other ideals, and this —too— is not as easy as it sounds. Throw in nurture vs. nature, what actually is “being a woman or man” and in fact, what makes a (good) human, which isn’t all that clear at all, as well. Then contrast this with “don’t grab asses” or “don’t do double entendres in an elevator” or “don’t wear fake jewelry”. Either go high-brow, or go street-level. What I saw there looked quite botched.
/
If you begin enumerating rules and start defining what is okay and what isn’t you are walking a fine line between the sensible and “self-imposed immaturity” (the rather clunky translation for Kant’s “Unmündigkeit”). There is some area called responsiblity for one’s own’s actions. You can’t possibly want to make all negotiations between individuals a matter of poltics and rules or drown it all in ideology. Don’t forget cultural differences. The US centric view sometimes feels like three steps back in a way.
/
I am happy to repeat: no booth babes policies, anything that ensures that people don’t mistake a convention as a “hunting ground” is splendid and a very good start! But it would be much better if certain behavior would earn strong disapproval at the place, instead of treating people like little kids. But who wants to attend conventions where, according to Rebecca Watson, you have to travel in flocks to prevent being hunted down by nerd-wolves, and where grabbing asses was considered normal behavior. I certainly won’t. But I am happy to hear what’s next on the atheist-feminist agenda after such pressing issues as “fake jewelry” are resolved and a matter of herstory. //end of polemics :D
Caine, Fleur du mal you called me a fuckwit idiot? You are a baboon. Get Franc to explain to you the full implications of being a baboon.
NICE GUY™ 101.
Here’s an excerpt:
@jacksul
It is painful and tedious. See, I think I get what you’re saying: you want start with basic hypothesis formulation. You want to look at the options, assume (for the sake of argument) that they might both be true, and then investigate which is the case, right?
The problem with that is that we’ve already done that. We’ve spent a long time talking about this subject, gathering evidence and coming to conclusions, and now you want us to go back to square one and start over from scratch because one over-rated internet celebrity didn’t like the way the conclusion turned out.
Even if we do as you suggest, then what? Wait for the next nitwit to come along, so we can go back to square one, again? How many times will we have to do that? How often do we have to go back to the kindergarten level to pick up the slack? At what point can we say “good enough” and actually proceed to the stage where we’re going to do something about the problem?
Will we ever?
The fundamental problem here is not that there’s insufficient data or competing, reasonable explanations. The problem is that some people don’t like the conclusion. In that respect, it’s actually quite like the creationism debate: The evidence is in, but some people don’t like where it’s pointing, so they ignore the evidence, misrepresent the theory and invent “facts” to suit themselves.
Too bad, you are hurting people. I know you don’t intend to, but you’re still doing it. Every time you ask for fairness and balance, you’re hurting people. When you try to find a middle ground, you’re hurting people. If you were to keep silent, you’d be hurting people.
When you do anything other than taking a strong stand against sexism, you’re hurting all the victims of sexism.
That means you’re on TF’s side. That’s the point. There are two groups here: those who want to fight sexism and those who don’t. There’s no middle ground here. If you’re not part of the solution, you very much are part of the problem.
Aargh! Tag fail :(
Did you used to hate it when your mother and father had arguments jacksul?
Because it sounds to me like the reason that you want everyone to make up and stop arguing is because you personally find the thought of two people, whom you claim to like, at odds with each other to be stressful. It sounds like you don’t want the issue to be solved, or for TF to learn something, you just want the fighting to stop so that it doesn’t disturb you personally any more.
Now I admit I don’t enjoy it when people I like fight with each other. But I do not, and will not, demand that either of them sacrifice their integrity merely for keeping the peace.
And as for ‘nice guy’. You might not want to hear my, and possibly others around here’s opinions on ‘nice guys’. (The people who frequently use it to describe themselves are rarely kind or good.)
Actually, you did. And you just did it again. You suggested that her rape not be talked about because you to not wan to hurt her.
If she was raped? If she was raped?
Also, who appointed you protector of women, protecting her from hurful comments?
It is not your job to decide, unilaterally, what hurts her and whether she can, or can not, talk about her past.
Why are you trying to silence Caine?
Troll sighting at #251.
owlglass,
You’re not nearly as clever as you think you are; and you’re not witty at all.
Yes, it is.
What’s the point of this kind of stupid blather? Equality means treating people as whole human beings, on their individual merits, whatever their gender, ethnicity, orientation, bodily form…
Oh, you mean some feminists are dissatisfied with the status quo whereas you, who happen to do pretty well out of it through no particular merit of your own, are not.
Hey, yes! Let’s light on a rather silly (or possibly intentionally humorous, I don’t know) neologism from several decades ago, invent another one, and pretend we’ve said something clever!
At this point, I felt obliged to stop before I lost the will to live.
I’m not fond of people with the mentality of a 12 year old blowing smoke out of their ass.
Owlglass, you sound just like Thunderfoot. “Oh no, sexual harassment policies will mean I’m not allowed to flirt without filling in a form in triplicate!”
It’s nonsense. Nobody is trying to control all interactions between individuals. Flirting can be great. Sex can be great. But individuals don’t get to blithley make other people feel uncomfortable in their pursuit of these things, and if they do then the person on the receiving end should have a recourse. What is so dreadful about this?
It’s equality, not identity.
Meanwhile, back in the real world…
Doesn’t anybody actually say that unsarcastically? I mean, besides people who are trying to strawman feminists.
I thought herbalism already did that. After all, the frail women were the ones gathering the plants, while the big, hairy cavemen were out killing elephants with their stone spears. Any other stereotypes we can throw in the mix?
As it happens, there’s a very real problem of medical research using men as subjects and then just generalizing the results to women. Heart attack symptoms is a well-known case where there are gender differences.
But of course, it’s much more fun to bash at a strawman than it is to talk about actual, real-world problems. Never mind what feminists are actually saying. It’s much easier to debate them if you just make up their side of the story without any reference to their actual opinions.
Owlglass, your post has made me just a little bit more of a raised-fist feminist. Thank you. Posts like yours serve to energize the movement.
Actually, I need to cut back on my use of the word “actual”.
So…you’re stance on feminism and rape is SO offensive, so different than what is the standard here, it’s like the blasphemy of atheism for fundamentalist Christians?
Good to know. So much for that “I’m a feminist too!” bullshit.
So….from these comments, I’m guessing you’ve been as ass to a rape victim before. You just automatically assume there’s going to be a detailed discussion about what Caine went through, when all she did was mention her perspective as someone deeply effected by anti-feminists/rape apologists/misogynists/abusers. What can’t handle hearing about real people? Can face real victims?
What someone actually try to talk to you about their experience and you started asking stupid questions like “Why were you out late at night?”, and “Why were you dressed like that?”.
You’re just a nice guy so I’m sure you see nothing wrong with these “innocent” questions.
Ugh. What a fucking douchebag. Silence is the default for victims. Society’s status quo is all about silencing victims.
Getting a victim to stop talking about their experience is never a problem. Creating a safe place where they feel comfortable enough to talk about it is the goal, the progress we want to make.
And that’s what this place is for a LOT of victims. So you not only tried to silence and shame Caine, but every other victim who posts/lurks here.
FUCK YOU. Stupid, worthless dingleberry. Get flushed to the sewers where you belong.
megalol @ mofa referencing Franc Hoggle. Wow, that sure stings.
@jacksul
Stop right there, assclam. “IF”? Why do you feel the need to assume she might be lying?
Fuck you in the nose with a burning poker.
Oh, and by the way, chivalry is not an acceptable substitute for equality, so drop the “protecting” bullshit.
JAL:
I’m afraid our Nice Guy™ would faint if he had the slightest idea of how many people at Pharyngula have been raped (women and men, Mr. Nice Guy) and that doesn’t even begin to cover all the victims outside of this blog. Not at all.
WOW. “IF” she was raped? Fucking “IF”? “protect her”? Fucking “PROTECT HER”?
I think this might be the very first case of a misogynistic whiteknight. Go fuck yourself, ass stain.
Proof that Owlglass knows nothing about feminism. Not even one example of their goals. So you’re just having a bit of fun with this, huh? Do you do with racism too? Talk to POC about what antiracism means: should we be all black or white or somewhere in the middle? Do you make jokes about travelling in “flocks” to prevent beatings from white-wolves? Good to see life’s been so swell to you that you can be good-humoured about the life experiences of others who for some reason can’t be quote as relaxed as you. You are an example to us all.
@owlglass
There we go again. The “fake jewelry” people were wearing fake jewelry that was made to parody Surly Amy’s in order to target, shame and hurt her. If you don’t even know this much, and you still repeat the argument directly from AVFM’s straw factory, that says more about you than you might have wanted to tell.
If?
Yes because being raped is, like, just an extraordinary claim made to score points on the internet.
{Near fatal eyeroll}
Look, can I PLEASE change species now? I want to be a gibbon for at least a week, the brachiating alone should cheer me up.
Louis
oops. That should be “quite as relaxed as you”.
Treating people as “as whole human beings…” is meaningless phraseology and a claptrap. Being treated on my “invidual merits” won’t improve equality of women, because, newsflash, the issue aren’t individual merits (or lack thereof) but a systematic disadvantage of women.
Being dissatisfied with a status quo does not make certain utopist ideas any more viable, and you won’t win hearts with an overly bookish attitude and simplistic bogeymans. Telling men not to be chauvisnists and asking them to refrain from behavior that never (relatively speaking) was appropriate in the first place isn’t really the gold standard. And ithen it happens from time to time, that people disagree on topics that are actually complex. I’m fine with polemics and snarky comment, but insults are just brutish. You’re welcome.
No no no, see, a bitch said something, therefore she must be lying and overreacting and getting all hysterical and shit. Listing the fact that owlglass intentionally left out in order to mislead and diminish only proves that Amy is hysterical and lying! Beacuse reasons!
++\
Translation: Thinking is hard. Bitches ain’t shit.
Yes, exactly. Also see (1) “@feminist theory”, in the headline. Also see (2) “no booth babes policies […] good start!”. Ask the next random woman what she thinks about feminism. Your mileage may vary. Perhaps, in your country you had better luck with the feminist opinion leaders. In the so-called real world, social pressure and disapproval of one’s lifestyle doesn’t always come from evil men, you know. Stuff out there tends to be a little bit more complex.
A struggle for social, legal, political and economic equality for women is Utopian? Well, that will be disappointing for a lot of us. I thought there was a chance, but a man on the Internet told me to dream on.
Nothing I’ve seen on these comments is anywhere near as brutish as telling people that equality is a pipe dream.
Right you are. The systemic disadvantage of women means that society does not judge women on their individual merits. Women are judged through the stereotype of women, they are not judged as individual human beings.
@owlglass
That’s where feminism comes in!… right? You were making our point for us, right? Right?
What utopist idea? The idea that maybe one day women won’t be treated like shit, and if they do it will be by individuals rather than society as a whole? If that’s your gold standard for utopia, your imagination seems to be lacking.
@owlglass
I’m gonna have to ask you for some citations to support your claim that marxism is rampant in feminist circles. It sure as hell is not anything I’ve experienced. While you’re at is, a citation for non-sarcastic use of “herstory” would also be helpful. Bonus points if you can find one from this side of the year 2000.
Bottom line, I’d like you to demonstrate that you’re not simply talking straight out of your ass.
