You know you’re a Republican when…


You fall for a Sacha Baron Cohen stunt.

The guy is a gun nut named Dan Roberts, and is considering suing Baron Cohen for tricking him into doing something humiliating.

If I were in such a situation, I’d be arguing with the guy and refusing to go along, and I think that might be the difference. It’s not whether you’re conservative or stupid, it’s about how willing one is to submit to authority.

Comments

  1. redwood says

    Submission to authority. The older I get, the more I see this happen. If someone insists on some action long enough, the person on the other end will usually give in. Maybe they’re tired or don’t really care, but it’s just shocking how easy people are manipulated. The Turnip administration does this all the time with the “big lies,” repeated over and over.

  2. says

    My biggest problem with these idiots’ protestations is, how can they not possibly know it’s a put on with all the prosthetics that Cohen is wearing. It’s completely obvious for anyone with half a brain that something is off about this guy when you see him. then you notice things like a permanently furrowed brow as well has eyebrows that NEVER MOVE! If they’re so stupid that can’t figure this out, they deserve the humiliation. Fuck ’em.

  3. nomadiq says

    I think you nailed it with the ‘submit to authority’ thing. Cohen has got these guys to do the most outrageous things especially when he plays the role of Israeli military guy. Cohen knows what he is doing. The right-wingers love the way Israel is free to punish and humiliate its opposition. Actually many centerists and left-wingers do too. So they look up to Israel as the ultimate ‘authority’ and bow to it – even to the point of sucking on dildos on camera.

    So, yes, I think we can finally say that there are a lot of people who would rather suck on dildos for Israel, rather than do the right thing and protect their own country. I can’t think of anything more pathetic. But sure, sue Cohen. Barbara Streisand the shit out of your own humiliation, Dan Roberts.

  4. says

    Given the proposed scenario*, his defensive measures seems plausible and, again given the scenario, I dont consider it particularly humiliating.

    * What is humiliating is his acceptance of the scenario. I mean, really?! “You’re about to be beheaded by a person with a bare, erect penis.” Whoa! Stop. Nope. Not a plausible scenario. Moving on.

  5. ardipithecus says

    @ 5 Michael

    I can’t think of anything that would humiliate her more than self-awareness.

  6. stunnedunstunned says

    I have been reading Pharyngula for years but this is my first post. Please take this video down, or at least add a major warning. Nobody… nobody deserves to be treated like this. This looks to me as though he is being coerced into a sexual act. It does not matter what we think we would have done in the same circumstances. It does not matter that this person has political views that are repugnant to most of us. It does not matter that this is one man doing this to another. It does not matter that it is meant to be a joke. Please think.

    Seeing this made me revolted, shamed, and incredibly sad.

  7. manhattanmc says

    I have to agree with stunnedunstunned. Long time reader. Gun sense advocate.
    If it were a female victim being treated this way in a prank video we would call it ‘revenge porn’ and it would be prosecuted.

    It goes to far.

  8. lucifersbike says

    I agree with stunnedunstunned and manhattanmc. Baron Cohen’s act is too like the real thing to be funny. I cannot help feeling he gets off on exploiting the weakness of gullible authoritarians; and loathsome as authoritarianism is, he would do better to expose the leaders, not their followers.

  9. daemonios says

    I don’t see sexual abuse in the video. It seems that Sacha and the other guy are role playing a kind of hostage situation and the guy chooses to go for Sacha’s junk as a combat strategy. Comparing this to rape or abuse seems misplaced here. Or am I missing something?

  10. manhattanmc says

    @16 daemonios

    Who said anything about rape?
    Again, would this be acceptable if it were a video of consensual actions with a female as the dupe?
    The abuse is in the act of making the video of what is essentially a simulated sexual act public.

  11. stunnedunstunned says

    Hi Daemonios– the point is that the person is being deceived or manipulated– I don’t think he is actually making a free choice. Baron Cohen is manipulating him for the purposes of a joke, one that the “mark” is not in on. In addition, it seems clear that the intent is to cause intense sexual humiliation to an individual, which is a dire consequence. “Consent” in the absence of full disclosure is not actually consent.

    I acknowledge that the general issue is not always simple– a reporter provoking a politician to say something stupid is clearly fine. Manipulating a powerful gun lobbyist into supporting “guns for toddlers” is edgy, but foolish words can be walked back. But manipulating others into sexually humiliating acts for public exposure, possibly with long-lasting psychological consequences for the individual (which could be anticipated) crosses the line IMO.

  12. daemonios says

    They’re not pretending to have sex. The guy is pretending to bite Sacha Baron Cohen’s dick off. I honestly don’t understand your point about consent. He’s agreed to being filmed and nobody is forcing him to do anything he’s doing while being filmed.

  13. says

    @stunnedunstunned, nobody held a gun to his head, or used any visible coercion. Manipulation? Sure. But someone who can be so easily manipulated has no business whatsoever in top politics where he potentially gets to decide the fates of millions for generations.

    And that is what Baron Cohen has exposed with his antics so far. That Republican politicians are completely irrational because they fall for the most ridiculous plots, plots that are so obvious on their very surface that no competent politician should fall for them, ever.

    In this particular instance it is uncomfortable to watch. It is weirdly and discomfortingly sexual and PZ should have put a content warning in front of it. However sexual abuse it ain’t.

    How dit that dupe never think about the absurdity of it all? Like YOB – Ye Olde Blacksmith pointed out, did he really believe that an eventual islamic executioner will approach him with his junk out and stiff as a board? Or that he will give him a countdouwn? How come he never asked about the plausibilty, about documented cases where it actually helped to the victim as a technique etc.? Did he ask about the other eventual islamists around who would beat him to a pulp had he resisted? Or how about if he had his eyes blinded? Or being drugged? The list goes on and on, The only person who can fall for a prank like this is woefully uninformed and ignorant.

    Had it been used on random people in the streets for the lulz, you could have a point. However politicians simply must know better than to fall for something like this.

  14. unclefrogy says

    I am not going to watch the vid. I take it that it is disturbing to some people and is outrageous which is Sacha’s style.
    I think this guy law suit should go forward because what we need is more light on the absurdity of the people who so loudly and repeatedly take the stands they do and lie and manipulate the voters openly.
    I do not think there is any way to expose the right wing that is going to be any less humiliating.
    my personal disturbance by events is the way it is but it is not going to change the past by looking away from the present.
    uncle frogy

  15. manhattanmc says

    @15 daemonios

    “….He’s agreed to being filmed….”

    Where and when did he agree to it being filmed or released to the public?

  16. Matrim says

    Having watched the video, I can understand why people would be uncomfortable with it, and I freely admit it would be far more uncomfortable if it were a woman in that position (mostly because the context would be very different). But, beyond SBC hiding his identity and motivations, there isn’t any coercion going on here. Dude knows exactly what he is doing, he knows he is being filmed, and he is a willing and active participant. He wasn’t tricked into putting a dildo into his mouth, there was absolutely no dissembling or trickery involved in the act itself. He knew and agreed to be filmed putting a dildo in his mouth. He wasn’t filmed surreptitiously, he was entirely aware of what was going on.

    Now, if he was told that they wouldn’t share the footage or something of that nature (in which case I don’t know why he’d agree to be filmed, but whatever) or if he didn’t sign a release then he has a point.

  17. DrVanNostrand says

    @22 manhattanmc
    From an interview with the New York Times:
    When was the taping?:
    Last July. I was contacted by a production company. The way it was explained to me is that there was a group of Israeli special forces soldiers that were going around the United States shooting a show for Israeli television about terrorism and how Americans defend themselves.

    He knew he was being filmed and that it would be released to the public.

  18. stunnedunstunned says

    Hi Matrim, I agree that he consented to some elements (though I wonder how you know that the consent was explicit that he would be putting the strap-on into his mouth). But this consent did not disclose that it was for the deliberate purpose of publicly sexually humiliating him (ie, the motivations are important, but the intended and actual outcome are even more important). In addition, the “joke” depends on him being fooled. And we viewers are clearly meant to “enjoy” (or perhaps, Feel vindicated? Celebrate? Reflect on ethics?) that he was fooled and humiliated.

    Consent is suspect unless it is informed. This was not informed consent, in a crucial way. I’m afraid I just don’t agree that “he was not tricked into putting” the not-just-dildo-but-strapped-on-artificial-penis into his mouth — how else could he have been persuaded, other than trickery? You even said “I don’t know why he agreed to being filmed”. I agree– I don’t know why either, but it does not seem likely to me that it was not based on deceit.

    (I agree, though re coercion, per se– seems unlikely, unless he was made to feel in danger or at risk of some other bad outcome.)

    By definition, all people who are being scammed are willing and active participants, exactly up to the second they understand they have been scammed (eg. fooled as to motivation and intended outcome), which is often after some damage has been done. And then they aren’t. In some cases, their money is gone. In this case, it’s something worse.

    I don’t know–perhaps this person does not feel humiliated or harmed, or only feels bad that he was fooled, and maybe that lessens the consequence. But to me, any human being going through something like this could reasonably be expected to feel horrible about themselves for some time. (Not guilty about their previous bad actions, but psychically horrible due to humiliation).

    I saw the video and laughed/WTF?’d for about two seconds, then felt acutely degraded that I was laughing at a human being, being acutely degraded. Joke’s on me, I guess.

    No more on this thread for me. I’d rather agree with you all, than disagree.

  19. manhattanmc says

    @24

    “…He knew he was being filmed and that it would be released to the public.”

    Sorry, I’m pretty sure they didn’t put a clause in the contract to the effect that they would show footage of him with a strap on in his mouth.

  20. manhattanmc says

    @23Matrim

    “…. I freely admit it would be far more uncomfortable if it were a woman in that position (mostly because the context would be very different).”

    Why is it different? My point was that it should not be. Sexual exploitation is sexual exploitation no matter the gender roles.
    There is simply no way I can define this for myself as anything other than sexual degradation.

    “…He knew and agreed to be filmed putting a dildo in his mouth.”

    Really? You’ve seen the contract he signed? I’m pretty skeptical.

    “He wasn’t filmed surreptitiously, he was entirely aware of what was going on.”

    Irrelevant.
    It is possible to manipulate a victim into forgetting the circumstances and the consequences.

    “Now, if he was told that they wouldn’t share the footage or something of that nature….”

    We don’t know what he was told. It’s possible that they even gave him a verbal promise to have final say in the editing process.

    “….(in which case I don’t know why he’d agree to be filmed, but whatever) or if he didn’t sign a release then he has a point.”

    I’d certainly like to know the details of all verbal and written contractual priors and if this goes to trial we may.
    But I still say if you apply the gender reversal test this simply wouldn’t be tolerated if the victim were female no matter what contracts had been drawn. It is sexual degradation by any standard I can imagine applying. If we wouldn’t tolerate it done to a female victim we can’t do so with a male victim without being hypocrites.

