Examples of ‘nasty pushback’ against some atheist/skeptic feminists on the Internet

by Michael Nugent on March 3, 2013

This is part of a dialogue with Justin Vacula about why some feminists receive what he describes as “criticism and hate” and “nasty pushback” on the Internet, and why some people direct such criticism and hate and nasty pushback at these feminists.

Trigger warning: For readers not familiar with the type of material published on The Slymepit website, please be aware that you may find the comments quoted in this article to be abusive, shaming and very disturbing.

Justin, thanks for your response to my two questions. I’m going to reply in three parts, so that we can cover all of the issues, while also keeping distinct focus on each of them.

  • this post responds to your first answer,
  • the next post will respond to your second answer,
  • the third post will answer the questions that you have asked me.

My first question for you was:

Justin asks why some feminists receive what he calls “nasty pushback” while others don’t, and he concludes that it is because of the way that they present themselves on the Internet. He says of this “nasty pushback”:

“It’s not to say the nasty pushback is morally justified, but it’s just to state a fact; it’s just to state how the internet “is.” It’s not to justify the behavior.”

Justin, here’s my first question for you. Can you go a step further than that, and say that at least some of “the nasty pushback” is morally unjustified, and can you give some examples of morally unjustified nasty pushback?

Your reply to this was:

“Indeed, some nasty pushback is morally unjustified. It’s difficult, though, to provide a one-size-fits-all definition of morally unjustified [internet] behavior. Anyway, here are two examples of morally unjustified behavior [which should not be tolerated]: unprovoked threats of violence and initiation of violence.”

Okay, I agree with you so far. I would not use “unprovoked” to qualify the “threats of violence,” but I accept your general point.

“On the other hand, other behaviors such as name-calling, parody, and satire exist. It can be difficult to ‘draw a line’ concerning what is morally justified, amoral (neutral), and morally unjustified.”

Well, they don’t just ‘exist’ in the passive sense of just happening to be there. Individual people deliberately and actively choose to imagine, generate and publish them.

But I agree that it can be difficult to ‘draw a line’ in an abstract sense in terms of defining what type of “nasty pushback” against some feminists is morally unjustified.

So let’s take some concrete examples.

Justin, my specific question for you in this post is:

Which of the following specific examples of “nasty pushback” against some feminists on the Internet do you consider to be morally unjustified?

I’m using examples that were published on The Slymepit website. I could add examples from Elevatorgate, YouTube and elsewhere, but I think there is enough here to be representative of the “nasty pushback” we are discussing. I’ve numbered them to make it easier for you to respond.

Reminder of trigger warning:  For readers not familiar with the type of material published on The Slymepit website, please be aware that you may find the following content to be abusive, shaming and very disturbing.

  1. If I was a girl I would kick [named person] in the cunt. cunt.
  2. [named person] comes off as the most disgusting human being I have ever encountered. What a fucking self-pitying arrogant twat/bitch/cunt/asshole. Oh, was that sexist? Boo fucking hoo; stop complaining and grow a pair. Oh, was that sexist again? Fuck you.
  3. But for her victim ploy [named person] needs to believe that there are people who want her to be raped, and all her little smelly-skepchick-snatch-sniffers are more than happy to magic them into being in their own tiny shiny minds.
  4. It really bothers me when fucking special snowflakes like [named person] complain about “sister punishing” or privilege. That fucking bitch is the textbook definition of privilege. A useless, worthless cunt that gets to complain about stupid trivial shit because of her comfy, cushioned life.
  5. I find their behaviour disgusting and hilarious at the same time. I don’t argue against them, I don’t try and build bridges or attempt to change their minds. I’m just here for the laughs and to watch them dissolve in a pool of their own angry tears.
  6. [named person]’s whole strategy is to make herself a target to get attention to her bleating. What the fuck do I care if someone then tells her she’s ugly or makes funny pictures of her? That’s what she fucking wants, she can have it.
  7. *You* dont give a shit, [named person]. You care about drama and how you can appear to be a moral human while doing as little as humanly possible.
  8. And I hate to point this out, really I do – there’s a trope that feminists are ugly but damn, I recently watched a Pharyngula video, and the women ARE ugly.
  9. Many [feminists] try to be ugly on purpose (especially lesbians – crewcut hair + ugly hipster glasses), in hopes that less men will think sexual thoughts about them, and conversely, others do the opposite of that, a kind of stubborn insistence that men should find them attractive without them having to groom, or look good, or even despite looking fugly bad.
  10. [named person] is dying of some disease directly related to him being a fat cunt
  11. There’s an inverse porportion rule out there that states a woman’s fear of being raped is inversely porportional to her atractiveness. I suspect this is because attractive women have no problem acquiring the company of men, and therefore have a harder time developing bigotted assertions about them, whereas unattractive women have fewer contacts with men and therefore find it easier to hold bigotted assertions.
  12. [named person] may be a feeder. With a bit of luck, this time next year she’ll be imprisoned in a toilet with lots of bacon and cakes for company.
  13. [named person] is also [named person]’s toilet slave.
  14. that should be corrected to: “[named person] is also one of [named person]’s many, though in this instance, quite lower level, and easily forgettable, toilet slaves.
  15. [named person] has no dick. No balls. Nothing but pathetic whiney suck-hole “hope, no dream like hell to get sympathy-laid by a decrepit aging crayon-tattooed podgy cellulite-dough lard-arsed-feminazi, oh yes!” because I perform like a trained puppy when my cruel mistresses tease me with measly taunting treats that I shall never actually get.
  16. I did not start out calling [named person] a bitch, that was after she blew me off as not important enough to listen to. Suddenly I was important enough though, wasn’t I ? Funny how that works.
  17. I’d just call her a poison-cunt if it was me. How’s that bigotry you fucking retard mutant?
  18. I’m betting good money it was [named person] or [named person] or some combination thereof, which mean they and those nearest and dearest to them (like their fat, poultry-faced wives) will be getting my complete and undivided attention.
  19. [two named persons] Wow, you two are a little two-person retard train, aren’t you?
  20. Because you [named person] are a shallow unkempt fat fuck cunt desperately trying to prolong the pathetically unfortunate and entirely accidental amount of celebrity you’ve somehow managed to acquire.
  21. I skipped to the end of the current conversation and became acquainted with a commenter named [named person] who apparently doesn’t like [named person] very much–based on the fact that he concluded his comment with the phrase ‘Fuck her. Fuck her. Kill her. Dump her in a ditch’. This actually did get some negative attention from the mod and a couple of other posters. That was at 11PM PST last night. This morning, the offensive phrase that I reproduced above has been miraculously modified to read “Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her on the cheeks”.
  22. If [named person] was a fat no-life neck beard guy no one would listen to her, but since she’s a fat no-life Skepchick suddenly arguing on the internet has global consequences.
  23. Under the tennants of the Manosphere, be prepared for [named person] to get drunk, fuck some hapless beta and cry rape, rather than acknowledge she “setteled” for some “creepy” guy who she would never have looked at twice before she hit the wall.
  24. This is why [named person] will eventually transition to some other organization where she can be fat and old and bitter and bitch about her objectification.
  25. [named person] is ugly as an old catcher’s mitt packed into a mule’s asshole.
  26. Although, if it starts to go tit’s up, I’m claiming to have cancer and getting a new trench coat from donations :p
  27. I want to claim I have cancer too, but only for the pity sex.
  28. I’ve posted a few fat jokes and insults. Way I see it, anything one has the power to change about oneself, one can expect to be used for a cheap laugh: obesity, religion, or dying your fucking hair blue.
  29. I don’t have anything against fat people. On the contrary, I’ve shagged a fair few fat women in my time, and can vouch for the experience: just slap her arse and ride the waves. Most comfortable ride ever.
  30. In the spirit of equality, here is a list of fatsos: [five named people]. Congrats, you are all obese!
  31. but SJW, can kill themselves, as far as I care. Serious.
  32. Why on earth would I care if they tried to or succeeded in killing themselves? They are noxious, twisted, hurtful assholes that try to bring others down. Fuck them. They can get cancer and die.
  33. And while I would always intervene if I saw a suicide in progress, if the next day I read in a paper about some SJW killing his or herself, I would say fine. Wonderful. A good start.
  34. I need to spend some time away from this place – last night I was dreaming about the Pit, and the fat lezzers belly-smashing foreplay, as referenced in [named person]‘s .sig just wouldn’t leave my mind… So fucked up.
  35. [named person] fakes a nervous breakdown because of internet push-back and retires (again) to bed
  36. Muhahaha the evil spreads. Soon my pretties, soon we shall have the whole atheist movement chanting our chant of mysoginist victory ” cunt, cunt cunt!” They shall chant. “Rape to the [named person]” will be our warcry!
  37. I was also part of the FTP warez scene in the late 90s and throughout most of the 2000′s. Every single women I met in ‘the scene’ was a conniving, manipulative bitch. They were always trying to score points, and get all of the male attention.
  38. She is such a greedy bitch. I am seriously disgusted with her. In fact, she tops my cunt list at the moment.
  39. Physics/biology/chemistry= fat shaming. I think [named person] is expecting somebody to come to her house and do the work for her. “But I ated only three radishes orl off today and I iz still teh fat!”
  40. A photo of a named person with the commentary: From the look on his face and his hand gesture, he’s just blown his beans after thinking about caressing [named person] or [named person] or [named person]…
  41. A photo of a named person with the comment: [named person] kinda porked up I see. Maybe she needs to spend less time on her wardrobe/crying on the internet and to get up off her ass and maybe walk somewhere.
  42. A photo of Miss Piggy to illustrate a named person, and this commentary: And [named person], fat shaming? WTF? How can that be fat shaming, Miss Piggy is thinner than you! And anyway, you should feel flattered. Miss Piggy is a cool character. You, on the other hand, are a thug.
  43. Links to photos of a named couple’s wedding, and mocking comments about their marriage including [in response to a tweet by the wife about how much she loves her husband]: To me, that looks like she’s trying to tell herself she still loves a man who no longer does it for her.
  44. A photo of several named feminists with the commentary:
    - Oh no. Wow that photo could be used for chemical free pest control.
    - Yeah, and [named person] certainly looks as though someone’s tampering with her rusty tradesman’s entrance…
    - Holy shit that’s a table of fuglies! and i have beer goggles on.
    - By the way, that picture is revolting. When you look at [named person] her atrocious oral hygiene is overwhelmingly evident.
    - The other “chicks” in the picture aren’t smiling, they’re grimacing at her repulsive appearance and are disgusted by her atrocious breath. Meow [named person]!
    - What is [named person] doing with her right hand? Wanking off a hobo?
    - [named person] looks like she’s in the before shot for a tooth whitening product.
  45. A video animation of a named person masturbating over a computer image of another named person.
  46. A video of a named person edited make it seem as if he is telling another named person to suck his dick.
  47. A video of a named person edited to make it seem as if she is saying that she had sex with another named person.
  48. A video titled: “For [two named people] And Other Feminazis Who Whine About Rape All Day.” The video is of a comedian saying ‘Have you ever noticed that it’s your ugliest friend that’s the most afraid of being raped?’
  49. Referring to named people by nicknames like Rebeccunt Twatson and Cobweb Cunt.
  50. I don’t think you should have offered any sort of “cease-fire”. I cringed when I first read about it. Why should we let up? In any way? These fuckers needs to be utterly annhiliated from the atheist community. Fuck ‘em the ground.
    - No goddamn harassment policies (except those cons are obliged to have due to insurance issues).
    - No goddamn anti- free speech rules where you’re not allowed to “offend” anyone at cons/seminars.
    - I’ll call a cunt a cunt and a bitch a bitch as much as I goddamn well please, thank you.
    - No goddamn free childcare at cons. If people want to have kids, fine. If they’re stupid and got a kid without the means to support that kid, not my goddamn problem. If I attend a conference, I want my money to go to that conference’s motherfucking content (i.e. speakers, dinner, location, etc.); not [named person]‘s adopted African trans-little person.
    - Everyone is free to make as much “fake” jewellery as they want.
    - No fucking “affirmative action” in regards to the gender/sexuality/race of the speakers at conferences. If there are qualified female speakers, they will be invited. This isn’t kindergarten where we need the teacher to make everyone play with the unpopular kid.
    FTB and A+theism are ruining the good name of atheism. And we should do everything in our power to stop them.

So Justin, my specific question in this post is:

Which of the above specific examples of “nasty pushback” against some feminists on the Internet do you consider to be morally unjustified?

Please note that

  • I am not blaming all of the members of the Slymepit website for publishing these comments.
  • I am aware that there other comments published on the Slymepit website that are not similar to these.
  • I am aware that some people published some of the above comments intending them to be jokes.
  • I am aware that some of the comments are made by women, and that some are directed at men.
  • At this stage, I’m not looking for analysis of why you think particular comments are morally unjustified.

We can discuss all of that in the context of my reply to your other answer.

At this stage, I am just asking which of the above specific examples you consider to be morally unjustified, based on your ethical values as distinct from the ethical values of the people who published them.

As I said, I’ll respond to your other answer, and to your questions to me, in later posts. That way we can cover all of the issues, while also keeping distinct focus on each of them.

Share or Bookmark this Page

  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks

{ 723 comments… read them below or add one }

251 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 5:32 pm

“Calling libertarianism “A simple-minded right-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.” is simplifying it too much. If I was arguing against libertarianism, I would do some research and present my arguments (if I didn’t have time to do so, I would not say anything about it)”

So, saying Feminism is “A simple minded left-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard,” is completely ignorant, indicates to you that I have no idea what feminism is, requires me to take a few days to research it, and makes me devoid of any analytical thought if I attempt to defend the statement.

But, saying the exact same thing about Libertarianism is just “simplifying it too much.”

Got it.

252 Brony March 4, 2013 at 5:33 pm

@ John Brown 230

Laura, the point here isn’t to focus on “you do it, too.” The point is that people don’t like being told to police their language by a group of people who are abusive and uncharitable to every position save their own.

I don’t give a crap about the fact that both sides use language that the other considers a problem. I care about objective examples of the language and if they are appropriate. Michaels examples are some I think are good ones to consider. It simply does not matter if the “other side” said things you think are a problem because this is a forest issue, not a trees issue. But feel free to give me examples of what you think count as abusive language because there is no reason that we cannot consider both.

If you use the FTB definition of anything coming out of the Slymepit, they themselves are much more guilty of abusing, demeaning, harassing, dehumanizing, bullying and shouting down Republicans, Libertarians, Conservative women, people like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Penn and Teller, creationists, etc, etc, etc…

Challenge 1. Cite examples of FTB definitions of the quality of the Slymepit language. So far all I see from you are accusations with no substance and that is boring.

This realization sunk in at the Slymepit sometime ago. It was hilarious when (as a group) we were doing it to those people. Now, when the same tactics and language are turned inward, it’s not so hilarious anymore.

Do I have this right? It looks like you are saying that folks at the Slymepit realized that the (as yet un-cited) tactics of people at FTB were hurtful when you experienced them? No implications, I just want to clarify you meaning.

One can take away any number of lessons from that realization. Maybe those tactics weren’t the best to use against creationists, Republicans, Libertarians, etc, etc, etc.. Or, maybe they are and people like P.Z. Myers, Stephanie Zvan, EllenBeth Wachs, Sally Strange, Wowbanger, Adam Lee, etc, should stop whining when the same tactics and language is turned back at them.

Oh you do mean it that way. Challenge 2. Provide specific examples of such language or you are asserting without evidence. I don’t mean point at a thread. I mean give me the actual post numbers, and the text itself if its buried. Folks making claims are the ones to provide evidence and I will not do someone else’s work.

@ John Brown 243

“For example, I don’t like the word “cunt” because it of the associated meanings. It is reducing a woman to a body part. A man could argue he feels the same way when called a “dick.” What I am seeing is people just whining. Stop whining and start coming up with solutions. (or else I am going to have to send out a lot of cheese for all that whine)”

You will be happy to know that I am currently trying to stop using gendered insults such as “dick” as well.

And it could be rightfully argued that your offense at the word is very cultural-centric. You have people commenting from all over the world on these boards who don’t feel the need to defer to your offense, since the word is not offensive in their culture.

That does not matter when objective psychological impact is the question. There really are degrees of perceived harm from words that range from annoyance at a one shot piece of criticism, to emotional exhaustion from a term associated with past trauma. Your opinion does not change the perception of others. The important question is are there rationales for supporting and opposing the use of specific words? That is coincidentally (not really) related to Michael’s post.

The point I was making was your criticism is valid if it were a third, disinterested party making it. If your mom is telling you not to do something, a valid response would not be, “But my brother is doing it, too.”

Did I really just see you say that? After you said,
The point is that people don’t like being told to police their language by a group of people who are abusive and uncharitable to every position save their own.
…in comment 230? Good! Your dislike is now invalid hypocrite.

If your brother is telling you not to do something, it is perfectly valid to point out to him that he is engaging in the exact same (if not worse) behavior.

My pot and kettle welcome you to the club.

So, either FtB believes that this is the kind of behavior that only they can engage in, or they don’t believe its bad behavior at all.

Of you can give me examples of the behavior so I can see if your opinion holds anything more than emotion.

@ John Brown 239

“Feminism. A simple-minded left-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.”
That is perfectly in line with my own sentiments. Feminism isn’t so much a political and economic movement as it is a widespread pathology.

Nice. People who disagree with you are actually mentally damaged. Whatever it takes to avoid actually addressing arguments I guess.

253 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 5:34 pm

“Nice. People who disagree with you are actually mentally damaged. Whatever it takes to avoid actually addressing arguments I guess.”

My point. You just proved it. Congratulations!

254 Brony March 4, 2013 at 5:44 pm

@Justicar248

“By the way, if culture accepts the word “cunt” does not make it less offensive.”
Of course not; you get to decide that for everyone else.

Nope. We do as a group. Morality is necessarily social since its made up from a collection of individuals. So Laura decides it for herself and gives it as an opinion, and I do, and other people do. Then we try to show why the word should not be used and shame when necessary. If this works is a matter of history.
But nice job trying to isolate someone from the group for attack. An effective pack-oriented attack strategy when not noticed.

“You don’t need the word to make valid arguments, so why use it at all.”
And you don’t need to use the internet. I see that the absence of necessity hasn’t counseled you to abstain; you should be entirely unsurprised that an argument you yourself won’t accept as cogent will similarly be dismissed by others.

Answer her question. If you know that a word hurts someone when in a discussion why should anyone use it.

255 SallyStrange March 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm

Out of curiosity, is anyone on the FTB side willing at this late date to admit that the guy in the elevator didn’t do anything wrong? Wowbagger? Sally? PZ?

Are you kidding me? My thoughts on Elevator Dude remain the same as when I first heard about him: he demonstrated that he was either willing to walk over Rebecca’s clearly defined boundaries, or incapable of perceiving them. And from her follow-up comments indicating that he appeared to her to be socially confident rather than socially awkward, it seems more likely that he was the former: aware that Rebecca had set boundaries, but uninterested, for whatever reason, in respecting them.

That’s not “zero bad,” contra Dawkins. It’s not a Big Bad, but it’s also not zero bad.

Funny, though, that there are people who are STILL angry about that. I mean, even after Rebecca and numerous other women framed it as HELPFUL advice for men who are SINCERELY interested in sexing it up with some pretty lady at a conference (as opposed to, say, getting a kick out of demonstrating their social dominance, with sex as a possible–unlikely but still possible–side effect), there are still people who have trouble with the concept. The instruction was conditional. IF you want to bring more women into the movement, have them attend more conferences, etc., THEN one possible thing you can do to make that happen is not proposition them when they’ve made it clear that they don’t want to be propositioned.

Apparently that “IF” is a big one for some.

256 Brony March 4, 2013 at 5:48 pm

John Brown @253

“Nice. People who disagree with you are actually mentally damaged. Whatever it takes to avoid actually addressing arguments I guess.”

My point. You just proved it. Congratulations!

Since I actually addressed points and requested citations so I could actually investigate more, your response is completely detached from reality. Try being less lazy, you are boring.

257 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 5:49 pm

“Answer her question. If you know that a word hurts someone when in a discussion why should anyone use it.”

That’s pretty simple. Because the world doesn’t revolve around your delicate sensibilities. Because, as I stated earlier, there are hundreds of millions of people (men and women) in this world who don’t only find the word *not* offensive, they use it as a term of endearment.

I have no idea where you’re from, Brony. I’ll just say you’re from the United States as a rhetorical device. Why should anyone in Australia or England give one care what word you do or do not find offensive?

What about the offense you’re giving to them by telling all of them they must conform to your standards?

If you are so offended by seeing a word on your first world computer screen, there is a pretty simple solution. Don’t read that word.

258 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 5:50 pm

“Since I actually addressed points and requested citations so I could actually investigate more, your response is completely detached from reality. Try being less lazy, you are boring.”

If you would bother to read up maybe 10-15 comments and follow the discussion, you would see that you proved my point.

Who’s being lazy and boring now?

259 A Hermit March 4, 2013 at 5:58 pm

John Brown March 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Well, A Hermit;

If you’re unable to make it through several comment threads which address issues like creationists, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservative women, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc, etc, without seeing over the top vitriol,…

A bit difficult without the links…let’s see you back up your claims. I’d really like to see if you can find anything on FtB directed at Libertarians, creationists, Sam Harris or anyone else that comes close to this…http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=28

That’s a whole forum directory dedicated specifically to mocking and verbally abusing people identified by the `pit as “baboolies”…including this thread…http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10…dedicated to making photoshop images of said “baboolies. It has over 200 entries and 20,000 views.

OK, your turn…show us a similar page at FtB…

260 A Hermit March 4, 2013 at 5:58 pm

And by “similar page” I don’t mean random comment from three years ago…

261 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:01 pm

“And by “similar page” I don’t mean random comment from three years ago…”

Bless your cotton socks, Hermit.

That wasn’t a “random comment.” That was a post P.Z. Myers himself made and continues to make in some variation to this day.

Rationalizing away things you don’t want to deal with is fun!

262 Alec Toynton March 4, 2013 at 6:05 pm

The quotes listed above are simply vile beyond belief. It is rather sobering to realise that there plenty of really nasty people in the world. What is really scary is the fact that these people can get to vote. I would imagine that a lot of them vote for racist, sexist and xenophobic far right parties. If you can’t say anything civil, then don’t say anything at all. People are perfectly entitled to criticize other people’s points of view but not to resort to foul-mouthed and threatening abuse. Not only is this sort of behaviour vile, but it also demonstrates a lack of intelligence and vocabulary.

263 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:10 pm

“The quotes listed above are simply vile beyond belief. It is rather sobering to realise that there plenty of really nasty people in the world. What is really scary is the fact that these people can get to vote. I would imagine that a lot of them vote for racist, sexist and xenophobic far right parties.”

When you’re done clutching your pearls, the fainting couch is right over there.

” If you can’t say anything civil, then don’t say anything at all.”

What is this, the second grade? Should I hold my tongue if I don’t have anything civil to say to Fred Phelps or Todd Akin?

“People are perfectly entitled to criticize other people’s points of view but not to resort to foul-mouthed and threatening abuse.”

And I suppose you are the person who is qualified to set up a chair in the anti-chambers of everyone’s mind and be the arbiter what what is and isn’t acceptable?

“Not only is this sort of behaviour vile, but it also demonstrates a lack of intelligence and vocabulary.”

Says the person who believes nobody is entitled to do what he disagrees with.

264 Brony March 4, 2013 at 6:14 pm

@John Brown 257

That’s pretty simple. Because the world doesn’t revolve around your delicate sensibilities. Because, as I stated earlier, there are hundreds of millions of people (men and women) in this world who don’t only find the word *not* offensive, they use it as a term of endearment.

There you go too. Its not me, its we. There are more than one of us therefore the debate is more serious than you want to let on. But that is part of the strategy of course. Minimize your opponent.

My argument is that a person with empathy would care about the effect their language has on others. So if there are people out who react in certain categories toward word use (painful ones, not angry ones), I will avoid those words when talking to them. Especially if there is past trauma involved. Because I actually care about the people around me.

Especially when debating them will I avoid offensive and painful words because that makes my ability to defend ideas weaker. Since it makes you rely on emotional pain in others (anger I can use if it will embarrass dishonest ones).