Oh Owlglass, it’s complex, is it? Then forget it. I would never understand complex things. Not like those random ladies, who seem to get it so right. And what’s this about disapproving of people’s life-styles? Are these anti-feminists or feminists? It’s all so obscure and mysterious. What with bogeymen and unlucky feminist leaders in a faraway land. I so wish I could understand your argument. I’m sure I would be dazzled with the multi-facetedness of it all.
Women aren’t judged as individuals, *or* as human beings.
Hello by the way, *waves*, fellow rape victim here. I’m not Caine and I decided on my own recognizance to mention it, glory be. Do I get automatic protective smothering or does that require a genital check first?
And once you poke your head out from the little straw-feminism diorama up your ass, you might find that’s all been addressed (by actual research yet!) back in Feminism 101. See the sidebar with links. Condesplaining douchepellet.
Pteryxx:
Shhh. You’ll disturb yourself.
owlglass,
I could have fleshed it out a bit more with “rather than just a set of genitalia”, but I thought even you might manage to fill that in for yourself. My mistake.
You weren’t talking about “improving equality of women” (with each other? with leprechauns?) ; you were talking about “equality” per se, and showing that you hadn’t the faintest idea what it means – you appeared to think it means women and men becoming more alike. Certainly, systematic disadvantage is a key issue, which the rest of your post indicated you hadn’t any interest in addressing.
What “utopist ideas”? Why the deliberate vagueness?
I’m not the one dragging Kant into my comment or blathering about “raised-fist-marxism”.
Insults? Gently pricking the bubble of your ego scarcely counts as insult.
Yep, so complex you don’t get it, can’t get it, and won’t get it, because you don’t know how to shut the fuck up and listen. And guess what? We got it, and we live in the real world, not a pretend world like you. Come back when you actually have something cogent to say. Like, “I’m sorry”.
Pteryxx:
I’m not the smothering type, but I’m always good for an anklehug, but you know that.
♥
One might even say that it’s so vague as to be meaningless phraseology and claptrap.
That’s not true and that is also not what I wrote. There is noticable progress and we seem to be getting there (I always live/lived in Northern Europe mind you), and the debate is more nuanced as well. Educate the men that grabbing asses is not appropriate and tell people that they can’t insult someone by wearing stickers, shirts, jewelry or whatever this was about. I thought that parents would provide the basic knowledge and rules of decency, but I am glad that this atheist community helps out. My apologies, it seems to be very different in the US and I leave it at that.
Wow. I barely got past the part where owlglass (@272) said that men shouldn’t be asked to refrain from inappropriate behaviour, because… uh, yeah. Having trouble with that one. Because it’s not a gold standard, and so? So… Carry on being assholes, because… It’s not like their behaviour is the problem anyway…?
I seem to be missing something here.
*sigh*
Carry on, you lot. One day I shall join your ranks and eat trolls raw with my teeth bared. Tonight, though, I’m fixing dinner, so – busy.
But you wrote:
An idiot and a Tone Troll. How unimpressive.
Yeah, that’s like totally taking it seriously and like, caring about the issues a lot or whatever.
Jackass.
It’s not just the U.S.
Idiot.
We don’t all live in the US. But I’m glad you are starting to step away from your half-arsed comments. I could tell your heart wasn’t really in it, because it didn’t make any sense.
No one is looking to court you, Cupcake. You’re supposed to be using your brain. To think.
Oh, my bad. I didn’t know Europeans were so much better at feminism than Americans. You clearly do not know that many of the commenters on this blog are from varied locations across the world.
FFS. This is the internet and Pharyngula is global. Many of the people responding to you are not American and not in the U.S. – they don’t have any trouble grasping the issues at hand. Christ.
Society at large is fucking sexist and treats women as property so putting it all on the parents shoulders as if this is just a few boys being boys is fucking bullshit.
Nick Gotts
Bravo!
Is nuance like “complexity” and “reasoned”? Just some bullshit excuse for educated white guys* to use big, polite words to talk over the experience of women who are saying, “Stop being a douchebag and treating us like shit.”
*with chill girlz bringing sammichez and drinks for them, donchaknow
Tony, on behalf of Europe I would like to say it’s ok.
You are not generally known for knowing things that isn’t true, and we don’t want you ever to change.
That contradicts this:
Funny how he hasn’t thought it through yet he was full of advice. Also, I am still confused about why you can’t tell chauvinist men to stop behaving badly because their behaviour was never appropriate in the first place. Does anyone get this?
Of course! We’re a postfeminst society. There is no chauvinism or misogyny. Any misogyny you might encounter is merely a figment of your imagination. Since they’re just figments of your imagination and not real in any way it’s wrong to interact with them. Even to take their hand off your arse.
Excuse me, I got to go for a puke right now.
Dobber:
Yep. We’re living in a post sexist society, didn’t you know?
Brutish and base, I say! Lo, these many comments red in tooth and claw. Nary a thought to the tender sympathies of refined gentlemen and ladies.
I remain,
Dither McFaint-n-Swoon, Esq.
Tony @77
I see you have specifically asked me to come back and answer this point (so if everyone else could refrain from slagging me off for doing so, or for bringing up dead arguments ate, THIS IS A REQUEST!!)
I didn’t say that to watch Matt’s video he had to watch thunderf00ts. the point is that PZ had managed to watch Matt’s video WITHOUT having to watch hundreds of other videos. When i criticised him for not watching Tf00ts video then making a blog entry relating to it his response was that he cannot be expected to watch endless YT videos. My point of commenting was that his faulty logic seemingly went out the door when it came to Matts video, whereby he suddenly gained the ability to only watch the relevant video.
Jim
This is my last comment here btw, i have a video uploading outlining my main thoughts on all three protagonists, so i have no need to further my thoughts here.
Jim
I really am considering calling you names. The relevance was not the video but the lovefest certain groups had for the video. As has been explained. Multiple times.
Noelplumnumbers
Promise?
Promise? Pretty please!
And there goes my first Irony Meter of the year. And that was the super-duper-reinforced one that goes all the way up to 11.
My emphasis of continuing lies.
Anyway, adopting the policy of letting random commenters dictate which videos he watches will have exactly that result: an endless stream. The alternative would be to take video requests only from some, not others, which is essentially the same as PZ just deciding for himself.
So, as far as I can tell, you’re basically just whining because PZ wouldn’t take orders from you.
I’ll believe that when your ceaseless drone actually ceases. Christ, you shutting the fuck up might constitute a miracle.
Anyone wanna bet noel the plum idiot immediately shows up in the new youtube thread?
No bet.
How can one further what one doesn’t have? That has been your problem. So, back to vanity land, where nobody will challenge your idiocy.
First off, there were different discussion threads, one dealing with feminist theory. It is loaded with all kinds of political ideas (and utopias), one must not automatically approve of just because the label “feminist” is on it. This is about political ideas, not etiquette and goals and the like! You are invited to make up your own mind, and see what you find useful. I do object to a couple of things and agree with other tools (for example the use of quotas, if used both sided). The complexities as mentioned are things like settting up new issues, where women are pushed into a new set of social expectations, like successfully managing job and family. Others involve peer pressure that does exist among women and so on. So please get out of my hair.
/
Regarding sexual harrassment: there are “sexual harrrassment” codes in place, with legal consequences. So take a deep breath understand first that it is NEVER okay, whether or not a symbolic token point (“grabbing ass is not allowed”) is on a list or not. However, by calling out such behavior on some list sends a devastating message. It tells me that this form of harassment apparently happened a lot, telling me that I certainly don’t want to attend in the future. Further, it gives me the impression that attendees may then think that other forms of harrassment may be permitted, as they aren’t explicitly stated on the list. Reminder, they are NOT. I am also led to believe that people on such conferences just restrain themselves because they were reminded beforehand. In summary, it does not make the conference seem more welcoming to women, but the total opposite. So this type of policy failed in my view. OTOH, banning of sexualized adverstisment, not allowing booth babes,I deem as very effective and GOOD.
/
There is not just one way to deal with issues like these, and disagreeing on the policies and strategies is not the same as disagreeing with the general feminist goals. For example, I would prefer if inappropriate behavior is called out on the spot, and actions are taken that are deemed appropriate. If people wear offensive shirts, sticker, jewelry etc., I would prefer when staff asks them to remove it. I don’t like if whole groups of people are called out publically because of individuals who suck.
Did you speak with any actual, living women with experience of conferences before you wrote that middle paragraph, owlglass, or did you just pull it of your arse in a great long string.
Bloody tapeworms!
Don’t be silly, Maureen. You know there’s no speaking with women, all they ever want to do is talk about herstory and stuff.
Caine, you forgot utopias.
This is meaningless without a specific example.
Who wants “quotas”, again? Oh right, no one. This is just more baseless bullshit. Quelle Surprise.
Translation: I’m a delicate snowflake who can’t handle being disagreed with. Mainly because even I know I’m full of shit.
Translation: bitches shouldn’t ever talk about sexual harrassment, because that makes sexual harrassers feel bad. And bitches should just put up with sexual harrassment because talking about it makes imaginary other people not want to go to the convention. And clearly stated policies against sexual harrassment are bad because I just decided they don’t work based on no evidence whatsoever, so there’s that.
makes perfect sense to a diship misogynist, I’m sure.
But telling women to STFU and accept sexual harrassment totally works!
And what owlglass likes and doesn’t like should be the standard by which all people act because he’s the alpha and omega of douchey, dishit misogynists.
FOAD already.
Ew, that comment from Owlass @313 reminds me of DJ Grothe accusing Rebecca Watson of scaring women away from TAM for talking about sexism in the atheist community.
Fuck. You know what I think when I see a good sexual harassment policy in place? Sweet! The organisers of this event care about the convention goers and have a protocol for potential harassment, that harassment won’t be tolerated if it were to happen and harassers will be ejected from the event. It doesn’t tell me anything at all about the prevalence of harassment at previous events, but it sure lets me know that if anything happens, I’m covered and the event organisers will listen to me and take my concerns seriously. But what do I know, being a woman and all, ya shitcake.
You know nothing. Just let owlglass’ three remaining brain cells do all the thinking for you. it’ll be REAL quick.
Janine:
Damn, I forgot! We’re never going to get New Amazonia built this way…
@owlglass #313
Have you ever actually read an anti-harassment policy? Are you employed? Were you not acquainted with the one that your employer uses upon your hire?
A convention or conference with an anti-harassment policy that is effectively implemented would make me feel extremely safe to attend (I’m a woman – does that give me more or less credibility to comment on whether any given woman would appreciate the existence of an anti-harassment policy at a con for which she is paying a great deal of money to attend?).
Yeah, and how about when the staff of the convention DOESN’T call out inappropriate behavior or ask attendees to remove offensive clothing or jewelry, because they haven’t been trained to recognize and deal with it? That would require some kind of written program. Almost like an anti-harassment policy.
“Come with us to the moon!”
“Where we’ll BLOW UP THE EARTH“
Jim:
Your criticism of PZ makes NO sense.
Why should he have to watch TF’s video when he wasn’t commenting on it?
He was commenting on the REACTION to Thunderf00t’s video.
He doesn’t need to watch TF’s video to make comments about the MRAs who support it.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
As I believe michaeld stated somewhere (I paraphrase):
If I don’t watch a movie, but read a review of it, am I not allowed to comment on the review?