  21. chigau (違う) says

    HTML lesson

    Doing this
    <blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
    Results in this

    paste copied text here

    <b>bold</b>
    bold

    <i>italic</i>
    italic

  22. manhattanmc says

    @28

    HTML lesson

    meh….
    Do quotation<bold</> marks confuse you?

    thanks for the <lesson

  23. albz says

    Happy to see that I’m not the only one to find this a public sexual humiliation, something that would not be condoned if the victim was a woman.
    I also find very disturbing comments like @20 Charly: “nobody held a gun to his head, or used any visible coercion”: are we really back to the times when sexual coercition was only recognized if physical violence was involved?
    @PZ: I think you should seriously reconsider whay you posted, apologize, and then meditate on what “double standards” mean. I don’t know this guy: he can be a moron, a total asshole: you still can not humiliate him (ore endorse and spread his humiliation) like this.

  24. daemonios says

    This is NOT sexual exploitation. A dildo in the mouth isn’t sex, especially when it’s clearly in the context of role playing a non-sexual situation. Humiliating? Sure. You can even say it’s exploitative (of the guy’s stupidity). But it’s NOT sexual abuse or exploitation.

    I get that the movie makes you uncomfortable – I don’t find it particularly funny myself as a gay guy, since the “fun” basically comes from the silliness of this macho man on his knees chewing on plastic dick, which assumes his view that oral sex between two men is wrong. But he was never coerced into anything, nor did he have anything forced on (or in) him. His sexual self-determination was never in question. This is my sole point.

  25. manhattanmc says

    @31daemonios

    “This is NOT sexual exploitation.”

    Disagree. Releasing this video is intended to humiliate. It contains a simulated sex act. The scenario was manipulated to be a simulated sexual act no matter what the victims thoughts or intentions were.

    A dildo in the mouth isn’t sex……”

    Apparently you haven’t spent any time on myfreecamsDOTcom or any one of hundreds of other sex cam sites.
    People pay to see exactly that by the millions every day and are sexually gratified by it.

    “…..especially when it’s clearly in the context of role playing a non-sexual situation.”

    Sorry, talking someone into simulating fellatio is indeed a sexual situation.

    “Humiliating? Sure.”

    Agreed.

    “You can even say it’s exploitative (of the guy’s stupidity). But it’s NOT sexual abuse or exploitation.”

    Baron Cohen is making money from this. That is exploitation by definition.
    And I find your claim that it has nothing to do with sex specious.

    “I get that the movie makes you uncomfortable – I don’t find it particularly funny myself as a gay guy, since the “fun” basically comes from the silliness of this macho man on his knees chewing on plastic dick, which assumes his view that oral sex between two men is wrong.”

    I’m not going to parse that but I’m fairly certain you just contradicted yourself there.
    {edit:
    Hmmmm…I changed my mind.
    Again, if it were a female victim I think the outrage would be almost universal. Interesting that you play the ‘gay man’ card.
    Why does it make any difference at all what the victim’s views on gay sex might be?}

    “But he was never coerced into anything, nor did he have anything forced on (or in) him. His sexual self-determination was never in question. This is my sole point.”

    Regardless of the circumstances (and I have my doubts about coercion since he was certainly persuaded to do this by what are essentially lies-I would contend it falls under the definition of “undue influence” {{“….Virtually any act of persuasion that over-comes the free will and judgment of another, including exhortations, importunings, insinuations, flattery, trickery, and deception, may amount to undue influence…..”}} https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/undue) if the video was released over his objection he has lost any semblance of self determination. Even porn stars win law suits when they try to maintain control of their videos. You don’t lose your right not to be publicly humiliated sexually because you signed a film release (that almost certainly contained no reference to simulated sex) any more than a porn actor loses their right to control pirated distribution of their work.

  26. says

    How is this sexual coercion, albz, really, how? Now English is not my first language, but the word “coercion” is defined as “the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threats or force.”. Was he told that if he does not do it, some dire consequences will follow? As far as we know, no, he was not threatened in any way or form. It was a roleplay in which he took part – according to his own words – entirely voluntarily. He could have said “no” at any point and nothing would happen to him.

    Lets quote him:

    There were definitely several moments of being extraordinarily uncomfortable. But at the same time, if you believe yourself to be in the presence of what anyone would rightly describe as experts in their field, and they are telling you that these are techniques or tactics that they themselves have used, and you’re just a rank amateur, would you question it?

    Well yes! You should question even experts in their field! Extensively so! You should inquire even more if you are rank amateur, because that is how experts are made – by inquiry, not by blind following.

    I agree he has been given false information (about who is interviewing him) and has acted on that false information (by subjecting himself to false authority). That is deception, not coertion. I agree he might have been groomed or brainwashed to be especially susceptible to perceived authority of an “israeli expert” – but not by SBC, but by his Republican and NRA peers!

    Lets quote him some more:

    The use of the — what’s the polite way to describe this? — the use of the sexual device as a prop, in my mind, it made sense.

    NO, it bloody hell does not make sense. Again, what makes sense about an executioner approaching him with naked erect penis????

    And that is the whole effing point! Someone in his position should at least try and rub two brain cells together and not being so easily duped or deceived. That he subjected himself so easily to false authority is a blaring foghorn that he is unfit to lead or opine about public policy.

    But that is exactly what he is doing – this is a man who actively works against USA enacting sensible gun laws, a position that kill thousands of people every year. He is not the biggest fish in that regard, but hey, you can’t always get the big fish.

  27. albz says

    @Charly: if I force you to do something against your will, that’s coercition. And you cannot use your free will if you are provided false information. If, on top of this, I put you on purpose into a situation where you feel that you’re being directed by some form of authority (and this is the case, as almost anyone is acknowledging here) with little time to think, and if by chance I’m a professional (in disguise, btw) well skilled in manipulating people’s reactions and I make use of my skills to get you to do exactly what I want, knowing that you would never agree to do it under normal conditions, well this is coercition for sure.
    Also: it’s totally irrelevant whether you should know better: we’re not discussing whether that guy was smart or dumb, strong-minded or weak, rational or stupid. Otherwise everyone would be fully justified in taking advantage of weak people by feeding them false infos.

    And, again: I would really like to see PZ make this kind of comments with a woman mocked and put on the web for taking a strapon in her mouth. Not a sexual thing, sure. Not a cowardly revenge against someone who opposes you, yeah. It’s totally their fault: they are Republicans….

  28. says

    @albz, exposing the incompetence of powerful man is not the same thing as taking advantage of a weak person for gain.

    And you are still equating coercion and deception. This is deception and/or manipulation, not coercion, and you asserting otherwise does not make it one no matter how often you repeat it. No threats of any kind were involved. It might have been undue influence, but that is evtl. for lawyers to decide. I do not see how it could be that one either, because the parties were not in a relationship with power differential.

    You are very fond of ifs and buts, to the point where the old “If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we’d all have a merry Christmas” comes to mind.

    IF it were a woman (i.e. a person of gender already marginalized by patriarchal community) or IF it were a disabled person (ditto) or IF it were done for the lulz or gain alone (and not to expose incompetence of a man in power) or IF being provided false information robs you of your free will (it doesn’t, especialy when anyone with modicum of competence should be able to see through it) then you would have a point. IF it were done as “hidden camera prank” I would be 100% with you.

    However this is a relatively powerful white man who publicly lies and who openly expresses hope that nothing will be done about controlling guns immediately after a mass shooting. This is a man who touts himself as an authority on guns and their use – advocating that there is nothing wrong in letting small children shoot automatic weapons.

    tldr: Punching down wersus punching up – there is a difference.

  29. albz says

    @Charly: “IF it were a woman […] then you would have a point.”
    This is my point. You think that a sexual humiliation is perfectly fine and funny if (yes, if) the victim is a man, but you’d find it wrong if performed on a woman. This is plain hypocrisy or -at the best- lack of recognition of your own biases.
    Human beings are human beings, you cannot apply different rules based on sex/gender/orientation.
    You can go on for weeks distinguishing between “sexual coercition”, “undue influence”: you already recognize that this is a wrong thing (however you call it) to do to a woman, you just need to reflect on your (and PZ’s) biases.
    That said, I don’t think you’ll change your mind, so I’ll stop here.

  30. says

    Saying that a politician should he held to higher standard regarding resistance to manipulation and deception than a common schmuck is hipocrisy in the same way as it is hipocritical to say that rich people should pay higher taxes than poor people. Or saying that hitting a self professed genocide advocating Nazi is OK but hitting random person on the street is not. If that is so, then I am a hippocrite.

    No, you will not change my mind, because you do not provide any information for me to do so. You are deliberatley using wrong terminology and when that is pointed out, you move the target.

    Yes, I have a bias against politicians and politician wannabes – I hold them up to much higher standard of behavior than other people. Especialy those who actively promote murderous policies.

  31. says

    Addendum: I am not applying “different rules based on sex/gender/orientation.”. I am applying different rules based on the persons past and present behaviors, policies and their position in the power structures.

  32. manhattanmc says

    @40Charly

    ” I am not applying “different rules based on sex/gender/orientation.”

    Yes, you are. If that were Dana Loesch I rather doubt would find it acceptable and she is politicly as tainted as this guy for the same reasons. How would you feel if you found out Roberts is a closeted gay man?

    “I am applying different rules based on the persons past and present behaviors, policies and their position in the power structures.”

    If you find this acceptable how would you react if someone on the right pranked leftist in the same position in the same way?
    I find Roberts to be despicable but this reminds me of how the old Soviet Union would sexually humiliate dissidents with secretly made recordings. That kind of thing can be done to just about anyone.

    I still say this is beyond the line of decency and it sets a very bad precedent.

  33. manhattanmc says

    @37Charly

    “…It might have been undue influence, but that is evtl. for lawyers to decide.”

    Baron Cohen and you have already decided. Judge, jury and executioners. Roberts will never recover from the social damage.

    “I do not see how it could be that one either, because the parties were not in a relationship with power differential.”

    Nonsense.
    Baron Cohen presented himself not only as authority but also as an expert in martial arts. In that situation most males would become beta males. This was definitely “punching down”.

  34. A. Noyd says

    manhattanmc (#42)

    In that situation most males would become beta males. This was definitely “punching down”.

    You might want to take a minute to retie your mask. It slipped halfway to your ankles on that last one.

  35. says

    @manhattanmc #

    If. ..Dana Loesch…if…closeted gay …If…left?

    Oh, again with those incessant IFs, I have answered already and who wants to understand does.

    Recognizing that certain people are socially by default in unfavourable position against others (usually against white men) based on their gender/race/sexual orientation is not the same thing as deciding based on gender/race/sexual orientation, it is only taking the reality of societal privileges into account.

    Ilustrative example:
    Hiring a man over a woman because of her gender is not the same thing as hiring a woman over a man in order to counterbalance the inherent flaws in the system (affirmative action).

    There was no societal disparity between SBC and DR, except that that DR has put in his head as a form of Izraeli worship.

    Baron Cohen presented himself not only as authority but also as an expert in martial arts. In that situation most males would become beta males. This was definitely “punching down”.

    Oh, now I see what you are getting at. This is because human males evolved being that way, right?

    Do you also consder Feminism as sexist, because it prefers women? Do you consider BLM racist, because it prefers blacks?

    Be so kind extract the Fs from your IFs and fluff off.