What you are worried about is there becoming enough people to actually spread ideas like “stop using words that emotionally hurt people because you care about people in general”. Things that me and others are arguing for.

Disagree all you want, but you don’t get to change reality.

I have no idea where you’re from, Brony. I’ll just say you’re from the United States as a rhetorical device. Why should anyone in Australia or England give one care what word you do or do not find offensive?

See above + humans generally being similar when it comes to empathy, and lack thereof.

What about the offense you’re giving to them by telling all of them they must conform to your standards?

That’s just it. I don’t give a shit about offense. Pain and offense are different enough to make this issue more complicated than you want it to be. History has shown the error in banning or suppressing on mere offense.

To me offense is a justification to marshal arguments and try to convince people. Offense is not a reason to try to stop someone from using a word or you are just lazy. Why should offense be a reason for something? Now that is interesting.

You can disagree with it, but avoiding the Pain/Offense dichotomy implicit in my argument is a non-answer.

If you are so offended by seeing a word on your first world computer screen, there is a pretty simple solution. Don’t read that word.

Actually I am actualizing my offense in the proper way right now.

@John Brown 258
Oh no you don’t. I’m not playing the “person making the argument gets to be lazy” game. You cite the relevant comment and say which link. Its pragmatic because I want to make sure I get your meaning and intent correct. I will not hunt for your meanings because I am not you.

Which comments? Its reasonable.

265 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:18 pm

“Oh no you don’t. I’m not playing the “person making the argument gets to be lazy” game. You cite the relevant comment and say which link. Its pragmatic because I want to make sure I get your meaning and intent correct. I will not hunt for your meanings because I am not you.”

I made this statement:

“Feminism. A simple-minded left-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.”

That is perfectly in line with my own sentiments. Feminism isn’t so much a political and economic movement as it is a widespread pathology.”

You replied:

“Nice. People who disagree with you are actually mentally damaged. Whatever it takes to avoid actually addressing arguments I guess.”

See comment 246 if you have any further questions.

266 Alec Toynton March 4, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Since we live in a free society we have to put up with unpleasant people like you. I would never want to associate with you since you are evidently not a civilized human being.

267 Brony March 4, 2013 at 6:21 pm

@John Brown 262

Shorter version.

“I’m bothered that you are bothered”

If you were intellectually consistent you would now leave.

Also there you go trying to make it look like its just that one person again. The “how dare you one single person try to determine public morality!” crap is boring. We all collectively determine morality so start actually giving reasons why people are wrong instead of clutching your own pearls.

268 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:22 pm

“Since we live in a free society we have to put up with unpleasant people like you. I would never want to associate with you since you are evidently not a civilized human being.”

Well, good thing we live in a free society. I can’t imagine living in an un-free society where people like you have a say.

269 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:25 pm

Brony, either address comment 246, or don’t. But don’t get pissed just because I pointed out a double standard that you completely walked into and can’t seem to find a way to back out of.

It’s very, very simple to say, “I see your point,” in regards to the P.Z. Myers post. You’re not doing that. You’re rationalizing it away.

270 Brony March 4, 2013 at 6:27 pm

@ John Brown 264

This is why I wanted you to point me to things. You just misrepresented my request.

I’m referring to my comment at 252 where I put in two challenges (and slightly messed up the formatting).

Challenge 1. Cite examples of FTB definitions of the quality of the Slymepit language. So far all I see from you are accusations with no substance and that is boring.

Challenge 2. Provide specific examples of such language or you are asserting without evidence. I don’t mean point at a thread. I mean give me the actual post numbers, and the text itself if its buried. Folks making claims are the ones to provide evidence and I will not do someone else’s work

Now if you don’t want to defend your assertions just say so.

271 Brony March 4, 2013 at 6:32 pm

@John Brown 267

“Since we live in a free society we have to put up with unpleasant people like you. I would never want to associate with you since you are evidently not a civilized human being.”
Well, good thing we live in a free society. I can’t imagine living in an un-free society where people like you have a say.

There you go again with mis-characterizations. They do have a say. They just had their say. So how am I to interpret your comment? I will go with the hypothesis that you want to make them look like they want to force people to be “un-free”. Now what could that mean to a person who obviously depends on dishonest “discussion” tactics?
@John Brown 268

Brony, either address comment 246, or don’t. But don’t get pissed just because I pointed out a double standard that you completely walked into and can’t seem to find a way to back out of.
It’s very, very simple to say, “I see your point,” in regards to the P.Z. Myers post. You’re not doing that. You’re rationalizing it away.

Elaborated upon in 269

272 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:37 pm

If you were paying attention, Hermit, I never addressed those points. I addressed one point specifically. This one, in fact:

“Nice. People who disagree with you are actually mentally damaged. Whatever it takes to avoid actually addressing arguments I guess.”

You said this as a reply to my original comment:

“‘Feminism. A simple-minded left-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.’

That is perfectly in line with my own sentiments. Feminism isn’t so much a political and economic movement as it is a widespread pathology.”

Are you still with me so far?

You see, what I did there was take something P.Z. Myers said in a post of his and changed exactly two words. I substituted the word “Feminism” for “Libertarianism,” and the world “left-wing” for “right-wing.”

Here’s the original quote and link:

“’Libertarianism. A simple-minded right-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.’

That is perfectly in line with my own sentiments. Libertarianism isn’t so much a political and economic movement as it is a widespread pathology.”

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/15/libertarianism-defined/

Now, I publicly challenge you, in front of all to see, to go onto P.Z. Myer’s thread (any thread will do), reference this post and reply with: “Nice. People who disagree with you are actually mentally damaged. Whatever it takes to avoid actually addressing arguments I guess.”

Now, you and I are done with this back and forth. Anyone reading this thread can see the obvious double standard at play and your reaction to it. It’s all very telling.

Now, good day, Sir/Ma’am.

273 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:40 pm

“There you go again with mis-characterizations. They do have a say. They just had their say. So how am I to interpret your comment? I will go with the hypothesis that you want to make them look like they want to force people to be “un-free”. Now what could that mean to a person who obviously depends on dishonest “discussion” tactics?”

Maybe parse out my statement before you reply so you don’t look so hapless?

I said it was a good thing we don’t live in an *UN-FREE* society where people like him have a say. See, that was a direct response to his lament about having to put up with people like me because we live in a *free* society.

See what I did there?

274 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Sorry, comment 271 should be addressing Brony, not Hermit.

275 idahogie March 4, 2013 at 6:46 pm

If I were a member of today’s Republican Party, I’d wonder why my policies and message were so resonant with the racists, the scientifically illiterate, and the white uppercrust in our society. What is it about the GOP’s positions that such people find so appealing?

Likewise, if I were a member of the slimepit, I’d wonder why it is that the group attracts the MRAs, the msogynists, and the really nasty people that you find over there. Unless, of course, I were comfortable hanging with those sorts of people.

There are aggressive, in-your-face commenters nearly everywhere — some places are more tolerant of such behavior. Pharyngula is one such place, generally speaking. However, that site doesn’t have as one of its primary, fundamental objectives defending their right to verbally assault and harrass a class of people in a way that extends beyond their ideas.

I would love to have a beer with a room full of Pharyngulites. Face to face, I’m sure we’d get along marvelously — despite the fact that some of them get heated in comment threads. They seem to be generally decent people who care about their fellow human beings.

But I think I would be totally creeped out hanging with slimepitters. If one of them started justifying sexist behavior towards the waitress and sharing rape jokes, and if I objected, that group would come down harder on me than on the offender. I would really start to question my own decency if I found myself associated with such a group.

276 A Hermit March 4, 2013 at 6:46 pm

John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:01 pm

That wasn’t a “random comment.” That was a post P.Z. Myers himself made and continues to make in some variation to this day.

So in your mind one generalized comment about a political philosophy (which is all you’ve given us) is exactly like the pages and pages of personal attacks on identifiable individuals I linked to above…

Thank you Mr Brown. This is an excellent illustration of the false equivalence I keep talking about.

You simply can’t find anything like those slymepit threads directed at individual libertarians, creationists or anyone else at FtB. So lets please stop pretending that “both sides do it” is any kind of a legitimate argument here. It clearly isn’t.

277 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 6:51 pm

“So in your mind one generalized comment about a political philosophy (which is all you’ve given us) is exactly like the pages and pages of personal attacks on identifiable individuals I linked to above…”

I had no idea you could read minds! It’s a miracle!

I simply replaced two words in P.Z. Myers post and restated it here. People took the bait and took exception. When I reverted the statement back and put them side by side, all of the exception they took all of a sudden vanished.

Laura excused herself from the thread. Brony rationalized it away, and instead of addressing the contradiction, you pretend like you can read my mind.

So….yeah.

All it would take to make all of this stop would be for any one of you to go, “Huh. That guy has a point. If it’s not cool to make those kinds of sweeping generalizations about feminism, it’s probably not OK to do it about other people/ideologies.”

But, that would require introspection and the horrifying realization that you might have to re-evaluate some of your core beliefs.

Heaven forbid!

278 John C. Welch March 4, 2013 at 6:54 pm

So many things to say, such a small internet.

First, and this is critical: Justin Vacula is neither authorized nor in fact able to “answer” for the ‘pit. He speaks for no one but himself. He doesn’t speak for me, and if you read the ‘pit for more than quotemining purposes, (we’ll get to that later), you’d see that rather a lot of people there are really quite insistent about that. So already, we see that you have no real idea about what it is you’re criticizing. Indeed, I’d say your understanding of the ‘pit is only marginally better than Ken Ham’s understanding of evolution, (and your quote-mining shows your ethics to be about at the same level as Ham’s as well.)

Justin Vacula’s opinion of what anyone who is not Justin Vacula has written has about as much “validity” as your opinion of it. He cannot, can. not. answer for it, nor will many of us allow him to. If you want to find out why a specific person said a specific thing, then I suggest you spine up and ask that person.

One of the primary ‘rules’ of the ‘pit, if you are that desperate to codify things, is simple: “you, and only you, are responsible for your words”.

No one “makes” anyone type a single letter there. One’s participation, or lack thereof in the ‘pit is that individual’s choice. If I choose to post a bit about my dad’s daft fascination with leisure suits, that doesn’t make anyone else there “responsible” for that post, any more that I am responsible for anyone else’s post.

It is, as we have tried to state over and over, in atmosphere, a pub. People wander from conversation to conversation as they wish. Some folks only drop in once a month or so, others seem to live there. About the only conclusion you can draw from participation in the ‘pit is that we generally like the pub and enough of the people in it to come back. It does not, by any means, imply we all hold hands and sing every post in multipart harmony.

Again, reading for understanding rather than quote-mining would show that the disagreements there are frequent and heated. In my case, to say I don’t get along with Franc Hoggle would be an understatement. But I wouldn’t want him banned. When one of the local MRAs started pushing what I thought was sheer idiocy, I very specifically and pointedly called them out on it. When, in the course of our argument, he found a rather blatant date error in one of my statements, he called me out on it, and as he was correct, I admitted my error, and moved on.

No one was banned though. No one was hounded off the site. We weren’t particularly *nice* to each other, but the fact I thought he was, in this instance, completely full of shit didn’t mean that when he found an error I had made, I dismissed his point, because he was not doing well on others.

It’s funny though…how angry, and upset the FTB lot get when you call them or even refer to them as some kind of hive mind, and yet, the first thing they do when talking about the ‘pit, is make sure the only image anyone has is that we are all of the same mind and opinion.

I’m amused to see you joining in on that Michael.

It says a lot about how seriously anyone from the ‘pit should take you. After all, you’re not even dealing with who we are. You’re “fighting” a chimera, a mythical creature that doesn’t exist. I thought skeptics and atheists didn’t believe in fantasy. Hmm…another myth I suppose.

Now, let us spend some time on your post. It shows a lot of work. That level of quote-mining clearly took no small amount of effort. I would applaud it based solely on that, but, as my dad said “Just because you worked hard at being wrong doesn’t mean you still weren’t wrong.”

For example, this bon mot:

[two named persons] Wow, you two are a little two-person retard train, aren’t you?

Wow, that’s pretty awful. Man, ableist as hell right? There’s just one problem…Michael only showed part of the comment. He made it look like it originated in the ‘pit. But that’s not exactly true, is it Michael?

Here, the *full* post:

I’m laughing almost as much as I did when Tony started fapping to the urethra meatus.

https://twitter.com/Dalesy617/status/287071925572861953

@micknugent @rebeccawatson Wow, you two are a little two-person retard train, aren’t you?

It’s a comment on a *twitter* post, said post by Dalesy617.

But I’m sure it’s okay that Michael did that, because after all, he would never want to imply something that’s not true, like the part he quoted originated in the ‘pit. After all, I’m sure Michael is an honorable person.

Or this one:

I’ve posted a few fat jokes and insults. Way I see it, anything one has the power to change about oneself, one can expect to be used for a cheap laugh: obesity, religion, or dying your fucking hair blue.

Well, it’s not a nice opinion, but it’s not particularly horrible. However, let’s look at the entire thing:

I’ve posted a few fat jokes and insults. Way I see it, anything one has the power to change about oneself, one can expect to be used for a cheap laugh: obesity, religion, or dying your fucking hair blue.

It’s why I don’t make race jokes, or laugh at people with a disability (I hated the username that was something like “Spacklick”, for eg). I love the hypocrisy of many television celebrities, who go on panel shows and make jokes about Heather Mills, then come November they’ve got the poppy on and are schmoozing with wounded war vets.

Is ConcentratedH2O going to win the Mr. Rogers Award anytime soon? No. But funny how context shows the whole story, about how it’s someone stating where they personally draw the line on personal appearance jokes. It almost gives you a more complete view of what’s going on, so if you decide to agree or not, you’re at least basing that (dis)agreement on all the information. But, I’m sure Michael didn’t clip that rather short quote pull so as to deliberately make it look as awful as possible. After all, I’m sure Michael is an honorable person.

We can look at your post-list caveats all day long, but the end result of your list is clear: you deliberately, and specifically quote-mined comments to show the worst possible view of the people making them, in some cases, deliberately trimming them to look as if they originated in the ‘pit, even when that was not actually the case.

Why? Why would you not use the entire comment? I refuse to buy into a space issue, as in one case, the entire comment would have added a sentence, a twitter URL and two blank lines to things. *Clearly* it is not a space or length problem. As well, I’m pretty sure that when creationists pull this same kind of stunt, that is, create a long list of “Things Evolutionists Say” that are nothing but out of context quote mines and cherry picking, you, like everyone else on the side of evolution, gets rather annoyed with it, because it is such a fundamentally dishonest thing to do

However, I am glad you did it, because it tells me a few things:

1) You are exactly as hypocritical as Ophelia, PZ, and all the rest. You will complain about things like quote-mining up until the exact point when such a tactic will work in your favor. Once that happens, well, it’s all right when you do it, right? You have a “noble” goal in mind, in this case, the ends justify the means, right? It was wrong to mansplain to Rebecca Watson about how she should feel about Elevator Guy, but when PZ not only mansplained to Stef McGraw how she should feel, but said she should feel *honored* and *respected* instead of attacked, that was totes okay? When Stephanie Zvan gets very, very angry if you use any form of her name but the one she approves of, then justifies calling Richard Dawkins “Dick” because after all, “Dick” is an approved diminutive of “Richard”, that’s not hypocritical at all. When Benson, Canuck, Zvan and all the rest go on and on about how threats are bad and evil, and yet when one of their own makes one against another freethought blogger, the only fallout is to reluctantly not allow him to blog there anymore? Not ban him from the site. He just can’t create *new* blogs there anymore. Even worse, they straight-updefended him as RIGHT in making that threat. That’s not hypocritical either? Ophelia continually castigates anyone using gendered insults, but when she uses “bitchez” and “pricks” it’s okay. Ophelia moderates the hell out of her blog, but if anyone DARES moderate one of her comments on THEIR blog, SOUND THE ALARM! FREEZE PEACH!!! What then Michael? What is wrong no matter who does it? Tell us unequivocally, one tactic, one friggin’ thing that is wrong no matter WHO does it? Because we’ve established it sure as hell isn’t mansplaining, gendered insults, using the wrong version of someone’s name as an insult, threats or moderation. It’s also clearly not trying to harass people at their workplace in an attempt to silence them either. So what Michael? What is actually wrong no matter who does it?

2) You created this list to make it effectively impossible for Justin to actually coherently reply, and you then mislead like hell about the origins of the quotes. Let me show your words again:

I’m using examples that were published on The Slymepit website. I could add examples from Elevatorgate, YouTube and elsewhere, but I think there is enough here to be representative of the “nasty pushback” we are discussing. I’ve numbered them to make it easier for you to respond.

So the inference here is clear: these are all slymepit originated comments. Except for 21:

I skipped to the end of the current conversation and became acquainted with a commenter named [named person] who apparently doesn’t like [named person] very much–based on the fact that he concluded his comment with the phrase ‘Fuck her. Fuck her. Kill her. Dump her in a ditch’. This actually did get some negative attention from the mod and a couple of other posters. That was at 11PM PST last night. This morning, the offensive phrase that I reproduced above has been miraculously modified to read “Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her on the cheeks”.

That didn’t originate in the ‘pit, did it. Nope. In fact, the actual origin of the comment is from FTB, specifically:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/02/01/there-can-be-no-khitomer-accord/#comment-101295

It’s still there as of me writing this comment. The quoted comment is not one originated by anyone on the ‘pit. It first shows up in the ‘pit when Renee Hendricks quotes it. Why Michael? Why obfuscate the actual origin of that quote? Especially since more than a few people in the ‘pit, including one who is an out and proud MRA thought it was a fair and balanced comment. Oh, wait…I bet that’s it, right?

You had a chance to be honest about that quote Michael and point out it didn’t originate in the ‘pit, but rather was quoted by someone in the ‘pit commenting on it.

But you didn’t. Instead you left it there as if it had *originated* in the ‘pit. As you did with other comments. This shows I think a fundamental dishonesty in your approach, and a desire to obfuscate things so as to create the “proper” narrative.

I would also note that in general, these are tactics used by creationists and fundamentalists when they attack evolution and atheists and are, in general, condemned. So why is it now *okay* for you to do this?

Why is it okay for you to use the same tactics you would call out someone for using against you?

I cannot read your mind, but I will say this: This kind of thing, this “it’s okay when we do it” thought is not new. In fact, there’s a group that has turned it into a rather sick art form: Scientology, and “Fair Game”. We are your “Suppressive Persons” right? So all the ethics and proper treatment you would normally demand doesn’t apply, does it. After all, we’re just members of the ‘pit. We’re the SPs. Whatever tactic you use against us is okay, right?

You certainly have that option. It is, sadly, a ‘right’ of sorts. But don’t expect me, or many other people to think of this post, or you, as anything else but deceitful and dishonest when you do such things. Don’t expect us to seriously think that you are acting in any form of good faith when you use deceit to make your case. The fact you use “nice”, “proper” language doesn’t change any of that.

If Justin choses to respond to you as you wish him to, that’s his choice. We’ve already warned him that he’s charlie brown thinking that this time, lucy won’t yank away the football. He’s a grown-assed adult, he can take that risk if he wants.

But he doesn’t speak for anyone but himself. And as for me, I think you should be ashamed of what you tried to do with this post.

279 Brony March 4, 2013 at 6:58 pm

@John Brown 271

If you were paying attention, Hermit (Brony), I never addressed those points. I addressed one point specifically. This one, in fact:…

And stop. We can get to your point when you actually address my challenges. You are attacking a side comment about something you were talking about with someone else. I care about your assertions about FTB bloggers. Your statements of fact about their arguments that were made prior to your comment about feminism and pathology in comments 230 and 243.

I will not advance until you can demonstrated that you can actually carry an honest exchange.

So I repeat,
Challenge 1. Cite examples of FTB definitions of the quality of the Slymepit language. So far all I see from you are accusations with no substance and that is boring.
Challenge 2. Provide specific examples of such language or you are asserting without evidence. I don’t mean point at a thread. I mean give me the actual post numbers, and the text itself if its buried. Folks making claims are the ones to provide evidence and I will not do someone else’s work.

Otherwise…

Now, you and I are done with this back and forth. Anyone reading this thread can see the obvious double standard at play and your reaction to it. It’s all very telling.

Bye bye!

@John Brown 272

See what I did there?

Back so soon? Yeah, I saw you try to imply that they wanted something suppressive. I also saw you ignore the part where I said that they did have a say, and used it, so why would you say they don’t have a say?

280 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 7:04 pm

“I will not advance until you can demonstrated that you can actually carry an honest exchange.”

Meh. It’s a nice trick you’re attempting, but I’m sure the good people of this thread recognize it for what it is.

You’ve been given your example. In fact, you walked right into it completely unawares. I would guess that you’re a bit embarrassed by this fact and are now attempting to extricate yourself with your dignity in place. Which would be a rather easy thing to do if you just said, “Yeah. I see your point. When you said that about feminism, I replied the way I did because you were over-generalizing and it sounded hateful. The same should apply to P.Z. Myers when he does the same thing.”

Are you doing that? Nope. You’re insisting that I address three or four other points you made before you will consider continuing the conversation.

Which is just basically your way of holding the conversation hostage until you can figure out a way to back yourself out of the corner you put yourself into while convincing everyone you meant to put yourself in the corner in the first place because…magic!

Like I said before; Good Day, Sir/Ma’am.

281 Brony March 4, 2013 at 7:04 pm

Laura excused herself from the thread. Brony rationalized it away, and instead of addressing the contradiction, you pretend like you can read my mind.

If you look closely you will see that I never weighed in on that issue until you tried to pull me in. I believe “full of it” is more and more accurate.

All it would take to make all of this stop would be for any one of you to go, “Huh. That guy has a point. If it’s not cool to make those kinds of sweeping generalizations about feminism, it’s probably not OK to do it about other people/ideologies.”

Stop? Oh no! Don’t stop! This is excellent practice at primate chess! Though that did sound a lot like something a mafia type would say…

But, that would require introspection and the horrifying realization that you might have to re-evaluate some of your core beliefs.

Yeah, I need a new monitor.

282 Brony March 4, 2013 at 7:08 pm

@John Brown 278

So you will not be defending my request for materials to research your claims. Yes, full of it.

My request that predated your demand to engage in a challenge related to an issue between you and hermit. Made after my request.

Definitely full of it.

Like I said before; Good Day, Sir/Ma’am.

You keep saying that. You don’t have to reply to my comments.

283 A Hermit March 4, 2013 at 7:23 pm

John, it’s like you didn’t even read my previous post…

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/03/examples-of-nasty-pushback-against-some-feminists-on-the-internet/#comment-195296

Can you find anything on FtB directed at libertarians, creationists or anyone else that even comes close to the volume and intensity and personal nature of those slymepit threads?

I’m still waiting…

284 doubtthat March 4, 2013 at 7:28 pm

@Pitchguest

That discussion was buried, so some quick points:

1) The fact that Myers got rid of those comments (assuming that’s what happened, I doubt it was that simple), that shows that he’s trying to eliminate that type of comment. Are you in favor of the pit doing the same?

2) It wasn’t just that the comments weren’t available, it was that the one I could contradicted your case. I’m left wondering how many of those links were similarly opposed to the argument you were making. It’s also amusing that you can’t find anything within the last two years (maybe longer, the aggregate post was from 2010, who knows when the individual comments were made?).

3) Your first post cites the unmoderated nature of the pit as somehow relevant to the discussion. It isn’t. Allowing horrible things to be said and defending or dismissing the horrible things are not the same thing.

4) If you’re on board with condemning those sorts of comments, what’s your objection to Nugent’s challenge?

285 doubtthat March 4, 2013 at 7:32 pm

@John Brown

““‘Feminism. A simple-minded left-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.’”

I would have no moral objection to someone making this argument. I disagree with the content, but if that was the worst of it, there wouldn’t be much of a problem.

The notion that you read the comments in the OP and think that Myers’ statement about libertarianism is equivalent, you have missed the point entirely.

286 ChasCPeterson March 4, 2013 at 7:40 pm

Watch, ladies and germs, as I demonstrate the equivalence of two fruits by replacing just one word in a sentence:

An apple is a crispy pome fruit with red or green skin.

Seems true, right? But watch:

A banana is a crispy pome fruit with red or green skin.

Ha! Now do see how ridiculous the first statement was?
QED.