Jim:
Did you mean that was your last comment in this thread or at Pharyngula?
One can only hope for the latter.
@owlglass
Any chance we could get that last post in English? Let me show you what I mean:
No mention of which threads. No mention of which ideas/utopias, who brought them up or who claimed that you had to approve of them, whatever they were.
You object to a couple of things and agree with others… but you only mention one thing and doing so in such a vague fashion that I’m not sure what it actually covers.
Why is that a “complexity”? More to the point, why is it a complexity for women, specifically? Aren’t men involved in the whole family thing? Don’t men also have to juggle jobs and family? Hell, haven’t women already been doing this for decades? My mother certainly did and both my grandmothers as well. This isn’t a new development, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Look, I’m really not trying to bash you here. I’m trying to explain that what you’re saying isn’t making a whole lot of sense. I feel like maybe you wrote a post fully describing your views, then deleted 80% of it at random and posted the mess that was left.
Some of those sentences seem to be literally taken right out of a larger paragraph. It’s as if there was supposed to be something more before and after, explaining things, but you left that out. I don’t know how to respond because I don’t understand what you’re saying.
LykeX and JAL,
I am simply at a loss… I don’t know how you turned my kind concern into this horror story where I was telling a rape victim to shut up. I don’t think I’ve ever told another human being to shut up in my adult life. I can’t even read all the that disgusting stuff that you accused me of because it’s painful and frankly it feels disrespectful to Caine.
I have never seen anything like this. I just witnessed you two inventing accusations out of nowhere, spinning innocent phrases into hurtful dribble. I never would have believed it was possible. Utterly shocked.
I owe Tony the Queer Shoop an apology because he was trying to explain things to me and I didn’t take the time to read his comments carefully or look up his points.
Tony: I’m sorry and I will look up the speakers that you referenced. Thank you again for your patience.
But LykeX and JAL, I think you two owe me an apology for these disgusting accusations. Anybody can go read my words and come to their own conclusions. If you want me to clarify something that I said then just ask. I’ll give you one for free, the sentence “If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her…” was never meant to cast doubt on her story at all. That was just sentence structure.
Would you please point out exactly what it is you want me to apologize for? A direct quote would be nice because at the moment, I have no idea what “disgusting accusations” you’re referring to.
I’ve made exactly one comment directed at you, right here. Please quote the part you find problematic because I don’t see it.
Good, but don’t blame other people for pointing out your extremely poor choice of words. You sounded like you were questioning the story and that’s not tolerated around here. You didn’t mean it that way and that’s a good thing. You might want to be more careful with that sentence structure in the future, though.
jacksul:
I am male. I was raped, repeatedly, by my scoutmaster. Others here are rape victims. When you told Caine not to talk about her rape in order to protect her from pain, what pain do you refer to? I live with the scars of my abuse (and abusive) past in ways that I hope you cannot imagine. I live with the pain, the humiliation, the guilt. It is starting to ease since I actually realized what happened, but for the previous 30 plus years I had protected myself from that pain and it didn’t work. That pain is part of me. How does not talking about it protect me from pain?
How dare you. How dare you doubt that she was raped. And before you protest otherwise, you wrote:
“If she was raped.” If. Right there, you expressed doubt that she was raped. Which helps perpetuate rape culture and makes it marginally more likely that a victim will do as I did and not report what happened. That was just sentence structure? ‘If’ was just sentence structure? You have got to be kidding me.
How dare you. How dare you appoint yourself as her guardian. She did not ask you to feel sorry for her, did she? But you do that anyway. And then you decide, you, not she, decided that the conversation should cease in order to protect her. That is called silencing.
How dare you take your kind concern and use it as a weapon. You should try reading all of that ‘disgusting stuff’ because in there, multiple times by multiple people (some of us victims of rape), just how your comment was viewed as an attempt to silence her. It may not be what you intended, but intent is not magic.
I am a rape victim. I do not want, and do not need, anyone on the internet looking out for my pain — pain that exists whether I am here or not. I do not want, nor do I need, anyone on the internet protecting me. Sometimes I get triggered but that is my fault, not yours, not anyone else’s.
jacksul (#326)
Know what’s disrespectful? You ignoring Caine who is speaking for herself. (See #240, #242, and #252.)
You wouldn’t know respect if it reared up and nipped off all your squishy bits.
Completely OT.
Ogvorbis, I’ve always liked you but lately I sit in open-mouthed amazement at just how fucking great you are!
Right, folks. Carry on!
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttt.
I did read your words and come to my own conclusions. Then I quoted you exactly in my comment so there’s no confusion about what statements I was responding to. I don’t give a shit if you never told anyone the exact words “shut up”. You told Caine to NOT talk about her experience. I don’t give a shit what your intent was, you condescending jerkface, intent is not magic. And considering all of your statements, I don’t believe you at all regarding your sincerity.
And seriously, “sentence structure”? You couldn’t have just left out the “if” and said,” She was raped and I feel…” The “if” casts doubt automatically, because the statement,” If she was raped then I feel extremely sorry for her..”, holds out for the possibility that she wasn’t raped, so then you wouldn’t feel extremely sorry for her.
You do know the definition of “if” right?
While we’re at it, I was wondering about another thing: Why me and JAL specifically? Plenty of people responded to you, so I’m curious. I mean, it’s oddly flattering in a way, but I don’t get it.
Yep, you are wrong. Now go away.
How is it disrespectful to Caine to agree with her regarding you?
Besides, like I said your statements effected ALL rape victims to stay quiet regarding their experiences.
Yeah, I said we. I’m a rape victim. This is my safe place and I’ll be damned if some little weasel-y Nice Guy tries to silence me by claiming talking about my own experience would harm me.
You know what harmed me? Being raped and beaten. Repeatedly. Over years.
You know what continued to hurt me? Being shamed and silenced. Forced to deal with my experiences alone.
You know what helped me? Talking about it here with my friends and stand up to rape enabling, misogynist douchebags.
So I’m not trying to talk for Caine or put words in her mouth. I’m talking for my damn self and fuck you for trying to take that away from me. For my own protection. What a crock of shit.
Disrespectful to Caine?!?
Caine….I cannot imagine how you’d feel any less disrespected by this ass. He arrived at comment 190. By 200/201 (for a correction), he declared “should NOT talk about this” unilaterally with you. Didn’t ask… no, no, no. Just determined for you. You laughed at his white knighting ass in 204, and others let him know that he was on the wrong track. In 219, he quoted you, but without comment number or name, and said THIS HAPPY CRAP:
In 231, he talked ABOUT you as if you weren’t even here. He did it again in 233. Captain FUCKING Oblivious!
I do hope that you’d rather me talk to you than to talk to him, Caine. I know that I’d much rather talk to you.
As she was raped …
Because she was raped …
Considering that she was raped ….
Discovering that she was raped …
Especially as she was raped …
Finding out that she was raped ….
Given that she was raped …
Hearing that she was raped …
Just because she was raped …
Knowing that she was raped …
Learning that she was raped …
Mindful that she was raped …
Noting that she was raped …
Obviously, as she was raped …
Perceiving that she was raped …
Queasy that she was raped …
Righteously angry that she was raped …
Sensitive to the fact that she was raped …
Totally aware that she was raped …
Unsettled by the fact that she was raped …
Very mindful that she was raped …
Well aware that she was raped …
eXtremely sensitive to the fact that she was raped …
Yes, I accept that she was raped …
ZOMG, I do not know how to address someone who was raped.
Sentence structure, my arse!
jacksul, some rape victims don’t want to talk about what happened, because they’re still trying to come to terms with it.
Some rape victims don’t want to talk about what happened, because they’ve gotten burned when they’ve attempted to.
Some rape victims do want to talk about what happened.
By assuming that rape victims all fall into one category, you are not helping. Caine has talked about her rape. More than once. To – as others have said – great rhetorical success in dealing with trolls and misogynists.
To demand that she not talk about it – to put the decision to discuss it or not anywhere else other than firmly in Caine’s court is part and parcel with the denying, the minimizing, the intrusive “prove yourself” demands that rape victims are faced with every day.
That is why people are angry with you. Because the decision to make that an off-limits topic of conversation was not yours to make. And you decided to make it anyway. Overruling the wishes of someone else, and enforcing your desires on them.
Which, given the topic, is a rather … ironic … decision.
Oh dear, now we hurt poor Jacksul’s fee-fees.
And Noelplum is gone right when I have this important moral dilemma for him.
Maybe somebody else can help me out.
Some weeks ago I talked to my cousin about the new Bond movie. Now I hadn’t seen it and he had, and he was ranting about Daniel Craig as Bond, having emotions and stuff and also needing to do some physical work, in short, “ruining Bond”.
I dared to point out that
A) I like Daniel Craig as Bond and indeed enjoyed the other movies a lot.
B) I like the changes they made to Bond as a character
C) the critiques were very good for this Bond and that even though he might not enjoy the new Bond he’s hardly the most important audience in this world and should just deal with it.
Do you think that I should call him up and apologize?
Hey Jacksul, if you actually gave a fuck, you’d just straight-up say you’re sorry and maybe take a break from commenting instead of whining like a dog with a hurt paw and making this all about your poor, hurt fee-fees. You talked over a rape victim and showed your ass all over this thread, and now *you’re* demanding apologies? You really are beneath contempt.
@LykeX, Rest
When I first commented I made a passing remark on feminist theories. Feminism in my book is not the same as Women’s Rights. Even Wikipedia, on the first sentence manages to point out that feminism is: “a collection of movements and ideologies”. When everyone touts feminism, all the ideologies are not a petty detail, and they aren’t straw men either (here one could argue that people who hold such views apparently not only don’t know that different ideologies exist, they also don’t take them seriously). I didn’t question women’s rights. Ever. But I don’t endorse all those feminist ideologies and I made the mistake to say so. I wanted to remain brief and on topic, even with the implications, so I noted “complexities”. It was already a bit too heated to actually discuss fine print at this point, so some examples had to do the trick (and they didn’t, got it). /// Sexual harassment and discrimination laws are in place in my country. A one liner “don’t grab asses” is not an effective sexual harassment policy. Neither did I say that you can’t call out harassers, nor did I say that such behavior should be tolerated or permitted. I did say that sexualizing conventions in one way or the other is, in my opinion not the right way to go. In my very personal view I wrote that I would not attend a convention when I get the impression that “grabbing asses” is apparently common and where I would have to travel in flocks to not get assaulted. And this impression was given. And no, I also don’t agree with Thunderf00t that sexual harassment rules would spoil social interaction (I am not sure if he holds that view, to be fair). You can call out groups–wrong idea. You can call out individuals–right idea. You can pour ideologies over everything, sexualize, and then impose some superficial rules–wrong idea. Or you can educate people and create the right climate and not sexualize–right idea. Putting sex issues on agendas, wrong idea. Removing booth babes, right idea. That was botched, I know blasphemy right there. Btw, educating people and holding them responsible also has a lot to do with humanism, where I originally started off. I’m done with this topic unless annoyed again.
Too bad you weren’t done before you started.
@owlglass
I think you would benefit greatly from a course in writing technique and I think taking a break is a very good idea.
I can’t wait for Noelplumb99’s response to Matt’s video. I am hangin’ out for it cos Noel is one of my heros. Hurry up Noel.