  36. albz says

    @Charly (actually not for him, but for anyone else who could read this thread with some kind of functioning brain)
    “Do you also consder Feminism as sexist, because it prefers women? Do you consider BLM racist, because it prefers blacks?”
    I consider Feminism not sexist, because Feminism is about woman being equal to men: “equal”, not “superior”.
    I consider BLM not racist, because this movement fights to let black people have the same rights as whites. “the same”, not “more”.
    On the contrary you are sexist, because you claim for women the right not to be humiliated that you deny to men. And you’re not honest enough to agree with your own words, let’s quote them again; “IF it were a woman […] then you would have a point.”.
    So, start questioning yourself on your biases and your beliefs. Sometimes wondering “what would happen if” can open up your mind.

  37. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    You know, there would be nothing inherently racist about my putting on blackface were it not for the fact that there is a 200-year-old history of degrading minstrel shows that would influence the way my actions would be seen.

    And there is nothing inherently racist in my giving voice to the N-word, were it not for a 400-year history of slavery, lynchings and degradation

    And I might not view the degradation of a woman as an egregiously improper than that of a white, male conservative asshole who is doing his best to ruin our country were it not for a >5000 year history of patriarchy and misogyny. Cultural context matters.

    And it does say something about this guy that he is willing to degrade himself to this extent if he thinks it will increase his odds of not being beheaded. It says that his fear has totally overwhelmed his processes of rational thought. Now, I do feel a twinge of pity for him, but it is less because of his being degraded momentarily than it is for his having to go through his entire life with that burden of paralyzing fear of a demonstrably improbable event.

    Dan Roberts is asking us to follow him down into his private hell of paranoia and fear. Baron Cohen is showing us why we shouldn’t.

  38. manhattanmc says

    @44Charly

    “….Oh, now I see what you are getting at.”

    Yeah, you’re kind of thinking out loud for us here. Took you long enough.

    “This is because human males evolved being that way, right?”

    Wut?
    Who mentioned evolution? An “is” is not an “ought” and in this case doesn’t really need an explanation or a back story.

    “Do you also consder Feminism as sexist, because it prefers women?”

    Wut?
    Now who is bringing up “ifs”?
    Feminism does not prefer women. Specious comparison.

    “Do you consider BLM racist, because it prefers blacks?”

    This is getting ridiculous.
    BLM does not prefer anything except equal treatment from police for black people.

    “Be so kind extract the Fs from your IFs and fluff off.”

    Hilarious statement after bringing up your own “ifs” that don’t even make sense.

    We’re done here. You are wrong and your anger indicates that you know it.

    ‘Bye.

  39. manhattanmc says

    @43Splenoid

    “You might want to take a minute to retie your mask. It slipped halfway to your ankles on that last one.”

    Are you male?
    Are you telling me you’ve never been intimidated by a male with superior combat skills who was presented as authority.
    Get real.

    And what “mask”, fool?

    Get a grip.

  40. consciousness razor says

    He was embarrassing himself long before he bit a piece of rubber, although I doubt he’ll ever realize it.

  41. A. Noyd says

    manhattanmc (#49)

    And what “mask”, fool?

    I’m saying your unironic use of MRA/PUA lingo and bungling of social justice terms is giving you away.

    What’s really funny is how your argument (such as it is) about men (sorry, “males”) being specially vulnerable to he-man style authority undermines your whole bit about how it’s wrong to apply different rules to men and women.

  42. manhattanmc says

    @A. Noying

    “I’m saying your unironic use of MRA/PUA lingo and bungling of social justice terms is giving you away.”

    Give away what, moron?
    You actually think that the terms alpha male and beta male are solely the province of MRAs and PUAs?
    If so, you’re an idiot.

    “What’s really funny is how your argument (such as it is)……”

    It’s pretty obvious, son, that you didn’t read anything but my last two posts.

    “…..about men (sorry, “males”) being specially vulnerable to he-man style authority undermines your whole bit about how it’s wrong to apply different rules to men and women.”

    That has got to be the lamest charge and the lamest argument anyone has ever leveled against me. Thanks for that.
    No where, genius, did I imply that women wouldn’t be vulnerable to the same dynamic.

    This will probably get me banned but:

    FOAD, twit.

  43. A. Noyd says

    manhattanmc (#52)

    Give away what, moron?

    That you don’t believe your own arguments and are just in this thread to troll. Well, the concern trolling was evident from the start, but now you’re showing off some kind of red-pill exposure.

    No where, genius, did I imply that women wouldn’t be vulnerable to the same dynamic.

    Hmm. Except for that time where you specified “males” are vulnerable, and then the time where you asked whether I’m male just before inquiring about my experience with being cowed by the macho splendor of another dude.

    This will probably get me banned but: FOAD, twit.

    Haven’t you been around long enough to know that’s not something that gets you banned here?

  44. says

    manhattanmc

    You are wrong and your anger indicates that you know it.

    If that is what passes for logic in that head of yours, then my time trying to explain something to you was really and truly wasted.

    Please provide me some independent evidence about correlation between one’s emotional state and their subjective perception of wrongness of their position on discussed topic.

    By that logic the most correct people on the internet are sociopathic trolls who lie for the sole purpose of angering people. And, as per your comment #52, you are wrong too. Funny, isn’t it?

    We’re done here.

    On this one, I agree wholeheartedly.

  45. manhattanmc says

    @33Charly

    No replies to substance, What a surprise.
    Yes, fool, there can be only one cause for anger and the specific always proves the universal. /s
    Logic indeed.

  46. manhattanmc says

    @54 A. Noying

    “…you don’t believe your own arguments and are just in this thread to troll. Well, the concern trolling was evident from the start, but now you’re showing off some kind of red-pill exposure.”

    Bullshit.
    If you actually think pointing out the double standard here is concern trolling you should go back to your gaming forums and leave logic to the grown ups.
    LOLing at “red pill exposure”. It’s a generic term, moron, just like “alpha male”.

    I find it hilarious that after 40 years of abortion rights activism as well as being a self described feminist with the record to prove it (and vigorous advocacy of common sense gun laws for that matter) I just got called an “MRA” and a “PUA” for the first time ever by a fool who didn’t even bother reading the entire thread and who doesn’t even understand the criticism I made.

    “…..Except for that time where you specified “males” are vulnerable, and then the time where you asked whether I’m male just before inquiring about my experience with being cowed by the macho splendor of another dude.”

    That still makes no comparison or statement on whether females in this society (or pretty much any other) would or would not be subject to the same syndrome, idiot. Don’t be dense.

    We both know who is trolling and it ain’t me.
    Take your cloying, annoying need to demonstrate your non-extant moral superiority and park it in a warm dark place.

  47. A. Noyd says

    manhattanmc (#57)

    If you actually think pointing out the double standard here is concern trolling

    If you could actually manage to do that, it’d at least be a start. Alas, it doesn’t matter that you believe women and men should be treated the same by society; the fact is, they aren’t. So you need to establish how men and women are functionally the same in this particular situation in order to make a case for a double standard instead of begging the question.

    daemonios made a cogent point on what the scenario means with a man in Roberts’ position, and instead of engaging his point, you accused him of playing “the ‘gay man’ card.” (Ironically, you then went and actually played the ‘gay man’ card down in #41. I guess its wrong for a gay man to rely on his own experience to interpret the scene but all right for you to set up what-ifs about Roberts’ sexuality instead of making a case for what actually happened.)

    I just got called an “MRA” and a “PUA” for the first time ever

    Except I didn’t call you an MRA or a PUA. But, y’know, if I had your amazing record of amazing liberal feminist amazingness, I’d be a little concerned if I found myself buying into inane red-pill superstitions about the nature of men, inventing bullshit syndromes, and fumbling simple concepts like “revenge porn” or “punching down.”

    That still makes no comparison or statement on whether females in this society (or pretty much any other) would or would not be subject to the same syndrome, idiot.

    Oh, for goodness sakes. You had no reason to mention maleness if it wasn’t part of your argument. Yet, you did. Twice. Once to generalize about “most males” and once to ask if I was male enough to have had the experience you claim is so universal. Someone who actually believed “females” were subject to the same “syndrome” and to the same degree would not have done so.

    So you’ve found yourself in a bit of bind. Your original double standard argument depended on pretending that men and women are treated the same by society—at least in the case of dildo pacifier stunts. But in the midst of trying to deflect from that obvious absurdity, you stumbled into revealing how you yourself see men and women as different. Denying it now just makes you look silly because, alas, words mean things. But it certainly makes my point about how you don’t believe your own arguments.

    Now, do try to do better than gargling and frothing on your own cognitive dissonance in front of an audience. It’s just sad.

  48. manhattanmc says

    @60Adenoids

    This is all about your ego now, son.
    But since you seem to be a masochistic glutton for punishment I will troll hammer you a bit more.

    {{“If you actually think pointing out the double standard here is concern trolling….”}}

    Nice selective quotation there, ‘idiot’.

    “If you could actually manage to do that, it’d at least be a start.”

    If you don’t think I have done that you are an idiot, son.
    I suspect you still don’t understand the objection or the argument.

    “Alas, it doesn’t matter that you believe women and men should be treated the same by society; the fact is, they aren’t.”

    Ah so you are siding with the MRAs. Glad we cleared that up.

    “So you need to establish how men and women are functionally the same in this particular situation in order to make a case for a double standard instead of begging the question.”

    WTF, son?
    You think simulated oral rape isn’t “functionally the same” and is somehow differentiated by gender?
    Get the fuck out with that BS.
    The double standard is patent, genius. If this were Dana Loesch instead of Roberts (or, oh…say your mother or your sister) I’m betting you would be embarrassed and outraged. (Or, given the proclivities you probably indulge in as your mask slips to the floor perhaps you would be excited by it, ya little perv).
    Sexual humiliation as revenge or a political tactic is simply unworthy of a civilized society.

    “……daemonios made a cogent point on what the scenario means with a man in Roberts’ position, and instead of engaging his point, you accused him of playing “the ‘gay man’ card.”

    Bringing up his own orientation is indeed playing the “gay man card”. That’s not an “accusation”, dim wit.

    “…..(Ironically, you then went and actually played the ‘gay man’ card down in #41. I guess its wrong for a gay man to rely on his own experience to interpret the scene but all right for you to set up what-ifs about Roberts’ sexuality instead of making a case for what actually happened.)”

    That daemonios is a gay man should make him more prone to see this video as sexual humiliation not less.

    {{“I just got called an “MRA” and a “PUA” for the first time ever….”}}

    “….Except I didn’t call you an MRA or a PUA.”

    Except that you did exactly that, you feeble minded little troll.

    {{{““I’m saying your unironic use of MRA/PUA lingo and bungling of social justice terms is giving you away.””}}}
    Adenoids above.

    You know damned well what you were implying so fuck yourself.

    “But, y’know, if I had your amazing record of amazing liberal feminist amazingness…..”

    I never claimed it was “amazing”, brown lipstick boy. Pointless hyperbole just makes you look stupider than you’re already looking here. I am no more than support personnel in a female led movement.