287 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 7:42 pm

@doubtthat

Well, why would you have a moral objection to that argument? It’s not anywhere near morally objectionable. Neither was P.Z.’s original statement about Libertarianism. This has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with hypocrisy.

I made the statement. People immediately took exception or offense. I reverted the statement and those same people started staring at their belly buttons.

That’s the point, doubtthat. It’s perfectly OK when their team engages in that kind of rhetoric. But, when the other team does so, it’s not OK. All of a sudden, nuance, context, intent and history matters.

It’s not me who missed the point, doubtthat. It’s everyone on this board who casually rationalizes away the contradiction.

It’s not equivalent. It’s not timely. You missed the point. You failed to address the other 100 points I was making before I backed myself into a corner, so it doesn’t count. I have no “moral objection,” so it doesn’t matter.

I am Jack’s shocked face.

288 A Hermit March 4, 2013 at 7:43 pm

ChasCPeterson … FTW!

289 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 7:49 pm

“An apple is a crispy pome fruit with red or green skin.

Seems true, right? But watch:

A banana is a crispy pome fruit with red or green skin.”

Right. Except apples and bananas are tangible things while Feminism and Libertarianism are not. Also, the statement “crispy pome fruit with red or green skin,” is a factual statement while “A simple-minded left-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard,” is an opinion which is most likely shaped by ideology…therefore highly subjective and up for interpretation.

As ideologies, they are thought up by people. People tend to be very different in most every way. Since they are so different, making sweeping generalizations about their motivations is generally seen as a logical fallacy of the first order.

290 doubtthat March 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm

@John Brown

No, it isn’t about hypocrisy, that’s the point.

The difference between the Myers quote and the ones listed in the OP is precisely the moral implication of saying each. Broadly speaking, you have the difference between attacking individuals for the way they look, their sexual preference, their gender…etc., and attacking ideas.

You’re welcome to describe any idea I have as dumb, but when you send me 400 tweets about raping my mother, I’ll have a bit of an issue.

Opinions on acceptable levels of civility will vary, but using harsh language to describe ideas and ideology aren’t what this discussion is about. It’s a scope shift.

291 Pitchguest March 4, 2013 at 8:02 pm

All right. Long day. I’m going to start with oolon, since he craves attention.

#178 oolon

The insults and nastiness on the Slymepit compared to FtBs is clearly not in the same league by any measure. The reason the pitters try and defend it is easy – they want to be able to justify their hatred of and obsession with FtBs. Of course they’ll say they don’t care about FtBs/Skepchick or they are only in it for the laughs…. You know anyone who obsesses for *years* about one “joke”? No, of course they hate them, and for a mixture of reasons.

Really, hatred of and obsession with FTB. For one who claims to be willing to see the legitimacy of both sides, you do like playing on only one side of the fence. Maybe you’ve stopped trying to be a mediator and decided finally to simply stir the proverbial pot of shit. And you wonder why people call you a slimy turd.

But I suppose if we have to have a childish pissing contest, one that Michael Nugent so very obviously hopes for, then this small sample list compiled by Slymepit member ‘Apples’ should suffice as to the insults and ‘nastiness’ that is supposedly not in the same league by any measure.

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=70836#p70836

[Trigger warning: the link leads to a post on the Slymepit detailing posts on Pharyngula where a lot of them tell people to "fuck off and die." You have been warned.]

What this leads to is the biggest “Sceptical” echo-chamber on the internet, and the pitters know this. They often call for a “champion” from FtBs to come “police” them or even welcome people coming to take the piss like me as helping them not be an echo chamber! Truth is while some of their members are verbose and contrary about a couple of issues that will never make them “sceptics”, they will not stop being an echo chamber unless they actively try.

Hahaha. Echo chamber. That’s rich coming from someone who co-authored a “Blockbot” on Twitter. What makes an echo chamber is the impossibility to voice dissent without fear of being banned. Does the Slymepit ban dissenters? Be honest. Furthermore, your summary about your posting on the Slymepit? Masterful subterfuge, I have to say. We “welcomed you” to “take the piss, helping it become less of an echo chamber.” Brilliant. But then you contradict yourself in the next sentence by saying that “some of their members are contrary about a couple of issues”, which by its definition is the opposite of an echo chamber. It’s good to know that nothing about you has changed since you “left”, oolon.

Few cases -
- Sally Strange “threatening herself with rape” on TFs blog, this was frankly one of the least likely options from a purely logical point of view but was swallowed as the Official Slyme-meme and is trotted out by high profile idiots such as Hoggle (Under numerous socks of course)

Really, this was taken up as a Slyme-meme, was it? And I’m sure you can account for this? (Of course you can’t.) Franc, while a member, does not represent the entire forum and he has his own opinions which, contrary to an echo chamber, people can disagree with and have disagreed with on the ‘Pit. But I don’t think you’ve dug deep enough. Go deeper.

Then there’s the point about franc using sockpuppets to do his bidding, which again you most definitely cannot support.

- More recently Ophelia “calling” GWW a “#stupidbitch”, even the “reasonable” pitter Damion swallows this whole and shits it out on Twitter as an approved Slyme-meme. https://twitter.com/OpheliaBenson/status/299604131893612544
In all its glory there, never mind Steve Novellas calls for more charity you’d need a frontal lobotomy to read that any way other than her calling herself a “#stupidbitch” ironically.

Yes, because “it’s a joke” only works when you do it. There was literally no way of knowing that Ophelia was referring to herself because (shock and horror) intent is not magic – and because intent is not magic, and because we can’t read minds, we could need a “frontal lobotomy” to read it in any other way. Amazing. Besides, I thought Ophelia never used the word “bitch”, so I guess that now means she’s a sexist misogynist?

But I see, a charitable reading in one case, but uncharitable readings in others. Like for example how you read what’s going on at the Slymepit, like some of the comments that Michael has quote-mined and cherry picked for his little exposé, you read those uncharitably – and because you’re the slimy little turd that you are, as uncharitably as you can. Which is why the remark, “I will cut you, you stupid fucking troll” by Tethys while imaging brandishing two broken beer bottles was marked “clearly a joke” by Chris Clarke so easily, and anyone who might have seen it as a veiled threat was “too dimwitted to comprehend” that it was, in fact, a joke.

However, when Jerry Conlon said, “Maybe a vial of acid would do you some good, you already look like you were set on fire and put out with a wet rake” it’s quite clearly, unequivocally, beyond the shadow of a doubt, a genuine threat.

Of course even if the pitters did accept she was calling herself that ironically they would then proceed to say this justifies them calling her that non-ironically. No really, they would… Just look up Dick Strawkins on my blog for an epic example of this type of pit-logic. Or look up just “Strawkins” on FreethoughtBlogs for more examples of the lies they are happy to spread with no apology or retraction.

Again, you demonstrate your complete inability to remain objective on any subject. If you want to claim he’s saying “lies” that he’s “happy to spread with no apology or retraction”, then maybe you should link to those “lies.” But since it’s apparently in your nature to be a snake, you won’t. Which is probably also why you keep on insisting (even though there’s no real evidence) that franc hoggle’s real name is Victor Ivanoff, or that’s really his picture, despite the fact that the “information” were accumulated by bloggers on FTB. Objectivity is clearly not your forté, nor is honesty.

So all the bystanders on the pit like Justin and some apologists above who proclaim the pit as some sceptical nirvana because no comments are censored (Absolute bullshit as they are deleted and edited just like any forum). Somehow any opinion being crapped out in text form on the forum just magically “makes” it a haven for freethought, critical thinking and scepticism. Forget about confirmation bias, as the primary driver in the pit, let alone any other cognitive bias. In reality information coming into the pit is parsed thusly ->

Only two people have ever been banned on the ‘Pit. No comments are edited for content or deleted (except for that one time when a commenter [who was banned] posted child porn [which you took a screenshot of, oolon]) and if you want to disprove this, prove it. And we have a confirmation bias? Really? What about the article whose comment section you’re now commenting on? But since Michael Nugent is on “your side”, the attempt to procure a ‘gotcha!’ moment doesn’t register, I guess.

1. Is it about FreethoughtBlogs/Skepchick?
2. No. Ignore
3. Yes. Can it be interpreted in a poor light for FtBs/Skepchick in any way?
4. No. Ignore (maybe try for a few posts)
5. Yes. How do we frame it to get it to stick?
6. Now engage “critical” thinking skills…

My evidence for this obsession -> http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/01/30/terms/#comment-191521

You point to a user making a hamfisted summary of the ‘Pit and you call it fact. Fantastic.

292 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 8:07 pm

But, it is about hypocrisy, @doubtthat.

I pointed out one, very very tiny instance of it, which should have given some people a bit of pause. It didn’t. If people are that blinded and entrenched not to be able to concede on tiny point, why would they examine their side any further?

Using harsh language to describe ideas and ideology may not be the best way to go about a discussion, but then again, it depends on the discussion.

As far as I know, there are no rape/death threats coming out of the Slymepit. You’re more than free to correct me on this if I’m wrong. People over there do tend to get lathered up into a mob mentality from time to time, but no less than the people at FtB.

People like Michael Nugent want to make this completely one sided. He wants to pretend that this is all 100% one-sided.

It’s not.

293 Pitchguest March 4, 2013 at 8:27 pm

Continuing addressing oolon, next is this,

#184

Oh well my comments in moderation, I’ll just add my LOL to the chorus laughing at PitchGuest linking to Aratina *debunking* another idiot like PG claiming Pharyngulites constantly use violent imagery… And that was debunked *years* ago
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/03/examples-of-nasty-pushback-against-some-feminists-on-the-internet/#comment-194740

Well done PG!

“Idiot”, is it? Ableist. You’re slipping badly. But I wouldn’t have used the word “debunking” – rather “showcasing”, since Aratina doesn’t appear to be bothered by the content. Of course, the comments alleged by Wally Smith that Aratina couldn’t find were probably made up, and some are quote-mined reactions, but these users made the move over to FTB and still post there regularly. But since I can’t prove that as the comments are unfortunately AWOL, then maybe just quoting a regular on FTB from the old Scienceblogs section would be enough:

Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM

March 3, 2010
Oh my, Aratina Cage. A couple of those are mine. I have to admit, I am proud of the splintering cross line. That when when I was having fun playing with the Rookie. Sometimes I do miss him. He was an excellent chew toy. It helped to keep my pelt sniny.

The “playing with the Rookie” goes to another link, where Janine says this,

Janine, Insulting Sinner

March 14, 2009

Posted by: The Rookie | March 14, 2009 4:58 PM [kill]?[hide comment]

I would also advocate instituting a filtering system for profane/vile language.

You maggot infested pile of shit, if you do not like the language used here, just stay in your own goddamned little hellhole and fuck yourself up the ass with a splintering cross.

Damn but your whining puts colicky six month old babies to shame.

That coupled with my links to comments on FTB compiled by user ‘Apples’ on the ‘Pit should be proof if we are in the ‘same league’ of ‘nastiness’ or not.

294 Za-zen March 4, 2013 at 8:42 pm

Yaweh’s balls, drop the rape threat bullshit. The hypocrisy is astounding. The slymepit does not threaten rape of any individual. Get that clear in the ideologically addled brainfarts you expel.

Further to this, the rape wish meme (in the rusty knife/porcupine format) is pzblog material, as is the deathwish meme. Last time i checked death (by varying horrific means) was a worse fate than rape. And the deathwish meme is a most certain mainstay of the parlance at borg central. Shock fucking horror, pull out the fainting couches, someone didn’t put rape at the top of the list of “most horrible things ever! Heresy!”

Knowing this, is it “moral bad” to tell comment to someone you hope they die horribly, or “moral badder” (oh the lulz) to comment to someone you hope they get raped?

Note, the Pit is not known for wishing rape or death on any person. Despite the propaganda to the contrary. So since the overarching theme of the OP is “morality” what is acceptable and what’s not, and i infer from the OP that he considers the text he has lifted from the Pit to be morally objectionable, i conclude, that he therefore must deem Pzblog to be the most morally objectionable black hole within online atheism.

Yet i’ve missed his attempt to address the evil at the heart of Atheism, the haven of death and rape wishers that is pharyngula. Perhaps he means to cut his teeth on the bad werdz of the pyt, before challenging myers with the list of immoral fantasies he hosts.

295 Pitchguest March 4, 2013 at 9:03 pm

#219 A Hermit

If I had seen that comment before I would have objected to it too. Consistent enough for you?

Unlike you I don’t play the “But teacher!!11! Billy did it TOOOoOOOO!!!11!!” card.

For crying out loud, learn to read. That’s not what I’ve been doing at all and that hasn’t been my point, and this is now the fifth time I’ve said this. Should I really have to repeat it again? First Sally, then doubtthat and now you. What is with the FTB clique and its inability to read simple sentences? Sort it the fuck out.

Thing is; you have to dig really deep to find an example like that at FtB; on the rare occasions when I have seen that kind of thing there it is always met with a lot of pushback from the other commenters. Unlike the slymepit where stuff like the example Michael posted are an everyday occurrence and are not only tolerated but encouraged and even celebrated.

Clearly you don’t need to dig deep enough (as the list compiled on the ‘Pit will tell you). And an ‘everyday occurence’, is it, and not only tolerated but encouraged and celebrated? Go home, eyeball.

The list YOU published was from three years ago, prior to FtB, and even then, if you actually follow the links, at least some of those are examples of trolls dropping in to attack Myers and his commenters.

And the new list I published was samples from only a few months ago. Clearly not much has changed, but how time flies.

You’re pushing a false equivalence; a simplistic “both sides do it, so I don’t have think about my own behaviour” dodge. You’re not fooling anyone but yourself.

Actually, you’re the one telling me I’m pushing a “both sides do it” false equivalence, but that hasn’t really been point at all from the get-go, but I’ve only said that five, I guess six, times now, so I assume it won’t get through your (apparently) thick skull even if I say it a hundred times.

#211 lollen

And this is just two strawmen. Excellent.

Oh, but to end with, while Michael Nugent is not very subtly attempting to police the tone of places like the Slymepit, as well as not very subtly attempting for Justin Vacula to denounce it as an “abusive, shaming and very disturbing” forum, maybe he should look closer to home before he should think to throw stones living in a very obvious glass house?

http://thatsireland.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/battle-of-the-st-patricks-day-t-shirts/

“Drink up, bitches” *gasp*

“Irish up, bitches” *shock*

“Defend Ireland” (with picture of two assault rifles) *faints*

And the comments on the official Atheist Ireland forum (posted by Skepsheik in comment #215) which is, well, shall we say, perhaps not as savoury as Michael would like? Just for posterity, I’ll quote the relevant portion again here:

” 1. Gendered epithet ” who the hell gave it to you BITCH?”
2. Gendered epithet “The opportunistic bitch of a nun tried to imply that her religious education was somehow better than the boys school version.”
3. Gendered epithet ” I get hit again soon so I can properly demo this bitch out.”
4. Gendered epithet ”I’m on planet science, bitch”
5. Gendered epithet “the only thing gods or religions have ever proven is that they are science’s bitch. see that apostrophe in “science’s” remember it bitch”
6. Gendered epithets “If that sick criminal, son of a bitch, Ratzinger comes to Ireland, Ill protest against him everywhere he goes.”
7. Gendered epithet “we can call someone a cunt as a term of endearment but no other people do.”
8. Gendered epithet “I have ze seniority over you, you leeteel pussy.”
9. Joke about raping children “Fuck them, Do we have time?”
10. Video of Jim Jeffries making jokes about child molesting and punching women in the face, described as “brillant stand up sketch”
11. Photo making light of child abuse by portraying the pope as a paedophile.
12. Photo of church logo for Catholic archdiocesan youth commission, making light of child abuse .
13. Photo of statue of pope with kneeling children, making light of child rape allegations.
14. Photo of church stainless glass window showing altar boy kneeling before bishop, again making fun of child abuse allegations.
15. Antisemitism “I had one but the bloody Jews bombed the shit out of it.”
16. Photoshop joke of the pope as a child molester.
17. Joke making fun of a photo of pope, implying he was a child molester. “But he was not a little boy at the time, he was at least THIS tall.”
18. Gendered epithet “Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you are a C#@t”
19. Misogynistic joke about a woman trying to pay her taxi fare using her vagina, with the punchline being the taxi driver asks her “do you have anything smaller”
20. Misogynistic sex shaming joke about prostitution and a man accidently discovering his wife is a prostitute.
21. Misogynistic joke about a money grabbing woman who demands from a suitor that he has “Mercedes in your garage, a million dollars in the bank and ’7′ inches in your pants’.
22. Misogynistic wife beating joke about a man finding out his wife is not a virgin on their wedding night, the punchline being “you hit her with the shovel”
23. Fat shaming “you can bet your fat ass it won’t be Cheerios!”
24. Paedophile joke about a priest, Father McKintyre ejaculating on child.
25. Fat shaming “Two fat blokes in a pub, one says to the other ‘Your round.’ The other one says ‘So are you, you fat bastard!’”
26. Youtube clip joking about child rape by priest.
27. Sectarian epithets “Orange bastard”
28. Misogynistic remark “Apparently the drop in the number of suicide bombings has been put down to the emergence of the Scottish singing star, Susan Boyle – now that Muslims know what a virgin looks like that they are not so keen on going to paradise.”
29. Misogynistic joke about Adam bargaining with God in the garden of Eden, with the punchline being “Fuck that, what will I get for a rib?”
30. Racist joke about “The Effect of Political Correctness and Government Policies”
31. Picture of woman forced to ring a doorbell constructed to look like male genitalia.
32. Cartoon making light of child abuse in the church.
33. Cartoon of the pope implying he is a paedophile.
34. Misogynistic picture of urinals shaped like a womans body.

Tsk tsk tsk. Dreadful. Absolutely dreadful.

296 oolon March 4, 2013 at 9:11 pm

Pitchguest, thanks for looking up some comments I couldn’t care less about, I was just laughing at your fail. The post is about things said on the Slymepit, did you not notice that? Which is the main problem with the frantic arm waving from the various pitters here. They, like you, are disingenuous. None of you care what Pharyngulites say on their forum because you come from a forum where free speech is king, words have no power and all of this is supposedly moot to you all. You argue from a position of, what is from your point of view, sophistry… Hence the jibe about me calling you an “idiot” as I’m supposed to believe its ableist. Actually I’m not convinced by that argument… But you think I am so “argue” based on my presumed beliefs not your own.

Why for once don’t you try arguing honestly and cut out all the bullshit about what X,Y or Z person said when you really could care less. Its a tactic to “win” some points in the ongoing avoid the question dance and paint your accusers as hypocrites. As you should well know as a top level Slymepit “skeptic” that in itself is fallacious reasoning… Tu Quoque, appeal to hypocrisy or however you put it – what anyone has ever said on any FtB or Skepchick blog has not one whit of relevance to this blog post.

Now do you agree the examples Michael gives are morally justified or not?

297 doubtthat March 4, 2013 at 9:12 pm

@289 John Brown

You’re going to have to spell out the hypocrisy, because it looks like you’re just manipulating the scope to make a trivial point.

The argument coming from FtB is not “don’t use bad words” or “don’t use impolite language to attack ideas and ideologies,” it’s, “stop using sexist slurs, demeaning and harassing (mostly) women, and engaging in elaborate, fanatical attacks (photoshop, twitter accounts, idiotic youtube videos…etc.).”

As for the rape threats, I can’t speak about the pit, specifically, but there is a constant background noise of threats. You can read posts by the women receiving them to substantiate that fact. Recall that Nugent just focused on the slymepit here, it isn’t the totality of the source material.

298 Za-zen March 4, 2013 at 9:17 pm

Could someone please define the morality, that is being utilised by the OP.

299 oolon March 4, 2013 at 9:31 pm

Are the comments on this post playing up again or is it just me? I missed PGs first post as it wasn’t showing until I refreshed… Anyway this is funny as fuck -> PG: “There was literally no way of knowing that Ophelia was referring to herself…”

An experiment, anyone wanting to try reading for comprehension can have a look at the full context of the tweet and see how much of a fool PG is.
https://twitter.com/OpheliaBenson/status/299604131893612544

Maybe I’ll accept there is “literally no way” he could understand the conversation, but he is a long way from speaking for the whole human race. Thank Jebus!

300 A Hermit March 4, 2013 at 9:31 pm

That’s not what I’ve been doing at all and that hasn’t been my point, and this is now the fifth time I’ve said this. Should I really have to repeat it again?

It looks like pushing a false equivalence in an attempt to justify the slymepittes behaviour is exactly what you’re doing son. If you’re trying to say something else you’re not saying it very clearly…

I’ll offer the same challenge to you that John Brown is so carefully avoiding…find me a thread on FtB which is equivalent to the targeted thread on the slymepit, which I linked to above.

You won’t do it, because you can’t. There is simply no place on FtB which is dedicated to attacking and demeaning specific individuals as there is in the `pit.

301 Pitchguest March 4, 2013 at 10:10 pm

#298 Oolon

Give up with the dishonest interrogation tactics, oolon. You can try saying you sit on the fence, but you’re just a tattling snake like the rest of the chuckleheads who doesn’t seem to think evidence matter. Additionally, of course you don’t care about them. Your sthick has been to troll from the very beginning.

I was asked to provide ‘equivalent’ statements, I gave it. You want more?

Here’s another list compiled by Apples, this time several instances of “die in a fire” (and so on)

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=70860&sid=743de4c6b0f5cc9e49187397548bb14e#p70860

I’m not the one who’s trying to ratchet up a “win” from the opposing side. In fact, my point has been from the very beginning that trying to show which side is the “purest” is a pointless exercise, and linking back to comments that has been (mostly) Pharyngula over the years to prove my point. What anyone over on FTB, Skepchick, A+, et al. has every relevance to this article, because Michael Nugent himself is trying to create a false equivalence. It’s even in the beginning, “Trigger warning: For readers not familiar with the type of material published on The Slymepit website, please be aware that you may find the comments quoted in this article to be abusive, shaming and very disturbing.”

What point is there to indulge a dishonest question like the one posed by Michael Nugent in this article, when he knows himself that many of those comments are either in terms of jokes, in terms of parody, in terms of satire? Yet he quote-mines them out of context and cherry picks them for his list of shame? Yeah. He knows what he’s doing. As a matter of fact, one of the examples is an FTB blogger summarising a comment which was almost universally condemned on the ‘Pit and the user left on his own volition. But that’s supposed to be an argument against it, I reckon. The Jerry Conlon tweet was almost universally condemned as well, but that’s still being brought up. However, linking back to comments on old Pharyngyla (and the new) and showing that they’re clearly not strangers to nasty behaviour, you still trump it up as some sort of moral arbiter? Get real.

Who’s the one being a sophist, exactly? (Oolon, deliberately trolling other forums and admitting openly to downloading child porn.)

302 oolon March 4, 2013 at 10:17 pm

PitchGuest, so you think its a pointless exercise to “prove” who is purest… But you indulge in it at length in this and many other comment threads. Glad you admit your online existence is pointless but I didn’t expect you to admit to it.

I want to know if you think the tactics used by the pit, the point of the post, are morally justified or not. You are incapable of answering the question, no surprise there.

Who’s the one being a sophist, exactly? (Pitchguest, recently kicked off an internet forum as a supporter of paedophila in sub-reddits. Oh wait, that’s not sophistry as you would obviously be an expert on the subject now wouldn’t you :-D )

303 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 10:20 pm

“You won’t do it, because you can’t. There is simply no place on FtB which is dedicated to attacking and demeaning specific individuals as there is in the `pit.”

See, here’s the thing. You keep making that demand. When people show up on the thread giving examples, all you can offer back is, “that’s a false equivalence…herp, derp.”

You must be completely out of breath from spending all day moving the goal posts around.

304 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 10:23 pm

Really, this entire post is the equivalent of getting third hand information about a wife beater then posts that information and says, “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

And then apologists for wife beaters come on the thread and denounce everything you have to say as a “false equivalence.”

305 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 10:25 pm

Oolon, if you’re going to make such a statement, you damned well better have evidence that it happened and everything had better be in absolute perfect context.

Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

306 Pitchguest March 4, 2013 at 10:27 pm

#300 A Hermit

Ah, there it is. “Son.” Mr. Condescending has returned in full form, and he keeps inferring that his opponents are but little children in the face of his obviously adult intellect.