And if ever a video is out, do all of us here a favor. Keep it to yourself. Jim is a fuckwitted idjit without cogency. You appear to be following someone that nobody here is interested in the inane OPINIONS of.
Hey mofa – the Noelplumb99ismyhero message board is over yonder…no, that way…only much further…keep going…
jacksul:
:gathers jaw off floor again, superglues back together for yelling purposes:
Disgusting stuff? What disgusting stuff, jacksul? Disgusting stuff like having massive assholes like you handwave our lives away because, of course, it’s only jacksul that matters, it’s only his feelings that count, right?
How dare you decide what is disrespectful to me? YOU ARE ACTING AS THOUGH I AM INVISIBLE, YOU ASSCLAM IN SMEGMARMALADE SAUCE. You are not only utterly denying me personhood, you are denying that to Pteryxx and Ogvorbis and JAL and every other person here who has been raped – we are legion, motherfucker, and we will not be silenced.
I have the utmost respect for Pteryxx, Ogvorbis, JAL, Maureen, LykeX, Athyco, A. Noyd, Giliell, Esteleth and every other person who has told you in no uncertain terms that you do not get to decide how or when or even if a person who has experienced rape, assault or harassment deals with that or whether they speak out about it or not.
Just who in the fuckety fuck do you think you are, little Cupcake? You do not speak for me. You do not speak for anyone else. You speak only for yourself – and you have shown yourself to be a craven heart, shriveled in a shield of bubble wrap, hiding from reality and burying yourself in the screeds of a liar.
I wouldn’t even donate my spit towards you as a sign of contempt. You get nothing of me. Nothing.
Athyco:
Of course I’d rather talk to you – you don’t pretend I’m not here! Seriously, you are not around enough. Stop by the lounge and fill me in about what’s been happening, okay?
Caine, you are wonderful. In so many ways.
Ogvorbis, you are wonderful. In so many ways. ♥ and so many hugses.
Caine, my son came in to tell me how angry he is at his boss about his work schedule for next week, giving me the perfect opportunity to say, “He’s totally an assclam in smegmarmalade sauce, isn’t he?”
When he superglued his jaw back on, it was to laugh and then ewwwwwwwww! alternately until his blood pressure was certainly lowered. I do know that Nepenthe is to be credited for the “smegmarmalade,” but your extra fillip leads to that kiss-gathered-fingers-spread-them-in-your-direction gesture.
In other words, seconding Ogvorbis at 348.
Oh and lest I forget, jacksul. About that “unfortunate sentence structure” – you are a liar. You’re on fire with your lies. Maureen pointed out beautifully that there’s only one single possible answer to your claim – you are a liar.
“If she was raped” means one thing and one thing only. You do not get to claim “oh, er, uh, erm…sentence structure! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
Liar.
Athyco:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, thank you so much for that delightful story. Now you can tell your son that every time he sees his boss he’s going to have a certain image in his head…oh, we be evil.
It’s so good to see you back here again.
jacksul,
In case you’re still reading, let me point something out. In #326 you said:
There is nothing innocent about minimizing systemic discrimination. There is nothing innocent in making an unilateral decision not to talk about a subject. There is nothing innocent about suggesting a rape victim is lying about her experience.
In short, whatever your impression of yourself may be, you’re not just using innocent phrases*. Whether you realize it or not, you’re so busy propping yourself as a Nice Guy™ that you’re unaware just how deep of a hole you’ve dug.
—
*And before you even THINK about saying “but I didn’t mean it that way” go forth and read about how intent is not fucking magic.
Owlglass:
I am ever so disappointed you are done with this topic. I quite enjoyed you talking at people and redefining words and being douchey McDouche. Do come back from time to time to dazzle us with your unfettered ignorance.
Owlmirror:
Citations or gtfo.
Perferably gtfo.
You mean Owlmirror, OM, or Owlglass, idjit? I suspect the latter.
Sorry Owlmirror
I definitely meant Owlglass.
*barfs up a hairball on jacksul’s feet*
Caine, your #346 shows that in addition to being a woman of knowledge and conviction you are also made of pure truth and righteous anger. And possibly also (in addition) of angry truth.
But otherwise, I must say that I have seen “White Knights,” and they do tend to be both stupid and wrong, but they wish so well. But jacksul here? He is the first “Black Knight” I have seen, trying to ‘protect’ the poor little ladies by making them shut up and not talk so much about the actual stuff we are talking about.
Mind you, there are several other unflattering thing we can call him besides, but I just thought it was a bit…suitable, I guess.
But as long as he is long and fondly remembered for all the shit he has said here I’ll be happy.
Also, I notice that owlglass writes some manner of stuff with expectations of a response, but since they do write worse than a concussed fifteen-year-old I’ll leave it to the people with experience with teens and/or other upon-the-internets-near-literates to handle that shit.
Feline:
Yeah, it’s a first for me too. The whole thing has left me gobsmacked. I have no idea what he thinks will happen if we talk about our experiences when it comes to being harassed, assaulted or raped. It’s ridiculous. He’s also studiously ignoring the two men who have spoken up about being raped. I guess they don’t deserve “fingers in the ears, la la la la la la la” protection.
And thank you!
Feline,
Yes, I thought about maybe putting “white” in quotations for the white knight part of my comment because it has most recently been co-opted as a scornful term for feminist men speaking in support of women. I decided to go ahead and use it since the white knight–whether well-wishing or preventing a woman to be visible in her own right–has as his underlying purpose to make the topic all about the view through his visor.
But the Black Knight makes me think of Monty Python. I wonder if jacksul feels that way now?
If jacksul were more like the Black Knight, he would not have stopped.
Late to the party, but just for perspective, jacksul, consider:
If the victims of almost anything—domestic violence, child abuse, use of torture, racial or ethnic discrimination, poverty, whatever—are to be denied the right to speak of those experiences, allegedly to spare themselves the possibility of feeling bad for those bad things that they experienced; if the “proper” approach is always to “keep it inside the family”…when will those bad things ever be addressed?
NEVER.
That’s when.
–
O.K. jacksul, this made me laugh. You are offended and “utterly shocked” by the visceral reaction (mostly lots of “fuck”) to your posts by the bloggers here but cannot understand why why PZ & TF can’t make up & be BFF?
Because TF has been on an attack campaign since his FTB blowup.
Go read “The Company you keep” thread from Jan 1st where the posters cover a lot of the lies and distortions in TF’s video. In it, he attacks and distorts the words and behavior of individuals by name. He wants these people blacklisted from skeptic/atheist conferences. The video is MUCH worse than anything said to you here; it was put on a high profile site (YouTube) and TF posted links to it on an infamous misogynist blog. He has become obsessive, hateful and irrational on the subject of FTB and feminism.
It is so damn annoying that someone who can get so offended by some harsh comments and rude words to lecture others that THEY should overlook worse behavior and kiss and make up.
Hello All!
I was just catching up on the Matt Dillahunty thread and I must second a bow to The Horde for their collective AWESOMENESS.
Also, thanks to Athyco’s story, I now understand without a doubt what smegmarmalade means.
: D : D : D : D
Oh FFS! #365 posted to the wrong thread.
OMG, I thought I couldn’t be stunned into silence to the point of having to take a break and smoke a sigarette to try to make sense of this shit anymore after everything I’ve seen from the PUA scum and the MRA scum and the TERF scum and the incest promoters and the gang-raping football players and and and all that that never seems to fucking end or even pause, and then BAM.
I literally can not believe what has happened here. And that then jacksul CONTINUES TO IGNORE Caine!!! I mean, I don’t even have the words, my mind simply can not make sense…
Perhaps one possible interpretation *could* maybe be that Jacksul is so very, very surprised and just shocked, SHOCKED to encounter a real live rape victim in a conversation he was having.
HEY Jacksul, did you know that 1 in 6 women are raped in their lifetime? Do you have >6 female relatives? Do you have >6 female friends/acquaintances? Do you converse in groups that contain >6 females, as in this case?
Yeah, think about the implications of that. Really, really think about it. Yes, that would indeed mean that most of the conversations you’ve had that involved more than six women participating probably included at least one rape victim.
And that doesn’t even include male victims of rape, which is one in 33 if I remember correctly.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say this hand-waving, this “maybe the women are over-reacting to something innocent and unfairly calling it sexual harassment” (because hey, we all know women are stupid and/or malicious like that, amirite? I mean, that IS the underlying argument here, isn’t it?) is actively causing more rape and sexual assault victims, and YOU are contributing to that.
Let’s do a thought experiment. What’s the worst that could happen if TF was right, and what’s the worst that could happen if TF was wrong?
IF it was true that women lie and/or exaggerate the incidence of sexual abuse, what then? Do we not still implement policies? Do we not still make sure that the incident is never greater than ZERO? I mean really, what makes the numbers (whether it’s higher or lower) significant when it comes to prevention and policies? Is any number greater than zero not UNACCEPTABLE? So what’s the worse that would happen IF it were true that women lie/and or exaggerate the incidence of sexual abuse (which isn’t the case, but for the sake of argument granting your hypothesis)?
Now let’s ask what IF they are NOT lying/exaggerating that incidence? WHAT IF IT’S ACTUALLY TRUE and all of these delays and hyper skepticism is only serving to create more victims? What’s the worst that would happen if what TF and his band of merry deniers were actually WRONG?
Why make such a HUGE deal about the precise numbers to the 10th decimal, preferably verified with supporting documents, affidavits and signed off on by the “This is true yo for realz” commission if the result is to create even more victims (though that may not be the intent, it most certainly IS the result)?
Real people are being harmed in real life because of thunderdolt and his acolytes. This is not some shit that some kind of “middle ground” can be reached.
Oh, man. I got nothing to contribute that hasn’t already been handled in ways that are orders of magnitude above what I can muster. But I’ll add to the chorus.
Jacksul. What you are doing is trying to “protect” others and their fragile feelings, yes? And you don’t understand why people are attacking you for that now, when you were just trying to be so nice, yes?
Think of it this way: what you are doing is imposing your own view of what you think other people want onto them.
I’m trying to think of some analogy that might work. Let’s say one day a friend comes to visit. “Oh, jacksul”, they say, “You don’t look well. I think you should stay home from work today.” But you say “No, I’m fine, and I have an important presentation to make today! If I don’t go to work, I will get fired!” “Oh no,” they say, “You definitely cannot leave the house. You are pale, and have bags under your eyes, you must go back to bed.” And you proceed to try to argue with them that you are fine, and you need and want to go to work and are perfectly capable of working today, but they say “Jacksul, my dearest, I am only protecting you. I know best what you need, and what you need is to go back to bed RIGHT NOW.” And then they lock the front door. Wouldn’t you be frustrated? Wouldn’t you try to tell them that no, they do not know best for you, that you know your own body and your own mind and you can make your own decisions, and they need to leave you alone and let you do what you need to do? And then they would get all hurt and say “But I was just TRYING to protect you, because I KNOW going to work would be bad for you today, so there’s no point fighting about it.”
That’s what you’re doing. You’re declaring what would be “good” or “bad” for rape victims based on your own feelings and interpretations, without considering any input from actual rape victims. You are ignoring what they are saying because you think you know better than they do. You do not.