    “……I’d be a little concerned if I found myself buying into inane red-pill superstitions about the nature of men…..”

    ROTFL
    And you just gave away that your only contact with the term “alpha male” is from MRA/PUA websites, big thinker. And I’m betting you weren’t there to argue against them.
    There is nothing “superstitious” about power dynamics in human relations. If I were at a PZ lecture I would recognize his superior skills and defer to him accordingly. In my own profession my students do the same for me. And “alpha male’, you fucking moron, really has little to do with “macho glory” since alpha males are often the most altruistic in chimp tribes (and sometimes female as well) since they mostly remain “alpha’ by building alliances. They still (male or female) receive deference.

    Wrap your head around that, little one and get back to me.

    “……inventing bullshit syndromes…..”

    Where did I do that, window licker?
    A “syndrome” in the non-medical sense (all I am qualified to postulate-common language usage) is a “…a characteristic combination of opinions, emotions, or behavior”.
    Big whoop. A description is a description. You really got me there, genius. /s

    “……and fumbling simple concepts like “revenge porn”

    Okay, genius, explain to me how this video differs from revenge porn if the genders are reversed, then explain how I “fumbled” it. Explain to me how Baron Cohen isn’t profiting from this undue influence/lie induced/trickery dependent act just like a pimp or an angry ex would.
    I’ll wait.

    “….or “punching down.”

    Sorry, genius, the fact that this clown got elected is meaningless when he’s on the mat with a reputed martial arts instructor.
    See my comments about “alpha males” and power dynamics in human relations above.

    {{“That still makes no comparison or statement on whether females in this society (or pretty much any other) would or would not be subject to the same syndrome, idiot.”}}

    “Oh, for goodness sakes. You had no reason to mention maleness if it wasn’t part of your argument. Yet, you did. Twice.”

    FFS, moron….
    The first had nothing to do with my argument. The point was making you aware that such power dynamics exist and are commonplace. Are you seriously claiming you’ve never been intimidated by a bully (physical or intellectual), you silly fraud?

    The second had nothing to do with the “syndrome” I postulated ( and it preceded the second, duh) and the unfortunately reality in this society (and most societies as I footnoted) that it is expected by society that females will be subordinate in most relationships. And the point, you deep thinker, you, is that societal convention, which you and most commenters here apparently are buying into, in this case is indeed treating them differently.
    That still has nothing to do with whether women would or would not be intimidated in the same situation the video recorded.
    I find it dumbfounding and disturbing, frankly, that you don’t have the band width to make these kinds of distinctions.

    “…..Once to generalize about “most males” and once to ask if I was male enough to have had the experience you claim is so universal.”

    Have you? Deny it. I dare you. LOL
    And I never said “male enough”, you habitual liar, you. The question would have been pointless if you were female. Derp…..

    “Someone who actually believed “females” were subject to the same “syndrome” and to the same degree would not have done so.”

    Bullshit.
    Again, and I’ll type very, very slowly so you don’t get confused, that is a separate subject.
    1) Both men and women can be intimidated by authority in certain situations.
    2) Treating simulated oral rape of men and women differently is a double standard.

    Separate subjects. Unrelated.
    Clear enough for you, genius?

    “So you’ve found yourself in a bit of bind.”

    Only in your tiny mind, son.
    And looking ahead I see you are going to prove that for me. Hilarious.

    “Your original double standard argument depended on pretending that men and women are treated the same by society…..”

    No it fucking did not, moron. I knew you didn’t understand it and you just proved it.
    And you had the cast iron hair to accuse me of “fumbling”. Holy koresh, you dip shit.
    My argument is that what is essentially oral rape should not be treated differently by gender nor should the exploitation of video recordings of such acts be treated differently. {{Should not}}, for those with poor reading comprehension. That they are in this instance, as demonstrated by my proposed thought experiment, the “if” in daemonios’ terminology, is the clear demonstration of that double standard.

    “…..—at least in the case of dildo pacifier stunts.”

    Do you really not understand, feeble minded one, that statements like that make you seem callous and flippant?
    Again, if this had been a female member of your family would you be so cavalier and off handed? Serious question. I do want an answer.

    “But in the midst of trying to deflect from that obvious absurdity……”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha……
    Which “absurdity” arises only in your own mind out of your complete misunderstanding of my position, you drooling doofus…..
    As I said in previous posts, an “is” is not an “ought” nor is an”ought” an “is”. Think about it some more. It will come to you.

    “…..you stumbled into revealing how you yourself see men and women as different.”

    Exactly backwards, idiot boy. And I did no such thing.
    My position, and again I’ll type very slowly for you, is that I don’t think they should be treated differently under law or in hierarchical relationships.
    I maintain that to treat the simulated oral rape of a man as trivial (as you just did, you despicable fuck) is wrong. It should be just as horrifying as the simulated oral rape of a woman would be as should someone pimping the recording of said act.
    And I maintain that society does indeed see/treat men and women differently.
    Again, it is dumbfounding that you couldn’t follow an argument this simple without tripping over your own shoe laces.

    “Denying it now just makes you look silly because, alas, words mean things.”

    What is to deny, dumb fuck? You seem to be the one having trouble with reading comprehension here.

    “But it certainly makes my point about how you don’t believe your own arguments.”

    Sure it does, troll boy, sure it does. /s

    “Now, do try to do better than gargling and frothing on your own cognitive dissonance in front of an audience. It’s just sad.”

    By your own words, little one.
    Next time try reading the board until you actually understand what is being said. Save yourself mega-embarrassment and maybe further your education.

    BTW, I actually will be waiting for your responses to the questions I asked you above. If you do not answer your hypocrisy will be exposed for all, even you (speaking of ‘cognitive dissonance’, you little fraud) to marvel at. And if you do answer the result will be the same-give or take some bobbing and weaving.

    “Cognitive dissonance”….ROTFLcoptering…….

  49. says

    daemonios#16

    Comparing this to rape or abuse seems misplaced here.

    manhattanmx#17

    Who said anything about rape?

    manhattanmc#61

    You think simulated oral rape…

    Yeah. So much for consistency.

    If you cannot hold your act together over the course of one thread, you really cannot expect anyone to admire your reasoning prowess, let alone be persuaded by it. That you are writing badly formatted walls of text does not help either. And in case you wish to bang your chest again how I am not responding to the substance, you are right, I am not. I would only have to repeat myself because you are not saying anything new, and you are not worth that effort.

    Just a snippet:

    And I maintain that society does indeed see/treat men and women differently.

    How come you are suddenly admiting this? It does rather undermine all those IFs you like to parade about in lieu of an argument. Because that society sees men and women differently is exactly my point in countering you in that regard.

    Yeah, you really do not get to give yourself airs and call others “son” or “idiot boy”, both of which are just your assertions of dominance by attempting to infantilize your opponent. And usage of “moron”, an ableist slur, shows how much you really care about not punching down and splash damage.

  50. manhattanmc says

    @62 Charly

    Yup, genius, rape and simulated oral rape/sexual humiliation are exactly the same thing, Exactly. Good work. Ya really got me there. LOL
    I’m not really interested in arguing whether verbal coercion through asserted authority and lies can be construed as ‘rape’ in the legal sense. The sexual humiliation and financial exploitation of the video are quite enough to make a case.

    {{“And I maintain that society does indeed see/treat men and women differently.”}}

    “…How come you are suddenly admiting this? ”

    When did I deny it, genius?
    My entire point is that you and the rest of the deniers on this thread are indeed treating men and women differently in this case and questioning the morality of that treatment.
    I have seen no coherent rebuttal of that from anyone, including you.
    Do you condone the prison rape of men because, ‘hey, society sees men and women differently’?

    (And speaking of crappy text, genius, there are two ‘t”‘s in “admitting”.)

    “It does rather undermine all those IFs you like to parade about in lieu of an argument.”

    Yes, genius, in “lieu” of an argument, except argument by thought experiment is a time honored tradition in debate and philosophy. Not really in “lieu” of anything, fool. You will find it in several of PZ’s recent posts.
    And my only “if”, as you well know, is would you still blow this off as cavalierly as Adenoids does if it were Dana Loesch rather than Roberts. No one has answered me on that question yet.

    “Because that society sees men and women differently is exactly my point in countering you in that regard.”

    And mine is that fact is sexist and immoral. As much as I detest Roberts this is not the way a civilized society should operate.
    Again, explain to me why the sexual humiliation of a man in simulated oral sex (‘simulated rape’ if you wish) is different than the sexual humiliation of a woman in simulated oral sex. I’m all ears. If you have an actual point to make now is the time to make it.

    “Yeah, you really do not get to give yourself airs and call others “son” or “idiot boy”, both of which are just your assertions of dominance by attempting to infantilize your opponent. ”

    Sorry, after an idiot implies that I”m a PUA and an MRA without even understanding what Im saying (and he did, if you care enough to read my “walls of poorly formatted text, lol) all bets are off, as are the gloves.
    So, yeah, I really do. Don’t like it? Don’t read it. Otherwise, blow it out your sphincter.

    “And usage of “moron”, an ableist slur, shows how much you really care about not punching down and splash damage.”

    How is that punching, down, moron? Annoying Boy put himself in the superior position of being my instructor, just as you are doing. You don’t get to whine about being picked on, poor little guy, after you’ve done that. And seriously, the clown who sees nothing wrong with the sexual humiliation of a political opponent is going to lecture me on “ablism” like he has the moral high ground? GTFO

    I reserve the right to call a moron a moron, moron.
    You need to get an act, son. This thinking while you type thing isn’t working for ya.

  51. chigau (違う) says

    The video is a depiction of one man threatening to bite off another man’s penis.

  52. manhattanmc says

    @64chigau

    “The video is a depiction of one man threatening to bite off another man’s penis.”

    LOL From one point of view-but that’s not the point of view of the guy who is suing.

  53. says

    Now you are just babbling incoherently in trying to deny the contradictions you tangled yourself into.
    BTW, I do not whine that you are calling me moron, I do not really care what you call me. I am just pointing out that it is an ableist slur and its use is in stark contrast with your prentence of caring for disenfranchised and abused people.

    (And speaking of crappy text, genius, there are two ‘t”‘s in “admitting”.)

    OK, so you found a typo in one word and that is equal to your diarrhea style writing? Ho-humm, sure, sure, you owned me mightily.
    I am rather surprised you found only one since I only learned English later in life and English transliteration is completely nonsensical and has no real rules, so even native speakers make often mistakes.
    Your wit is about as sharp and cutting as a lead razor.
    G’night.

  54. chigau (違う) says

    From the linked article:

    He bit down on the sex toy, worn by Cohen, after being told the only way to escape a beheading was to bite the genitals of the enemy. Roberts claims that he was “baffled” and felt “extraordinarily uncomfortable” while filming the prank last July.
    “But at the same time, if you believe yourself to be in the presence of what anyone would rightly describe as experts in their field, and they are telling you that these are techniques or tactics that they themselves have used, and you’re just a rank amateur, would you question it?” he added.