No, tough guy. I am not pushing for a false equivalence. Others have understood my intent just fine and didn’t need the repeat course as you, Sally and doubtthat have required. But to repeat it for a seventh time (and hopefully this will be final), I’ve been saying that trying to prove either networks host “nasty” comments is a pointless exercise to begin with. For one it’s policing for tone, and for the other it’s meaningless to try unless your own record is spotless. Hence linking back to the various “nasty” comments on Pharyngula, dating back to 2010 to the present time.

It’s also a pointless exercise to ask members of an unmoderated forum to condemn comments that they had no control over. Like my previous analogy, it’s like asking for moderate Christians, Muslims or Jews, whatever, to justify the actions of extremists. Fuck that. This article was meant for Justin Vacula to give his opinion on whether the comments Michael has provided (quote-mined, cherry picked, yadda yadda) are ‘morally unjustified’. Why the fuck should Justin Vacula stand on trial for the comments other people have said, on a forum where these comments are nowhere near representing the tone of the entire network?

If I were to push for a false equivalence as you and yours continue to assert, then if I were to link to the various comments on Pharyngula (then and now) and ask for your opinion on whether those were ‘morally unjustified’ (knowing full well, with your view of the ‘Pit, that the question may be loaded or leading up to a ‘gotcha!’ moment), you would just tell me to ‘fuck off’, wouldn’t you? Be honest.

307 oolon March 4, 2013 at 10:30 pm

Cool! John Brown leaps to the defence of his sainted colleague who makes a serious claim about me with no evidence. To both of you I leave this… http://i.imgur.com/ymMWU.gif

… But I feel it will have more significance for PG than John ;-)

308 Pitchguest March 4, 2013 at 10:31 pm

#302

I do not indulge in the pointless exercise proving which network is “purest”, but then you have the reading comprehension of a dead rat.

And I’m not incapable of answering, you disingenuous condescending toad. I just don’t want to answer. I refuse to answer, because it’s a stupid question and frankly Michael Nugent should be ashamed.

Also, what the fuck are you talking about? Pedophilia? Sub reddits?

309 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 10:33 pm

Yeah, well here’s the thing, Oolon. He’s not sainted, and he’s not my colleague. You may choose to believe this or not, but if someone would have said the same thing about you on this very forum, I would have responded the exact same way.

You do not fuck around even implying something like that unless you have evidence and it is in perfect context.

So, once again…go fuck yourself.

And, Mr. Nugent, I would ask that you call Oolon on this. If you mean what you say in your post, this is abhorrent, repulsive behavior.

310 Steersman March 4, 2013 at 10:35 pm

oolon said (#299):

An experiment, anyone wanting to try reading for comprehension can have a look at the full context of the tweet and see how much of a fool PG is.

Knowing what a fair-minded person you are oolon, are you likely to be suggesting that Michael and the rest of the commenters and lurkers here should “try reading for comprehension” the many supposedly odious – “morally unjustified” – comments that Michael has quote-mined from The Pit?

311 Kim Rippere March 4, 2013 at 10:38 pm

” Why the fuck should Justin Vacula stand on trial for the comments other people have said,”

He isn’t. He was asked a few questions regarding these statements. There is a clear difference.

312 Pitchguest March 4, 2013 at 10:42 pm

Kim Rippere – Are you honestly on board with the dishonest questioning being exhibited here by Michael Nugent?

The comments are quite clearly quote-mined, quite clearly taken out of context and quite clearly cherry picked in an attempt to tarnish the forum as a whole. Is this really behaviour that you approve of?

You’re the President of Secular Woman, for crying out loud.

313 oolon March 4, 2013 at 10:45 pm

Lovely John, so my unsubstantiated rumours from his friends at sinfest are much worse than his claim I actually did something illegal. It is not illegal for PitchGuest to argue about what is or is not child porn on sub-reddits, but his ex-mates are not that keen on him any more regardless. However you don’t call out him accusing me of something that could get me arrested if it was in any sense true…. But he has evidence of no image, no download, only his foolish friends on the pit (you) who like to spread lies. I however have the person who posted the image describing it on my blog, which I’ve pointed him to. Just strangely ironic to me that he got criticised for saying images probably a lot worse than the one SurelyYouGuest posted on the Slymepit are not child porn… More proof, if it were needed, of the lengths Slymepitters will go to in order to shut up anyone that just disagrees.

314 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 10:46 pm

So, is anyone else here going to call Oolon out for accusing another person of supporting pedaphillia and then telling anyone who asks for evidence to fuck off?

I’m just wondering, because there’s quite a bit of pearl clutching in this thread about people saying mean things about other people. And, here’s one of your own. Exhibit A, if you will.

Since pedaphillia is about the worst thing you can accuse a person of supporting, where is the outrage?

315 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 10:48 pm

Yeah, here’s the thing Oolon. I don’t know about any of that history between the two of you. I know what you’ve stated right here, right now on this very thread. I ask for evidence. You tell me to go fuck myself.

So, there you have it, everyone. You have a person on your side of the debate publicly accusing someone of supporting pedaphillia and he’s rationalizing it away with…’but, but…he called me a bad name once.”

Go fuck yourself, Oolon. If anyone here has a shred of decency, they will tell you to go fuck yourself as well.

316 windy March 4, 2013 at 10:50 pm

Actually, one thing’s different: the mythology and spun history that has developed around some of the key targe people and incidents have both solidified and gotten more bizarre.

True, one of the more interesting myths is that Watson’s pre-EG talk contained some advice on not hitting on her at conferences.

It’s a very different gestalt; I really think the two sites are populated by different classes of narcissistic blowhards. When I compare the hypothetical prospect of having a drink with the worst pharyngulistas as opposed to a random selection from the pit, I will go with the worst of Pharyngula every time.

They said the same about George W. Bush. Wtf, man? This was supposed to be about “nasty pushback against feminists”, not a reality show called “Atheism: Biggest Asshole”.

317 Pitchguest March 4, 2013 at 10:51 pm

oolon – Goodness. Fine. You wish me to retract the statement, I’ll retract it. Fucking hell.

318 Tigzy March 4, 2013 at 10:56 pm

For the record, here’s where Oolon admits to downloading what he perceives as child porn: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=30208#p30208

Some context (Michael, take note): a new (and since departed, thankfully) member of the Pit thought, for some reason, that it would be a good idea to post a picture of what appeared to be a VERY young woman with jizzum on her face. The poster was immediately condemned by most commenters shortly afterwards – except for Oolon, who immediately claimed it was kiddie porn, and proceeded to inform us that he had screencaptured it to use against the pit.

Apparently, Oolon thinks it’s okay to download child porn to use against his perceived enemies. Unless he was just trolling, of course. In which case…you ought to give that particular hobby up, Ooley, cos you’re not very good at it. As your posts here, if nothing else, show.

319 doubtthat March 4, 2013 at 10:57 pm

@Pitchguest

“For one it’s policing for tone, and for the other it’s meaningless to try unless your own record is spotless.”

That is a very silly point. Pretty early on most folks concerned with, you know, thinking about things, recognize the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Hominem.

More often the not, “ad hominem,” appears as an incorrect refers to someone being uncivil. Here, however, we have an actual example of the fallacy: whatever faults you think you’ve found at FtB (and your evidence has been really, really shitty), that’s irrelevant to any evaluation of what Nugent highlighted in the OP.

This is the form of your argument:

Doctor: “Smoking is bad for your health.”
Pitchguest: “But Doctor, you are a smoker, therefore it cannot be bad for your health.”

So you’ve failed both structurally (advancing a fallacious argument) and empirically as the “nasty comments” from the FtB crowd (on scienceblog, removed by scienceblog), are either no longer in existence (interesting that they haven’t reappeared at FtB for you to quote) or expressly contradict the point you were trying to make. They show the regulars on PZ’s website arguing AGAINST the abusive language quoted. That could not be more damaging to your lazy, mealy mouthed attempt to put a pox on both houses.

But again, it’s all irrelevant. I’m happy to just say that the past is the past and whatever grudges your hold should be set aside and we can move forward. Now, moving forward involves no longer behaving in ways exhibited in the stuff Nugent collected. Are you willing to condemn and reject any behavior like that moving forward?

I am, whether it occurs in the pit or at FtB. Are you willing to make a similar commitment? Are you willing to just say such behavior is bad, in and of itself, without reference to anyone else’s behavior?

320 Za-zen March 4, 2013 at 10:57 pm

Kim, the very, very first paragraph in the OP should have been to define what the poster is referring to, when he request someone to declare whether they find certain words “immoral”.

I suggest this was loaded with a pre determined objective from the onset.

321 Kim Rippere March 4, 2013 at 10:58 pm

Yeah, I know who I am.

As far as I tell Michael and Justin are attempting to have a reasonable exchange of blogs regarding somethings Justin brought up in a video.

I appreciate that this attempt is being made. I don’t think that dismissing this opportunity is something to be done lightly.

As for cherry-picking and quote-mining . . . unless you are going to read the whole website – what else is there to do? Michael choose some quotes and asked Justin about his reaction . . . Justin may/will respond as he wishes. As far as I can tell these quotes give Justin an opportunity to explore and explain what he thinks crosses the line – that is the point of quotes.

322 John C. Welch March 4, 2013 at 11:00 pm

Lovely John, so my unsubstantiated rumours from his friends at sinfest are much worse than his claim I actually did something illegal. It is not illegal for PitchGuest to argue about what is or is not child porn on sub-reddits, but his ex-mates are not that keen on him any more regardless.

Of course, you have a link to this discussion, so we might all examine the evidence for ourselves.

323 Za-zen March 4, 2013 at 11:02 pm

Oolon, your defence that you downloaded kiddie porn so that you could get blogger points, won’t hold up to well in court. Harddrive meet hammer, numpty.

324 John C. Welch March 4, 2013 at 11:05 pm

” Why the fuck should Justin Vacula stand on trial for the comments other people have said,”

He isn’t. He was asked a few questions regarding these statements. There is a clear difference.

No, he wasn’t just “asked a few questions”. Here, because reading is hard:

Which of the following specific examples of “nasty pushback” against some feminists on the Internet do you consider to be morally unjustified?

He is being specifically asked to pass a moral judgement on other people’s words. However, he’s not even given the full statements, and, as I showed, many of the statements Michael quotemined don’t even originate at the ‘pit.

So now, Michael wants justin to pass moral judgement on statements originating at the ‘pit, FTB, (o the irony), and twitter. Even thought

The entire thing is dishonest and deceitful from the word go, and yet telling justin to pass moral judgement on a bunch of functionally dishonest statements is “just a few questions”???

How many lights are there again?

325 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 11:09 pm

According to Twitter, Oolon is off to bed, because he “wants to avoid a flame war,” and Aratina Cage is encouraging him to sue everyone who speaks lowly of good old Oolon.

Just to restate for the record. Oolon publicly accused someone here of supporting child porn on nothing more than third hand whisperings. When asked for evidence, he mocked, told people to fuck off and justified himself because someone called him a bad name once.

Even though Aratina Cage is swooning and giggling like a starstruck child over this, it’s very serious business.

This is repugnant, disgraceful, abhorrent behavior.

326 Kim Rippere March 4, 2013 at 11:10 pm

Justin says, “Indeed, some nasty pushback is morally unjustified.” (http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013/03/01/two-answers-and-questions-for-michael-nugent/)

Michael is merely asking for clarification around this phrase. IMO.

327 Pitchguest March 4, 2013 at 11:10 pm

Kim Rippere – I don’t begrudge the tactic of providing sample quotes, but these are devoid of its original context and devoid of its original purpose. Yet Justin is still being asked to give his opinion on what’s ‘morally unjustified’ based on this?

Like, for example, this comment,

Muhahaha the evil spreads. Soon my pretties, soon we shall have the whole atheist movement chanting our chant of mysoginist victory ” cunt, cunt cunt!” They shall chant. “Rape to the [named person]” will be our warcry!

Which is quite obviously sarcastic. Why is it even on the list?

328 CommanderTuvok March 4, 2013 at 11:12 pm

Brony:

Challenge 1. Citation please. Characterizing enforcement of site policies as stopping “…all opposition and dissent to their incoherent views.” Is frankly childish. If you break rules, you get consequences.

Countless posts to FfTB sites don’t make it past moderation, not because they “break the rules” (the rules obviously meaning thou shalt not disagree with [insert Creepy Clown]), but because they dissented from the FfTB agenda. Why do you think Pitters screencap their posts? Why do you think Pitters use Freezepage? It is because we all know the Creepy Clowns can’t handle dissent, and will use all manner of censorship techniques to keep their chambers agreeable to echoes.

‘NoelPlum99′ recently addressed the problem with regard to PZ’s blog, and PZ childishly produced a strawman response, saying his site did allow dissent. Naturally, PZ’s “answer” was complete bollocks. Further, ask Matt Dillahunty who conducted a very simple experiment to test the moderation at A+.

In summary, your challenge is flawed because we all know “enforcement of site policies” is open to interpretation. Enforcement of site policies for the Creepy Clowns means censorship of dissent, posts containing evidence contrary to their claims, posts containing rebuttals to crap the Creepy Clown followers have posted, etc. Those who are on board the Creepy Clown agenda, are free to throw their shit around their forums, ie Spokesgay, etc.

Consider Challenge #1 dealt with.

Challenge 2. Define “witch hunt” and give me an example. I sense butthurt.

witch-hunt also witch hunt (wchhnt)
n.
An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

Consider Challenge #2 dealt with. Oh, and your senses are about as accurate as a psychic.

Then the above challenges should be very easy for you.

Yes, they were Brony. Thanks for your concern.

So what are they? Be specific.

The reaction the Baboons got at TAM – the people SPOKE. The increasing number of people in the community calling out the behaviour of Watson, PZ, Ophelia, etc. The increasing growth of the Pit. The death of A+, of which the Pit will take full credit. The annihilation of the Creepy Clowns when they dare to venture on to a neutral comment board.

Challenge 3. Cite an example of an FTB feminist calling someone a “gender traitor”.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/05/how-to-make-baseless-accusations-become-true-via-repetition/#comment-174993

Skeptifem and Salty Current used the term towards Abbie Smith. But let me guess, those two are not “FfTB feminists”. No true Scotsman, et al.

However, I would point out that the use “gender traitor” pails into insignificance with the usage of “sister punisher” and “chill girl”. Are you going to deny these terms are used as well.

Consider Challenge #3 dealt with.

Challenge 4. Cite where Ophelia Benson shows that she thinks she is above criticism and that criticism of her is equivalent to harassment.

Like Rebecca Watson, you can tell that by their reaction to such criticism. Like when Rebecca called Ed Clint a rapist, after Ed had written up a well-supported and thoughtful debunk of Rebecca’s awful evo-psych talk.

With regard to Benson – did you see her response when Shermer had the nerve to call out Benson’s misquoting of him, and Benson’s slandering of him as a sexist? BTW, Shermer’s thoughtful two responses are constrated by SIX blog articles from the raging Ophelia, along with some other Creepy Clowns (inc. PZ) also writing their own blog posts. Note: it is a common tactic for Creepy Clowns to “gang up” on their targets, and launch attack posts at the same time across the FfTB network. Further, take a look at the comments on Ophelia’s blogs about Shermer.

As for the notion that Ophelia thinks she is above criticism, well, Ophelia censored comments criticising her behaviour and her response to that Shermer article.

Consider Challenge #4 dealt with.

You are dismissed, Brony.

329 Kim Rippere March 4, 2013 at 11:23 pm

He has the option of ignoring all the quotes he chooses to, perhaps the one you point will be one he ignores (perhaps it won’t).

All Michael has asked him to do is comment on what is (if anything) morally unjustified in the quotes.

You are taking the choice of quotes pretty personally. Instead of seeing this an exercise in parsing ethics . . . you are seeing these quotes as a referendum on a particular website (you and friends also; maybe). You are conflating these things and not focusing on the dialog that Michael and Justin have setup.

Reminds me of college when people couldn’t argue the form of the argument . . . and instead got all emotional and argued. Instead of arguing about whether the structure of the argument was strong, valid, etc . . . they argued the substance – abortion, who to put in the rescue boat, etc.

330 John C. Welch March 4, 2013 at 11:24 pm

Kim,

Even if we accept that somehow, Justin Vacula’s moral judgement applies to anyone but him, which no one but Michael, and evidently you are doing…

1) The quote used are not intact. They were mined, and shoddily so.

2) Michael said they were ‘pit quotes. At least two originated other places, including a “bastion” of feminist-friendly thought, FTB. So how many sites is Justin supposed to deem moral or not? Based on Michael’s list, we’re up to the ‘pit, FTB, and some random person’s twitter account.

3) None of this, *none* of this even begins to address the simple fact that no one makes anyone read the slymepit. I don’t often read FTB, because I find it a festering pile of incompetent hypocrisy. They could be slagging me day in and day out, and I won’t know, *because I don’t read the damned thing*. My friends don’t ‘tattle’ as a rule, because they could care less as well, and view that kind of thing as lame drama-pumping crapola. It also doesn’t have much google juice. If you Google ophelia benson’s name, nothing from the ‘pit shows up on the first page, nor the FOURTH. Same thing for Stephanie Zvan, and PZ.

To find the stuff on the ‘pit doesn’t seem to be all that easy. So how the hell is it harassment? now @-messaging people when they say stop? Yes. Harassment. I agree. And i’ve told people they shouldn’t do that on a number of occasions. For one, the google vanity searches they’re running, and their sycophants ensure any mention of them, or even an IMPLICATION of mention gets their almost immediate attention.

They are constantly looking for any reason to cry Victim, and they monitor the ‘pit as close as the people who post in it. Here’s one: maybe, just maybe, if they stopped obsessing over every comment made in the ‘pit, and actually, not pretend, ignored it, they’d see a marked improvement in their day.

331 John C. Welch March 4, 2013 at 11:25 pm

Kim, the dialog is based on a dishonestly presented list.

Why, given that, should anyone trust Michael’s intentions?

332 mildlymagnificent March 4, 2013 at 11:29 pm

#278 John C. Welch

First, and this is critical: Justin Vacula is neither authorized nor in fact able to “answer” for the ‘pit. …..
Justin Vacula’s opinion of what anyone who is not Justin Vacula has written has about as much “validity” as your opinion of it. He cannot, can. not. answer for it, nor will many of us allow him to.

Michael is not asking Justin to “answer for” the ‘pit. He’s asking him to venture opinions about some writing in the same way as anyone can for any expression or statement anywhere, any time. I can read comments by some people and my reaction can be anything from “Oh, I never thought of it like that before. I’ll save that.” through to “That’s an awful thing to say”.

Michael is asking quite simply for Justin to enumerate which of the listed items fit into the “awful thing to say” category, specifically the morally unjustifiable kind of awful – according to his own way of thinking. I think all of them are awful for pretty obvious reasons. Other people think none of them are problematic – for reasons I don’t understand. Presumably Justin and many other people would count a few, some, many, most as ‘morally unjustifiable’ for a variety of reasons.

And just for the record, it’s a joke or it’s satire or irony or snark don’t count as exclusions from the ‘morally unjustifiable’ category. The fact that some people with some attitudes would also find these comments amusing doesn’t change their unacceptable character. Very often it’s the fact that they are unacceptable that makes them amusing to some people.

333 doubtthat March 4, 2013 at 11:31 pm

Well, there you have it. For all the folks talking about “reconciliation,” the pitters, MRA’s, and anti-FtB crowd doesn’t think there’s a problem.

You’re welcome to that view, by the way, but it just supports the idea that we’re going to have to get on without each other.

334 windy March 4, 2013 at 11:33 pm

This is the form of your argument:
Doctor: “Smoking is bad for your health.”
Pitchguest: “But Doctor, you are a smoker, therefore it cannot be bad for your health.”

It’s more like:
“You can’t smoke here! Smoking is harmful!”
“But there’s other people smoking here! Look at all these full ashtrays! I saw you smoking earlier too!”
“Yes, but you smoke more! And your cigarettes smell worse!”

335 Za-zen March 4, 2013 at 11:34 pm

Kim

For the third time, we need an operational definition and concurence of “moralaity” before any judgement can be passed. Basic debate protocol!

336 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 11:37 pm

@doubtthat

MRAs? Citation needed.

337 Kim Rippere March 4, 2013 at 11:37 pm

erm . . . I don’t think that Justin speaks for anyone but himself.

The list is not dishonest in anyway. It is a sample of quotes that Justin is being asked to give an opinion regarding. That is it; simple.

When you are a target of hate, bullying, harassment, and threats you *are* a VICTIM of hate, bullying, harassment, and threats. That is what is means to be on the receiving end of those things.

338 idahogie March 4, 2013 at 11:44 pm

Plenty of nasty back-and-forth on this thread. It is true that people on both sides can say mean things to each other.

I still ask myself … do I want to be aligned with those who are defending the use of nasty, sexist invective against women, or with those opposed to that practice?

It’s an easy answer for me.

339 doubtthat March 4, 2013 at 11:47 pm

@John Brown

So you disagree with the claim that MRA’s don’t have a problem with the comments collected by Nugent?

I may be wrong, but a commenter earlier, Andrew V69, was a fairly proud MRA. He’s welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, but are you really asking me to substantiate the claim that MRA’s like to use the word “cunt?”

340 Za-zen March 4, 2013 at 11:48 pm

You go Kim, i love how you are defending Ken Ham, that guy has had it tough from all the haters, bullys, and harrasers.

341 Kim Rippere March 4, 2013 at 11:50 pm

Za-zen. Please see comment 326; wherein I address your point.

Also, this isn’t a formal debate . . . seriously. Justin is free to define (or not) as he chooses.

This is a dialog a conversation. It will meander, ebb and flow, have its own timeframe, etc.

342 doubtthat March 4, 2013 at 11:52 pm

@334

That example doesn’t evade the fallacy.

Whether the person making the claim, “you can’t smoke here,” is smoking, is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. It’s a fallacious argument.

“The speed limit is 55 here, you can’t go 70.”
“But you go 70 here all the time…”

Doesn’t work.

343 John Brown March 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm

Doubtthat:

I can’t speak for MRAs on the issue one way or the other. Some probably don’t have a problem with them, some probably do. I wouldn’t think that it was a homogeneous, monolithic group. I find it’s best not to lump people into your narrative unless they have self identified themselves, and even then, I wouldn’t generalize.

As for your last question, Australians and the British love to use the word “cunt,” but I don’t see you making sweeping generalizations about them.

344 Tigzy March 4, 2013 at 11:54 pm

@idahogie

Oh, so you’d rather be aligned with people like PZ Myers, who invited a woman up on stage at Skepticon 3 and proceeded to make lewd jokes at her; and the commentariat at FTB (in particular, Pharyngula) who regularly invite people they disagree with to die, burn to death, commit suicide, and mutilate themselves via various objects inserted into the rectum. Okay, glad you made that clear.

345 idahogie March 5, 2013 at 12:00 am

@Tigzy,

Oh, so you’d rather be aligned with people like PZ Myers, who invited a woman up on stage at Skepticon 3 and proceeded to make lewd jokes at her; and the commentariat at FTB (in particular, Pharyngula) who regularly invite people they disagree with to die, burn to death, commit suicide, and mutilate themselves via various objects inserted into the rectum. Okay, glad you made that clear.

Exactly. The MRAs and the slymepitters are in general much, much worse than the questionable examples you’ve supplied.

346 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 12:04 am

John C. Welch said (#330):

2) Michael said they were ‘pit quotes. At least two originated other places, including a “bastion” of feminist-friendly thought, FTB.

Not entirely true there, John. As you mentioned in #278, what Michael quoted in #21 was from a FTB post, but the core of it came from a Pit post. Here’s the FTB post (1):

jenniferphillips February 3, 2013 at 2:33 pm AST (UTC -4)
….
I skipped to the end of the current conversation and became acquainted with a commenter named ‘SomeDumbGuy’ who apparently doesn’t like Amanda Marcotte very much–based on the fact that he concluded his comment with the phrase ‘Fuck her. Fuck her. Kill her. Dump her in a ditch’. This actually did get some negative attention from the mod and a couple of other posters. That was at 11PM PST last night. This morning, the offensive phrase written by SDG that I reproduced above has been miraculously modified to read “Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her on the cheeks”.
….