And as for the “if she were” construction.. hoo, boy. Yes, I actually believe that you did that unintentionally. But guess what? That construction by definition is setting up the sentence as a hypothetical that may or may not have happened. And I bet you would not have used that construction in sentence of another type, say, “Oh jeez, since you lost your eye in a bar fight…” rather than “If you lost your eye in a bar fight, then…” That’s an example of unconscious sexism, right there. That’s the sexism that scares me most. It’s the kind you don’t even notice, and you’d argue to the death that you don’t have because you believe so strongly that you don’t have it, but it’s right there. Watch yourself for the next few months, jacksul. Notice what kinds of rhetoric you use with women v. men. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you use different phrasing with each, and you don’t even know you’re doing it. But it’s there, because it’s so ingrained in you in hundreds of tiny little ways.
Currently the top comment on Matt’s video..
It is pretty much par for the course in the comment section. I tried reasoning with them yesterday. It is indicative of how misinformed a lot of people there are by Thunder…
1.I was called a sexist for focusing on half of the population for talking about harssment and its relationship to rape culture. I told them would I be prejudiced for focusing on minorities rather than talking about everyone. Smae accusation.
2. I was 6told people rape threated RW not because of sexism in the atheist community but because…
a. RW brought it on herself for being a bigot and “feminist” (sic)
b. Rape threats are trolling why don’t I get that?
c. I should be focusing on death threats because they affect everyone and are more serious.
d. why do femsinists blather on about rape?
e. the statistics that half of rapes are unreported are “bullshit” because how can you count them if they are unreported.
f. it wasn’t atheists that made those threats
Plus plenty more it was pretty much fruitless. I do know people becuase of Aron that are mainly youtubers who think that feminism is ruining the movement who are intelligent people who have been fed tripe. RW herself didn’t recognize that harassment was a problem when she was younger. I think becuase there is a lack of awareness of how sexist our culture still is.
I doubt that Rebecca Watson was making rape threats when she was younger and not as enlightened.
@Janine She says in Thunder’s video that she didn’t recognize harassment by other people as a problem.when she was younger as a problem.
edit strike that 2nd “as a problem”
Lilandra, I realize that. But you threw the bit about Rebecca Watson just after you said that many of the people throwing abuse at you were intelligent people fed tripe. Sounded like equivocation.
Also, why aren’t these “intelligent” people unable to think for themselves.
No I said I know people in real life who have been misinformed by Thunder. It is a lack of awareness of how sexist our culture still is. Although I don’t know him personally. Dawkins in a good example.
I don’t know exazttly how much of the youtube commenters are misinformed or just unintelligent.
I didn’t actually say that RW ever made rape threats. I am a little on edge today after being heavily misquoted in Matt’s youtube comment section.
I did not say that you did.
Carlie:
That was a sterling post, Carlie, and I’m quoting this part, because if jacksul doesn’t take away anything else, he needs to take this away until it is so thoroughly pounded into his brain, it pops up before he ever writes or says another word, for the rest of his life.
@266 Caine
Not stalking you Caine – promise – but your comments are always so…on point.
I am a male who also experienced rape (I have difficulty calling myself a rape victim, which is certainly what I was, because…FUCK that guy. That’s why. I won’t be his victim. I don’t mean to minimize others who use the word though).
I don’t like to talk about the abuse I suffered for a number of years as a young boy. Not because it hurts me, but because it’s ancient history. It was at a time when these things were simply not talked about so I felt I didn’t really have “someone to tell” (I did, but my 12 year old brain said it would hurt my parents to tell them. Go figure. Stupid early 1970’s macho mindset). It ended when I had to resort to an unspeakable act of violence to end it. And – sickly – this is one of the reasons I hate the fucker…that he pushed me into that corner. He’s an old man now, and can’t hurt me anymore.
I understand that this is just a comment section on a (somewhat) obscure blog. But it’s a safe place. And it’s becoming easier to speak out safely because of the efforts of people like many of the regular commentors here. Every voice helps. I’d bet most would be surprised to know the number of lurkers who find some solace and strength in something as simple as this comment section.
Do you know how hard it is to have the appearance of a large menacing person (jesus that sounds arrogant…it’s not meant to…my wife says I’m really working the “biker” look…we joke all the time how I get judged by my appearance) who works with sports teams, and to talk openly about my rape experince? You can’t. You get the same shit you hear here “you shouldn’t talk about it”, “I don’t really want to hear that stuff – it probably hurts you to talk about it”. They are so WEAK. Just listen, and try to understand what you can do – in small ways – to minimize this culture and the chance that this may happen to others. I don’t plug my ears when my brown athletes tell me about racism they have experienced…I’m not worried about them being “hurt”. I want to HEAR them so that I can maybe understand my own privlege and their point of view.
Ugh. Sorry. Getting ranty.
Not even sure why I posted, except to say that if I ever do decide to talk about my experience, I don’t need a hug or protection from (is it “white knight”?) idiots.
You could fill a thimble with all the fucks I give about thunderfoot and matt…but I love these comment sections…and I value being able to lurk here. As I said before I am constantly surprised as my consciousness is raised (as lame as it is – this is the 1st time I have heard “white knight”…need to go do some reading).
AP
AP:
I can only imagine how much more difficult that makes it for you to talk out about your experience. Thank you for sharing and bringing your perspective to what is always an important discussion. I’ve found that men who are willing to talk about their experience of being raped have immense value when addressing boys*. Boys often find themselves caught in an agonizing inner torment, because of what they’ve been taught and absorbed about being masculine. The effects are different and no one can address this as well as a man. So thank you, thank you very much.
*And other times and to all audiences!
Thank you.
AP
AP:
Thanks for talking about it. I was raped too, and it took me a long time to be able to say it (or even think it). On the opposite end of the spectrum I worried about people writing it off because I was just a slutty, drunk 17-year-old fag who was “asking for it.” No matter where you fall on the macho-femme spectrum the patriarchy will blame you.
Sheeyit. . where my wine at?
You know, I hope Mr. Nice Guy does wander back in to this thread, so he can see, for himself, that rape can not only happen to anyone, but we are indeed legion and no, we will not be silenced.
Haha great minds think alike…I just poured myself a finlandia vodka…usually prefer “russian standard” but I figure the Finns might know their vodka too (though they should re-think the name…”finlandia’? Really?).
Cheers to you from the east coast of Canada.
AP
AtheistPowerlifter:
Thank you for sharing a painful piece of your past with us. The strength you’ve shown in doing so is incredible.
Josh:
I got yer wine if you fix me a sammich.
Comin’ right up, daddy.
Tee-hee.
Tee-hee-hee-hee.
We got spicy seitan (fake meat, but homemade) and 12-grain bread on the grill. That cool?
so drunk right now good posability I drinked it.
I KNEW somebody drinkeded it. You’re buyin’ next time.
Tony:
Absolutely ditto.
I’ve thought about when I long ago told my story on a Pharyngula thread. The strength came from two discrete emotions: I wanted to be a part of figuratively sticking a thumb in the eye of some utter cupcake, so there was anger. The second emotion was security. I wanted finally to get it out of my head since I’d never said it aloud or even written it down for myself. It couldn’t be wrong here, and no one would agree with all those “it was my fault because” points I’d harbored.
Josh:
Two things.
1- fake meat? What kind of gay man are you??
2-Daddy? We are the same age, remember? Plus you look older…::ducks::
The kind you don’t even want to know about.
Mmm. For values of “older” that include, “OMG, you’re really 38? I thought you were in your 20s! What’s your secret? ” Spray paint.
Athyco:
There was one thread in particular, back at PharyngulaSciborg, where one of the usual assholes showed up and I told the story of my rape. The outpouring of people on that thread, relating their own stories of rape was overwhelming. Readers came out the woodwork to talk, people who had never commented before along with regular members of the commentariat. It was amazing, and powerful and so very emotional. That memory has never left me and it strengthens my resolve to never be silenced.
That was it. I know for you that the strengthened resolve not to be silenced is primary, but I hope you feel a glimmer occasionally of how absofuckinglutely AWESOME you are to us (former and current) woodwork denizens for having led that charge.
Athyco, thank you.
*blushes*
Hey, why are you drunk guys with sammiches staring?
As long as they’re staring, might as well get us a couple of sammiches. Hop to it, guys. :D
Done eated ’em all. Sorry ladies:(
I’m staring at that sexy 38 year old in a 20something body making me a grilled cheese sammich…
Josh:
Make more. Back in the kitchen, dear.
Caine:
I don’t think you’re “a fragile little doll.” I don’t think that you need protection, but I did not want to cause you any harm. I don’t know you yet. The first words out of your mouth to me were that you were rapped. I have never encountered a rape victim and so my heart sank. I simply didn’t want to hurt you so decided to play it safe and recommend that you and I, specifically you and I, do not engage in debate with each other directly on any issues that had any chance of hurting you. That is, unless you wanted to. Basically it is your choice. Of course, and I though obviously, I wasn’t trying to shut you up. I wasn’t trying to dictate anything to you (or anybody else.) I wasn’t trying to imply that you would be blinded by the horror of past experiences and unable to be objective. If you thought I was trying to do any of those things then I apologize to you personally.
You and I do have disagreements You think that there is no making peace with someone who insists on viewing women as objects. I think that anybody who values science, skepticism, and the enlightenment ideals is worth trying to make peace with, that includes racists, misogynists, neo-nazis, creationists, anybody. This is an argument I am willing to have with you, but only if you want to.
I saw many people who I respected on youtube and many people who I respected on FTB fighting each other and I felt sick. I hated it. I wanted everybody to just get along. In this argument I don’t have enough information, yet, to decide who to support. (that is not an equivocation, it is an expression of personal ignorance)
Again, I’m sorry to you personally. I never had any reason to cast doubt on your story and if that was implied by my slightly confusing sentence structure then I am sorry.
carlie:
We agree and disagree.
Here is where we agree. I think you are right about “the kind you don’t even notice, and you’d argue to the death that you don’t have because you believe so strongly that you don’t have it.” That is the most dangerous and I hope you keep fighting against it.
Here is where we disgree. I still maintain that my statement didn’t cast any doubt on Caine’s story. I just talk like that. I often say things like: “If climate change is caused by human activity, then we have a responsibility to repair it,” OR “If evolution is a fact, then there is no clear line between a 6 month fetus and an 8 month fetus,” without casting any doubt on climate change or evolution, but perhaps it is time to stop writing in this CS style since it can obviously lead to misunderstanding.
[meta]
jacksul:
Your heartfelt apology is severely undermined by this feeble excuse.
Look:
It was quite literally phrased as a conditional, though you imagine you were making a statement, because you tried to be orotund. People have tried to tell you how it came across, and you persist in seeking to excuse yourself on the basis of good intent.
(You’re not getting it)
—
My unsolicited advice: when you can make a simple statement, be literal — not metaphorical or rhetorical — until you get the feel for this place.
(Also, try to be clear as to what you hold as factual, what is your inference, and what is your opinion)
[meta]
PS It irks me when people misuse words; ‘if’ and ‘given’ are not interchangeable!
PPS Welcome to Pharyngula, jacksul.
jacksul:
You have, though – it’s statistically inevitable that you haven’t – but you didn’t know it, because they weren’t talking about it. That’s why it’s so important not to assume, not to talk about rape as some rare exception or abstract concept, and especially not to use thoughtless doubt-reflecting phrases like “IF x was raped” whether or not you personally meant anything by doing so. Clear?