  55. albz says

    @67 chigau: this looks to me a perfect description of a man forced to do something he would rather not do, leveraging on the perceived authority that the character impersonated by Cohen was having over him.
    And this is sexually humiliating for him, because even if during the act he was persuaded that he was doing something different, he later realized (seeing the video broadcasted everywhere) that he was tricked in doing a sexual act just for the benefit of Cohen.
    I have read too many description of abused women that were put in this very same situation. And I’ve always seen liberals like PZ angrily attack anyone who dared to say that this was just a prank, a joke or something like that.
    Double standards, sorry but that’s it.

  56. manhattanmc says

    @66Charly

    Wrong answer.

    “Now you are just babbling incoherently in trying to deny the contradictions you tangled yourself into.”

    Bullshit.
    You’re just too lazy or too dumb to read what is some pretty simple language and logic.
    I presented no contradictions in spite of the efforts from you and Adenoids to make it look as if I did.

    “BTW, I do not whine that you are calling me moron, I do not really care what you call me.”

    Sure thing, that’s why you’re here post after posting ignoring substance and making personal attacks. Got it.

    “I am just pointing out that it is an ableist slur and its use is in stark contrast with your prentence of caring for disenfranchised and abused people.”

    This is the saddest ploy you’ve come up with so far, moron.
    Let me google that for you:

    {{“mo·ron
    ˈmôrˌän
    noun informal
    a stupid person.”}}

    Nothing about being disabled there, is there, genius.
    So like I said, blow it out your sphincter.
    If I want to hear from an ass I’ll fart.

    “OK, so you found a typo in one word and that is equal to your diarrhea style writing? Ho-humm, sure, sure, you owned me mightily.”

    LOL You wanted to step into the weeds of criticizing text, genius, not me.
    And just like you powned me for thinking rape and simulated oral sex are the same thing. Wow. Mightily.

    “I am rather surprised you found only one since I only learned English later in life and English transliteration is completely nonsensical and has no real rules, so even native speakers make often mistakes.”

    Boo hoo….
    If you can’t stand the heat…get out of the friggin’ kitchen.

    “Your wit is about as sharp and cutting as a lead razor.”

    Oh, wow, zinger.
    If that is your idea of “wit” wouldn’t quit the day job for a stand comedy career just yet.
    If you really spoke your mind you’d be speechless. LOL

    “G’night.”

    You didn’t answer my question.
    {{“Would you still blow this off as cavalierly as Adenoids does if it were Dana Loesch or a woman from your own family rather than Roberts?”}}
    That means you can’t without revealing yourself for the lying scoundrel you actually are.
    Until you answer it you are blowing smoke and I don’t have any more time for that.

  57. A. Noyd says

    Oh, dear. Troll went waaaaay off the rails this time. (Note: Linked pic had no casualties besides its cargo of corn.)

    I’m actually kind of impressed by the utter lack of substance in all of that spew—though I could do without the talking down to gay people or being told I’d get off on seeing my mother or sister “sexually humiliated.”

    And just to set the record straight, I’m a woman. People should really check their assumptions.

  58. manhattanmc says

    @70A. Trolled

    Wrong answer.
    I told you I was going to troll hammer you, fool.

    “I’m actually kind of impressed by the utter lack of substance in all of that spew…..”

    Sure you are, troll boy. Sure you are.You couldn’t answer a single point and you know it.

    “…though I could do without the talking down to gay people….”

    Yeah, that’s what happened, for sure, son. /s

    “……or being told I’d get off on seeing my mother or sister “sexually humiliated.”

    Payback, troll boy, for implying I’m an MRA/PUA. How does it feel?

    “And just to set the record straight, I’m a woman.”

    The fuck you are.
    LOL And you suffered threw a half dozen posts of me calling you ‘son’ and troll boy’ and just thought to tell me now.
    You are a very poor liar.

    “People should really check their assumptions.”

    Yes, like assuming they can get away with lying about their gender, troll boy.

    You didn’t answer my question. You are a fraud, an idiot and a hypocrite.
    Case closed.

  59. says

    @albz, despite you asserting otherwise, I did think about those what-ifs of yours and because you seem to argue in good faith and are not going off the deep end, I am going to give it one more shot at explaining it to you.

    Maybe using some analogies with math will help:
    You have an inequality here, with SBC on one side and RD on the other. Both of the two individuals can be assigned different variables – gender, sex, social status, etc. etc. You can look at how all those variables add up and see which side is bigger, i.e. whether SBC is punching down or up. With respect to many relevant variables they are equal, but he seems to be punching up, because variables regarding political power and influence are hugely in favor of RD. In order to land a punch, SBC had to counterbalance this by fudging the variables on his side by pretending to be an Izraeli martial arts expert.

    What-ifs can indeed be valid for simplyfiyng the inequality or solving it, but for that you have to obey the rules how to do that properly – that is, when changing variables, you must do so on both sides of the sign equaly, otherwise the inequality is no longer the same and therefore cannot be viewed as the same.

    So, regarding gender – yes it would be perfectly OK, if the pranked person were Dana Loesch – provided the prankster would be Samantha Bee. That way the inequality remains in principle the same, despite the gender swap.

    However when you change the pranked person to a woman and leave the prankster a man, you change the whole dynamics of the interaction. Because in our society, a woman is automatically at a disadvantage against a man re: perceived authority, veracity, being judget about sexual habits etc. If we did not still have patriarchal society where women are commonly degraded and abused by men and then blamed for it, it would be different. It should not be so, and we are working towards achieving that goal, but we are not there yet. Societally and culturally even less so than legally.

    And that is why that perceived “double standard” of yours is not real. Your proposed what-ifs are viewed differently, because they are, objectively, different. Not because I have a bias favoring women, but because I recognise the inherent cultural biases that marginalize them.

  60. manhattanmc says

    @72jazzlet

    I’m not really here to discuss my personal life but on the whole it’s been pretty cushy and filled with
    unearned privilege which I have largely rejected.

    Is your life so poor that you have nothing germane to add to the conversation?

  61. manhattanmc says

    @73

    Oh, charly, charly, charly…..
    Your arguments keep getting worse. I know this is difficult for you. You must be a big time Sasha Baron Cohen fan.

    1) We are all different people in different situations.
    On the mat Roberts was undeniably in the inferior position even if that perception was based on lies.
    Punching down. Sorry.

    2) Your second point could have been condensed to a few sentences and it is essentially that this scenario
    is acceptable to you because both participants are male and our society only disadvantages women.
    Pure nonsense. You must have lived a very sheltered life to not know that homosexual rape is,
    because of our shameful prison system and rampant mass incarceration, the most common form of rape.

    That is all.

  62. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    I think that what this video shows is that fear has utterly short circuited any rational faculties Roberts ever possessed. Being beheaded is not really a credible threat–especially if you aren’t circulating among Islamist nutjobs in the Middle East or drug cartels in certain Mexican states. Were someone to say to me, “This is how you survive a beheading,” I might at most file the advice away in some back alley of my brain as a subject for cocktail conversation. If their advice were as absurd as this, I’d probably laugh. Roberts is dead serious, as if he expects to be able to put the advice into practice on the way home. THAT IS NOT RATIONAL.

    And if he is willing to degrade himself to this extent to make quell his fear merely because an authority told him so, just imagine what he would be willing to do to you–or to a person of color–if an authority convinced him it was essential to his safety. Getting people to see threats where none lie is how you get them to commit genocides.

  63. A. Noyd says

    Uh oh, the troll dropped a rather smelly red-pill red herring on the carpet. How about nope and nope to that homosexual (?!!?!?!)—*ahem*prison rape BS.

  64. manhattanmc says

    @77Adenoids

    LOL
    The troll who lies about his gender once again accuses me of “red pilling”-MRA/PUA term.
    But no, you never ever accused me of being either, did you, you habitual liar. Shame.

    For the record, I’ve never been on any MRA/MGTOW/PUA sites and despise the attitudes and ideas of those who frequent them.

    I’m not going to quibble about percentages. Whether male rape is more common or slightly less common as your first link argues (and opinions differ depending on definitions and inclusions/exclusions) is irrelevant to my point. Male rape happens, it’s endemic and Charly’s assertion/sad argument ignores that fact.

    And you need to check the definition of “red herring”, moron. It doesn’t mean what you think it means and certainly doesn’t refer to a direct response.

    From your second link:

    {{“The standard usage of this claim is to tell feminists to shut up when they’re talking about rape or to claim that feminist lie with statistics.”}}

    I’ve never done that and never will.

    Your link again:

    {{“….Aside from that, rape in prison situations is still a problem. Rape outside of prison situations is still a problem. Rape anywhere that inequalities are created will continue to be a problem, and the sources of those inequalities need to be addressed if we want to decrease rape. We should still be talking about all of it, and a look at those of us who talk about social justice issues will generally find that we do.”}

    Agree completely and Svan’s summation completely negates your point and Charly’s point-unless you want to argue that prison rape isn’t a problem.

    You don’t think very well, troll. You should really give it up.

  65. manhattanmc says

    @76

    Spot on.
    I would just add that Baron Cohen took advantage of an irrational person.

  66. jazzlet says

    manhattanmc
    So if you had such a lovely cushy life why are you so rude to other people, when you could argue your case with out adding all of the insults? It could be because you don’t think your arguments are strong and you are trying to make people angry so they won’t continue to respond rationally. That would certainly fit with your persistant strawmanning of others’ points, another indication that you can’t actually refute the arguments being put forth.

    I’m not particularly interested in the discussion, been there, done that, back in the days Chris Morris was doing similar things, nothing I’ve seen since has changed my mind on the position I came to then. Your insulting of other commenters and apparent inability to carry forth an argument without denigrating your opponent is amusing, I just wonder what causes you to behave in such a counter-productive way, as many would say if you need to resort to insults it’s because you haven’t got a strong case. I am assuming it’s not just because you are a nasty embittered individual who is incapable of carrying on a civil conversation.

  67. manhattanmc says

    @80jazzlet

    Ho hum…..
    I treat people the same way they treat me. Insults beget insults. Studied obtuseness combined with arrogance will get mercilessly hammered.

    My cases are strong-my patience with willful ignorance-not so much.

    What’s it to you? Don’t like-don’t read. Problem solved.

    Show me even a single instance where I straw manned anyone’s point. I’ll wait.

    “….I am assuming it’s not just because you are a nasty embittered individual who is incapable of carrying on a civil conversation.”

    You haven’t seen enough of my posts to even begin to come to that conclusion.

    Find something better to do. I’m losing patience with you.

  68. manhattanmc says

    @84

    I guess-timate an 85% probability that you are an A. Noyd sock puppet.

    Bite me.
    We are finished. That’s how it works, little girl.

  69. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Sorry troll, we’re finished with you. You may kindly fade into the bandwidth, as you have nothing to say that is on topic and cogent.

  70. methuseus says

    If anyone’s still paying attention to this thread:
    @Charly:
    You write well and have about the same number of spelling/grammatical mistakes as I and some other (very accurate) commenters have. I know I make fewer mistakes of those sorts than many people, though I make mistakes of other sorts more often. I’m sure I have my share of logical fallacies and such. So, really, don’t denigrate yourself by saying others should find more mistakes. You type very similarly to many who have English as a first language.