And the Pit one (2); note the dates and note the change of language, done by “our” moderator:

somedumbguy » Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:24 pm • [Post 3583]
….
Marcotte is a cunt that after the Duke Students are declared innocent, not not guilty, but innocent, moves to post statements inciting racial and gender warfare. Moves to declare the innocent as guilty. Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her. Kiss her on her cheeks.
….

While I’m somewhat unhappy that Michael didn’t provide links and was more than a little sloppy – at best – in failing to provide context to his list, and while I think there is more than a little justification for many of the items in it, I think you and a number of others from the Pit are being overly defensive and “hyper-skeptical” about his intentions and the process that he and Justin are apparently attempting to engage in.

Getting the larger community to address some of the quite creditable issues presented and defended by the Pit is not made easier by “our” defense of untenable positions.

1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/02/01/there-can-be-no-khitomer-accord/#comment-101295”;
2) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=59229#p59229”;

347 John Brown March 5, 2013 at 12:05 am

“Exactly. The MRAs and the slymepitters are in general much, much worse than the questionable examples you’ve supplied.”

And yet, more and more people are delurking over there every day, and most of them seem to be women. Strange, that.

348 Pitchguest March 5, 2013 at 12:06 am

Kim Rippere – What? We’ve just demonstrated that the list is horribly mined, to the point that Nugent really should be ashamed how mined it is, but according to you there is “nothing dishonest” about it? In any way? Wow. The President of Secular Women. *shakes head*

349 Justin Vacula March 5, 2013 at 12:09 am
350 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 12:13 am

@idahogie

No probs, feller – I mean, triggering language and splash damage doesn’t really count for burns victims, people who have attempted suicide, the loved ones of those who have committed suicide, people who have and are self-harming, victims of anal rape, victims of violence, and the loved ones of people who have been murdered, does it?

Nah – you’re just content to side with those who arbitrarily choose which groups should be exempt from triggering and splash damage, because…well, who knows why?

And there’s nothing questionable about those examples, by the way – I can supply you with a link to a collection, if you like.

351 Kim Rippere March 5, 2013 at 12:20 am

@pitchguest, you may repeat to your hearts content that I am the President of Secular Woman. I am not now, nor will I ever, shy away from that. I have no problem using my real name, taking full responsibility for my words and actions, letting people know that I am . . . (again, for those that missed it) the President of Secular Woman.

@Za Zen. I’m not defending anyone. I am merely putting my view of the proceedings in a comment section on a blog.

And, I am not a perfect typer – just the way it is.

352 windy March 5, 2013 at 12:21 am

Whether the person making the claim, “you can’t smoke here,” is smoking, is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. It’s a fallacious argument.

It’s relevant if the “claim” is being contested in the first place. This is clearly an attempt to regulate behavior poorly disguised as a philosophical argument.

353 John C. Welch March 5, 2013 at 12:21 am

Steersman: the implication of his leading comment before the list is clear: these are ‘pit comments. Not comments that people on the pit are commenting on, but actual things originated in the pit. If we’re going to say “anything said in the ‘pit is fair game”, well, then we can easily take it to the absurd by pointing out that the word “The” is used in the pit, and can Justin defend the moral implications in the use of articles and other grammatical structures by posters in the ‘pit?

It gets quickly absurd. Well, *more* absurd. Again, asking Justin to morally justify, for good or ill, a range of comments some of which didn’t even originate on the ‘pit is, to be blunt, idiotic. It is even more idiotic when you consider that in quote-mining FIFTY such statements, he couldn’t be bothered to ensure that what he labels as ‘pit statements and ‘pushback’ actually originate in the ‘pit?

It’s not like there isn’t a plethora of “unkind” material to use. Is it too much to ask that he not play creationist games?

I don’t think it’s being hyperskeptical to analyze the entire post, not just statement by statement. Indeed, that’s the only sane way to view this, and when you take it as a whole, the deliberate misrepresentation used by Michael here is even more odious. Given the creationist tactics used here, what do you think will happen if Justin follows Kim’s “advice” and ignores certain statements on the list?

Well, given creationist responses when they use the “big list of things evolutionists say”, we already know. Any statement not directly and “fully” (for whatever value of “fully” we care to use) will immediately be used to flog Justin with, as some kind of “proof” that even HE cannot “morally justify” the eeeeeeevil of the pit.

It’s all a great big pile of bulldroppings, and no, given Michael’s dishonesty and deception in this post, I am not in fact inclined to be even *slightly* charitable about intent here. As FTB et al are so very, very fond of saying “Intent is not magic”. I cannot read Michael’s mind, I have only his words to go on here, and his words are not things that make me think he intends any form of forthrightness, so why should I grant them such on my own?

354 AndrewV69 March 5, 2013 at 12:26 am

doubtthat March #339

@John Brown

So you disagree with the claim that MRA’s don’t have a problem with the comments collected by Nugent?

I may be wrong, but a commenter earlier, Andrew V69, was a fairly proud MRA. He’s welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, but are you really asking me to substantiate the claim that MRA’s like to use the word “cunt?”

——————————————————————————–

Someone rang?

Just to set the record clear that I have no aversion to using the word cunt. I do not use it very often myself, but it was in common usage when I was growing up.

Except the much more refined usage of “twat” was favoured. Only “those people” said cunt instead of twat.

As for if MRAs like to use it or not, I dunno and I do not care either way. I am not an American and I do not give a flying fuck if their panties get bunched or not.

Well to be truthful, I do find it a tad amushing.

Anyway, proof that I have no objection to using the word cunt is here:
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=63751#p63751
[TRIGGER WARNING! Excessive and unnecessary use of the word cunt by me and someone with the username of cunt]

355 Pitchguest March 5, 2013 at 12:38 am

Kim Rippere – I’m repeating it so people know this is what the President of Secular Women consider an honest and fair argument. Michael Nugent provides some clearly quote-mined examples, cherry picked for his convenience, as well as some comments that have been removed from their context or purpose (including cutting some of them off, leaving the mined quote intact), and this is according to a person who has, surely, a lot of influence in the secular community, not dishonest – in any way.

Worse still, Michael Nugent is the chairperson for Atheist Ireland and this is what he considers to be a worthy argument. It beggars belief.

356 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 12:39 am

doubtthat said (#342):

Whether the person making the claim, “you can’t smoke here,” is smoking, is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. It’s a fallacious argument.

Ah so! Don’t do as I do, but do as I say? Have I got that right? If that is the case then I guess that gives “us” far more latitude than we have so far taken advantage of. “Today FTB! Tomorrow the entire Atheist Nexus!” Consider a recent survey (1):

Term……………. FTB General….Pharyngula
Fucking………….. 15,200………6,760….
Asshole……………..7,870………4,490….
creationist…………5,900………2,880….
misogynist…………5,220………1,900….
You are a moron….2,560………2,200….
Scum………………..2,300………..916….
Fuckwit……………..2,020…….. 1,300….
Fuck off and die…..1,110………..787….
Fuck Sideways………581………. 395….
Die in a fire…………..165………. 112….
Racist scum………….861………..530….

And relative to which, as one point of several, considering ChasCPeterson’s argument [#207] that people shouldn’t be using gendered insults because of “splash damage” to “non-combatants”, I wonder why “asshole” hasn’t, apparently, been anathematized to the same extent that “cunt” and other such have been, particularly in light of the fact that there are many more people likely to be “splashed” by the first insult.

An oversight? Or egregious hypocrisy?

1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=70866#p70866”;

357 Kim Rippere March 5, 2013 at 12:49 am

@Pitchguest. There is the difference. I don’t think this is an argument or a debate. I think this is a conversation – a dialog. I have said this repeatedly. Enough for tonight. Have to run.

358 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 12:50 am

Haha, that’s an awesome effort at twisting the argument.

No, I’m not arguing that you weirdos should be subject to rules others aren’t. Try again.

The argument was presented that it was pointless to criticize poor behavior if the person advancing the criticism has some inchoate level of poor behavior in their history. This is a fallacious argument, full stop.

But you all CANNOT just deal with your own house. I’m happy to scrutinize the people on my side, the socially-adjusted denizens of the 21st century. When someone says something silly on FtB, guess how many times the argument, “Well, they say much worse at the pit,” is successful (or used)?

FtB could be horrible or perfect, and it wouldn’t have any bearing on whether you were behaving appropriately.

359 Tony March 5, 2013 at 12:50 am

A Hermit:
That comment by Tethys was criticized (by me and at least one other). Tethys did retract it.
That is something I see from the Pharyngula side. The one off comments by Brownian, Wowbagger, or Josh:
a: happened some time ago
b: do not happen any longer
c: were recanted-in some cases (Wowbagger and Brownian did recant their comments. I am uncertain if Josh did.)

The sexist, misogynist language from many of the pitters (along with the bullying and harassment):
a: happened in the past AND
b: continues into the present
c: retractions?

360 Michael Nugent March 5, 2013 at 12:52 am

Atheist Ireland has removed from our Forum several posts which we consider to be sexist, racist and/or shaming, and we would like to apologise for allowing our Forum to be used as a platform for such material.

We would like to thank Skepsheik for bringing this to our attention. As with any voluntary organisation, we are always grateful to people who assist us in identifying areas where we can improve what we do.

The posts that we have removed include several jokes published by people who were suspended or banned several years ago. We should of course have also removed these posts at that time, and we have now done so.

We are now in the process of reviewing all of the historical posts on our Forum, to ensure that they are consistent with the policy we adopted at our 2012 AGM on making Atheist Ireland inclusive:

    (a) Be inclusive, caring and supportive of people of all races, genders, sexualities and abilities
    (b) Include people of diverse backgrounds on our organizing committees and event panels
    (c) In particular, aim for a reasonable gender balance in our activities
    (d) Host family-friendly events including museum visits, outdoor activities and brunches
    (e) Host our events in venues suitable for wheelchair users
    (f) Host our events in ways that accommodate people with other disabilities
    (g) Make our website as usable as possible for people with disabilities
    (h) Develop policies to help people to feel safe and enjoy themselves at our activities
    (i) Support the anti-harassment policy of Atheist Alliance International

In recent years, much of our online discussion has migrated from our Forum to our Facebook Page, where we have recently adopted a moderation policy aimed at making members feel welcome. That policy also applies to our Forum.

We would like to thank all of our members who have helped to improve our online interaction in recent years, and we look forward to many more years of enjoyable and useful discussion both on Facebook and our Forum.

Notice on Atheist Ireland website

Notice on Michael Nugent website

361 Wowbagger March 5, 2013 at 1:02 am

It occurred to me that there’s an obvious way of differentiating between the ‘abuse’ at the Slymepit vs. that at FTB.

Look at who is on the receiving end.

Because, if you look at who the Slymepit abuse there (and on Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and other blogs; another interesting discrepancy and one that no-one’s managed to provide equivalency for) you find that they pretty much all have one thing in common: they’re all atheists who want to increase diversity in the atheist community and are attempting to do so by writing/posting/speaking about that specific topic on a regular basis.

Coincidence? I think not.

But I could be wrong. Since the ‘pitters have done such hard work on dredging up ancient FTB comments, perhaps they’d like to show what common features those on the receiving end of that ‘abuse’ are. What sort of people, exactly, were prompting those comments? Surely with all the research they’ve done, that should be a very straightforward exercise.

362 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 1:08 am

John C. Welch said (#353):

Steersman: the implication of his leading comment before the list is clear: these are ‘pit comments. Not comments that people on the pit are commenting on, but actual things originated in the pit.

Ok, so it looks like he made a mistake in not being clear enough about the context of that post in particular, and many others in general. Still a mistake, I think, to discount, and on such thin evidence, the possibility that his discussions with Justin might move the ball downfield somewhat, to withhold the benefit of doubt. Particularly if he is able to be fair and balanced in his assessment of those comments from the pit and similar ones from FTB, Pharyngula in particular. Apropos of which, ran across this comment from PZ Myers, on which I’d like Michael’s judgement as to whether they are “morally justified” or not:

Michael Nugent, this post from PZ Myers in which he apparently compares many critics of some branches of feminism with the mass-murder Marc Lépine – is it “morally justified” or not? Or is it not an egregious case of demagoguery?

I remember following the events of that day intently, horrified that there are people who will kill women simply because they are women. And these anonymous monsters on the internet who shriek affrontedly about women and feminists and moan that any feminist allies are ‘manginas’ — to me, every one of them has the name Marc Lépine, and is just hiding it in shame and fear and hatred and cowardice.

Michael, if you’re going to bandy the word and concept about, I think you have an obligation to apply the metric consistently, uniformly, and fairly.

1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/06/never-forget/”;

363 windy March 5, 2013 at 1:13 am

they’re all atheists who want to increase diversity in the atheist community and are attempting to do so by writing/posting/speaking about that specific topic on a regular basis.

I know you’re very fond of this strawman, but that’s not why they are being criticized.

364 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 1:13 am

@Wowbagger

Well, there’s plenty of examples here, complete with links (wherever possible – things do have a habit of getting memory-holed when it comes to the FTB mob) so that any lurkers can look to the the original posts, contexts and instigators themselves. Also, you’ll find that some of the entries there so far (and there’s plenty more to come), are not quite so ancient as you might wish.

http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=256

Oh, and excuse my guff there – that’s largely to help with search terms, and also because it gives me a chance to have a few digs at you disgusting people.

365 AndrewV69 March 5, 2013 at 1:16 am

doubtthat, #358 “FtB could be horrible or perfect, and it wouldn’t have any bearing on whether you were behaving appropriately.”

And I will be the judge of that. Not you. See how that works?

Anyway, below are links to posts which apparently links to things said over at FfTB involving “bad” werds like inviting people to “fuck off” and “die in a fire” and so on and so forth. You can follow the links to the actual comments and the context in which they were said.

Pharyngula Deathwish Derby
_http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=70836#p70836

Pharyngula Fireworks
_http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=70860#p70860

Also this one:
_http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=70877#p70877

Not to mention this:
_http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=70866#p70866

Personally, asking me to get all worked up about the comments no matter which “side” said them is just not on.

The hypocrisy is noted though. It it is just one reason any claims, no matter how implicit, of any sort of moral superiority, will be treated with the respect it deserves.

366 ChasCPeterson March 5, 2013 at 1:16 am

oh, hi windy (#316).

I have to admit that I know nothing and care (if possible) even less about “Watson’s pre-EG talk” and what it may or may not have contained, mythologiclly or otherwise. And so your first point is lost on me. Some people have some misconception…?

Your second point:

This was supposed to be about “nasty pushback against feminists”, not a reality show called “Atheism: Biggest Asshole”.

…quotes the OP title after more than 300 comments of a thread that by now of course has multiple streams. I was participating in one about the comparative nastiness (or whatever) of the combatant Kommentariat Korps of the major tribes involved. So that was the context of the have-a-drink thing. (Nothing personal.)

367 ChasCPeterson March 5, 2013 at 1:22 am

oh hi windy (#363).

that’s not why they are being criticized.

because the reason is…what?
they’re hypocrites?
they’re pompous narcissistic blowhards?
they’re, like, promototers of victimization and infantilization instead of true respect and equality?
they’re know-nothing charlatans feeding at the teat of organized skepticism?

or what?

368 Sally Strange March 5, 2013 at 1:38 am

Michael Nugent, I hope you’re aware that by making your website and organization more welcoming and inclusive of women, racial minorities, and LGBT folks, you are thereby alienating and driving away misogynists, racists, homophobes, and bigots of all stripes.

You’re dividing the movement, man. Deep rifts!

369 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 2:12 am

Sally Strange said (#368):

You’re dividing the movement, man. Deep rifts!

Sally – “Four legs good, two legs bad” – Strange, able to cut through mountains of argument and nuance with a single swipe, reducing it all to a vacuous truism! Well done! You’ve well learned the art of demagoguery from PZ Myers, the master himself ….

Seems to me that a large part of what is producing these rifts is some uncritical acceptance of some aspects of feminism, some feminist dogma, the least criticism of which tends to produce outraged cries of “misogynist” and “sexist” and “rape apologist”. Just out of curiosity, did you ever think to develop that quite credible insight you had some time ago, that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good points”? ….

Considering that you supposedly claim to be a skeptic, I’m surprised that you haven’t actually checked out the various items in Michael’s list by reading the relevant comments – and context – in the Pit. You might find, as several threads here have illustrated, that the charges Michael suggests don’t hold all that much water.

And you might also find, for example, that, contrary to what you’ve apparently been told, not everyone there thinks that you were the source of that rape threat against you on Thunderfoot’s blog.

370 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 2:15 am

Well, to be fair Sally, it was Skepsheik who divided the movement in this instance – you know, the guy known for mocking PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson with his Peezus and O cartoons.

So we can chalk that one up for another decidedly non-FTBer showing your lot the right way to go about things – you know, like we did with your ‘porcupine’ meme. Ugh – nasty one, that was.

371 Sally Strange March 5, 2013 at 2:22 am

Aw, you guys are cute.

372 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 2:28 am

Well you at least got something half-right this time, Sally, because it’s fair to say I’m a bit of man hottie. A bit fat, but not so bad. Can’t speak for Steersman, though knowing the distinct lack of justice in the world, the annoying fecker will turn out to look like George Clooney, or something.

373 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 2:40 am

Riiiight – look quite similar to Noelplum …. ;-)

374 Sally Strange March 5, 2013 at 3:02 am

@ Steersman

Seems to me that a large part of what is producing these rifts is some uncritical acceptance of some aspects of feminism, some feminist dogma,

Nope. First of all, feminism isn’t a dogma. It isn’t even many dogmas. Those who self-describe as feminism don’t uncritically accept all aspects of it. However, you’re correct in noting that the general acceptance of some of feminism’s most basic premises is dividing the movement – as I noted, the division mostly runs between bigots and everyone else.

the least criticism of which tends to produce outraged cries of “misogynist” and “sexist” and “rape apologist”.

I know! There are some people who really can’t handle constructive criticism.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever think to develop that quite credible insight you had some time ago, that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good points”? ….

Several times over, dude.

Considering that you supposedly claim to be a skeptic, I’m surprised that you haven’t actually checked out the various items in Michael’s list by reading the relevant comments – and context – in the Pit. You might find, as several threads here have illustrated, that the charges Michael suggests don’t hold all that much water.

What charges? His only remarks here are that these are comments on the Slymepit. They are there, aren’t they? If you could assure me that, actually, Michael Nugent invented all of these comments out of thin air, then I might consider visiting it. But I don’t see you saying that. I see you saying that people say things besides these things, and that there is context! Cool, I don’t think I was ever confused about that fact. It’s just that no amount of context or unrelated commentary could make it worth reading that sort of tripe. Which is why I let other people do it.

And you might also find, for example, that, contrary to what you’ve apparently been told, not everyone there thinks that you were the source of that rape threat against you on Thunderfoot’s blog.

But some people do. And those people haven’t been kicked out, right? So.

@ Tigzy

Well, to be fair Sally, it was Skepsheik who divided the movement in this instance – you know, the guy known for mocking PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson with his Peezus and O cartoons.

Skepsheik does those cartoons? How interesting. If you want to give him some credit for Michael Nugent’s actions, I suppose, if you want to. Doesn’t alter my point, though, which you seem to have missed: the divide is there, regardless. But only when people like Nugent take action to make events and organizations more accessible to non-white non-dude type people do their actions get cast as “divisive.”

I.e., it was a joke. But then, everyone knows that men aren’t funny, so it’s not surprising you didn’t catch it.

^^
(Another joke right there, just in case)

So we can chalk that one up for another decidedly non-FTBer showing your lot the right way to go about things – you know, like we did with your ‘porcupine’ meme. Ugh – nasty one, that was.

Yep, and guess what? We talked about it, agreed it was nasty, and now it’s done. That is how it’s done. That’s how Michael Nugent does it, that’s FTBloggers do it, that’s how I try to do it. Slimers don’t. Does’t look good for them. Oh well.

375 John C. Welch March 5, 2013 at 3:12 am

Only Sally Strange could argue for feminism and equal rights by using “you haven’t banned people I dislike” as a point.

If she were any richer a source of amusement and irony, I’d not be able to believe she’s not butter.

376 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 3:19 am

Sally – fair points there. However, don’t you think it illuminating that it took the supposedly privilege-blind, empathy-lacking scum that is the Pyt to show FTB (in particular, the Pharygulites) the right way to proceed as regards the porcupine meme? That perhaps this instance of ugly hypocrisy could not be dismissed with a blithe ‘tu quoque’ statement, and that therefore the Pyt cannot be rightly regarded as such a categorical den of privilege-blind, empathy-lacking scummery your lot make it out to be?

377 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 3:28 am

doubtthat said (#358):

No, I’m not arguing that you weirdos should be subject to rules others aren’t.

No, but you’re arguing, among other points, that “we” should be subject to a rule – no gendered insults – for which you have no justification, apart from your own idiosyncratic and highly subjective interpretations of sexism. And a rule, I might add, that is entirely inconsistent with “your” own frequent use of “asshole” which produces, arguably, just as much if not more “splash damage” than any of the so-called gendered insults.

FtB could be horrible or perfect, and it wouldn’t have any bearing on whether you were behaving appropriately.

Again, in your opinion – from that statement it seems you guys over there have a lock on the philosophy or modus operandi of ipse dixit (1).

Not to mention that it betrays a complete ignorance – willful or otherwise – of another concept, that of hypocrisy:

hy•poc•ri•sy (h-pkr-s)
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

More particularly, the principle that it is ethically wrong to be using insults – ad hominems – as part of a supposedly civil discussion. And if “you” are – hypocritically – unable to adhere to that principle then why the fuck should anyone else? And if “you” have such an egregious fault then why should anyone think that you have any claim to, much less are in possession of, the “moral high ground”? And in which case, your assertion that “we” “were [not] behaving appropriately” is only so much tinkling brass. “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”, and all that.

In addition, to emphasize the point, you and many others seem to be of the opinion that “The Pit” is criticizing you for your language in itself which is, I think, the furthest thing from the truth – which should be obvious from the fact that most there have a fairly broad acceptance of profanity in one form or another – one of the main threads is, after all, called The Periodic Table of Swearing.

1) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit”;

378 A Hermit March 5, 2013 at 4:37 am

Wow, just read Vacula’s response…he actually seems to think the thing being objected to is “crude language.” o_O

You just don’t get it, do you Justin?

379 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 4:47 am

Sally Strange said (#374):

Nope. First of all, feminism isn’t a dogma. It isn’t even many dogmas. Those who self-describe as feminism don’t uncritically accept all aspects of it.

Really? Could have fooled me, but maybe you’re using a dictionary different from the rest of us. Consider these definitions for dogma (1) and ideology (2):

dog•ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog•mas or dog•ma•ta (-m-t)
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them.
——-
i•de•ol•o•gy (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i•de•ol•o•gies
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Do note the common element of “beliefs”, the central element of which is “something believed or accepted as true” (3). Note that the definition does not say that they are things that are true, only that they are “believed” or “accepted”as such. You might wish to reflect on the difference and note some similarities with things like the Christian Trinity.

However, you’re correct in noting that the general acceptance of some of feminism’s most basic premises is dividing the movement – as I noted, the division mostly runs between bigots and everyone else.

Mostly? Really? Why then does Wikpedia list (4) some 17 different “feminist ideologies” which, presumably, have sufficiently different beliefs to qualify as different ideologies – and encompassing different “dogmas”. And, just out of curiousity, which of the 17 do you subscribe to? Are the adherents of other 16 “bigots”? Heretics? Any that you might consider “virulent”? Which is, as Ophelia Benson informed us, tantamount to being a misogynist. Which seems to be a rather dogmatic assertion in itself, but maybe she isn’t a feminist ….

I know! There are some people who really can’t handle constructive criticism.

Har, har. Who said women don’t have a sense of humour? [Hitchens, if I’m not mistaken]

Although considering your recent responses – “dirty fucking liar”; “fucking dishonest carbuncle”; “pathetic dirty fucking liar”, etc., etc. – to Owlglass, one might argue that you’re no great shakes in that department yourself.

What charges? His only remarks here are that these are comments on the Slymepit. They are there, aren’t they?

He did say:

I’m using examples that were published on The Slymepit website. I could add examples from Elevatorgate, YouTube and elsewhere, but I think there is enough here to be representative of the “nasty pushback”

Which looks to me rather much like a charge that they constitute “nasty pushback”, with the only question supposedly in play being whether the individual items are “morally justified” or not – sort of like questions about mustard gas and torture and nuclear weapons as instruments of a “just” war.