But now you know, eh? It’s a start.
(even racists, misogynists, and neo-nazis, hmm? *headshake* This is where I guess you don’t belong to any of the groups likely to get racist/misogynist/queer-hatred/ablism’d at, who likely take it more seriously than you do. But I’m sure we’ll all get to that very shortly. Good luck.)
O.o
Wha?
Think about what you are saying here! A person who views you as an object is not very likely to listen respectfully to you, are they? Duh. How will these peace negotiations work?
Seriously, you need to get a grip.
Jacksul
You don’t get out much do you?
I know! Let’s do jacksul a helpful reading list. My suggestions are
1. Refusing to be a Man, John Stoltenberg – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Refusing-Be-Man-John-Stoltenberg/dp/0006381375/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357391998&sr=1-1
2. A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Mary Wollestonecraft – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vindication-Rights-Woman-Dover-Thrift/dp/0486290360/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357392102&sr=1-4
Both are available from many other outlets, as the BBC is obliged to say.
It’s puff-puff-PASS. That amount of weed isn’t good for anyone, son.
But seriously, I, for one, would really, REALLY, value your insight on science, reason and especially Enlightenment ideals as they pertain to racism, misogyny, Nazism and creationism. How can one value science, for example, and be a creationist? The very act of being a creationist, of making creationist claims, or adhering to those beliefs, is precisely to violate the very processes that underpin science. To be a creationist one must abandon science, reason and Enlightenment ideals. And that’s just the simplest example. Racism and misogyny and Nazism all fall foul of these things you claim to hold so dear.
It’s pretty clear to me that your desire to avoid interpersonal conflict (if indeed you are sincere at all) outstrips your ability to reason, and the understanding of the topics you are discussing. Sorry if that’s a little harsh, but anyone ill-informed enough (and that is the most charitable interpretation of your words) to claim that you would be happy to make “peace” (whatever that means) with the oxymoronic “science loving, reason based, Enlightenment idealist creationist” of your dreams is someone in dire need of some actual understanding of those words and concomitant subjects.
There is a reason you are attracting opprobrium from the assembled Horde of Phrayngula, and that’s because your claims/ideas thus far are not merely wrong, they’ve yet to achieve the lofty heights of being wrong, they are incoherent, internally contradictory, and thus, laughable. Wrong would be a step up. Couple that to your (perhaps inadvertent) dismissal of the testimony of well known posters here who have been raped and, well, you’re in for a hard time.
My advice, for what it’s worth, a whole lot more readybooky-thinky, a whole tonne less posty-whiny.
Louis
Hooray for Louis!
So if jacksul (and the countless others like him) think they’ve never met a rape victim, hmmmmm.
I wonder if they’ve also never met a person who’s suffered domestic violence. Because those numbers are a bit larger.
Or are these mysterious people all supposed to live and work and shop and study and travel anywhere except where jacksul (and others) happen to pass their time. If you know more than 4 women, then you almost certainly know at least one who’s been on the receiving end of domestic violence.
As for ….
You really need to be clear on what words like science and skepticism mean. Anyone who claims to be skeptical who also is convinced that there is any merit at all in racism and/ or misogyny or believes themselves to be immune from cultural messages about such things –
– is doin’ it rong.
And if they are not skeptical or scientific or honest or decent in the way they think and the way they talk, would you still think it worthwhile to compromise or to accommodate them? I hope not.
Jacksul:
That was an apology?
Dude, an apology is when you say
“I am sorry.”
It doesn’t matter what you ‘meant’ to do. We do not know what goes on in your head, only what we see here. A statement beginning with ‘If’, such as the one you produced, immediately casts doubt on what follows. You do not understand how certain words in the English language work. You would do well to ho learn and come back with a real apology, not a half hearted politician type notpology.
Ah, you obviously don’t get it. Those who value science, skepticism and enlightenment can’t be racists, misogynists, creationists, etc., which requires one to presuppose idiocy. They aren’t anybody I care to associate with, or make peace with, until they renounce their idiocy. And you for this idiocy.
There is nothing to argue. You have a fallacious presuppostition, and until you renounce it, there is nothing to discuss.
I’m still reeling from the admonition from our excitingly pacific chum that there exists such a thing as a science and scepticism valuing, Enlightenment ideal adhering creationist.
I mean, racists and misogynists might take a little bit more effort to realise they’re anti-Enlightenment anti-evidence bozos. But I’d have thought even the most neophyte “sceptic” and science advocate would have worked out by now that creationism isn’t exactly derived from a principled and evidence based study of the relevant science.
More than that, the lack of self reflection involved in a statement that would include making peace with the modern day equivalent of Josef Mengele (a science valuing Nazi of yore), borders on the arse quakingly staggering.
I have to second PZ with his recent use of Voltaire’s ‘”I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.’. Seriously, anyone shallow enough and clueless enough about the actual nature of science, reason, scepticism and especially the Enlightenment (presumably the Scottish and other European ones) who would make “peace” with Mengele and Hovind because those guys talked a nice game about their love of science…seriously this is fractally wrong. Where the hell does one even begin with mammering, wilful stupidity of this nature? Statements like this don’t merely show someone accidentally being a bit daft, they show someone throwing the very things they claim to value behind them as they flee even the slightest conflict. This isn’t cowardice, this is borderline pathology.
I can only mock it. I certainly can’t take this sort of thing seriously.
Louis
Bloody hell. And you were doing so well, too.
Much better, except
Then you do it again.
Seriously. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don’t mean to sound like an asshole, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is in fact what you sound like.
Try using “since” or something. Or if in doubt, just a plain “I’m sorry”. Sometimes, less is more. E.g.
Shorter, to the point, less chance for misunderstandings. It doesn’t have to be difficult.
http://www.wikihow.com/Apologize
You can make peace with racists and misogynists over there, far away from me.
@Pteryxx
Very handy link. There’s one bit that’s particularly relevant for this situation:
jacksul (#400)
You need to spend some time learning how words work. B directly contradicts the first half of A. When you “play it safe” because you don’t want to hurt someone, you are trying to protect them. Like, if you wrap padding over the exposed corners of your glass coffee table before your sister brings her 18-month-old over, you’re protecting your niece or nephew. Also, you’re still assuming you have some sort of power over Caine, like you could make her do anything she doesn’t want.
So you’re willing to sacrifice billions of people on the altar of your god, skepticism. And for what? What is so great about skepticism that we should make concessions to the skeptics who hurt people?
Your fanaticism is exactly why you need to hear stories like Caine’s—you need to know what the cost is of being chums with misogynists and their cheerleaders. You don’t want to cause harm to rape victims? What the fuck do you think it does to value skepticism before doing right by other people? (And don’t you dare go off on how skepticism will make us all better people if we just do it “right.”)
It’s attitudes like yours that prevent people from ever doing skepticism “right”—the attitude that skepticism is a set of formulas that you can apply to anything, and that as long as you’re applying them, you’ve the superior position. I mean, look at you with your bullshit false equivalences and the “wouldn’t you want to know if you were wrong?” question you think works regardless of context.
Then where the fuck do you get off telling everyone to kiss and make up!? Would you step into a violent domestic dispute without knowing the situation behind it, tell both members of the couple just to get along and consider the other might be in the right, and send them home together?
jacksul, I see you still don’t understand. Anything. Seeing your idea of an apology to me, I have one thing to say: that is not an apology. You don’t know anyone who has been raped? Oh my. I’m afraid you do, jacksul. 1 in 6 women are raped and that’s not including the stats of men and children who are raped. You know plenty of people who have been raped. You simply don’t want to know. That’s not their problem, it’s yours. A problem you might want to get busy fixing.
As for your “kiss and make up” program, that’s a big fat NO. There are all manner of people who believe things which do nothing but damage and harm. I’m not playing kissy love with them. Ever. You’re the guy who would stuff his hands in his pockets, look at the ground, and turn your back when others were being dragged off screaming, aren’t you? Never thought I’d see such a specimen in the wild.
I’ll tell you what I’ve told others – rather than showing up here, scolding those of us who fight for right, go off and scold those who wish to deny certain people the status of human being. Here’s a wee challenge – read this post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/21/an-experiment-why-do-you-despise-feminism/ – note there are 1,380 comments. Read every single fucking one of the comments, jacksul. Once you have done that, unleash your magic formula for enlightenment on all those who hate us uppity bitches and the manginas who support us. Go ahead. We’ll wait.
I’ll mark a probable response for sometime after 2015.
Pffffffffft, we’ll get the same response we always get – none.
If.
IF!
Get thee fucked.
You don’t get to use the word “if” anymore.
Be better.
Feline, I have a sense that ‘if’ is jacksul’s security blanket. Doesn’t seem to make a move without it.
If jacksul had a dictionary, he would know what words mean.
If jacksul was taught how to apologize, he hadn’t made such a lesson apparent.
What ideals are those? They sound like shitty ideals
Ing:
They also bear zero resemblance to any enlightenment. I’m afraid yet another person has shown up with no working knowledge of history whatsoever. Any enlightenment which worked as “Hey, okay, look, we’ll play doormat. Everything alright now, old chap?” would be news to me.
Hitler as Philosophe: Remnants of the Enlightenment in [Nazism]
Making peace with any of these groups will mean that I have to deny my rights and my humanity.
Also, none of them values science, skepticism and enlightenment values.
Jacksul, just an other fool who does not know the argument yet feels that he should dictate how we shall act.
You are not an ally.
SG:
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that’s what jacksul’s getting at. He seems rather anxious to defend his “we should be nice to everyone, no matter what” notion of how to deal with any and all people and any and all ideas and ideologies.
This is all very odd for me. I have never run across anyone who has taken Nice Guy Syndrome to such extremes. It’s difficult for me to take it seriously because all I’m seeing is the absurdity of it all.
Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six absurd things before breakfast.
Could be. My guess was that jacksul has the vague notion that {all good modern things} depend upon the Enlightenment, and in such a way that we have to uncritically accept everything which ever invoked the Enlightenment or else {terrible things} will happen.
Obvious point of my link is: Nazism may indeed be predicated upon some Enlightenment values.
My implicit point, now explicit for jacksul’s sake: that doesn’t mean we have to be nice to Nazis. Civilization did not collapse because of the Nuremberg trials. (Biblical fundamentalists are afraid of picking and choosing. Skeptics ought not be.)
@Maureen, 314
I must protest! Tapeworms are beautiful and intricately built creatures. Owlglass’s paragraph was ugly, awkward, and nonsensical. You have slandered a worthy invertebrate!
@Caine, 346
I hope I’m at least 40% as kick-ass as you when I grow up.
@jacksul, 400
Ah, that explains why your writing sounds so weird. You clearly have no experience speaking with other humans. Is English similar to Wolf? How’s the learning curve between those languages? I mean, it’s hard enough to learn tonal Chinese, I can’t imagine dealing with a smell-based language.
I like that this is your reaction to Caine of her own free will bringing up her experiences, as if she somehow doesn’t know what she’s doing with this whole talking thing and can’t protect herself if she needs to. And by “like” I mean “find repellant”. *
*This paragraph may not make sense. I can’t figure out how to make it clearer and I’m sorry.
Caine
OK. Nice Guy Syndrome is usually obscuring some pretty toxic notions about women (or whatever) and in the atheo-skepto world the language often moves in the hyper-skeptic direction.