    @chigau:
    I agree with your statements. Bless manhattanmc’s heart. But I’m not sure about the porcupine reference. It’s probably something I missed or don’t remember.

    As for the assertion that an “alpha male” (btw, only MRAs and PUAs use that to refer to humans) would scare me when showing me how to do something is laughable. I’ve been shown self-defence tactics by someone who was a foot taller than me and outweighed me by a lot. He did not in any way intimidate me to make me perform anything I thought was questionable. If he had even mentioned anything like that, I would have laughed and walked away. I wouldn’t have consented to doing that without a gun to my head, let alone be openly filmed doing that. Again, if you’re not questioning the expert, you’re not learning a godsdamned thing.

  71. methuseus says

    Oops, forgot one:
    @A. Noyd:
    At one point (in reading past comments over years) I sort of thought you were male, thought elsewise at another point, then became enlightened and have really stopped caring about the gender of commenters except for filing away a declaration by the person when it’s made. I sometimes wonder about some commenters, mainly trolls, though I have stopped caring as much. Hopefully I will become further enlightened as I age.

  72. albz says

    @73 Charly: frankly speaking I find your position…wrong (pardon me for not finding a more refined term).
    We are not talking about categories, women vs men: we are dealing with one person being sexually humiliated. I don’t care what sex/gender/orientation this person is, and the same applies to the offender: sexually humiliating someone, publishing a video for everyone to laugh at him/her, is wrong.
    Punching up, punching down? So if I’m a blind-deaf orphaned poor black -but male- refugee that was abused when a child I’m authorized to sexually humiliate a white rich woman? This would be punching up for me, what do you say? What are we going to do, give everyone a “disadvantage score” so that you can know who you can harass?

  73. A. Noyd says

    methuseus (#93)

    As for the assertion that an “alpha male” … would scare me when showing me how to do something is laughable. I’ve been shown self-defence tactics by someone who was a foot taller than me and outweighed me by a lot.

    A good teacher doesn’t try to dominate the pupil in the first place because that’s not conducive to learning. If a teacher is trying to use their size, status, or experience against a pupil, it’s a sign of someone with ulterior motives.

    (#94)

    At one point (in reading past comments over years) I sort of thought you were male

    A lot of people do. I don’t really care what gender people think I am unless it’s relevant to the point I’m making. Or, if someone’s repeatedly referring to me as a guy, I’ll choose a time to mention it so bystanders don’t get mislead.

    and have really stopped caring about the gender of commenters except for filing away a declaration by the person when it’s made.

    Same. Not that I don’t still make assumptions.

  74. says

    @albz, that you have to invent ever more and more bizzare and improbable scenarios does not speak well for your point. Because for every sinlge real life situation where you have to make a moral choice and you choose way x, you can concoct a “what-if” where that would be wrong. If you try to limit your choices only to absolute black and white, you will be essentially paralyzed.

    However, I agree that it is wrong to sexually humiliate someone. Where I disagree is that this is sexual humiliation, I do not that. There was no sexual act involved. What is humiliating is the evident absurdity of the scenario which makes it appear bizzarely close to a sexual act and that the dupe did not recognise that similarity when he accepted his role in the charade. Note that he was perfectly OK with being filmed and with the movie being published as long as he thought it was legit. Only after he learned that it was a prank did he realize he has been duped.

  75. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    #89. You of course. Acting deliberately stupid is trollish behavior. Bingo, your response filled my troll card for you. Now you can fade into the bandwidth.

  76. manhattanmc says

    @98

    Of course? Seriously?

    I’ve been reading Pharyngula daily for more than a decade. I usually don’t comment because I don’t have the academic credentials of most posters here. I’m mostly content to lurk and learn. I’ve read many of your comments and never had issues with them.

    Since you are accusing me of being a troll I have a few questions for you:

    Did you read the entire thread or just the last few comments where I began taking A. Noyd to task for implying I’m an MRA/PUA?
    If you didn’t you were slothful and judgmental. If you did, this is just idiotic and simply false:

    {{“…you have nothing to say that is on topic and cogent.”}}

    Do you truly think it is not on topic or cogent to ask the simple question “what if the gender of the victim here were female”?
    If so we must be consulting different dictionaries.
    Same question to you that A. Noyd, Charly and others have failed to answer:
    Would you be comfortable with this if the victim, as despicable as Roberts is, were female-say Dana Loesch or a female family member? I’m not trolling. It is a serious query meant to expose a perceived double standard.

    4.Are you really comfortable with sexual shaming of opponents as a political tactic?

    5.Off topic but out of my burning curiosity, could you point out even a single instance where I acted ‘deliberately stupid”?I would accept an accusation of ‘deliberately rude or abrasive”, but “deliberately stupid”?

    That is all.

  77. manhattanmc says

    @96

    Same here. I don’t really care about the gender of a poster but rather the arguments and ideas.

    A. Noyd brought up his/her/ gender in an attempt to non-pluss and shame me.

  78. manhattanmc says

    @97charly

    “….However, I agree that it is wrong to sexually humiliate someone.”

    Okay. Progress.

    “…..Where I disagree is that this is sexual humiliation, I do not that. There was no sexual act involved. ”

    Charly, as I noted many posts ago, this is a sexual act that thousands or perhaps millions of people pay to witness on sex cam sites every day and are sexually gratified by so doing.

    Consider the possibility that you are wrong.

  79. manhattanmc says

    @96Adenoids

    “…A good teacher doesn’t try to dominate the pupil in the first place because that’s not conducive to learning. If a teacher is trying to use their size, status, or experience against a pupil, it’s a sign of someone with ulterior motives.”

    Okay, now I believe you are a woman (not that I actually care) and I’m also pretty sure you haven’t had much involvement with martial arts training.
    A teacher, in any profession, doesn’t have to “try” to dominate. There is always an implicit hierarchy.

    Do you have any conception of the casual brutality inflicted on, oh say high school football players by coaches?
    I’ve seen that first hand and it ain’t pretty. Macho seldom is.

  80. manhattanmc says

    @93methuseus

    “…As for the assertion that an “alpha male” (btw, only MRAs and PUAs use that to refer to humans) ”

    So you’re signing on with A. Noyd? Really?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/head-games/201412/are-alpha-males-myth-or-reality

    http://nymag.com/betamale/2016/05/the-rise-of-the-alpha-beta-male.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/oct/10/do-alpha-males-even-exist-donald-trump

    And there seem to be a few MRA/PUAs writing peer reviewed science papers as well. LOL

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771953/

    There are actually a variety of definitions for the term as the links above note. I elaborated on that above. If you had read the thread you would be aware of that.

    It actually makes me a bit sad that you have nothing better to do than read this little tiff between myself and A. Noyd, bless your little heart.

  81. manhattanmc says

    @87Nerd

    One more question, Nerd: Who is this royal “we” you want to speak for?

    I can’t tell you how annoying (pun intended) and simultaneously titter inducing it is to be called an MRA/PUA because I used a term that is as common as dirt in popular science publications. My wife of some 35 years, who makes more money than I, with whom I shared child rearing duties equally and did and still do share cave keeping duties with equally, would be massively amused by that accusation.

    And somehow I’m the troll?
    I really don’t get it, Nerd.

  82. chigau (違う) says

    from the abstract
    In the present study, social interactions, including aggression, avoidance, grooming and mounting behaviors, between beta males, as well as among group members holding higher or lower social status, were analyzed in captive male-only cynomolgus monkey groups.
    Well, at least they weren’t vervets.
    LOL

  83. manhattanmc says

    @107chigau

    From the introduction:

    {{“….People with different socioeconomic status are thought to experience different levels of psychosocial stress, which can lead to various health problems such as physiological and metabolic alternations, disabilities, stress-related diseases and even mortality…..”}}

    Clearly they are trying to establish parallels between the primate groups studied and the primates we are.

    ….and fortunately not bonobos.

  84. albz says

    @97 Charly: of course my example was extreme, and I don’t expect it to happen in reality (and no, I’m not hiding behind absurd hypotethical but unrealistic situations). The point is: applying your metrics you can see by yourself that there is for sure an ample selection of realistic scenarios in which the “punching up/punching down” ratio is pretty close to 1 (*). These scenarios, always according to your reasoning, would be impossible to categorize into acceptable or wrong.
    And we’re not speaking of subtle distinctions (for which this uncertainty would be acceptable): it’s all about a specific behaviour being horrible and humiliating or not.

    (*) unless, of course, your only metric is “females always punch up against males”, which is a sexist position that I reject.

  85. chigau (違う) says

    manhattanmc #106
    Clearly they are trying to establish parallels between the primate groups studied and the primates we are.
    If so, they failed.
    LOL

  86. Ichthyic says

    Baron Cohen presented himself not only as authority but also as an expert in martial arts. In that situation most males would become beta males. This was definitely “punching down”.

    go the fuck away and read this:

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    It’s free even.

  87. manhattanmc says

    @111Ichthic

    WTF?
    Not free and not even relevant it the blurb is any indication.

    Authoritarian personalities are generally “switches” to borrow an S/M term. That is to say, extremely submissive in the face of perceived authority and aggressively dominant in the face of those perceived as inferior.

    How about rather than being abrasively dismissive and requiring me to purchase and read a book, you just explain your point in your own words? Too much for you?

    Argumentum ad google, I know but:

    {{“…Adorno et al. (1950) viewed the authoritarian personality as having a strict superego that controls a weak ego unable to cope with strong id impulses. The resulting intrapsychic conflicts cause personal insecurities, resulting in that person’s superego to adhere to externally imposed conventional norms (conventionalism), and to the authorities who impose these norms (authoritarian submission). The ego-defense mechanism of projection occurs as indicated when that person avoids self-reference of the anxiety-producing id impulse, by displaying them onto “inferior” minority groups in the given culture (projectivity), with associated beliefs that are highly evaluative (power and toughness), and rigid (stereotypy). Additionally, there is a cynical view of humanity and a need for power and toughness resulting from the anxieties produced by perceived lapses in society’s conventional norms (destructiveness and cynicism). Other characteristics of this personality type are a general tendency to focus upon those who violate conventional values and act harshly towards them (authoritarian aggression)…..”}}

    Baron Cohen used lies to engender irrational fear in Roberts. That Roberts is an elected politician has no bearing on the dynamics of the relationship on the mat. He behaved in a typical manner for an authoritarian personality, IMO.

  88. A. Noyd says

    manhattanmc (#104)

    A teacher, in any profession, doesn’t have to “try” to dominate. There is always an implicit hierarchy.

    There might be a hierarchy of experience and knowledge, but teaching and learning do not operate on principles of dominance and submission. The whole point of teaching is to raise another person up to your level in the hopes they can surpass you. (And that’s not some modern philosophy of teaching; it goes back 2000 years at least.)

    There are other kinds of human interaction than dominance and submission. Maybe check them out instead of trying to fit everything into crackpot red-pill theories about alphas and betas.

    (#112)

    But they did use the term(s) which is my point.

    Not to refer to humans, they didn’t. They analogized being a beta male in macaque society to being a “middle-ranked manager”* in human society.