But yes, they are, generally, there, although context changes the interpretations or charges of “justified” or “nasty” very substantially. But I guess you’d prefer to let others do your thinking for you, at least on that score.

Cool, I don’t think I was ever confused about that fact. It’s just that no amount of context or unrelated commentary could make it worth reading that sort of tripe.

Sort of like in a murder trial where the “context” provided by the jury returning a verdict of “not guilty” isn’t “worth reading”? “Screw this necessity for a trial: charged? Ergo, guilty!”

But some people do. And those people haven’t been kicked out, right? So.

Indeed. What would you have expected? Put them in stocks and throw stones at them? Public shaming as was featured in the heyday of Maoism? That they might be wrong on one score is hardly justification for concluding that they are likely to be wrong on all of them. And they’re still entitled to their opinions – no Inquisition on this side of the fence obligating them to “abjure, curse and detest” them ….

1) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma”;
2) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ideology”;
3) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief”;
4) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ideology”;

380 idahogie March 5, 2013 at 4:49 am

That seems to be the same failure of comprehension being displayed by everyone from that side of the debate. “But someone called me a poopyhead at Pharyngula! You can’t be mad that I called someone a c*nt because that happened to me! You’re a hypocrite!”

381 A Hermit March 5, 2013 at 4:54 am

I’m still waiting for someone to show me anything on FtB equivalent to the many threads on the slymepit specifically dedicated to attacking and mocking identifiable individuals.

Actually I’m not…I know they can’t do it.

382 Kevin Solway March 5, 2013 at 5:03 am

@A Hermit

“I’m still waiting for someone to show me anything on FtB equivalent to the many threads on the slymepit”

You obviously don’t believe that the false accusations of misogyny, sexism, rape apologism, racism, etc, are any cause for concern.

You’re welcome to your opinion, but it’s clear that many of us don’t agree with you.

383 Justin Vacula March 5, 2013 at 5:13 am

“I’m still waiting for someone to show me anything on FtB equivalent to the many threads on the slymepit specifically dedicated to attacking and mocking identifiable individuals. Actually I’m not…I know they can’t do it.”

You’re missing the point.

…as I noted

“Might there be a ‘false equivalence’ between the Slymepit and Freethought Blogs? I don’t know. I don’t care. It is besides the point. …but only Ophelia and her friends will deny that they are partially responsible for the ongoing in-fighting in the online atheist/skeptic community. Can anyone reasonably deny that Ophelia Benson and her friends are not at all responsible for the in-fighting? I think not.”

384 Justin Vacula March 5, 2013 at 5:14 am

My response to Michael – sorry, forgot to link it in 383 with the comment.

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013/03/04/second-correspondence-with-michael-nugent/

385 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 5:22 am

idahogie said (#380):

That seems to be the same failure of comprehension being displayed by everyone from that side of the debate.

And the same failure of comprehension on the FTB side that that hypocrisy – on the question of language, among others – is considered a non-trivial issue.

386 Stacy March 5, 2013 at 5:25 am

“Might there be a ‘false equivalence’ between the Slymepit and Freethought Blogs? I don’t know. I don’t care.

Shorter version: Yes, there is. I’m not ready to admit it but not quite shameless enough to deny it.

It is besides the point. …but only Ophelia and her friends will deny that they are partially responsible for the ongoing in-fighting in the online atheist/skeptic community. Can anyone reasonably deny that Ophelia Benson and her friends are not at all responsible for the in-fighting?

On the contrary, your words are the ones that are beside the point. Poor attempt at deflection, Justin.

The subject under discussion is not “infighting.”

I’m sure nobody on this side of the divide is interested in denying responsibility “in-fighting” per se. On the contrary, we’ll continue to fight against sexism as long as we have to.

387 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 5:37 am

Stacy said (#386):

I’m sure nobody on this side of the divide is interested in denying responsibility “in-fighting” per se. On the contrary, we’ll continue to fight against sexism as long as we have to.

And that is, I think, a serious mischaracterization of The Pit. Predicated on a definition of “sexism” that you haven’t adequately defined much less credibly defended. Seems to me, at least, that it largely or frequently consists in criticizing any particular woman, or a feminist ideology or dogma – e.g., “The Patriarchy”, or in using gendered insults, the latter of which is not at all supported by any sources – at least that I’ve found.

388 Stacy March 5, 2013 at 6:08 am

I know you doesn’t believe calling women ugly cunts has anything to do with sexism, Steersman.

(All the intense anger directed at Rebecca Watson, often expressed in sexual terms, or with comments about her looks, or rape jokes…nothing to do with sexism. The Men’s Rights Activists who comment on the pit…the pushback against sexual harassment policies….

Nope, no sexism there.)

389 Stacy March 5, 2013 at 6:10 am

Oops. “I know you don’t

(I can has preview button?)

390 Iamcuriousblue March 5, 2013 at 6:20 am

One can easily make a list of 50 hateful and threatening comments from the Atheismplus Forum. Just saying. Also, I might add, a couple of hateful and threatening IRL *actions* from social justice warriors confronting real or suspected MRAs, in at least one case, a mob lead by one of the A+ forum moderators.

391 Skep tickle March 5, 2013 at 6:20 am

idahogie @338

I still ask myself … do I want to be aligned with those who are defending the use of nasty, sexist invective against women, or with those opposed to that practice?

It’s an easy answer for me.

It’s not invective against women; it’s invective against people who call themselves skeptics or freethinkers but make truth-claims they won’t allow to be critiqued, in the (considerable) spaces they control.

I suspect it gets aimed, by some posters at some times, as negative personal comments out of frustration, after repeated attempts to use the usual approaches we once thought all skeptics would take to claims like that get ignored or are said to be grounds for banishment – and for being told to “fuck off and die”, and so on. It’s interesting that people should assume it’s only aimed at women (when it’s not; cf Pitchguest’s comment about “asshole”, and see the list – however cherrypicked – in the OP). The assumption that women need (and want) special protection from special insults is also interesting. I guess “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people and need protection from certain words.”

I don’t recall seeing anyone at the Slymepit “attack” someone due to their gender. I say that as a woman (a) who was not at all inclined to participate at Pharyngula pre-2011 due to the verbal savagery; (b) who was taken aback at the lack of skepticism at Atheism+ despite its positive claim “to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything”; and (c) who feels safe & welcome in the SlymePit, even when I disagree with the content someone else posts or the approach someone else takes. If you go there to engage in the marketplace of ideas, it’ll only be your arguments that get critiqued.

So, for me, the analogous version of idahogie’s comment I quoted above becomes:

I still ask myself … do I want to be aligned with those who are defending the use of violent-death wishes against people, or with those opposed to that practice?

It’s an easy answer for me.

but really, from the get-go and to the end what it comes down to is this:

I still ask myself … do I want to be aligned with those who are claiming to be skeptics & freethinkers but won’t allow their truth-claims to be challenged, or with those opposed to that practice?

It’s an easy answer for me.

(apologies in advance for any formatting errors)

392 Kevin Solway March 5, 2013 at 6:24 am

Stacy

“Nope, no sexism there”

Accusations of sexism again.

“intense anger directed at Rebecca Watson:

. . . is anger directed at Rebecca Watson.

“pushback against sexual harassment policies”

. . . is pushback against sexual harassment policies.

There’s no need to impute further motives onto people.

393 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 7:48 am

Stacy said (#388):

I know you don’t believe calling women ugly cunts has anything to do with sexism, Steersman.

I think you’re seriously conflating the concept of insults – gendered and otherwise – with that of sexism. While I certainly think that insults in general really don’t help to move the conversational ball downfield, and I certainly don’t make any habit of insulting anyone, I think there is some value in trying to understand the processes and perceptions that are part of their use and abuse. And to do so I find, as was the case in my career – electronic equipment design and testing – it sort of helps to partition the problem into components. And in this case that means separating out the insult part, the gendered part, and the sexism part to see which element contributes what to the overall reception and reaction.

And taking just the first part – the insult itself – consider “douchecanoe” which a number of FTB people have been promoting as an insult that has no connotations by sex. And in that case calling someone that is supposed to “cut them to the quick” and indicate some general societal or individual opprobrium of the person targeted. But there is, supposedly, no “splash damage”, no reason to think that anyone hearing someone so targeted has any right or cause to be offended by the insult as well. Although one might argue that humanists, for example, might be “offended” – although “critical”, or “defensive” might be more appropriate – if the insult had no justification for it.

But now let us add gender back into the mix by picking a gendered insult, say, “dickhead”. So now the question is, if someone is targeted with that insult then why should anyone else – particularly a woman – be particularly offended of affected by any “splash damage”? Everyone might reasonably be “critical”, or “defensive” if there was no cause, no justification, for it, but arguing that it is, ipso facto, sexist – as some people do – is entirely inconsistent with the case of “douchecanoe”.

Further, consider the case of “asshole”. If, as you and many others seem to argue, one insists that “dickhead” is sexist and thereby an offense to all members of the male sex, then why – by the same logic – isn’t “asshole” offensive to all members of the human race? In which case why does Myers’ “Crime, Evil, Fuckbrained assholes” (1) get a pass, but “cunt” and the like is cause for a one-way trip to his dungeon?

In addition, if some members of a sex are not insulted by hearing a gendered insult directed at a person who is of the same sex as they are then does that not suggest some entirely idiosyncratic if not subjective response? In which case, why should they be obliged to act or behave in a way they don’t really feel, but that other members of that sex do?

Really seems to me that something does not compute in the use and perception of various insults. Which suggests, at best, a questionable understanding of the processes, or, at worst, a disingenuous if not hypocritical response to them. You might wish to review a recent comment by Owlglass on a Pharyngula thread on the topic (2).

While I will readily agree that sexism is a serious problem in society, misunderstanding the nature of a supposed manifestation of it – gendered insults – is not likely to lead to a rectification or attenuation of that problem – and may actually make things very much worse. Sort of like pouring gasoline instead of water on a fire to put it out.

1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/06/never-forget/”;
2) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/03/that-had-to-hurt/comment-page-1/#comment-573114”;

394 oolon March 5, 2013 at 8:14 am

Za-zen, Tigzy and John Brown,

You’ll note that I accused him of being kicked off a forum for being a supporter of child porn. Not that he supported child porn – as I pointed out it was unsubstantiated rumour. I’ll only ever mention it here as bringing in arguments from other forums where he is branded “a misogynist” would be unfair… Unless you all decide to attack that forum for horrible accusations of misogyny against innocent people as well?

Now as for Tigzy’s link and what would stand up in court… Glad you really thought I was going to write that post :-) But I guess you wouldn’t keep making such a serious accusation without the actual evidence? Especially given it was my position that you lot were being paranoid and that image wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow without you already assuming SurelyYouGuest was me? So, great forum of skeptics, freethinkers etc, pony up the image for discussion…

…Or I content the Slymepit spreads unsubstantiated lies about people who disagree with them for the purposes smearing them. Serious unsubstantiated rumours, John Brown has form here given he spends his free time smearing Ellen Beth-Wachs with accusations of racism amongst other things.

I’ve not addressed this to PG as I see he retracted the statement, which you three decided to take up.

395 Kevin Solway March 5, 2013 at 8:24 am

@Steersman

“douchecanoe”

I don’t see how this term isn’t sexist, since the main users of douches are women.

A douche usually refers to vaginal irrigation, and I’m led to believe that most men don’t yet have vaginas.

In addition, I’m sure the inclusion of “canoe” is deeply insulting to indigenous people everywhere for whom the canoe is a central and important part of their history and culture.

396 Za-zen March 5, 2013 at 9:29 am

Kim

So it was Justin that used “morally”. Then it is for him to define what he actually means by that. Apologies i hadn’t realised that Justin had conceeded that some of the “pushback” he deemed to be immoral.

I haven’t read Justin’s latest, will get to that, and hope that justin provides clarification as to what he meant, rather than responding to a straightjacket.

397 Steersman March 5, 2013 at 9:57 am

Kevin Solway (#395):

“douchecanoe”

I don’t see how this term isn’t sexist, since the main users of douches are women.

:-)

Not quite sure how the sex of the users and their population size would make that true. And “sexist” means discriminating by sex or promoting stereotypes which hardly seems applicable. But rather silly, in a way, this splitting hairs over insults as people seem to take them far more seriously than is warranted. However, since they do it seems justified to try to find out why.

But it seems that it was Richard Carrier who commented on the topic somewhat extensively, although he was referring to “douchebags” (1). But one of his points was

(5) The insult must not be insulting to an untargeted party.

Which was my intent in trying to find an insult that couldn’t be construed as being sexist or ableist or racist. And the only way seems to be a neologism that is simply defined that way.

1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2289/”

398 Kevin Solway March 5, 2013 at 10:19 am

@Steersman

“Not quite sure how the sex of the users and their population size would make that true.”

If you were a woman you would know! You underestimate the power of emotional logic.

” ‘sexist’ means . . . ”

Mansplaining!

No doubt you are appealing to what is says in the dictionary – that evil tool of the Patriarchy.

399 Justicar March 5, 2013 at 10:31 am

Brony @ 254:

I appreciate that you’ve mastered the skill of making certain words bold, for it will be useful in showing the problem with your response to me.

In response to, “By the way, if culture accepts the word “cunt” does not make it less offensive.” I wrote, “”Of course not; you get to decide that for everyone else.” To which you responded, “Nope. We do as a group. Morality is necessarily social since its made up from a collection of individuals.” Thereby indicating that you disagree with the person to whom I responded.

That person argued that even if society decides the word isn’t offensive, it’s still offensive. You argue that a word means what society says it means. Thus, one can run around all one likes screaming and shouting that the word is offensive. And the rest of the society is free to lightly sigh and dismiss the complaint.

You then write, “Then we try to show why the word should not be used and shame when necessary.”

So I take it that you are in favor of using shaming as a method of behavior modification? Where might this leave you on the position of, oh, say, slut shaming?

“Answer her question. If you know that a word hurts someone when in a discussion why should anyone use it.”

I responded to what she wrote. If you dislike that I addressed what she in fact said, perhaps you could take her off the side and invite her to write something that will yield a response from me more to your liking. As it happens, I tend to credit a person’s agency by presuming they’re capable of saying what they mean, and meaning what they say.

And, as I noted, the absence of necessity hasn’t constrained her writing here. It should be no shock at all to learn that the rest of us similarly dismiss considering whether something is necessary to say before, you know, saying it.

400 windy March 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm

because the reason is…what?
they’re hypocrites?
they’re pompous narcissistic blowhards?
they’re, like, promototers of victimization and infantilization instead of true respect and equality?
they’re know-nothing charlatans feeding at the teat of organized skepticism?

If you want to put it that way…

401 EllenBeth Wachs March 5, 2013 at 12:29 pm

@305 John Brown

Oolon, if you’re going to make such a statement, you damned well better have evidence that it happened and everything had better be in absolute perfect context.

The sheer audacity you show is beyond belief. You win the thread for blatant hypocrisy. There are dozens of posts in the pit throwing out serious defamatory allegations against me (including pedophilia) without a shred of evidence and YOU are one of the main instigators.

http://mycatsaremygods.com/2013/03/04/magical-harassment-fairies-aka-dead-nazis/

402 windy March 5, 2013 at 12:34 pm

I suspect it gets aimed, by some posters at some times, as negative personal comments out of frustration, after repeated attempts to use the usual approaches we once thought all skeptics would take to claims like that get ignored or are said to be grounds for banishment.

Not to mention the repetition of claims like “you just want to hit on skeptical women” or “you think women are fuck toys and eye candy”… yeah, it’s a total mystery why juvenile taunts like that might elicit juvenile comments about the appearance of skeptical women.

403 Cian March 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Just a small question?
Would you think it is more damaging to your reputation and character to be called a c**t, bitch, @sshole or an MRA, misogynist, rape enabler, rape apologist …

I think it is an interesting question because even if the above comments use language that some people find offensive ( for instance where I am from the “c” word is never a gender slur – just a naughty word ) or if the jokes are deemed tasteless ( and some are ), there is no doubt about what rape-enabler means, or what misogynist ( although that word has now seemed to have lost its meaning altogether ) or what rape apologists means.

If you found out that your boss came across a blog on which you were being called a c**t, b**ch or @sshole it would not be good, but in essence they are content free “BAD” words. So I’m not really sure about the damage done other than the offense taken ( which I don’t want to discount in fairness). However if your boss found another blog on which you were being called a rape-enabler or misogynist I contend that this is a far greater and more damaging attack. And if not true is certainly defamation.

404 ChasCPeterson March 5, 2013 at 1:12 pm

Steersman 377

the principle that it is ethically wrong to be using insults – ad hominems – as part of a supposedly civil discussion.

Who, other than Dan Fincke, has ever espoused this principle? And so who are you talking to?
Also, prepare to be pedanted for the ad hominem thing. sic him, logicians!

you and many others seem to be of the opinion that “The Pit” is criticizing you for your language in itself which is, I think, the furthest thing from the truth

You are confused. It is instead “The Pit” that has always (groundlessly) accused the opposing tribe of being hypersensitive to ‘Bad Werdz’. One of the main threads was, after all, called “Have you ever met my friend Kyle’s mom?” (a hilarious and edgy South Park reference).

windy:

If you want to put it that way…

Well, not really; I just wanted to show that I am familiar with the arguments. Funny that right after I listed those reasons-to-hate, a different reason-to-hate was championed by the unlikely combination of Steersman and SallyStrange:

[Steersman 369] Seems to me that a large part of what is producing these rifts is some uncritical acceptance of some aspects of feminism, some feminist dogma
[SallyStrange 374] you’re correct in noting that the general acceptance of some of feminism’s most basic premises is dividing the movement

Maybe it’s, like, there are both ultimatish and more proximate hate-factors. No doubt different pitizens are fueled by a different blend of reasons for identifying with that tribe.
And similarly for the other tribe, no doubt.

405 Eristae March 5, 2013 at 1:18 pm

Atheist Ireland Forum Moderating Policy: 17 comments.
What if Ireland discriminated for atheism instead of for religion?: 18 comments.
Examples of ‘nasty pushback’ against some atheist/skeptic feminists on the Internet: 407 comments.

It still, even in the two(ish) years since elevatorage) boggles my mind that the thing that rouses the atheist/skeptic “community” the most is whether or not it’s okay to do things like call a woman a “cunt.”

*sigh*

406 ChasCPeterson March 5, 2013 at 1:19 pm

juvenile taunts like that might elicit juvenile comments about the appearance of skeptical women

you can’t be serious.
Do you really suppose that juvenile taunts about women’s appearances need to be somehow elicited?
And why is it important to you to justify the behavior of admittedly maturity-challenged dicks?

407 Eristae March 5, 2013 at 1:28 pm

“Not to mention the repetition of claims like “you just want to hit on skeptical women” or “you think women are fuck toys and eye candy”… yeah, it’s a total mystery why juvenile taunts like that might elicit juvenile comments about the appearance of skeptical women.”

Er, I would think using something along the lines of “You’re ugly” as an insult would in fact do the OPPOSITE of refute statements like “you just want to hit on skeptical women” or “you think women are fuck toys and eye candy.” So, unless you’re trying to say that claims like the ones you mentioned elicit proof of themselves, then I’m going to have to say that I don’t think you’re managing to make the point you want to make.

408 Michael Kingsford Gray March 5, 2013 at 2:02 pm

ChasCPeterson
And why is it important to you to justify the behavior of admittedly maturity-challenged dicks?

Thank you Chas.
Comedy that writes its-self!

In a thread concerning the negativity of gender-based slurs!
You hypocritical lot are a constant source of giggles.

HAHH!!!

409 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 3:00 pm

@Steersman 377

Good lord, you’re just sputtering nonsense.

“No, but you’re arguing, among other points, that “we” should be subject to a rule – no gendered insults – for which you have no justification, apart from your own idiosyncratic and highly subjective interpretations of sexism.”

No, I’m not saying that. Just like I continue to support the KKK’s “right” to say racist shit, I support your “right” to say horrible sexist things. Just expect that there will be consequences, such as the continued marginalization of your ilk, the continued efforts to have people saying horrible things about women removed from leadership roles in skeptical organizations, and the general dressing down you receive on a regular basis.

Now, a second issue is the harassment. Harassment is not dependent upon any specific use of language, so you can spare the prolonged whining about your free speech.

Can you agree that harassment should be verboten? I’m not asking whether you think any has actually occurred, I’m asking whether you think harassment is acceptable?

“And a rule, I might add, that is entirely inconsistent with “your” own frequent use of “asshole” which produces, arguably, just as much if not more “splash damage” than any of the so-called gendered insults.”

Your notion that this is about bad words reveals your complete lack of understanding about the subject. Every time you think about using the word “cunt,” consider if you would as boldly use “nigger.” If so, link the posts where you joyfully toss the latter slur around; if not, explain why.

“Again, in your opinion – from that statement it seems you guys over there have a lock on the philosophy or modus operandi of ipse dixit (1).”

It continually amuses me that you lot justify your behavior with reference to people you claim to find obnoxious, abusive, and otherwise objectionable. If you cannot support your behavior in its own right (I can. The FtB folks can. That’s not the side continually saying, “well, our moral standards will be established by the pit), you are probably behaving poorly.

I will gladly defend or reject any behavior on FtB when it’s under discussion. You just bring it up to avoid having to confront the disgusting nature of your allies.

“Not to mention that it betrays a complete ignorance – willful or otherwise – of another concept, that of hypocrisy:”

Again, whether or not FtB is hypocritical has nothing to do with the appropriateness of your behavior. It’s amazingly childish to progress in that manner.

“More particularly, the principle that it is ethically wrong to be using insults – ad hominems – as part of a supposedly civil discussion.”

See, here’s the source of your confusion. That is not the principle sought to be established. This has been discussed relentlessly in this thread, and if you still think that’s the principle at play…it says nothing positive about your capabilities.

The folks whining about “civility” are the accomodationists. The one’s starting petitions to bring about an end to the conflict. I find their efforts sanctimonious and insulting, as they depend on the notion that there aren’t substantive differences.

“And if “you” are – hypocritically – unable to adhere to that principle then why the fuck should anyone else?”

Because you’re better people? I don’t explain my behavior with reference to moral reprobates over there, why are you so intent on justifying your behavior that way?

This is the Saddam gambit: “Well sure, we killed lots of innocent Iraqis, but Saddam did, too.” Awesome. That’s the standard?

“In addition, to emphasize the point, you and many others seem to be of the opinion that “The Pit” is criticizing you for your language in itself which is, I think, the furthest thing from the truth – which should be obvious from the fact that most there have a fairly broad acceptance of profanity in one form or another – one of the main threads is, after all, called The Periodic Table of Swearing.”

I don’t even know what you’re arguing there. ONce again, “bad words” are not the issue here. I do not believe the pit is criticizing me or anyone else for language in itself.

410 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 3:02 pm

@408

You just cannot avoid false equivalences, can you? Hilarious.

“Why is there no White Entertainment Television?”

411 windy March 5, 2013 at 3:18 pm

Er, I would think using something along the lines of “You’re ugly” as an insult would in fact do the OPPOSITE of refute statements like “you just want to hit on skeptical women” or “you think women are fuck toys and eye candy.”

Who said it was supposed to be a refutation? Do you think statements like that even deserve a refutation? I’m saying that it’s not a big stretch if comments to the effect of “go fuck a watermelon or a blow up doll instead” results in equally juvenile comments from some individuals instead of a formal refutation. That’s not a ‘justification’ so don’t bother getting on those high horses.

412 ChasCPeterson March 5, 2013 at 3:42 pm

Comedy that writes its-self!

you mean ‘itself’.
How fortuitous to have caught a bonafide original pitizen in my little tripwire trap, and the perennially uberpompous MK Gray at that.
See, M. Kingsford, it would only be hypocritical for me to call people like you ‘dicks’ if I had ever even once opined or endorsed the idea that there is something wrong with ‘gendered slurs’ per se. I never have. I don’t. I’ve said so at Pharyngula. Like you, MK, I know your gender, and I know some of the shit you’ve chosen to type and post over the last couple of years, and I stand by my epithet: you’re a dick.
And I sincerely doubt that anybody is offended by that characterization (probably not even you). You know why? because although my calling you a ‘dick’ is (appropriately) gendered, it is not sexist.
But it’s my strong impression that ‘you lot’ are heavily invested in not getting that distinction, so go ahead and commence with the bullshit. Maybe we could hear from Welch next!?