But there’s no real reason why NGS can’t be the icing hiding the wishy-washy cake of new agey notions – which unfortunately bear much too close a resemblance to a stereotypical granny’s notions of ‘nice’ people don’t talk about ‘that sort of thing’. Unfortunately the wishy-washy hybrid also tries to obscure the fact that some things really are absolutely wrong whether you do or don’t want to talk about them and you must choose which people you will support and which people you will oppose. And you cannot avoid doing this openly and standing your ground when the opposition comes back at you.
Behind closed doors and whispers behind hands are the behaviours that have allowed these evils to survive and to thrive in our cultures. jacksul and others who get the vapours when all of us in your face loudmouths get up a head of rage should stay right out of the way. Flapping and faffing about trying to get everyone everywhere to be nice to everyone else anywhere is pointless and you might just get caught up in a stampede.
If jacksul does not have enough good sense to shut the fuck up,
then jacksul should explain what bad things will happen if we do not make peace with neo-Nazis et al.
[OT]
Everyone pretend that the word “languages” appeared in my comment at 432 behind the word “Chinese” in the real world and not just in my head.
Here are the sources, that I should bring on. Emphasis on occasion by me. Links looked funky, so I removed the http.
Yawn, what were you trying to prove fuckwit? I see nothing but bullshit, as we cannot easily confirm what you claim. Funny how we still have no evidence refuting PZ’s definition, or that PZ’s definition isn’t found in broader claims. Almost like it doesn’t exist except in the paranoia of MRA fuckwits.
I will be sure to inform the both the anarcha-feminists and mainstream feminists that they are actually marxists.
I’m not any more Marxist than your run of the mill socialist.
What a shocker, people who subscribe to one social justice issue also frequently subscribe to others.
Yes, you’ll find a lot more Marxist-feminists than libertarian-feminists. That’s because one of those is supported by evidence and coherent, the other is not. And feminism is about breaking the stranglehold of the rulers over the ruled, not reinforcing it.
I think owlglass presumes to much. For example that the word “Marxist” is a dirty one…
Gnumann:
I think Owlglass is a fuckwitted pisscake.
I was in University during the ‘Nam war and the radicalization of campuses (including mine). Most of what liberturds and RWA fuckwits call “Marxist” is nothing but liberal/progressive in American politics, but they think if they can make the label stick they demonstrated extremism. But the extremism is theirs, not the feminists….
“pisscake”
Try to market that!
I knew that my mom was angry when she gave me a pisscake for desert.
Is pisscake similar to beerbread?
Janine:
Heh. My way of saying urinal cake. There is that scene in Just Visiting where Andre discovers a urinal cake, breaks it up into small pieces and offers everyone a “mint”. Hunter is the only one who happily crunches on one besides Andre.
It is a little more, shall we say, processed? than beer bread.
What was all that from owlglass. I ideology a bad word now as well? Here’s a secret skepticism is an ideology too O.O!
It’s even more funny because the practical politics of the US leftwing is roughly equal to the right wing in my neck of the woods.
And if Oliver Crangle is to be believed, our taxes are lower.
Owlglass:
Ok, so now you have sources. What opinion are you trying to support with them?
Can anyone translate this?
This is a job for Bad Translator!
This is the original ear.
Hmpth.
I have never been raped. I was, however, abused as a child.
Here are various things I have been told on the topic:
(1) It doesn’t count because my abuser was female.
(2) It doesn’t count because it wasn’t sexual.
(3) It doesn’t count because it was a relative.
(4) It doesn’t count because she was only like that when she was on drugs, and it stopped when she got clean.
(5) It doesn’t count because I decided that clean-person deserved to be forgiven for the crimes that on-drugs-person did, after clean-person approached me and sincerely apologized.
[etc]
I can guess as to what I would have gotten had it been sexual / done by a man, and I don’t think it would have been whole-hearted support.
What is wrong with these people; abuse is abuse. It leaves a mark on the child.
Ah, but telling a lonely autistic child that the entire world hates them? Totes not that bad, amirite?
PZ’s definition!? And where did you pull that from? I have no problem with calling the campaigning for woman’s rights and fair treatment as “feminism”, if this was your point. But that doesn’t hold water when people (i.e. comment section) get holier than the pope, are routinely and needlessly rude, and claim it was all clear and easy and everyone would agree on everything but the douches. EEEK. Wrong. Now you’ve got quotes from wikipedia, Stanford Encyclopedia, an article from Harvard Magazine TELLING YOU that you are mistaken. Do I need to come over and read it out loud for you? Here is what you said, when I wrote it was “complex”:
Evidently not. Either you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, or you got something wrong (since I wasn’t discussing with you at that point). In which case, it’s quite bad to be that rude. And nope, I am not using Marxism to make feminism look bad. Feminist theory has a history in the political left spectrum and in social science, humanities, i.e. Geisteswissenschaften and there are historically some issues with natural sciences (even recently there were discussions on the validity of philosophy). Then consider that atheism is often (unfairly) conflated with communism anyway, because its ideology also contains atheism and a science-based approach, and you see why socialist or marxist feminism comes to mind. I am not judging, I was asking questions (because things aren’t clear and easy at all). If you frame issues with this perspective, then unfair treatment of women and aforementioned systematic disadvantages are around “property”, and religious issues like virginity, Purity Ball, or Woman in Islam are technically symptoms. That’s one reading.
· · ·
Personally, I am an Anti-Theist. In a nutshell, religions are based on irrationality (core problem) where people are then prone to all kinds of bullshit told to them by authorities and tradition, which are outdated, and then often homophobe and misogynist. When the influence of religion wanes, I observe that the situation for both women and homosexuals tends to improve. Other than that, I lean towards Evolutionary Humanism, where the problems between Humanities and natural sciences are at least identified.
This is why I watch what I say to children. I do not like to say anything that implies that they may be stupid, unloved or anything like that.
I do try to tune down my sarcasm and bitterness.
Well that neatly takes care of misogyny and homophobia in the atheist community.
Cupcake, can you please demonstrate how the (non-polemic of) those quotes conflict with PZ’s definition?
Nepenthe, in my opinion moderators, organizers and staff does, unless there are structural issues. For example, when there is lack of women speakers at conventions, the organizers have to invite more of them. Sexist behavior must be dealt with where it occurs, it must be reported, there must be easily accessible channels where reports are taken seriously and then there must be some consequence to the offender.
You are pretending your OPINION is anything other than abject BULLSHIT. It is bullshit. Who care what an IDJIT thinks? Try again with real evidence, and real cogency. Starting, I’m sorry I’m a fuckwitted idjit….
And PZ’s definition of Feminism, which we are all using:
Show your links to refute this definition, not your straw definition, or shut the fuck up as the abject loser you are….
That’s a good definition I find agreeable. Where is your issue?
Your issue seems to be that you don’t think that this is the definition. Or something. You seem to be blathering incoherently.
@Owlglass
Here’s an idea:
1) Summarize your basic point
2) Give your argument
3) Provide any relevant sources to solidify your premises
4) Summarize your point
All in the same post, so its completely clear to everyone. So far, the main problem seems to be your inability to express yourself clearly, so try to do something about that.
Notice how I didn’t say sexual harrassment or obvious sex-based bias or literal gay bashing, I said sexism and homophobia. I fail to see how moderators, organizers and staff are going to prevent any of the millions of attitudes and microaggressions that constitute those.
@Nerd
No, we are not all using that definition, but thanks for playing.
Re: PZ v. Thunderf00t
I’m trying to read all of your comments but it is difficult. It’s hard to empathize with all of you individually. I sometimes try to imagine how I would deal with someone that would not stop trying to be “neutral” between creationism and evolution. I’m sure it would be tiring. I’m sure I’d be tempted to just write the person off.
Re: what my comments meant or implied about rape
There’s only one person in the universe who actually knows what I meant by my comments. That’s me. There has been much speculation since. I’m starting to understand why politicians speak is such an odd way. I just speak my mind and don’t worry about being misinterpreted, which can sometimes lead to personal relationship problems, but it works so long as everybody gives everybody else the benefit of the doubt. I’m right here. If you want to know what I meant by something then just ask me. It is very simple.
PS I noticed thunderf00t released a new video “Why ‘Feminism’ is poisoning Atheism (Part 2).” Even though he was trying to paint the woman as absurd, I found myself agreeing more with her case than his. Everything she said sounded entirely reasonable and fair. If anybody knows her name (he didn’t post it) then I’d like to know. She seemed like the kind of fair-minded skeptic that I’d like to support.
Once again: the fact that I am able to make this post proves that FTB is not “afraid of criticism” and doesn’t ban people just because they disagree with some made up FTB doctrine. I’ll remind youtube of that… again.
I did already.
@jacksul
By Jove! I think we have some insight appearing. Traditionally, I would now ask “and how’s that workin’ out for you, Sparky?”
Oh. Well, that answers that question. So what you’re saying is that in situations like this, where we have no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt, it doesn’t work. Is it painful to be that un-self-aware?
I note that giving you the benefit of the doubt here requires us to assume that you may speak a version of English where if does something other than introduce a conditional clause. That’s a pretty strong requirement for suspension of disbelief.
Right you did. My fault. There have been so many comments here it is hard to keep up with.
I don’t know that anything bad will happen, but I thouhg that we skeptics have this method for working out controversial issues.
Assume that you have a disagreement with a neo-nazi holocaust revisionist. What can you do? There’s probably no hope of getting through to him. (they are usually guys)
But if the holocaust revisionist you encounter is a skeptic, then it is an entirely different game. You both agree on standards of evidence and have defined methods for getting at the truth. You can sit down and talk to this person. You can be confident that they will come to the conclusion that the holocaust did in fact happen. We have very good evidence for it, but it was worth the effort. It doesn’t matter what you believe or what they believe or what is more desirable. The evidence and the truth will determine what you believe.
I’m open to the possibilities but I’m happy that the real evidence of biology, evolutionary psychology and sociology points against racism and neo-nazis! The real evidence also points towards social justice. As free exchange of ideas grows, the status of women will grow (and has been growing). If you think women are less intelligent then men, then that’s ok. Lets examine your theory. Lets give it a fair trial in the peer reviewed literature. Well it turns out your theory was wrong. All the evidence points to women being just as intelligent as men. The only way that you can argue women are less intelligent than men is to seal your society off from criticism and discourse like North Korea. Your backwards ideas about male superiority are simple, objectively, wrong.
Neo-Nazis are only worth talking to if they are also skeptics. As skeptics, then they wont remain neo-nazis for long.
You reach out to the skeptical neo-nazis.
I want nothing to do with them.
Then you have no basis on which to claim that they are worth trying to make peace with. There is no downside to not making peace with them.
Right, so your definition of a skeptic is one that excludes people who do not come to reality-based conclusions when confronted with evidence.
That’s fine. I’m inclined to agree with your definition.
But then here’s the thing: we’ve already gone around and around with Thunderfoot. It turns out that he is not a skeptic.
jacksul (#465)
No.
The benefit of the doubt is something you have to earn. It’s not something you get to demand to make up for the fact that you’re a sloppy thinker and shitty writer. And anyway, if you knew the first damn thing about sexism, you wouldn’t ask that. We all grew up in a society steeped in sexism, where misogyny is normalized, so it’s foolish and pointless to assume people we don’t know aren’t sexist or, at least, unwittingly carrying around a lot of sexist baggage.
“Not sexist” is not the default. “Not sexist” is not something you can just decide to be and you’re done—poof, no longer sexist. It’s an ongoing process of hard work deconverting your mind from the sexist defaults. So, unless you’re willing to show evidence of that work, like everyone else around here does, you don’t get the benefit of the doubt.
It’s very simple for you, maybe. What’s very simple for the rest of us is taking you at your word. If you don’t like that, then start worrying about being misinterpreted just like everyone else who cares about how they come off to others.
(#468)
*facepalm* Not only do you not know how language works, you don’t know how people work, either.
Remember how up in 417 I asked “What is so great about skepticism that we should make concessions to the skeptics who hurt people?” And how I followed it a few sentences later with, “(And don’t you dare go off on how skepticism will make us all better people if we just do it ‘right.’)”? Yeah…
You need to try again. Like, pay attention to how the world actually works. Maybe, I dunno, stop naively believing that when people call themselves skeptics they are, or ever will be, fair-minded people who act in line with skeptical values.
Why should we do so for you? You haven’t earned it with your concern trolling and “golden middle” bullshit. You and your thoughts are given their due respect, which is shoveled into the trash.
Why are you saying that here? Why not at the Slymepit, where they will laugh at you, mock you, and ignore the evidence that doesn’t fit their presuppositions. THEY AREN’T LISTENING. Meanwhile, shut up over here, as you aren’t saying anything cogent until you acknowledge the fact they aren’t rational, or behaving rational.
This imaginary premise you’re supposing here is just fucking sad. For you and everyone’s benefit, just stop it.
It’s making you and whatever point you’re trying to make come off as anything but skeptical. It’s making you come off as a magical thinker.
Jacksul, you are pretending that if a person is skeptical about one thing, they are skeptical and rational about all things. This is a fallacious presupposition on your part, showing prima facie evidence for your own lack of skeptical thinking on this subject. There is a myriad of data showing skeptics have “blind spots” where they don’t apply their skepticism to, and won’t apply their skepticism to, no matter how much data and rational argument you shovel their way, including you. This is just sad on your part.
A. Noyd: You’re right. This whole TF PZ thing has finally convinced me that you’re right.
I can’t figure out why but this thread and this argument has been dominating my thinking. I think about it at work, on the trains, at home. I can’t stop. I’m obsessed with the fact you people can’t just figure it out and get to a consensus. I think you hit it.
Years ago when I first became an atheist I got so excited about the books by Michael Skermer and Carl Sagan about this wonderful self-correcting method. When someone asked, “how can you evolutionists be so damned confident?” then I could anwser them: “We have a method for getting to the truth.”
Since then I have been eagerly awaiting a really big argument within the skeptic/atheist community so I could see how this will work in practice. There would be no straw-manning, rigorous self-criticism, thought experiments framed and agreed on by both sides.
But you’re right. Carl Sagan sold me on an ideal that doesn’t seem to exist. I’ve sense got involved in some scientific peer review (needing lots of proofreading as you can see) and real peer review is, in fact, a messy political process. Similarly when real skeptics fight each other, inside the academy or outside the academy, we don’t act like Mr. Spock. We act like tribal apes.*
*I’m don’t mean to imply that both sides are acting equally like tribal apes
Gee, idealism, not reality. I noticed that 20+ years ago. Why is it taking you so long to notice? Somehow, the inability to shut the fuck up and listen appears to be absent.
jacksul:
Have you come to understand that “if she was raped…” implies that you think maybe she was raped” or “maybe she wasn’t raped”? Do you yet see how fucked up it is to doubt someone who tells you they have been raped? Do you understand what a conditional word is?
I have no idea why it took so long. Carl Sagan’s presentation skills?
Tony, I never doubted it. But yes, I understand that the way I phrased it could carry that implication. I never had any reason to doubt it. Not only would doubting it be fucked up, it would be absurd. There is no reason to doubt it. But it was really, honestly, just a poor choice of words. I know half the people on FTB wont believe me, but that’s the truth. Do you believe me at least?
Yeah… if only.
If you’re relatively new to this particular fight, I suggest having a skim over one sub-kerfuffle which has a convenient timeline here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/06/15/harassment-policies-campaign-timeline-of-major-events/
It’s pretty clear where actual research and information came forth and where, very shortly, the resistance to same began.
Also keep in mind that a great deal of personal bias is unconscious. People really believe they’re being rational and fair when their unconscious bias is operating in full swing, and that’s true for everyone, no matter how loudly they say ‘But I treat everyone equally!’ (See the link roundup in the sidebar for research on unconscious bias.)
Remember that Sagan also addressed how difficult it is for even scientists, who ideally should know better, to let go of their cherished assumptions?
I don’t think so Tim. Look in the mirror. Idealism run rampant.
Ideals don’t exist. That’s why they’re called “ideals” rather than “reality.”
Premise 1: Choices are influenced by subconscious bias
Premise 2: Sexism is a common unconscious bias in this society
Premise 3: Jacksul grew up in this society
Conclusion: __________________ (Go ahead, Jacksul)
Given that both sides are composed of tribal apes, I think that’s an implication that’s inescapable.
You’re asking the wrong questions.
Is there something wrong with acting like a tribal ape?
Does acting like a tribal ape necessarily reflect on the quality of the argument said ape is presenting?
So….you’ve had your head in sand since listening to Sagan?
Really, after all the shit that’s gone down in the past year alone, how oblivious to you have to be?
(my emphasis)
could be? There’s no other way to understand the phrase “if she was raped…”. Seriously.
That’s not an apology.
That’s dismissal and denial. You didn’t use “if” once, which is an improvement but you are still being a weeble-wobble. And contrary to the marketing add, those do fall down.
You don’t seem to understand anything being explained to you.
Oh, and are you still defending your words by demanding an apology from me and LykeX?
If so, hahahahahaahahah NO.
What do you want from me? Do you want me to apologize for casting doubt on a rape? I know very well that I never doubted the rape. I never intended to cast doubt on the rape. The apology would be a lie.
Richard Dawkins says things like: “If evolution happened…” I know what he means. Please, please, please understand that I never doubted the rape. Why in the world would I???
jacksul
Why did you?
[ask yourself]
When I ask myself, I get only one answer: I didn’t. (at least I didn’t intend to)
Why does Richard Dawkins cast doubt on evolution?
What am I missing here?
jacksul:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2012/10/12/ouch/
Also the link to ‘how to apologize’ I posted up at #414. Just apologize *for what you said*, not what you supposedly meant or thought or intended, and don’t do it again.
I’m not a psychic so your claim is shit to me. I can’t know that unless I believe in your character – which I don’t.
Your intention doesn’t mean shit. If you accidentally bump into someone, when you didn’t intend to, don’t you say, “Opps! I’m sorry!”. Because you bumped into them.
If you say, “Happy Birthday!” to someone and they respond with “It’s not my birthday.”, wouldn’t you say, “Oh, I’m sorry’.
Adding “I didn’t mean too” means nothing. Adding “if” completely turns it into a notapology.
Obviously, this is nothing compared to what you did here (and really the “if she was raped…” is only one thing on a long list) but I’m trying to keep it simple enough for you to understand.
So you’re an asshole who isn’t sorry for casting doubt on rape survivor.
Funny on how you could easily do this apology correctly in #225:
Yet you cling to your iffy wording excuse and exclaim:
fuck actually apologizing to those rape victims I questioned and tried to silence.
See Sally’s #482
Pharyngula does clue by fours and is known as the shark tank. You want someone to coo and aww over your Nice Guy bullshit act, go somewhere else. Or learn it here the hard way – it’s been quite effective for others but I doubt you’ll last, chew toy.
jacksul:
Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?
It has been explained MULTIPLE fucking times:
Your use of the word “IF” does cast doubt on Caine’s rape. Period. There is no escaping it.
You say you never doubted that she was raped.
Yet the fucking words you typed out clearly show that you doubted it.
You didn’t believe her based on your words.
And you still don’t understand what a conditional word is.
“If…then” Go fucking look it up for chrissakes.
Let me frame this differently.
3 years ago today, I found my best friend dead of a drug related heart attack (a few weeks before his 30th birthday).
It fucking sucked. It was the absolute worst loss of my life.
Having revealed that, if you said:
“If your best friend died 3 years ago…” I would be incensed. There is no “IF”. It is a fact.
Just like it is a fact that Caine’s rape happened.
No “if”.
Never an “if”.
“IF” casts doubt.
Don’t want to cast doubt?
Don’t use “IF”.
Do you get it now, you insulting shithead?
The apology wouldn’t be honest. I can’t apologize for intentionally making an accusation, when I know that I did not intentionally make that accusation. It would be a non-pology like “I’m sorry my meaning was not clearly expressed by my poor choice of words.”
As for doing it again: I will not to do it again on this blog. On other forums, I might do it again. I’ll feel free to use the same sort of rhetoric that Dawkins uses in his books, and I will trust people to give me the benefit of the doubt in the same way that I give every one of you the benefit of the doubt.
jacksul:
I suspect you don’t understand the context of whatever quote you’re using from Richard Dawkins. Until you provide the full context, we cannot know if he used “IF” in the same manner as you did.
It also doesn’t change the fact that your use of the word “IF” implies that doubt.
End of story.
Sorry I change my mind given one point by carlie
“That’s the sexism that scares me most. It’s the kind you don’t even notice, and you’d argue to the death that you don’t have because you believe so strongly that you don’t have it, but it’s right there.”
carlie: I should add that you might be right. I grew up in a sexist society. So of course it is still it is possible that some sexist ideas have crept in to my mind without me knowing. I don’t think that is what happened here, but it must happen sometimes. All we can do is try to purge such ideas from ourselves when and if we catch them.
Apologize for accidentally making an accusation.
Then you’ll hurt and silence other rape victims, because there are a hell of a lot of us, even though most don’t feel safe saying so because of people who say “IF you were raped” and similar.
IF you actually care about not hurting rape victims, then learn not to use the ‘if’ construction when speaking about rape. It’s hurtful regardless of your personal private not-telepathically-broadcast intentions.
jacksul @ #491
*ahem*
http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/intent-its-fucking-magic/
addendum: and don’t use the ‘if’ construction when apologizing, either. That’s in the how-to-apologize, too.
AN APOLOGY DOESN’T IMPLY INTENT, YOU DUMBFUCK.
That’s what you’ve been doing, you insensitive jackass!
Newsflash: you aren’t Dawkins and Dawkins isn’t a fucking saint. If he said, “if she was raped…” he’d get the same fucking treatment.
Go jump in the slympit, you sleezy stubborn douchebag. See, this clinging to “I’ll do it on other forums” shit really, really makes me think (just like I suggested up thread) that you have pulled shit this on other victims and hurt them by it. Given how many rape survivors there are, it’s practically guaranteed. And I’d bet money every time he doubled down and spit in their faces like he has here.
I seriously don’t understand people like you jacksul. I’ve apologized to mannequins many times for running into them. Why is this so difficult?
Say “I’m”. Then say “sorry”. Now run them together quicker and you have “I’m sorry.”
Even that would be a start.
Say “I’m sorry Caine. I understand what I did wrong and I won’t do it again” and you’d really be going somewhere.