    The rest of the articles are talking about other people’s use of the terms, and two of the three explicitly link their current popularity to the PUA community. So nice own goal there. Maybe next time read your own links.

    (#113)

    Not free and not even relevant it the blurb is any indication.

    The PDF and e-book versions are free. Only the printed and audio versions cost money. And Altemeyer does actual research on the topic rather than pulling whatever unsupported, ignorant nonsense he pleases out of his ass.

    Argumentum ad google, I know but: …

    It’s not the 50s anymore, Freud was a complete hack, and the Wikipedia article your quote is from also says “Bob Altemeyer … presents the most recent analysis of this personality type.” That’s the very same Bob Altemeyer whose book Icthyic suggested you read.

    Now, do you want to go educate yourself, or do you want to keep showing everyone your ass like a baboon in heat?
    ………
    * “Similar to human middle-ranked managers (Bupa Research, 2013), beta males had to obey the alpha males (boss) as well as maintain their beta status over the other group members.”

  89. manhattanmc says

    @114A. Nnoying

    “There might be a hierarchy of experience and knowledge, but teaching and learning do not operate on principles of dominance and submission.”

    You are taking it way to literally-as you have most of what has been said here.
    If I go to a PZ lecture I will sit quietly with my ears open. I will not, most likely even ask a question since what he knows is so far out of my own area of expertise that I couldn’t formulate a useful question. That isn’t “submission” in the same sense as S/M. I thought I was clear on that opinion.
    It is still an indication of hierarchy. Without hierarchy there can be very little transmission of knowledge within a given discipline.
    Students simply don’t know what they don’t know. Intelligent students recognize that and defer.

    “The whole point of teaching is to raise another person up to your level in the hopes they can surpass you. (And that’s not some modern philosophy of teaching; it goes back 2000 years at least.)”

    Enlightened teaching, indeed. Agree completely. Why would you assume I wouldn’t?
    You won’t find very much of that in macho sports I’m afraid and not even a great deal in academia.

    “There are other kinds of human interaction than dominance and submission.”

    If course, but not really what were talking about so why bring it up?

    “Maybe check them out instead of trying to fit everything into crackpot red-pill theories about alphas and betas.
    (#112)”

    Sorry, in human male interactions, in my experience, it is rarely the case that there is no struggle for dominance. Sorry, that That seems to simply be the state of Human evolution at present. You may not have seen it or recognized it but it’s there. It may be removed to the intellectual plane but it is pretty much a constant. There are exceptions. I can’t, for instance, imagine PZ of Daniel Dennett worrying about it but you’d best believe their detractors in academia do so.
    Maybe stop assuming you understand more than you actually do so you can learn something and perhaps even come to the realization that you aren’t as smart or moral as you thought you were.

    I still disagree that it is a “crack pot” theory BTW (I[m not alone on that) and I certainly don’t try to fit “everything” into it.
    You might want to strive for a bit more accuracy in your rants.

    {{“But they did use the term(s) which is my point.”}}

    “Not to refer to humans, they didn’t.”

    Irrelevant since the analogy is clear.

    “They analogized being a beta male in macaque society to being a “middle-ranked manager”* in human society.”

    Close enough.

    “The rest of the articles are talking about other people’s use of the terms…..”

    So?

    “….and two of the three explicitly link their current popularity to the PUA community.”

    Not exclusively and nice own goal there, Noidy-you just admitted it’s a popular term even if it is connected (by some) to the PUA/MRA/MGTOW “community”. Hilarious.

    And I’m sure Frans de Waal will surprised to find out he is a ‘pick up artist’.

    “So nice own goal there. Maybe next time read your own links.
    (#113)”

    Uhm #105, genius. And apparently I read them a little more carefully than you did.
    The point was that the term(s) are in common use and not exclusively connected to asshole incels and opportunists.

    {{“Not free and not even relevant it the blurb is any indication.”}}

    “The PDF and e-book versions are free.”

    Not available from Ichthyic’s link:

    http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

    Thanks for the working link0I may get to it if I understand what Ichthyic is arguing. It’s certainly not clear from the description why he thinks it has anything to do with the subject and it seems like rehash of things I’m generally aware of already.

    “Only the printed and audio versions cost money. And Altemeyer does actual research on the topic rather than pulling whatever unsupported, ignorant nonsense he pleases out of his ass.”

    “It’s not the 50s anymore….”

    Gee, thanks for the wake up call. How can i ever repay you? /s

    “Freud was a complete hack, and the Wikipedia article your quote is from also says “Bob Altemeyer … presents the most recent analysis of this personality type.” That’s the very same Bob Altemeyer whose book Icthyic suggested you read.”

    Still waiting for him, or you to explain why it’s relevant or where it contradicts anything I’ve said.
    And, FFS, you moron……
    The wiki page goes on to summarize Altemeyer thusly:

    {{“…The focus of RWA research is political preferences as measured through surveys, that suggest three tendencies as noted in attitudinal clusters. These are: 1) submission to legitimate authorities; 2) aggression towards sanctioned targeted minority groups; and 3) adherence to values and beliefs perceived as endorsed by followed leadership….”}}

    …..which is exactly what I was talking about-my assertion is that is precisely what explains Robert’s abject submission to the humiliation and why it is “punching down” on the part of Baron Cohen-and that behavior has been clear to shrinks since the time of Freud (who changed everything even if he was a hack) so your objections are no more than the kind of ego driven parsing and squid ink you’ve been delivering in your alpha female aggression here from the beginning. Irrelevant.

    Talk about an “own goal”. LOL

    “Similar to human middle-ranked managers (Bupa Research, 2013), beta males had to obey the alpha males (boss) as well as maintain their beta status over the other group members.””

    How much clearer does the analogy need to bee for you? This is getting ridiculous, Noidy.

    “Now, do you want to go educate yourself, or do you want to keep showing everyone your ass like a baboon in heat?”

    Gee, it seems to me that I was already pretty aware of authoritarian personalities and their behavior in different social settings.
    It’s you and apparently, Ichthyic who aren’t recognizing that (although I’ll withold judgement and let Ich speak for him/her-self)
    It was you who was denying such things existed and calling it “red pill stinky herring” and jumping to unwarranted conclusions about my attitudes.

    But nice red baboon ass there, lady.

  90. manhattanmc says

    @114

    BTW, Noidy, is it your personal opinion that Freud was a “complete hack”? Are you quoting the opinion of a majority of experts in the field?
    I’m pretty sure professional opinions differ.

    Is psych your discipline or are you just pulling things out of your ass again?

  91. chigau (違う) says

    manhattanmc #116
    LOL
    Freud? LOL
    I took my first University Psychology course in 1974.
    Freud was part of the history of the discipline but everything he did was complete, utter, total garbage.
    LOL
    I guess your lack of academic credentials lets you think that Freud has any current followers.
    LOL

  92. manhattanmc says

    @118chigau

    A complete hack and a scoundrel as well
    Still changed everything. IIRC he first formulated the concept of the “subconscious” and the entire field of psychoanalysis is founded on his work, shabby as it may have been.

    And personally I happen to think that most psychiatric disciplines are complete, utter, total garbage.
    I have had dealings with several modern branches and done a bit of reading on the subject. I tend to doubt psych will ever be anything approaching a hard science.

    http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140421-does-freud-still-matter

    https://hbr.org/2004/09/why-people-follow-the-leader-the-power-of-transference

    {{“…Almost no scientific theory or medical treatment that is a century old can be expected to survive without major changes. In fact, one of the main reasons for the decline of psychoanalysis is that the ideas of Freud and his followers have gained little empirical support….”}}

    BTW, I didn’t say I had no academic credentials, chigau. I’m a college grad with international recognition in my (non-science) field. Love science and love reading about science.

    Why do you have the word “wrong” after your name in Japanese?

  93. manhattanmc says

    @118

    Did you continue with psychiatry, chigau?
    I took one uni psych course in 1970 (before I found out I could CLEP out of all academic course to concentrate on my own major-which I did).

  94. says

    You know what is the saddest part of this whole affair? That the peabrained troll actually really thinks he has made some points and refuted others.

    One thing we must grant him though – he has managed to híjack the thread and make it unreadable by spamming it with his drivel.

  95. manhattanmc says

    @121Charly

    Oh, Charly, Charly, Charly, Charly…….

    Bless your little heart.
    What’s sad is your ego is still smarting over albz hammering you succinctly (#95, #109) and myself doing the same (#73, #73).
    You’ll get over it, son.

    And speaking of drivel-this was a prime example;

    {{“…Both of the two individuals can be assigned different variables – gender, sex, social status, etc. etc. You can look at how all those variables add up and see which side is bigger, i.e. whether SBC is punching down or up. With respect to many relevant variables they are equal, but he seems to be punching up, because variables regarding political power and influence are hugely in favor of RD. In order to land a punch, SBC had to counterbalance this by fudging the variables on his side by pretending to be an Izraeli martial arts expert.”}} You

    None of those “mathematical ” (LOL) factors are in consideration on the mat in martial arts.
    (And I think you just failed Baysian analysis 101, son).

    And as for making points-my only points (aside from hammering A. Noyd for several times implying I’m an MRA/PUA-as if)-
    were seconded by chigau’s quote (#67) for the psychological argument and numerous times by albz for the moral argument.

    Of course you find the thread unreadable-you can’t face the fact that your morality is skewed by your sexism nor that you lost the debate.

    Seriously, pea brain, re-read the board and have fun reevaluating.

    Tata……..

  96. jazzlet says

    Charly @#121
    Sad and frustrating, you have to scroll past so much stuff to get to the debate.

  97. manhattanmc says

    @124jazzlet

    The stuff you are scrolling past is the debate, little one. Like it or not.

    Bless your little heart……

  98. chigau (違う) says

    manhattanmc #120
    LOL
    Why do you think that psychiatry and psychology are the same thing?
    LOL

  99. manhattanmc says

    @126

    Why because I abbreviated it to “psych”?

    No I don’t think they’re the same thing.

  100. manhattanmc says

    @126 chigau

    Why do you think an undergraduate would be taking a psychiatry course. LOL

  101. Ichthyic says

    <

    blockquote>How about rather than being abrasively dismissive and requiring me to purchase and read a book

    It is free, you demented fuckwit. the link to the PDF is right there at the top of the page. He ALSO wrote a full book form.
    everyone here should be dismissive of you, because you have zero clue what you’re talking about, and you barely pay any attention to people correcting you anyway.

    and again… you really should just fuck off.

  102. manhattanmc says

    @130

    This is what you get when you click on the PDF tab on your link, bozo boy.

    http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

    “….everyone here should be dismissive of you…..”

    So nasty. You are dismissed.

    “because you have zero clue what you’re talking about……”

    The blurb for the book, which you apparently can’t even summarize or relate to the argument at hand seems to agree with the points I’ve asserted here about authoritarian personalities.

    “…..and you barely pay any attention to people correcting you anyway.”

    ROTFLMAO
    Aside from answering every single one point by point and fisking them efficiently?
    Are you insane?

    “and again… you really should just fuck off.”

    Same to you, demented fuck wit.

  103. manhattanmc says

    @130IchBinThick

    Is this quote from wiki that I posted (#115) an adequate summation of Altemeyer, Thick-ness?

    {“…The focus of RWA research is political preferences as measured through surveys, that suggest three tendencies as noted in attitudinal clusters. These are: 1) submission to legitimate authorities; 2) aggression towards sanctioned targeted minority groups; and 3) adherence to values and beliefs perceived as endorsed by followed leadership….”}}

    Tell me where it contradicts anything I’ve posted. Better yet, tell me how id doesn’t support what I’ve posted.

    Or…..you could just stay fucked off.

  104. chigau (違う) says

    manhattanmc
    LOL{}
    {So.}
    You are deliberately not using <blockquote> because you are
    making a point
    ({?})
    Have a nice day.
    LOL
    {}

  105. manhattanmc says

    @134chigau

    No, I habitually don’t use block quote html because I think it’s a waste of time and effort and as several posters here have demonstrated-prone to failure. Never have and never will.

    Not day where I am. Just after midnight.
    Have a nice whatever, chigau.

  106. says

    Now the dimwit thinks that because someone occasionaly makes a mistake with blockquote, it is therefore useless. And insists that his furious masturbation over the keyboard is actually a superior form of communication.

    Also, what is it with the deliberate mangling of people’s nyms? There are twelve-years olds who figured out that this is neither funny, nor clever.

  107. manhattanmc says

    @136

    Charly, Charly, Charly, Charly……

    Not ‘now’-decision made years ago. And really-who gives a fuck. You obviously aren’t having any trouble reading my posts.

    “…And insists that his furious masturbation over the keyboard is actually a superior form of communication.”

    Never said that-never implied that. Personal choice.
    And “furious masturbation over the keyboard”? Seriously? This is how I get my kicks, son.

    “…Also, what is it with the deliberate mangling of people’s nyms? There are twelve-years olds who figured out that this is neither funny, nor clever.”

    When you call me a “dim wit”, moron, or as recently was done by another poster a “demented fuck wit”, all bets are off. You take what you get and grin.

    And what’s with talking about other posters in the third person? Is that supposed to be clever? Are you hoping to avoid further scalding of your poor, fragile, little ego?

    Bless your little heart, Charly.

    (You do know that “bless your little heart” is how southern belles with antebellum envy say “fuck you”, no?)

  108. manhattanmc says

    @136Charly

    If you’re going to continue to air your butt hurt in the future I’m going to ignore you.
    I’d rather talk about the OP.

  109. manhattanmc says

    @139chigau/wrong

    {{“Chigau 違う Let’s start with the word chigau 違う, and its polite variant chigaimasu 違います, which is the main topic of this article. The verb chigau means literally “to differ,” but you never translate it as “to differ” in English because nobody ever says that in English.”}}

    Your very name means “troll”.
    I had such high hopes we could have a civil conversation eventually.

    Oh, well……

  110. A. Noyd says

    manhattanmc (#140)

    “but you never translate it as ‘to differ’ in English because nobody ever says that in English.”

    I beg to differ. とにかく、自分の脳みその貧しささえ知らずに、下手に喧嘩を売ってばかりいるクソ荒らしはもう黙りなさい。

  111. manhattanmc says

    @142chigau/wrong

    Idioms don’t do well with google translate.

    “Anyway, without knowing even the poverty of their brains
    Vandalism fucking are just selling poorly fight shalt another silence.”

    Citation?
    First hit on a google search. LOL

  112. manhattanmc says

    @141 A. Nnoying

    You’re back?

    Glupi fucks, rijetko shvaćaju njihovu jebenu šaljivost…..

    Are you impressed?
    Me neither.

  113. manhattanmc says

    @146 & 141

    私が留守時に私の話をしないでください

    On second thought. Have at it.

    I really have no more time or energy for a person who thinks every person who has ever uttered or typed the words “alpha male” and “beta male” is a second lieutenant to Vox Day and who can’t even replicate an opponent’s position without getting it 180 degrees reversed.
    Have a nice life, Noidy.

    Chigau/wrong….sorry I don’t speak Japanese.
    You have a nice life too. Done.

  114. manhattanmc says

    @130Ichthyic

    Okay, I think that’s a reasonable amount of time for you to have responded. Apparently you really do think you can banish posters you disagree with by royal decree.
    So now you get to be a set piece, a prop, for my ranting.

    Your screen name and your presence on this site indicates that you are a marine biologist of some sort.
    I’ve seen your posts for years(impressed with their intellectual quality most of the time-leaning towards the sycophantic occasionally-but had no idea you were such an irritated prick when someone disagrees with you) so you’re probably not a graduate student (although you seem to have that graduate-student-i-tis arrogance still) so that means you are a professor at some uni (grading papers and lecturing….moan) or a research assistant at some level (cataloguing specimens and entering data into data banks….zzzzzzz…..). Either way it’s a pretty safe bet to say you aren’t a psychologist and likely didn’t even get a minor in psychology.

    Now let me give you a little lesson in netiquette.
    It’s cool to recommend that a complete moron “read a book”, any book as an insult. Not so much to recommend a specific book, particularly as a substitute for an actual argument, and absurd without giving at least a hint of what to look for and preferably page numbers and paragraphs. It’s a bit like showing up to that first Tinder (or is it Grinder?) date with a reading list for your prospective match. Makes you look like a pretentious intellectual snob. Asshole move.

    Since psychology isn’t your field of expertise, and biology pretty much intersects only with psychology as substrate to superstrate, that means your “argument” is argumentum verecundiam, whether we’re talking about your punt to Altemeyer as an authority (one that you can’t apparently even summarize) or your own authority.

    What you, A. Noid and Vox Day all seem to miss is that no authoritarian personality is going to be in any of these categories permanently:

    “1) submission to legitimate authorities; 2) aggression towards sanctioned targeted minority groups; and 3) adherence to values and beliefs perceived as endorsed by followed leadership…”

    Roberts’ alpha (or “dominant” if you prefer) role in politics was supplanted by Baron Cohen’s manipulation, lies and pretense to be a strong authority, which triggered Roberts to descend to fight or flight mode thinking with the old lizard brain and accept ridiculous commands. In that moment Baron Cohen was dominant-like it or not.

    BTW, I’ve been aware of this phenomenon from my reading since the mid 1970s. It was a big thing in my social circle at the time.

    Speaking of which, your behavior here, and that of A. Noid, has been just so much chest beating and feces flinging to prove dominance over the targeted minority group-one ManhattanMC.
    Hilarious.

    I’m a bit saddened by this OP and the entire thread. I’ve been reading Pharyngula for more than a decade and have always been educated by my reading, comments included. I’ve also considered it a bastion of morality and intelligent left politics. I’ve almost never disagreed with PZ until this. It’s really disheartening to see so many here have no problem with sexual humiliation as an old Soviet Union style political tactic. Roberts is despicable, I agree, but no more so than the rest of the republicans in congress and they all recite the same talking points and take the same NRA/Russian money. This is IMO, simply not the way to deal with it. For me it crosses the line.

    Anyways, I’m done. So, shorter demented fuck wit:

  115. manhattanmc says

    @148

    ごめんなさい あなたが読んで反応できるようにあなたの頭に銃を持っている

    /s

    bye.

  116. A. Noyd says

    chigau (#152)
    I think it’s supposed to mean something sarcastic like, “Sorry to hold a gun to your head so you’ll read and reply.” But who knows. The troll can’t even figure out which one of us is talking. Paying attention to minor details like whom you’re addressing must not seem very important once you’ve decided literally nothing you say is ever wrong.

    Are you still actively studying Japanese, by the way?

  117. chigau (違う) says

    A. Noyd
    I am still working on 日本語.
    I passed JLPT N5 last December and I’m doing weekly conversation with humans and daily online diddling.
    少し難しいよ。

  118. manhattanmc says

    @153Noidy

    “…I think it’s supposed to mean something sarcastic like, “Sorry to hold a gun to your head so you’ll read and reply.” But who knows.”

    Bingo-you win the genius award for thenigh.

    “The troll can’t even figure out which one of us is talking.”

    I missed one-sue me. Can’t edit here.

    “Paying attention to minor details like whom you’re addressing must not seem very important once you’ve decided literally nothing you say is ever wrong.”

    Hilarious.
    Still waiting for your apologies for completely misconstruing my position and being wrong about me being an MRA/PUA.
    But you’re never wrong are you.

    Don’t get excite. This doesn’t mean we are resuming your education. I just came back to finish of Ichtyic.”
    Thanks again for the working link to a dreadful book. I want my two hours back. Not much new for me.(The “Hidden Observer” hypnosis was intersting-reminds me of the phantom limb experiments of a few decades ago.)
    I find Altemeyer’s “Chatty Cathy”, popular still annoying (reference intended) and his constructed/borrowed scales: RWA, zealot, social cominator, etc etc quizzes to be poorly done-anyone with a double digit IQ could game them. An excess of unsupported conjecture (what did you say he didn’t do-“pull things out his ass”, wasn’t it. Sorry. Wrong.) and poor analogies-that Hugh and Lou thing-yikes.
    Cataloguing at too great a length the thought process of authoritarian personalities and subsets there of….yawn.
    and the Milgram experiment.

    I think I’ve used all of his “what’s to be done” talking points in my interactions with RWNJs online,

    And nothing in it negates anything I’ve said here. Quite the contrary:

    {{“….Before leaving this topic, we should also realize that fear can increase submission as well as aggression…..”}} Altemeyer

    And, oh…..look at that. he references a “Social Dominance Orientation scale” (Page 160 paragraph 3 Pratto and Sidanius). Oops. They must be wrong because A. Noyd says that social domination doesn’t even exist. /s

    Also he dismisses Freud not because he was a hack but because his assertions were untestable. Go figure.

    Have you read it? (I hope so since you piled on. If not that would make you uh,….what’s the word…..oh yea….a hypocrite.)

    I deal with authoritarian personalities every day-even a few here on this thread.

    ‘Bye again, RWA troll.

  119. manhattanmc says

    @152Chigau/wrong

    Seriously? A threat followed by the sarcasm hash tag?

    Yeah, we are done.

  120. manhattanmc says

    @130 Ichthyic

    Alright. I found time to read Altemeyer.
    I still have no clue as to why you demanded this of me. The wiki summary seems on target to me.
    If your point is that the right wing in the US is a hot bed of authoritarian personalities you could have said that in a sentence or two and I would not have disagreed-at all.
    If you’re claiming anything in the book disagrees with what I’ve asserted here I didn’t see it so give me a citation. Or not. I am beyond caring after slogging through that POS.

    As I said in my little coda for A Noyd above-‘I want my two hours back’.
    And as I said to you in my previous post-‘asshole move’, you demented fuck wit.

    GTFO

  121. manhattanmc says

    @153 Noidy

    Yeah, typos.
    “excited”. “Ichthyic”. Sue me and hop up and down some more while you beat your chest and fling your poo.
    I don’t even have to hang around to know that will happen. LOL

    ‘Bye.

Leave a Reply