413 Submariner March 5, 2013 at 3:42 pm

I find it more than a bit strange that atheists, skeptics, freethinkers and associated irreligious people are arguing, Christian apologist style, over the morality of WORDS. They are not arguing about the ideas that those words convey in context, but the morality of a grouping of letters.

If the ideas and intention behind the ideas are less important than the words one uses to convey them, then we have forgotten the lessons of history, in which some of the most horrible concepts were presented using very agreeable words.

The ideas posted at the slymepit, that women are people AND adults (it’s the site motto), that an egalitarian approach to social justice is preferred over mono-gendered approaches, and that unfalsifiable and evidence lacking presuppositions about the nature of society should be allowed to be questioned are at the heart of this “rift”.

414 A Hermit March 5, 2013 at 3:43 pm

Kevin Solway March 5, 2013 at 5:03 am

@A Hermit

“I’m still waiting for someone to show me anything on FtB equivalent to the many threads on the slymepit”

You obviously don’t believe that the false accusations of misogyny, sexism, rape apologism, racism, etc, are any cause for concern.

I do think false accusations would be a concern. I don’t think that the suggestion that there might be sexism involved in calling a woman “cobweb cunt” repeatedly, for example, qualifies as a false accusation though…

In any case you’re missing the point of my challenge; I don’t deny that commenters on FtB, and sometimes the bloggers, may cross a line and say something offensive. And when I see that happen I speak up .

What I don’t see on FtB is any place that is dedicated entirely to crossing those lines and demeaning an identifiable group of individuals, like all those threads on the slymepit focused on FtB and skepchicks and those of us refered to as “Baboolies” in general.. In fact there seems to be little other purpose to the slymepit forum except as a place to collect and celebrate those kinds of attacks. I don’t see any kind of activism or serious discussion of real issues there. Such may break out from time to time, but only in the same way that offensive comments occasionally pop up at FtB. They are an exception to the general tone and activity of the place.

415 idahogie March 5, 2013 at 3:48 pm

@Submariner: “I find it more than a bit strange that atheists, skeptics, freethinkers and associated irreligious people are arguing, Christian apologist style, over the morality of WORDS. They are not arguing about the ideas that those words convey in context, but the morality of a grouping of letters.”

Please rephrase your argument in terms of nigger, spic, kike, and jap. Should we as atheists be arguing that those are just words, and anyone objecting to their use in invective is actually arguing that minorities are weak and need special protections? Please — I’d love to see you try.

Words are not just words. Words are institutional; words influence our world-views; words can help maintain inequality. Pretending otherwise is foolish.

416 A Hermit March 5, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Justin Vacula March 5, 2013 at 5:13 am

“Might there be a ‘false equivalence’ between the Slymepit and Freethought Blogs? I don’t know. I don’t care. It is besides the point.

Not beside the point at all; it rather is the point when th e`pitters start defending their viciousness by crying “someone called me a name once too…”

“Can anyone reasonably deny that Ophelia Benson and her friends are not at all responsible for the in-fighting? I think not.””

Right; every time Benson objects to the demeaning, dehumanizing and dishonest things being said about her she is responsible for the infighting. If only she would stop objecting to being called “cobweb cunt” all this would just go away…o_O

417 A Hermit March 5, 2013 at 3:56 pm

Submariner March 5, 2013 at 3:42 pm

I find it more than a bit strange that atheists, skeptics, freethinkers and associated irreligious people are arguing, Christian apologist style, over the morality of WORDS. They are not arguing about the ideas that those words convey in context, but the morality of a grouping of letters.

I couldn’t disagree more; the way I see it it’s the way those words are being used and the meaning they are conveying which are at issue

The ideas posted at the slymepit, that women are people AND adults (it’s the site motto), that an egalitarian approach to social justice is preferred over mono-gendered approaches, and that unfalsifiable and evidence lacking presuppositions about the nature of society should be allowed to be questioned are at the heart of this “rift”.

And those of us who actually are adults know that calling people names based on their genitalia and mocking their appearance is not how adults work out those questions. Those are tactics designed to shame and silence people, not to raise serious questions.

And when the bulk of that behaviour is directed at women, and when the men who it is directed are labelled with feminizing labels like “mangina” or simply described as women, as if womanly characteristic should be insulting, it is quite evident that there is an element of sexism involved in that behaviour.

418 Daniel Murray March 5, 2013 at 3:57 pm

Ye, there is a disclaimer from Michael after the quotations, but they were presented in a context of being an attack on feminists. Ones directed at non feminists or that were just abusive don’t prove the point so they should not be there.

This disclaimer is a bit like those batch salts saying “not for human consumption”. People are abusive from and to all people in heated debates, the point is not really whether it is morally justifiable. Also to take a sea of abuse and make out it is somehow out of proportion against feminists is a bit thin.

Also we need to see the context, out of context quotation are useless… what if the person being abusive in the article has been abused also and by the other party? In short the title “Examples of ‘nasty pushback’ against some atheist/skeptic feminists on the Internet” then the disclaimer make for a disingenuous use of the “examples” which may or may not be “nasty pushbacks” against feminists.

If you look at posts by feminists, you can see they can be very passionate and emotion driven.. as opposed to non “ists”. As a group on the internet I would say femanists would be one of the more aggressive ones and along with creationists etc. can go beyond the discussion and become personal more quickly than other people with no gender based agenda driving them.

If we asked were feminists more likely or less likely to be hostile or quick to anger than non feminists? What would we find? Would we find that people who are not feminists are more likely to be abusive and/or hostile on the net? This would mean something in feminism has a balancing effect in debate, possiblt allowing a feminist to be objective and not lead or overpowered by emotion, man or woman.

I would find that any time feminism is singled out as in this article and response, it misleads people about feminism. I think if many of us were asked questions re equality and women’s rights we would find that we ourselves were “feminists”. So who are the feminists here who are easily identifiable from the rest of us and what are people pushing back against in the examples given to support this? That is were the examples are actually a pushback against feminists. Is there any example of a quotation from a feminist that gets, or not, one of these responses.

419 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 4:06 pm

Look, it’s been introduced now, so I’m curious. For the pitters and their sympathizers:

1) Why don’t you use the word “nigger” as often as “cunt”?
2) “Jokes” and statements involving rape and sexual abuse are easy to come by. Why aren’t there similar “jokes” about lynching or dragging African Americans behind trucks?

I would argue that everyone is VERY aware of the horrible nature of such racial references and even the “bravehero,” free speech pitters won’t use that kind of racial language.

Thus, either they’re full of shit when they say speech is the issue, they self-censor like the rest of us, or they think language attacking women is acceptable in a way using racial invectives isn’t. Explain.

420 windy March 5, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Do you really suppose that juvenile taunts about women’s appearances need to be somehow elicited?

Of course they were elicited by something unless we are in the midst of a mass Tourette’s epidemic, but was it
a) reasonable suggestions about conference etiquette
b) men feeling “threatened” by the calls for increasing diversity
c) “calling out” people as privileged MRA PUA rape apologist rape-threatening angry virgin neckbeards

is it completely unrealistic to suggest that c) might have something to do with it?

And why is it important to you to justify the behavior of admittedly maturity-challenged dicks?

You didn’t seem to mind it in earlier times…

421 Kevin Solway March 5, 2013 at 4:21 pm

@A Hermit

“What I don’t see on FtB is any place that is dedicated entirely to crossing those lines and demeaning an identifiable group of individuals”

I think the whole of FtB does a good job of demeaning those people they call “MRA”s. The people of FtB see an “MRA” as being the equivalent of Satan Himself.

422 Daniel Murray March 5, 2013 at 4:23 pm

Hi Doubtthat, you should say who you are addressing as there are a lot of comments here. There are of course parallels, even they could be the exact same, racial and sexist attacks. The nub of it is what it says about the person making those comments.

I suppose the thing to do is have rules for conduct that allows free speach but not wanton abuse. Warning given before removal from the group.

423 Daniel Murray March 5, 2013 at 4:23 pm

what are pitters?

424 Eristae March 5, 2013 at 4:31 pm

@windy
And now you’ve changed statements.

“go fuck a watermelon or a blow up doll instead” is not the same as ““you just want to hit on skeptical women” or “you think women are fuck toys and eye candy.” The first statement is nothing more than an expression of hostility, while the second one (whatever you think about it’s level of hostility) is pointing out a behavior or stance that the speaker believes the listener is engaging in and should change.

Furthermore, telling someone to go fuck a watermelon isn’t the same as telling someone they are ugly. The first is a statement about what someone should metaphorically do along with the expectation that they will not in fact do it. The second is a statement about a person’s state of being along with the expectation that this state of being makes them worthy of dismissal.

Regardless, accepting that of course people should accept being called ugly for either is not something that I will agree with. I assert that it is wrong to use physical appearance as a reason to dismiss someone, and that rather than chide the “ugly people,” we should chide those who think that such behavior is acceptable.

I have never understood this desire to make excuses for the allowance of bad behavior, yet people seem to do it. “Oh, well, yes, what s/he is doing is bad, but rather than spend my time condemning her/him, I will spend my time telling you that you should give in to her/his demands.” In what reality is this a good idea? One of the most basic foundations of human interaction is that you don’t reward bad behavior, yet somehow we’re supposed to do so now.

425 windy March 5, 2013 at 4:33 pm

Why aren’t there similar “jokes” about lynching or dragging African Americans behind trucks?

Because there hasn’t been an effort to paint the skeptical community as a whole as having a dragging-African-Americans-behind-trucks problem. At least, not yet.

426 idahogie March 5, 2013 at 4:38 pm

@windy: “Because there hasn’t been an effort to paint the skeptical community as a whole as having a dragging-African-Americans-behind-trucks problem. At least, not yet.”

So, back in the 60s, you’d have been arguing that jokes about dragging blacks behind trucks was OK? Just because of an accusation of racism in the skeptical community?

427 Daniel Murray March 5, 2013 at 4:38 pm

well put Eristae. I think your point is missed by the localized populist angle of the article. It is endemic and non specific, bile spitting that is.

428 windy March 5, 2013 at 4:53 pm

So, back in the 60s, you’d have been arguing that jokes about dragging blacks behind trucks was OK?

Most likely not, but you were asking why there aren’t such jokes now. Give it up, you’re not the first one to try this transparent ploy.

429 idahogie March 5, 2013 at 4:57 pm

“Most likely not, but you were asking why there aren’t such jokes now.”

No, I didn’t ask that question. Someone else may have. But your answer is dodgy.

There are such jokes now. They do happen. And we call the tellers “racists.” And we reject them from polite company.

Just as we reject those who seek to justify the use of misogynistic language. Or those who threaten and harrass people based on sexist language. Those people are perpetuating the same sort of societal problems as the racists.

430 windy March 5, 2013 at 5:16 pm

Furthermore, telling someone to go fuck a watermelon isn’t the same as telling someone they are ugly.

I agree. Neither is the former the same as ‘feminism’. So if you want people to join in condemning the latter, it would help to admit that both sides have on occasion escalated the flaming, not cherry pick some examples and call them ‘pushback against feminists’.

431 Submariner March 5, 2013 at 5:18 pm

So Micheal (and any others claiming words themselves have a morality to them), which of the following statements are morally unjustified:

1. That sandwich was good enough for Jehovah.
2. Does the Pope shit in the woods?
3. Do you like this drawing of Muhammad?
4. The Earth is not the center of the universe.

These and similar statements have throughout history been “offensive” to certain people. Surely you folks aren’t advocating the resumption of heresy and blasphemy laws, are you?

432 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 5:23 pm

@Daniel Murray

The comment was for any of the folks trying to minimize or excuse the language contained in the quotes cataloged by Michael Nugent.

The “pitters” are the people who post at the slymepit, the location from which the quotes were taken.

@Windy

First of all, that’s coming. The skeptical community is not racial diverse, and sooner, rather than later, minority groups are going to want to participate, they’re going to explain what behaviors in the community they find unacceptable or at least contributing to a lack of diversity, and we’re going to go through this all over again.

I would be willing to bet that this next time around all of the complaints are voiced through dogwhistles, and there will be very few “free speech braveheroes” throwing around the N-word and making lynching jokes.

I think everyone here knows that to be true, and my question to the folks thinking it’s alright to attack women based on their gender why they don’t do the same in racial terms.

433 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 5:26 pm

@doubtthat (comment 420)

Why do you think free speech carries an obligation to be a racist?

434 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm

@431

Not all “offense” is created equally. When someone declares their offended by something, that’s just the first step. The next question deals with the countervailing reason for causing the offense.

When, for example, people take offense at the Earth not being the center of the universe or evolution being true, in order to accommodate their feelings, we have to inhibit scientific progress. This is very obviously bad for society in demonstrable ways, so the importance of science trumps the offense.

So let’s try that process with the harassment and slurs aimed at women:

Step 1: women say their offended by language and behavior and assert that this is inhibiting their participation in the skeptical movement.

Step 2: someone needs to explain what we lose by accommodating that point. So far all we really have is “free speech,” but the only speech we lose is the harassment and gender-based attacks on women.

Lee Atwater lost his free speech when he lost the ability to scream “nigger” over and over to win votes in the South. Why is no one arguing for saving that sort of speech?

435 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 5:32 pm

@433 Tigzy

There may be some confusion happening. 420 was windy, so I can’t tell what your point is.

There is no “obligation” to be racist, just like there is no “obligation” to be sexist. What’s under discussion is why people are so interested in arguing that very obviously sexist language must be saved for free speech purposes, but no one on that side has the intestinal fortitude to make the same argument about racial language.

436 Eristae March 5, 2013 at 5:33 pm

“I agree. Neither is the former the same as ‘feminism’. So if you want people to join in condemning the latter, it would help to admit that both sides have on occasion escalated the flaming, not cherry pick some examples and call them ‘pushback against feminists’.”

I’m afraid that I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The FORMER isn’t the same as feminism? The former statement that you quoted? Telling people to fuck watermelons isn’t the same as feminism? I’d agree with that. But I’m not sure what the parallel would be in this situation. I think it’s fairly unambiguous that statements like “And while I would always intervene if I saw a suicide in progress, if the next day I read in a paper about some SJW killing his or herself, I would say fine. Wonderful. A good start,” would count as “pushback against feminists.”

And I’m not sure what this “cherry picking” stuff is about. Did Nugent selectively pick statements that were negative towards feminists in regards to his blog post about negative statements that are directed towards feminists? Of course he did. I don’t know what else anyone would expect. That’s the way discussions work; if I want to talk about, say, anti-atheist bigotry perpetrated by highly religious members of congress, I’m going to go out and find statements that are anti-atheist, bigoted, and stated by highly religious members of congress. I’m not going to go out and look for something else, whatever that would be.

437 Eristae March 5, 2013 at 5:33 pm

oh, and my last post was @windy in 430

438 oolon March 5, 2013 at 5:40 pm

Oh dear no reply from Tigzy or Za-zen (Unfortunately I cannot include John Brown because he kept to my accusations and was smart enough to not throw them back)…

Now as for standing up in court again as za-zen mentioned, I wonder if any UK slymepitters are familiar with libel law as it stands in this country? Goes far too far in my opinion as anyone repeating an accusation that could be deemed defamatory needs to prove that claim is true. Anything the person being accused has said or done is irrelevant in court. Could be an issue when both Za-zen and Tigzy, great sceptics that they are, have no way or proving either claim. Downloaded – no server log would show anything whether my joke about screencapping was a joke or not. Child porn – would need the image at least, which they don’t, but given the actual uploader gives a description on my blog that wouldn’t meet a legal definition of child porn anywhere, they fail there before they have begun.

So it seems my proposition that Slymepitters repeat serious, illegal lies to defame and smear their opponents just because their opponents disagree with them is objectively true. I doubt they can even manage much of a Tu Quoque in my case as the worst I’ve done to them is take the piss a little.

To Tigzy’s far worst and much more credible accusation that I am not a very good troll. Maybe you should meditate on the co-incidence of me poking PG with that accusation on a “friendly” blog not youtube or any of the other places he and others from the pit have repeated it already that it would be impossible to get IP addresses from or comments can be deleted. Now I’m sure all the Slymepitters use TOR or Proxies and I’m sure Michael Nugent would not release the info to me as part of a legal action anyway and “Tigzy” and “za-zen” are not linkable to IRL identities. I’m sure all this is the case and even if not I have no legal leg to stand on…. But I thought I may as well give it a go :-D

Seriously though I’ve considered the Slymepit mostly risible, apart from the odd nasty bit of rude harassment they’ve avoided out and out fiction and totally transparent lies. Until John Brown and others started repeating lies about Ellen-Beth being racist, drunk, crazy and even went to the lengths of propping up her stalker and spreading a Christian fundamentalist Sheriffs trumped up charges as the truth. What a great bunch of atheists and skeptics you are to allow that and actually cause real harm to the movement and an actual activist (Unlike 99% of the slyme slacktivists, me too btw). It may seem fun to spread defamatory lies about people, until it blows up in your face and causes real damage that is….

439 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 5:41 pm

@428 Windy

Most likely not, but you were asking why there aren’t such jokes now. Give it up, you’re not the first one to try this transparent ploy.

So you’re saying that if African Americans begin pushing for inclusion in the skeptical movement, we can expect a lot of lynching jokes and the N-word to be thrown around?

You pitters alright with that?

440 A Hermit March 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm

Kevin Solway March 5, 2013 at 4:21 pm

I think the whole of FtB does a good job of demeaning those people they call “MRA”s. The people of FtB see an “MRA” as being the equivalent of Satan Himself.

The “whole of FtB?” Really? I don;t think most of the bloggers there even mention MRA’s…

(I do have my own opinion, which is that the MRA’s actually do a disservice to the causes they claim to care about by creating this false narrative about the evil feminists who are plotting to take away their manhood instead of addressing the actual cultural causes, like gender stereotyping.) The hatred spewed regularly by it’s members and even it’s leaders, like Paul Elam, is what gives the MRM it’s bad name, not anybody at FtB…)

Anyway your subjective opinion on that matter doesn’t begin to answer my challenge. In case you’ve forgotten this is what I asked you for:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/03/examples-of-nasty-pushback-against-some-feminists-on-the-internet/#comment-195296

“I’d really like to see if you can find anything on FtB directed at Libertarians, creationists, Sam Harris or anyone else that comes close to this…http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=28

That’s a whole forum directory dedicated specifically to mocking and verbally abusing people identified by the `pit as “baboolies”…including this thread…http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10…dedicated to making photoshop images of said “baboolies. It has over 200 entries and 20,000 views.

OK, your turn…show us a similar page at FtB…”

Got that John? Find me an actual thread or forum entirely dedicated to mocking, shaming and demeaning identifiable individuals on FtB.

Or stop pretending that the occasional over the top comment or opinion you happen to disagree with is equivalent to all that deliberate, targeted abuse.

441 windy March 5, 2013 at 5:48 pm

doubtthat: Oh, I have no doubt that “it’s coming”, meaning that equally dishonest tactics are going to be used in the name of racial inclusivity. Sikivu Hutchinson already called New Atheism “white supremacist” with nary a protest from the big names present.
Would you say that a sarcastic response in the style of “sure, later we’re gonna go burn some crosses with our Grand Dragon Dawkins!” is completely off limits to something that stupid?

442 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 5:55 pm

@440

Probably not, but notice the target there, you. I would consider that a joke based on a perceived over-reaction (not commenting on the substance) to a point someone made.

Now, if the joke were, “Someone should get a group together so we can go lynch Sikivu Hutchinson,” or, “You know what she needs? To be dragged behind a pickup for a few blocks, stupid fucking N——,” then yes, there really would be a problem. Do you find it at all remarkable that no such “joke” has been made in the pit, a place full of brave free speech heroes?

That, by the way, is the exact “joke” that’s getting tossed around at women in the movement. Look at the jokes above, is anyone joking about how African Americans are ugly? Is anyone mimicking #10 replacing the word “cunt” with the word “nigger?”

Why not?

443 Eristae March 5, 2013 at 6:02 pm

“Oh, I have no doubt that “it’s coming”, meaning that equally dishonest tactics are going to be used in the name of racial inclusivity. Sikivu Hutchinson already called New Atheism “white supremacist” with nary a protest from the big names present.
Would you say that a sarcastic response in the style of “sure, later we’re gonna go burn some crosses with our Grand Dragon Dawkins!” is completely off limits to something that stupid?”

@ windy
. . . Yes, yes I would. Invocations of centuries of oppression, violence, objectification, and murder is not an acceptable response to an accusation of “why supremacy.”

444 Eristae March 5, 2013 at 6:03 pm

aaaaaand why supremacy clearly should have been “white” supremacy.

Typooo.

445 windy March 5, 2013 at 6:26 pm

. . . Yes, yes I would. Invocations of centuries of oppression, violence, objectification, and murder is not an acceptable response to an accusation of “why supremacy.”

But it’s okay to invoke centuries of oppression, violence etc. as a weapon in an argument by calling New Atheists “white supremacist” and thereby cheapen the impact? I think that’s worse behavior for a skeptic than making sarcastic references to the oppression.

446 Eristae March 5, 2013 at 6:56 pm

“But it’s okay to invoke centuries of oppression, violence etc. as a weapon in an argument by calling New Atheists “white supremacist” and thereby cheapen the impact? I think that’s worse behavior for a skeptic than making sarcastic references to the oppression.”

In general, I (a white person) try to avoid telling racial minorities what cheapens the impact of their own oppression, both historical and present. After all, it’s not my oppression to declare cheapened or not. It is their oppression, and it is their right to use it as they will. And no, I don’t think it is worse for a minority to use their own personal and historical oppression “as a weapon” against a historically oppressive and currently privileged group than it is for a privileged group to use their own historical oppressiveness and currant privilege against a minority group.

To put it differently, I think it is better to say, “I was oppressed, therefore you X” then I think it is to say, “You were oppressed, therefore you X.” For privileged groups to use their own history of oppressiveness and privilege against a group that has a history of being oppressed by the privileged group is terrible in a way that reversing the flow cannot be. That’s why we (I) fall into the category of “privileged” and others fall into the group of “not privileged.”

447 John Brown March 5, 2013 at 7:29 pm

@EllenBeth Wachs

I accused you of pedophilia?

Go home, EllenBeth Wachs. You’re drunk.

448 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 7:36 pm

@doubthat
‘There is no “obligation” to be racist, just like there is no “obligation” to be sexist. What’s under discussion is why people are so interested in arguing that very obviously sexist language must be saved for free speech purposes, but no one on that side has the intestinal fortitude to make the same argument about racial language.’

Well okay – if by sexist language, you mean ‘cunt’ or ‘twat’: I think that they can indeed be sexist in some contexts. However, In the case of a bloke greeting another bloke with ‘how are you, you old cunt!’ – not sexist. In the case of ‘I’m going to twat that little bastard’ – not sexist, though I do admit it is just about violent enough to be enjoyed by any number of pharyngulites, and does – alas – do that splash damage thing to people who have been born out of wedlock.

Also, I’ve known, met and talked with shedloads of women who are more than fine with ‘cunt’, ‘twat’ and any number of sexist jokes and epithets for such things to not be an issue. Sorry old chum, but that’s what sometimes happens when you listen to the women.

@Oolon
I am ignoring you because though you are again being very silly, you’re not being entertaining enough. Now, shoo!

449 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm

Correction to my previous post:

‘Also, I’ve known, met and talked with shedloads of women who are more than fine with ‘cunt’, ‘twat’ and any number of sexist jokes and epithets for such things to not be an issue.’

That should have been ‘…any number of purportedly sexist jokes…’

‘pologies.

450 John Brown March 5, 2013 at 7:55 pm

I find it telling that good old EllenBeth Wachs didn’t link to the original post in the Slymepit which contained the word “darkies.” Neither did she inquire what the post was about, put it in context, ask what the color of the person who made the post was, and his/her motivations.

Here’s a hint. He wasn’t calling minorities “darkies.” He was lampooning Jennifer McCreight’s assertion that the way to get more minorities into the atheist movement was to address drug use and prison.

Cause, that’s exactly how minorities need very privileged, upper middle class white women to view them, right? “Hey, listen. You minorities there. I’m gonna help you become atheists by pointing out how drug use and prison affect you.”

Of course, EllenBeth Wachs knows this. This is why she doesn’t link back to it. She wants her narrative. She came out and called the person who made the statement a racist.

It takes a special kind of stupid or willful ignorance to completely fail at comprehension like that. So, I gave her a taste of her own medicine. She used the word “darkie” in her tweet and I treated her the exact same way she treated the person she was attacking.

But, when I did it, context, history, clarification and nuance matters. When she did it and gets called on it, she’s a poor, hapless, little old me, victim and anyone who calls her on any asinine thing she says is a woman hating misogynist.

Way to be a strong, empowered person, EllenBeth Wachs.

There’s a saying. A person can fail over and over in life, but they never become a failure until they blame other people for their mistakes.

You, EllenBeth Wachs, are a failure. You’re also boring.

451 A Hermit March 5, 2013 at 7:56 pm

‘ if by sexist language, you mean ‘cunt’ or ‘twat’: I think that they can indeed be sexist in some contexts. However, In the case of a bloke greeting another bloke with ‘how are you, you old cunt!’ – not sexist”

I’m so glad we can agree on something! You’re absolutely right about context! And when the term is being used to mock and demean women (as it is in the examples above and every day at the slymepit) it certainly is sexist.

Context matters…

452 John Brown March 5, 2013 at 7:59 pm

You may also notice that when talking about EllenBeth Wachs on Twitter, I don’t @ her. She has to specifically search for her “harassment.” What a pathetic, sad existence.

453 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 8:03 pm

@A Hermit

Your welcome – so glad that I could finally dun it into the head of at least one Pharygulite that context matters when it comes to such epithets.

And I agree – when a term such as ‘dick’ is being used to mock and demean men (as has certainly happened at FTB), it certainly is sexist.

BTW – would you also agree that ‘go die in a fire’ mocks and demeans burns victims?

454 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 8:09 pm

@447

“Also, I’ve known, met and talked with shedloads of women who are more than fine with ‘cunt’, ‘twat’ and any number of sexist jokes and epithets for such things to not be an issue. Sorry old chum, but that’s what sometimes happens when you listen to the women.”

Ah yes, this must be why you call black people the N-word. After all, they use it with each other. I’m sure you do this on a regular basis.

And if one black person who you know well said you could use that word with them, would that give you license to spam it over the internet, or, more to the point, would you use it with a random African American you met in the world?

Of course not.

455 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 8:12 pm

@452

Don’t play stupid. It’s beneath you.

There’s a reason why “cracker” doesn’t carry the same punch as “nigger.”

Same reason calling someone a “dick” isn’t the same as calling them a “cunt.”

Why? Cause fucking history. You know this, you know what “die in a fire” means in internet terms, so why are you so interested in playing the part of a vapid college freshman in his/her first philosophy intro class?

456 A Hermit March 5, 2013 at 8:15 pm

Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 8:03 pm

@A Hermit

Your welcome – so glad that I could finally dun it into the head of at least one Pharygulite that context matters when it comes to such epithets.

Oh this is funny; it seems to me that’s been the argument all along…when you’re using that kind of language to bully and harass people it is absolutely sexist.

And I agree – when a term such as ‘dick’ is being used to mock and demean men (as has certainly happened at FTB), it certainly is sexist.”

Sure, and I think if you take the time to look at FtB you’ll find plenty of people agreeing with you.

And of course, while the occasional comment there might use a term like that (and usually get jumped on for doing so) what we don’t have at FtB is a culture where use of such terms is not only tolerated but encouraged and even celebrated, as it is at the slymepit…

Because one side understands what “context matters” really means and the other side wants to pretend that we can’t object to any language regardless of context…

457 John Brown March 5, 2013 at 8:17 pm

“There’s a reason why “cracker” doesn’t carry the same punch as ‘nigger.’”

That’s the problem with arguments like these. You collectivize guilt and harm. Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not.

Individuals matter and only individuals get to decide what guilt or harm applies to them.

That’s why when people say that there are plenty of women who aren’t offended by the word, their opinion is just as valid on the matter.

458 tina March 5, 2013 at 8:17 pm

PZ Myers
4 March 2013 at 7:23 pm

“It’s all meaningless without context.”

459 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 8:19 pm

@doubthat

There is a difference. For example, no black person has never called me the N-word. However, plenty of women have referred to me by the ‘cunt’ and ‘twat’ ( I know – no surprise there…), which leads me to suspect that such epithets to not have the misogynistic ‘load’ – for want of a better – that is on a par with racist terms.

It’s like this: my experience has demonstrated that use of racist epithets would demonstrate racism on my part. I do not consider myself a racist, so I don’t use them. However, my experience has also demonstrated to me that use of such terms as ‘cunt’ and ‘twat’ do not automatically demonstrate misogyny (though I accept that they can in some contexts) – hence, I’m generally comfortable with them.

460 tina March 5, 2013 at 8:20 pm

Hermit
“what we don’t have at FtB is a culture where use of such terms is not only tolerated but encouraged and even celebrated as it is at the slymepit”

Yes you do. Liar.

461 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 8:21 pm

@456 John Brown

What a useless point. Has anyone argued that a given women SHOULD be insulted by a word or phrase?

Nope, nowhere. The questions is how we behave towards people who do say they are offending by the harassment.

And beyond that, whether or not I’m personally “offended” by someone using, say, the N-word (I’m not, I’m white), that use of the word allows me to draw some strong conclusions about the speaker.

Of course, as a white person who knows lots of white people, I cannot name a single person who is offended by the term “cracker.” Now, when you goofballs like to play the false equivalency game, then you get offended by it, but the word just does not carry any weight. There really are no slurs aimed at whites with any punch (save those used by other whites–class issues). Cuz history.

462 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 8:22 pm

@doubthat

No, I don’t know what ‘die in a fire’ means in internet terms. What, are you saying that there is a particular ‘intent’ that comes with this phrase which is magic, or something?

463 John Brown March 5, 2013 at 8:26 pm

You might have a point, @doubtthat, if you hadn’t been spending the past two days demanding that you are the arbiter of what is and what is not a bad word under what circumstances and for what groups of people.

Because…history!

Jesus, you’re boring.

464 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 8:27 pm

@458

Look, it may be an America/England thing, but as the discussion lately has established, the context is the key. Most people who made it through the age of puberty understand the concept of social register, and just because you can use a term familiarly with a certain set of acquaintances in a certain society in a certain country does not mean it is appropriate or that it loses its larger meaning.

I know plenty of gay folks who use the word “faggot” fairly regularly. They’ve jokingly called me such – (you let your girlfriend pick out your clothes? You’re such a…you get it). That doesn’t mean I can start calling homosexual writers “faggots” when I have a disagreement with them.

465 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 8:28 pm

@A Hermit

‘Because one side understands what “context matters” really means and the other side wants to pretend that we can’t object to any language regardless of context…’

Well, I look forward to regular deployments of ‘cunt’ and ‘twat’ – in their non-misogynistic contexts, of course – at Pharyngula, Skepchick and FTB in general . :-D

466 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 8:28 pm

@461

Google it. It was an internet meme.

467 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 8:31 pm

@John Brown, frivolous thinker

The hell are you talking about? Since you’ve been reading me so closely, surely you must have an example.

The group that’s targeted gets to decide what language they find offensive. None of these words — either gendered or racial — apply to me, thus, I listen to others. It’s a pretty radical thing, sometimes referred to as “being an adult.”

468 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 8:38 pm

@464

The point is that there really is no non-misogynistic way to use those words in a public setting. When you’re talking with friends, that’s one thing, but engaging in a debate in a forum open to anyone, it’s hard to imagine how it could be used (non-referentially) in a non-misogynistic way.

Again, as a thought experiment, try to use the n-word in a non-racist way with African Americans that you don’t know personally.

The odds of it working are so low, and the options to express thoughts absent racial and/or gendered slurs so close to infinite, that one wonders why anyone would engage in the effort.

469 tina March 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm

doubtthat
“The group that’s targeted gets to decide what language they find offensive. ”

So stop calling pitters misogynists then. Simples.

470 John Brown March 5, 2013 at 8:43 pm

“The group that’s targeted gets to decide what language they find offensive. None of these words — either gendered or racial — apply to me, thus, I listen to others. It’s a pretty radical thing, sometimes referred to as ‘being an adult.’”

Lazy, lazy thinking.

You just conceded that it’s the individual that gets to decide and then turned around and contradicted yourself with “the group that’s targeted gets to decide what language they find offensive.”

You come up with some thought about some oppressed group, find some people in that group who agrees with it, then you get to pontificate about how you are “deferring.”

You’re not deferring. You’re being lazy and generalizing.

There is no group without the individual. Individuals matter more than the group. Everything is meaningless without context. You are not the great white male savior who gets to determine what is and what is not offensive to everyone else and then just say…”I’m listening to others, herp, derp…”

Like I said, your schtick is fucking boring.

471 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 8:44 pm

@doubtthat

So it’s okay to say something as vile and potentially triggering as ‘go die in a fire’ because it’s an internet meme. Okay, gotcha.

‘Look, it may be an America/England thing, but as the discussion lately has established, the context is the key. Most people who made it through the age of puberty understand the concept of social register, and just because you can use a term familiarly with a certain set of acquaintances in a certain society in a certain country does not mean it is appropriate or that it loses its larger meaning.

I know plenty of gay folks who use the word “faggot” fairly regularly. They’ve jokingly called me such – (you let your girlfriend pick out your clothes? You’re such a…you get it). That doesn’t mean I can start calling homosexual writers “faggots” when I have a disagreement with them.’

You’re still missing my point here – I’ve seen ‘faggot’ used in enough homophobic contexts to lead me to accept that coming from me, it would likely make me appear homophobic. I don’t consider myself homophobic, therefore I do not use it.

I have, however, seen ‘cunt’ and ‘twat’ used in such a wide variety of contexts – as an insult, as a greeting, as an expletive, as a threat, as a term of familiarity, friendliness and acquaintance, by both men and women, and between them – that I cannot reasonably conclude that use of these words would automatically be indicative of misogyny on my part. Likewise, I cannot automatically see them as being indicative of misogyny when used by someone else.

Also, you’re being far too parochial with the England/America thing: you’re also forgetting Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand (there are plenty of others, too, I would expect), all of which – in my experience – do not see ‘cunt’ as being particularly loaded with misogyny.

472 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 8:45 pm

“Misogynist” has a definition. If people meet the criteria, they deserve the label regardless of how they feel.

Please explain to me the criteria necessary to label someone a “nigger” or a “cunt.”

There are a lot of comments, so I don’t expect you to read everything I write, but “taking offense” is just the first step in determining how we should speak. In this case the offense is legitimate, but there is countervailing value in describing horrible behavior appropriately.

If the KKK says, “stop calling us racist,” my reply would be, “stop being racist.”

The same process does not work with slurs that have no rational basis or definition with discernible criteria.

473 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 8:55 pm

@470

“Die in a Fire” is used ironically, like, “go jump off a bridge,” for younger generations. It comes up in tweenager tweets:

“Becky was all, your hair looks tacky, and I was all, OMG DIAF!”

With DIAF obviously being, die in a fire. It’s a silly over-exaggeration, but whatever, folks have apologized for it, if I believed you (or anyone) actually took offense, I would be a little more sympathetic, but I realize you’re just engaging in childish contrarianism.

As for “cunt.” It’s used more casually in England — can’t confirm the other countries you mentioned, but I have no doubt you’re correct. Fair enough. But:

1) Why are you so attached to it that when you find it gives offense to American women, you can’t stop using it?
2) Do you agree that there are plenty of contexts where it isn’t met humorously or casually? Can you discern from the context if it’s meant to be a sexist slur?

Context is key, it’s not complicated. In the US any use of “cunt” is going to be sexist. It’s no different from the n-word in that respect. In your part of the world, it’s fairly obvious when it’s meant as a slur.

474 Acathode March 5, 2013 at 8:57 pm

Yes, misogyny indeed has a definition:

mi·sog·y·ny
[mi-soj-uh-nee, mahy-]
noun
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women

I’ve yet to see anyone explain comprehensively how the simple use of certain slurs like “twat” and “cunt” somehow makes it clear that the speaker hates, dislikes or distrust women.

It makes about as much sense as claiming someone who use the slur “asshole” shows a deep hatred for all humans.

475 kntk March 5, 2013 at 8:57 pm

Please explain to me the criteria necessary to label someone a “nigger” or a “cunt.”

Its actually ridiculous that this should need to be explained.

Nigger (when used as an insult): You are black, because you’re black you are inferior to me.
Cunt (when used as an insult): You seem to be an unpleasant person of some variety based on your recent actions.

476 tina March 5, 2013 at 8:58 pm

Cut the crap Doubtthat. You call me a ‘chill girl’, ‘gender-traitor’ or wotevva….I get to call you a ‘cunt’ Got it?

477 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:01 pm

No one could explain it “comprehensively” because no matter how detailed the explanation, you would still play dumb and pretend not to get it. You’ve essentially adopted the creationist viewpoint with respect to evolution: no matter how thorough the discussion, you just say, “where’s the transitional form, where’s the transitional form…”

I’m happy to engage, but please start by answering this question: do you require a similar, “comprehensive” explanation for uses of “nigger.” Why or why not?

478 Eristae March 5, 2013 at 9:01 pm

Alright, I’m going to give an example of how I react when someone(s) tells me that they don’t want to be called something, even if I don’t understand it.

Many years ago I saw some guy (actor, singer, something) on a talk show. During the show, he said that he disliked it when women referred to him as “cute.” Dogs are cute, babies are cute, men are cute, or so he said.

This was very interesting to me, and over the next couple of years I periodically asked guys I knew if they agreed with the sentiment. All of them agreed that they did not like being referred to as cute.

Now, I had a choice here. I could have argued with them, insisted that neither I nor any other woman meant anything disparaging by it, that it wasn’t a big deal, that men said things that women also found insulting that it was my right to say whatever I wanted, and so forth. Or I could say, “Huh. At least a sizable portion of the men I knew would prefer to be called something other than ‘cute.’ Given that ‘cute’ is not conveying what I intend it to and they don’t like it, I will call them something else.”

So it baffles me why it is so terribly, terribly important to some people that they be allowed to call someone a “cunt.” It’s not like people can’t express criticism without resorting to the word. What is so very important about that specific word that we must spend hundreds of thousands of words debating it? Why not just say, “Oh, okay, I’ll use another word”?

479 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:03 pm

@475

I have called you none of those things, and you’re welcome to call me what you will, but you should be prepared to accept the conclusions drawn based on your word choice.

No one has been thrown in prison for saying “nigger,” but I bet you brave heroes wouldn’t hop up on a stage or grab a radio mic and start shouting it.

480 tina March 5, 2013 at 9:06 pm

FFS! Context. This is not rocket science.

481 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm

@474

Haha, nice try.

First, what is your reaction when women tell you that this isn’t how they understand the word? Ignore them.

Second, that was always the excuse racists used for continuing to say “nigger”: not meant JUST because they were black, but because they were behaving poorly in some capacity. The issue is using race or gender as an invective. And no, white males have no mirror-image slurs.

Finally, why do you think “boy” is a racial slur? It’s certainly a word we use all the time, but you would not call an African American by that word, why?

482 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:10 pm

@479 tina

Sure, context does matter, that’s the point. Folks are using that word to attack women skeptics, not to make fun of their chum at the pub.

483 tina March 5, 2013 at 9:14 pm

doubtthat: “Sure, context does matter, that’s the point.”

Finally!

484 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:16 pm

Scroll up, tina, this is a point we’ve been discussing for some time.

485 debaser71 March 5, 2013 at 9:23 pm

To me, the heart of the issue lies in the fact that many skeptics are skeptical of gender feminism. IMO this is the conversation that still needs to be had.

486 kntk March 5, 2013 at 9:27 pm

Second, that was always the excuse racists used for continuing to say “nigger”: not meant JUST because they were black, but because they were behaving poorly in some capacity.

Unfortunate you had to capitalise JUST the way you did. Black is a necessary component in the insult “nigger”, that’s what makes it insulting and racist. Female is not a necessary component in the insult cunt, it is not what makes it insulting.

Don’t believe me, go outside and call the first guy you see a cunt.

487 Chas Stewart March 5, 2013 at 9:28 pm

@Eristae

I can see no reason why the use of any pejorative during discussion and argumentation should be defended so vigorously. It does nothing.

488 tina March 5, 2013 at 9:33 pm

@484

This conversation is verboten. Feminists impose dogma, not discuss it. Just like catholics.

489 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:35 pm

@485

In America, gender is absolutely a necessary element. If I call a guy “cunt” he will just look at me confused, no different than if I called a white person “nigger.”

I don’t know what that’s meant to prove, anyway, call some random person “jerk” and you’re going to get a reaction.

There is, however, no conversation you can have with black strangers or less-than-close acquaintances where you could say “nigger.” The same is true of women and “cunt” in America.

Recognizing that a sizable percentage of the atheist/skeptical community is American, one would imagine you were capable of making a simple language adjustment.

490 debaser71 March 5, 2013 at 9:38 pm

I take objection to calling people who are skeptical of gender feminism “misogynists” or “privileged white cis male dicks”. I eagerly await some people’s change in tone.

491 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:39 pm

I would enjoy seeing you produce evidence of this imposition with reference to actual, existing feminists. Links and quotes would be nice.

I recognize that the little feminist demon you obsess about in your fevered imaginations has some pretty wild views, but here in the real world they’re just people making arguments.

492 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:40 pm

@489

I eagerly await you providing evidence of such. Let’s see the context.

493 Tigzy March 5, 2013 at 9:42 pm

@doubthat

‘“Die in a Fire” is used ironically, like, “go jump off a bridge,” for younger generations. It comes up in tweenager tweets:

“Becky was all, your hair looks tacky, and I was all, OMG DIAF!”

With DIAF obviously being, die in a fire. It’s a silly over-exaggeration, but whatever, folks have apologized for it, if I believed you (or anyone) actually took offense, I would be a little more sympathetic, but I realize you’re just engaging in childish contrarianism.’

On which basis, am I not equally entitled to think that an American castigating me for the use of ‘cunt’ or ‘twat’ is also just engaging in childish contrarianism, simply because I live in a culture where such words are not loaded with the impact that they do in the US? I mean, why does ‘die in a fire’ get a free pass because it is not necessarily indicative of someone being insensitive to burns victims, but ‘cunt’ or ‘twat’ remains the cause for so much breast-beating, despite the fact that to many english-speaking cultures in the world, it is certainly not necessarily an indication of misogyny?

‘ As for “cunt.” It’s used more casually in England — can’t confirm the other countries you mentioned, but I have no doubt you’re correct. Fair enough. But:

1) Why are you so attached to it that when you find it gives offense to American women, you can’t stop using it?’

Personally, I’m not that attached to it – I prefer ‘twat’, because I like the sound of it (I do personally find ‘cunt’ phonetically ugly); though I’ve used ‘cunt’ plenty of times in my life.

If it gives offense to American women – well, so what? I’m not American; my culture isn’t American (well, just about). It has absolutely no impact on the context in which I would usually deploy ‘cunt’ in the UK. If it comes to deploying it on the internet, again – why should I care if it offends some American women when I use it in non-american contexts? Besides, in the UK, ‘cunt’ as an insult is usually deployed against men; it’s much less common to find it deployed against women.

That said, I’m not an ogre, and I wouldn’t gratuitously insult an American woman simply because, ‘ha ha, cunt works worse on you!’. I do have a modicum of refinement. That said, if some Yank bird starts giving me stick because I might tweet ‘My cunting twat of a dog puked on the carpet again today’, well, that…twat can go fuck herself, frankly.

’2) Do you agree that there are plenty of contexts where it isn’t met humorously or casually? Can you discern from the context if it’s meant to be a sexist slur?’

Yep. Just as I can discern contexts where ‘go die in a fire’ isn’t said in the spirit of frivolous irony. The context in question usually being Freethought Blogs

‘Context is key, it’s not complicated. In the US any use of “cunt” is going to be sexist. It’s no different from the n-word in that respect. In your part of the world, it’s fairly obvious when it’s meant as a slur.’

What, so I should stop referring to cigarettes as ‘fags’, and West Country pork balls as ‘faggots’, because those words just so happen to not have those contexts in the US?

494 kntk March 5, 2013 at 9:49 pm

There is, however, no conversation you can have with black strangers or less-than-close acquaintances where you could say “nigger.” The same is true of women and “cunt” in America.

Seeing as we have quite a few american women on the slymepit who don’t bat an eyelid at the word cunt. I’m calling bullshit.

Recognizing that a sizable percentage of the atheist/skeptical community is American, one would imagine you were capable of making a simple language adjustment.

So, why should I care? How about you come to a less simplistic understanding of words and how people use them.

495 tina March 5, 2013 at 9:52 pm

@488
“Recognizing that a sizable percentage of the atheist/skeptical community is American, one would imagine you were capable of making a simple language adjustment.”

Recognising that most of it isn’t, one would imagine you were capable of making a simple mental adjustment.

496 Acathode March 5, 2013 at 9:53 pm

@doubtthat: That’s not a hard question. The difference between racial slurs and slurs like “twat”, “dick” etc is that the perceived bad qualities that the slurs draw their power from is fundamentally different.

Racial slurs draw their power from perceived bad qualities in the targeted race. You cannot use “nigger” as a slur if you do not simultaneously hold racists views that being black is somehow bad, and by using such slurs you also propagate this racist thinking.

Slurs like “twat” and “cock” on the other hand, does not draw their power from perceived negative qualities of our genders. There is no problem to use “cock” as an insult and still having the belief that being a man is the best thing in the world, and likewise with “cunt”.

Instead, “cock”, “cunt”, etc draw their power from the very same place that “asshole” draws it’s power from – our fascination of bodily fluids and excrement, nasty smells, and other “dirty” things.

497 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:56 pm

1) DIAF: No, because there is not history of saying, “Die In A Fire,” then killing someone with fire. There is a long history real violence behind “cunt” and “nigger,” and one of the primary purposes of using those words is to conjure that history to belittle the target (whether consciously or not, that’s why the words have power).

2) Whether or not you’re American, can you not recognize that a sizable percentage of women in the skeptical/atheist community are? Are you incapable of changing one or two words to provide a more accommodating environment?

I certainly know that I could change a word or two if it made folks from overseas uncomfortable. If there’s no real need to keep them.

But again, continue to use that word all you want, but if you’re using recognizing the impact it has on women, expect to be called sexist.

3) Fags: Words can have multiple meanings. We continue to use the word “boy” even though it was a racial slur.

I enjoy that you keep saying context is the key, when the very point is that these words are used in the context of belittling, harassing, and abusing women.

Since you are a master of context, are you seriously trying to argue that when someone at FtB says, “die in a fire,” they literally wish that person to be consumed by flames? Surely such a bold chap as yourself understands figurative language.

498 EllenBeth Wachs March 5, 2013 at 9:57 pm

Well, John Brown, if you find me so boring, stop talking about me. Really quite simple. Seems you find quite a few here boring so why not take your leave and not return? And no, no vanity searches for my name. When not tweeting @ me (which you did) you were using the hashtags #WISCFI or #FTbullies.

499 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 9:59 pm

@493

Yes, a self-selected group of women, perhaps a dozen or so, is definitely all you need to draw a broad conclusion. You really claim to be a skeptic and that’s what you produce?

And you don’t have to care, just understand that there will be a reaction to you behaving that way. Don’t whine when folks in your club receive pushback.

@488

First, I’d like to see some numbers, but that doesn’t really matter. The context that these words appear in are clearly meant abusively. If you just drop a “cunt” in casual conversation, I doubt you’ll have much of a problem. Using it to belittle someone, however…

This from the person who thought “context matters” was a revelatory statement.

500 doubtthat March 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm

@496

That’s partly true, but the history is also relevant. “Cock” has no power because there was never a time when it was used to belittle a societally marginalized group. When powerful men sought to belittle weaker men, their slurs were obviously not gender based.

“Cunt” and “nigger” have potency because of that history in a way slurs aimed at men never have and likely never will.

Leave a Comment

{ 11 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: