This apparently has something to do with Elevatorgate. Somehow. In some strange, distorted, funhouse mirror world.
There have been some peculiarly crazy people obsessing over me and Rebecca Watson, and how we’re evil tyrants out to destroy the life of good manly men. One of the craziest is Franc Hoggle, who early on staked out a position somewhere in the stratosphere above delusional Disneyland, with rants about how Watson had been preaching some New Age weirdness about “the divine yoni” and other such excretions from his imagination. Now though, he has gotten even with us all. He has taught us a lesson.
Just for the sake of full disclosure: I have just jerked off with an eastern european lady with a real body, cellulite and all. She has a couple of kids and a real life she keeps separate from the ‘net. We had an adult transaction. There was no shame or guilt involved. She agrees I was probably the one exploited. We laugh about that. I tell her thank you. You made my night honey. She tells me thank you for not being an asshole. I say hey… I know its a free world. We exchange token kisseys.
Apparently, a crime has occurred… If you believe… hard enough…
Fuck you PZ. Fuck you Becky. Neo-puritans. Neo-Nazis.
Yes. A lunatic MRA has paid for a session with a woman in which he masturbated angrily while thinking rude thoughts about me and Rebecca Watson, and he’s now bragging proudly about it on the internet. We have so oppressed him that he needed sexual release in order to properly express his outrage. Somehow, he finds satisfaction in spiting my puritanical Nazi desires to destroy his proud tumescence by ejaculating before a sex worker.
I’m going to have to deflate him a bit. I have no problem with his activities, and am not going to suggest that he’s a bad person at all. Quite the contrary, I think it was good use of his time, and I urge all of his fellow gentlemen who have been busily concocting angry fantasies about women to embrace their frustrations and whip their penises out, grasp them tightly in their hands, and wank. Wank furiously. Wank angrily. Wank with passion. Wank gloriously. Wank with sublime satisfaction that at last you have discovered the wellspring of your desire, and you have found a way to express it that makes us all happy…you, me, the women who don’t have to deal with your advances, the women you pay to receive them. I’m not even bothered by the fact that I’m a figure in your kink, Mr Hoggle, as long as you keep it in your imagination and don’t expect gratification from me in real life.
But you are one weird little wanker, you know.
@PZ: I chatted and made up with Ophelia, and I think (though I can’t speak for her) that we agree on the main issues that bothered me.
At this point, I just wish that those people who wish to make up, could. I merely went to the slimepit because I wanted to discuss these issues without being attacked. Perhaps I agree with you, there may be more than two, but there are two that offend me deeply. I can also say that I find a few of them to be really good people, and some of the discussions are open and lively — like the debate about statistics this morning.
But I can certainly understand how you feel. Awful things have been written about you, and I wish they weren’t. I can’t really apologize on the behalf of others, but I do apologize for any participation (although I always said I liked you) that might have contributed to that atmosphere. In other words, I apologize. I just don’t think anyone should be treated like that.
Yeah. You know why that’s where you weren’t attacked, right? Because that’s where people agreed with you. At the slimepit. The slime agreed with you. And every time you posted there without calling out the shit they were spewing, you added to the stench.
@PZ: I chatted and made up with Ophelia, and I think (though I can’t speak for her) that we agree on the main issues that bothered me.
At this point, I just wish that those people who wish to make up, could. I merely went to the slimepit because I wanted to discuss these issues without being attacked. Perhaps I agree with you, there may be more than two, but there are two that offend me deeply. I can also say that I find a few of them to be really good people, and some of the discussions are open and lively — like the debate about statistics this morning.
But I can certainly understand how you feel. Awful things have been written about you, and I wish they hadn’t. I can’t really apologize on the behalf of others, but I do apologize for any of my participation (although I always said I liked you) that might have contributed to that atmosphere. In other words, I sincerely apologize. I just don’t think anyone should be treated like that. Moreover, I think you’re doing a lot of good in the atheist community. I might disagree on some of the techniques, but I’m not sure that matters.
Regardless, this amounts to just an apology, and nothing more.
If you ask me, an apology buried in this thread means jack shit. One thing you could do is learn to be just a bit less oblivious and dishonest. If you at least tried to do that, you might not have to apologize so fucking much in the future.
Bluharmony, there are issues with caching on the site right now. If your posts don’t show up right away, don’t repost them – wait, refresh, and check again. It’ll prevent us having to read your dishonest mewling multiple times.
Bluharmony, why on earth would anybody be interested in “making up” with the faction you run with? They’re the people who don’t truly believe that women are people. Whatever they protest, their behavior has demonstrated this over and over. There’s no middle ground on the issue of whether women are people, so there’s no point trying to reconcile or compromise. The point of this whole kerfuffle has been, to my mind, to change the atmosphere of the atheist community so that sexism is less socially acceptable. It’s gradually working. To the misogynists, this looks like a schism. I suppose they’re right: it is. The non-sexist part of the atheist movement is moving ahead, and some people are clinging vocally to the ugly and oppressive status quo. That would be you and your pals. So, no, not interested. This is digital tribalism at its best and you’re not part of my tribe.
Cipher:
I called out their shit constantly, especially when it came to women’s rights, child support, the “feminazis” label, and the like. There’s more, too. I’ve been speaking out on behalf of women quite consistently, and a few even said they changed their minds on a few issues. I consider that a tiny, but significant, success.
I really understand what most of you are trying to do, and I support it. I just have a few lingering question about the issues in this case, but I think it might be the time to drop them and move on. No one is completely right all the time, and I’ve certainly been wrong in my life many times over.
A fake apology mingled with disingenuous, dishonest rationalizations and an utter lack of self-reflection, no less! I rather think that after blu realizes we’re not going to fall for the act, blu’ll show right back up at the Slimepit, to whimper about how mean we all are.
I’m gonna have to speak up in defense of prostitution. For one thing, they don’t call it ‘the world’s oldest profession’ for nothing.
Here’s my take: Prostitution should be an industry in the hands of women. I dunno if that’s sexist or not, and I’m only really talking about female prostitution here, but from all I’ve heard and read, the problems behind prostitution seem to come from the violent (male) pimps in control. Also… could it possibly maybe just hypothetically sorta be that, since prostitution is illegal, prostitutes can’t expect any kind of protection from the law?
It kinda makes me think of the claim that pot is a ‘gateway drug’. Of course it is- it’s illegal, and thus in the hands of criminals, criminals who also sell other more addictive drugs and try to push them on people (ftr I make sure to only buy from really professional seeming dealers, for many reasons besides this). What a disgusting little self-fulfilling prophecy.
Also, sexuality comes in many flavors. I can easily imagine some women would have no problem with exchanging sex for money…. I can even imagine some women might enjoy it for one reason or another.
Of course I’ve never met a prostitute before, or asked one directly, and am really blueskying here, so if anything I said is monstrously wrong, please correct me.
Blueharmony:
*yawn*
Oh wait, did you expect us to care?
Sorry cupcake, both approaches are needed as either one won’t work on its own, although consciousness raising will get more results. Here we raise consciousness, as we can’t legislate. If you don’t want your consciousness raised, toddle back to those who denigrate women. Make up your mind, and live with the consequences.
Citation needed.
Though really with the atmosphere of the place, my skepticism is at 11
Bluharmony, you’re just fucking lying. Blatantly misrepresenting what you did at the Slimepit. Drop the act, stop the obsequious, dishonest apologies, and get fucking lost. Scum.
Why is it that more and more it’s seeming that “the MOST important feminist writers” are fucking useless?
I’m not going to whine about any of you. You believe passionately in some things, and I find that commendable.
My apologies appear in various threads and forums, that’s why I managed to retain most of the friends I’ve bad before this debacle. Most importantly, PZ heard my apology, and that’s the key person I wanted to relay it to. As an aside, as a highly uncontroversial and conciliatory person, I’ve also been hurt quite a bit. This may not matter to you, and that’s fine. But it’s still a fact.
As for the rest of you, I think you’re fighting for what you believe in; sexism in our community exists; and I hope that by following similar, yet slightly different approaches, and all of us working together, we can eradicate it. I think that’s about all I have to contribute.
In the end, we have almost everything in common: atheism and highly liberal views. I just hold a slightly different view of feminism. And I was looking for some validation for that view, and it does exist, in the writings of many popular and controversial figures.
Finally, PZ can ban me if he likes, but I’ll still continue to read his funny, unique and talented writing. And I’ll be attending his lectures, as well. His lectures on the the evolution of the eye and keeping science out of the classroom were great, and if you haven’t seen them, I highly recommend them.
@Bluharmony
Your simpering servile attitude sickens me.
Who are these mysterious people on ERV’s slimepit thread with whom I’m supposed to desire to “make up”? I can’t think of a one. I’m not pining for their company. When they do pop over here, they tend to be rather nasty, scuzzy people I’d rather had stayed away.
Be specific. I don’t think you can name even 3 who I’d want to get back in my good graces, and from the escalating hysteria and hate over there (jebus, they’re making shit up about my wife, someone they know nothing about), I don’t think they’d want to reciprocate, either.
Bluharmony, it’s apparent that you’re comfortable blatantly lying, about facts that are very easily checked, either to make people like you better or to pretend that they’re oh-so-mean for not accepting your “apologies.” You’re a dishonest coward or you want to feed a persecution complex. There’s not much more we need to know about you.
Yes those who have some respect for women and those who don’t.
Oh we just disagree slightly on some views…for example I believe the lesser races should be exterminated and you don’t! but we can all get along!
Jumping Zoidberg on a pogostick! Grow a fucking spine!
As a highly controversial and unconciliatory person, I think you’re full of yourself and full of shit.
Bluharmony, stick your fake peacemaking, along with a decaying porcupine, where the sun don’t shine. And toddle off to the intersuction and/or ERV, where you can complain to high heaven about our attitude here.
Except in this thread. Either that or you’ve developed amnesia and need to be seen by a doctor. Meanwhile, go ahead and look up what you’ve actually said. You’re misrepresenting it here.
Oh? Detail them.
No kidding? I can see that. Reading the tone of your simpering subservient dribble makes me wanna back hand you myself. Stand up straight and act like a grow up for fuck sake
This post to be whined about over at the Slimepit in *checks watch* well, how long do you give blu over here? Ten minutes?
Bluharmony aka gendertraitor as you selfstyled yourself at B&W, you are either mindnumbingly stupid or you are lying through your teeth. You have form. Your behaviour at ERV is not something that people are going to forget so easily and you do deserve the reception you get – it is what you and your dear slimepit pals put out to other women and men. And they are all frighteningly hatefilled creatures over there, starting with your hero Justicar. Your excuses and apologies are not going to cut it.
@PZ I can think of free, though a couple of them may still be hurt, so I can’t really speak for them. They’re good friends, and I value them immensely.
1. Russell Blackford (a personal friend)
2. Miranda Celeste Hale (a lovely and talented women)
3. Me. I hate to see what you’ve been through, I’ve always considered you a friend, and I fully understand why you were defending a friend who got unfairly attacked. My issue is a minor one that follows up on that, but I think it may be irrelevant at this point.
There are a few more rational people in the pit that I quite enjoy, but none so much as the above three. I’m not sure how easy this would be to accomplish, but with all my silly heart I hope it can be done.
Like I said, I’ve also patched up my relations with Ophelia, and I think we both understand where the other is coming from.
I know these are small steps, but I hope they’re steps in the right direction. And seriously, I admire you for many things you do. Your writing is phenomenal, and I love your biology talks. The porcupines? Not so much. ;)
Blueharmony:
Did I not yawn loud enough at you?
*YAWN*
Jesus -fucking- Keeee-rist, you make Tom (of GRAVITYMAGNETS! fame) seem positively enthralling.
Fuck Russell Blackford. Is that clear enough for you?
You’re misreading what PZ asked you, if you think you are a good answer to it. He asked which people he’d want back in his good graces. The fact that you want to back be in his good graces (because you’re a fawning, obsequious, spineless puddle of slime, not because you have learned anything) is irrelevant.
I’ve been a quiet observer to all of the posts regarding Franc Hoggle. You are all puritanical fools.
You have played right into his hands.
First of all, his “rape” post had nothing to do with “angry wanking” it had nothing to do with fantasising sexually about PZ and Rebecca Watson, or Shaftgate. It had nothing to do with what you perceived. It flew right over your heads. I’m amazed at how slow-witted and quick to judge PZ and the Pharangulites are.
Have you heard of sarcasm and irony? How about *shock value*?
He clearly gets off on shock value, hence the reference to Veronica Moser, and she is far from a woman who is being degraded. It’s kink, perhaps not your kink, or mine, but there is something for everyone in porn, and as long as no one gets hurt, and no children or animals are being abused or exploited, who cares?
The outrage is like homophobia in the 1950’s. You were all played, and played quite well.
I’m sure Franc is weaing his banning to the dungeon as a badge.
Now all skeptics know that when proof has been shown that is in direct conflict with one’s views, their views only become stronger, and I’m sure you are no different, so I don’t expect anyone to have the courage to admit they were played.
One woman who calls herself a skeptic actually said that if one does not believe Rebecca Watson’s version of events, then they must show evidence for that. Prove a negative! Yes, quite a good skeptic.
You have all been pwned. You allowed yourselves to be a puppet in Franc’s play. You are clay figurines before the kiln.
I find it absolutely hilarious.
All you want are comments that agree with yours, confirmation bias extrordinaire, you don’t even address the comments that have solid facts behind them if they don’t agree with your views. John D did nothing but point out the hypocracy and inconsistancies in your set in stone views (yes, set in stone, like the 10 commandments)
You are no better than the religious. I want to thank you for giving me such great entertainment.
Just a chain of fools.
So all he had to do to show us up was to admit to a pathetically odd masturbation session and to enjoying scat porn?
Yup someone sure made a fool of themselves.
I meant to say that keeping religion out of the science classrooms is a noble endeavor (as PZ stated in one of his speeches). But I think I actually said the opposite. My apologies.
And your sanctimonious post gives us somebody to laugh at for days…
Look in the mirror.
533: Such a long post with absolutely no substance.
Bored now.
Apologies again and I will find a way to slap you through the internet.
Bluharmony: PZ’s ass is for sitting and shitting, not for kissing.
Good lord, I simply cannot yawn enough to show my boredom with all of our loser-ass trolls.
“Shock value” was edgy and cool when I was 15. Now it’s just sad and sadly unoriginal. And, you know, immature.
Ye eldritch gods, whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy do you think we care?
This is how about 94% of cases get resolved in the law. This generally works well. It begins with people trying to understand the other person’s viewpoint. There are other statement made about the law in this very tread that don’t seem accurate to me, at least they resemble nothing I’ve seen in family law practice. Maybe it’s because that person doesn’t live in a CP state; I don’t know. Further, children, are usually not present in the courtroom.
Sophia:
*Gasp* You are right! I never realized it.
We are scat smeared across his soft and copious breasts. We are a semi-rigid calloused penis in his sweaty, trembling hands. We are a semi-decayed rodent shoved forcefully up his rectum.
We have been played, my friends! Oh, how could I not see it?
It looked like you did get attacked there, though, more than once.
Just to clarify, there was no Dawkins boycott. She said she herself would be making a conscious decision on what kinds of things to spend her money on, and that his products wouldn’t make the cut. She has also since written an entire post making that even more clear.
Bluharmony,
The people you are “defending” FAIL at basic human interaction.
EG’s actions were blatant objectification. Full stop.
Anyone who fails to grasp that is clearly not worth defending, regardless of their relationship to you.
You cannot legislate morality, and trying to smooth over this basic issue of respect is rather reprehensible.
Oh, so you and P.Z. Myers regularly hang out? Do you meet up at the bar to shoot the shit with each other over a few brewskis? Does he invite you to BBQ’s? Have you and P.Z. Myers ever even had a private one on one conversation, online or in person?
I like P.Z. Myers alot. I find him intelligent and witty. But he isn’t my ‘friend’. We’ve never hung out or even exchanged a direct word, once, ever.
Saying you ‘consider him a friend’ fucking cheapens real friendship.
bluharmony is one of those who fails to grasp it. That’s part of why I accused her of lying.
We understand your simpering viewpoint and reject it. Now what? Time to fade back into the bandwidth, and you know it.
I think you’re full of yourself and full of shit.
This is funny beyond words. I’m not saying this to get compassion, but from someone who has serious, recurrent depression disorder that renders her disfunctional part of the time, panis attacks, and severe social anxiety problems, you’ve clearly hit the nail on the head. This is not meant to be a pity tail; I don’t pity myself. But this is my reality, and what I have to deal with day to day. I’ve gotten over the fact that I’m a rape victim, but I’m having a hard time with coming to term with some of the rest.
If you’re going to criticize someone, try to do it on the basis of truth. It works better.
This makes me wonder — has anything posted here been puritanical in nature? Anything at all?Has a single person here been shocked by anything Hoggle’s done? (I mean, a big disgusted at his choice of favorite porn stars, maybe, but that’s all personal taste.)
Also, does anybody else here think Sophia was Hoggle, furiously masturbating as he wrote a gloating ode to himself?
Blueharmony,
Andraste’s sweet ass, man! Don’t you get it yet?
We don’t care. Not even a little bit. Really and truly!
Are you suffering from the mistaken belief that any of this prevents you from being both full of yourself and full of shit? Your posts here have been howlingly self-important and self-centered, and the fact that you’re full of shit is not even a question at this point. You know, due to the blatant lying.
Stupid, verbose, self congratulatory, mentally wanking philosophy. Yep, sounds like we have a winner…
Anyway, thanks for the talk. For the most part, it wasn’t as brutal as it could be, and I appreciate that.
In particular, thanks to PZ for engaging with what I have to say.
Hugs to all, and I’m off. Please feel free to check ERV to see if I’ve said anything about this (unless specifically asked by others, which likely won’t happen.
And please avoid DavidBryan and Porn, they’re awful and scary.
Blu, you are continually putting your foot in it.
Ever considered that PZ sticks up for principle rather than just support a friend? He considered Abbie-pottymouth-Smith a friend not too long ago.
You have been extremely vicious in your own way and have certainly made few attempts to extend the understanding to RW and other women that you suddenly seem to have discovered after weeks and weeks of rolling about in the slimepit. Please just go away.
Nigel: If we’ve been ‘had’, it’s a pretty shallow victory. That’s like winning a fight by pooping your pants so hard that your opponent is too disgusted to touch you.
Ught, I mean “pity tale.” Too may typos. Ugh. And no, and apology is not self-centered, not matter how much you want to argue that it is.
You have been extremely vicious in your own way and have certainly made few attempts to extend the understanding to RW and other women that you suddenly seem to have discovered after weeks and weeks of rolling about in the slimepit.
Strawman. No, I don’t understand some of the things RB has done. I have no issues with anyone who supports her. That’s been my position all along. But do I want her to stop speaking because of this incident? No. She’s a talented and entertaining speaker, much better than I ever could be.
OK. Take your last stabs, I’m gone for good this time. Hugs to all. xo
Your dishonest apologies came mingled with constant rationalization and self-important whingeing about how everyone is so mean to you. Stick the flounce already. No one finds your truckling interesting.
Nigel,
Well, I was a little surprised that he chose to share his RAGEsturbation story in the first place, but “shocked”? Not hardly.
Classical Cipher,
Agreed. I read her comments over at B&W a few weeks ago, and here when this whole thing started.
The sentiment “Oh but they really don’t MEAN those horrible things they are saying, can’t we all just get along?” is nothing but apologetics for the entitled assholes.
I looked into the slime-pit before it was labeled as such, and never want to look in there again.
Ever notice how the Chamberlains of the world can’t just shut the fuck up. What a loser Bluharmony is. Try another blog BH. We only find your substanceless hypocrisy entertaining, so we laugh at you. If that’s what you want, stick around, but it won’t change. We will still be laughing at you a year from now.
You’re lying. You’re mistaken if you think we can’t just look this shit up. I don’t repost shit from the Slimepit here because PZ seems to dislike it and everyone else does too, and I don’t encourage anyone to wade in the toxic sludge, but you’re lying, and it’s readily confirmed.
Bluharmony, you’re odd. Most people get over trying to force a group of people who don’t like them to voluntarily associate with them sometime during high school.
Oh hell. We’re Puritans now? We sentenced Hoggle to several days in the stocks with optional rotten produce thrown at him plus public ridicule?
If only it were true.
hmmmmmmmmmmmMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm
You are seriously, dangerously stupid – you think that just two of the bastards over there at ERV are ‘off’? And it took you this fucking long to grasp that? You are offering us advice? You who came out with guns blazing against ‘gender’ feminists?
I am glad that Abbie’s shitty monument stands – we can look at its builders, yes including you who was there almost from the start, and draw a cordon sanitaire around it. We can use it as an example of how depraved and hateful sexism is.
For fuck’s sake, just leave already! We get it, you’re the great conciliator!
Failing to stick the flounce is incredibly bad form, you know.
I wonder why these threats always get the most replies and also the most insulting ones.
So what happened?
1. Person A said Person B did something outrageous to him on her blog.
2. Person B defends himself and reacts in the same way to her.
So far we have two people disagreeing with eachother and no objective evidence for either version. So what happens next?
3. Hundreds of skeptics heavily insult eachother and completely abandone any rules of civilised debate…for many weeks. Well, let’s see how many years(?) it will last.
PS: Oh, I’m anticipating the childish insults that will follow. I hope they will be a little more creative this time.
So, let me see if I got this straight. Hoggle wanks, wanks about his wanking on the internet, we call him a wanker, and that means HE wins?
Speaking of wanking…
Toiletman, try making posts with actual substance and some semblance of specificity. That’s my suggestion.
I’m sorry you’ve had to go through all of that. I have many of the same problems myself and I do sympathize.
Don’t take this as some kind of attack, but explain how this statement makes any sense:
… because it makes no sense to me. Non sequitur. Why do you bother calling yourself a certain kind of person when the point is that you’ve been hurt? I’ve been hurt as well, and I’m neither uncontroversial or conciliatory. They have nothing to do with one another. So it seems like you’re not thinking clearly about what you intend to say, and after all the shit you’ve said in the past, don’t even tell me about the “truth.” Please.
bluharmony, this does not line up with what you’ve said in the past:
A tankard of seven-day-old grog says BH can’t stick the flounce.
*sets fuming tankard at end of the bar*
Actually no. We have what’s called a CONFRONTATIONAL legal system. Both sides stick to their guns and a settlement or plea is when someone blinks. You would suck as a lawyer.
Fuck you suck as a diplomat. Rather than flattering or putting us at ease your attitude is ANNOYING. I want to talk to an actual human being not a goddamn worm.
If someone from EVR wants to apologize tell them to send an adult next time, not this cowering servant.
Reminds me of a kid my mom sat decades ago. When he got mad at her, he’d crap his pants. He was probably 8-10 years old. Crapping his pants. He thought he was getting back at her, but she didn’t care. She just made sure he didn’t sit on any of the furniture after that. He’d have to sit on the floor by the door and wait for his parents to come get him and clean him up. Sure showed her, huh?
And don’t come back until you bloody well learn to blockquote.
Much better… We’ve got no shortage of lying, whingeing, cowardly trolls, no need for poor lil baby blu to snivel at us a second time.
Caine and Classical Cipher:
How happy I am to see Comic Sans in this thread.
:)
I believe bluharmony deserves a spot in the Wiki. She’s such an archetype of the accomodationist.
Hee. Such a relief to have the option! Some of the time it’s working and other times it’s not. I think I might be accidentally typing “class” instead of “cite,” but I’m not sure.
Hoggle reminds me of a song I learned with I was 11 or 12. Part of it goes:
Last night I stayed at home and masturbated
It felt so grand! I used my hand.
Last night I stayed at home and masturbated
It felt so neat! I used my feet.
Beat it, stroke it,
Slam it on the wall.
Smash it, mash it,
It won’t hurt at all.
I will spare you the rest.
This is a joke, right? I am a lawyer, and an occasional mediator. I’ve had five years of experience in family court ( in a CP state). Care to instruct me further on things that don’t occur/aren’t permitted in the courtroom? That’s just lame.
What about no fault divorce? What about the fact that 2/3 of women file for divorce as opposed to men? What about rehabilitative maintenance and child support? What about all the community assets get split down the middle?
The picture you paint isn’t accurate, at least not in my jurisdiction, not to mention meretiricious relationships.
That is so bizarre. A mob of arrogant, oblivious MRAs embark on a month-long series of tirades about cunttwatbitches, and we’re supposed to take into consideration that they might be hurt? We’re supposed to be sensitive to their tender feelings?
Yeah, right.
Bluharmony, I’m not sure we’re getting through to you. Nobody wants you here. Go away. For an uncontroversial and conciliatory person, you’re pretty damn obnoxious.
*grabs tankard of aged grog*
BH just showed they are nothing but a liar and bullshitter. It couldn’t stick the flounce, like a person of honor and integrity would do. Consider everything it says as bullshit, and you won’t be far from wrong.
“I am a lawyer”
this does not preclude your sucking at it.
I certainly wouldn’t hire ya.
And what part of that don’t you understand BH? You are a professional liar for your client. Fade into the bandwidth.
@SGMB: Yes, it does align. That was one of my first arguments on the issues, and it’s wasn’t particularly spectacular. I was flailing about trying to figure out what bothered me so much. Now I have it squared out. It was an insignificant breach of manners that was blown out of proportion. Dawkins and the response to Dawkins didn’t help. And Stef McGraw got unjustly hurt for expressing a valid political, and even feminist, point of view.
I feel strongly about this, much as I feel strongly about other injustice in the big world.
@PZ:
I am not an MRA, and they offend me reatly, much like PUAs. Women should be viewed as full humans, and should be respected, rather than tricked into sex. I don’t think we disagree here. I’m also not opposed to diversity programs and wealth redistribution until we figure out how to best proceed next. My believe is that this will help with gender equality. I could, of course, be wrong.
My debate is generally about ideas, and that’s what I like to engage in. Hugs PZ. My admiration for you has not been diminished by anything that has transcribed. You’re a genius writer, a great biologist, and a thoroughly amusing person. I admire hour Humanistic values and your compassion toward women.
This really is it. For good this time. Sorry for wating your online hours. I shan’t be back again, at least not for a long while. xo
You aren’t debating you are preaching. You have had your say, and we reject it. So, what is your purpose, other than for blatant bullying, for your continued posting of your accomodationist drivel?
“And what part of that don’t you understand BH? You are a professional liar for your client. Fade into the bandwidth.”
This is dispicable. I have never lied for my client, and I obey the ethical rule of conduct to such a degree, that I’v enven had to drop a well-paying job for it. You can look for lies all you like, but you won’t find them here.
Further, lawyers’ lies get them slapped with malpractice suites, reversed on appeal, and disbarred.
Let sleeping dogs lie. I’m not interested in this discussion and neither are you. Let sleeping dogs lie. Good night.
Ah yes, flouncing. I’ve noticed, oddly, that whenever someone says they’re leaving an internet community, they almost invariably don’t. Those that do leave internet communities, always seem to do so without notice. Just ‘fade out’.
Of course, flouncing is just a tactic. It’s a way of seeing who will support you, and possibly currying up some sympathy. Thing is, it usually only works in a more ‘divided’ internet community. We’re pretty much united in our contempt for Bluharmony here.
You really lost me with that simpering asslickery. Dude, I hated it when my DOG acted that submissive to me, so I attempted to boost her confidence and make her feel more ‘competent’. She’s probably the best dog ever now, though every dog owner says that. I’d try the same thing on you, but I’m afraid my dog appears to be much more intelligent and ethical. Sorry I can’t help.
PS: fuck you.
Bluharmony, if you can’t stick the flounce, you confirm you are a liar and bullshitter. Do yourself a favor, and just fade into the bandwidth. You have no good will left here, you used it up by being stoopid and not sticking the flounce.
Cayote: I’ve met PZ (granted, just once), I had dinner with him, and I really liked him as a person, so I have no desire to throw anyone under the bust. Also, I think he does great work of the atheist community. Sorry if that upsets you.
But seriously, if you want to disparage me based on assumptions, try doing some research first. I’m not perfect, so have fun.
blu, please at least type your name correctly. My goodness.
Yawn, bluharmony still trying to bully us? Does it think we see it as anything other than an accommodationist troll at this point. Inquiring minds want to know.
Hypocracy: government of, for, and by syringes.
Strange gods — I just missed this, but in one line or two, you said everything I wanted to say. Thank you. <3
OK, so you hung out with him ONCE. That’s still a pretty piss poor definition of ‘friendship’. And how would I have researched that?
Says the person who voluntarily chooses to spend her webtime in friendly chat with a whole siteful of the most hateful examples of MRA scum. If she can’t be offended enough to leave, how can we possibly believe her that they supposedly “offend me reatly”.
Wait, maybe “reatly” is Blu’s code word for “not at all”. They offend her not at all, and that’s why she can continue to choose to hang out in their swamp.
Blu, darlin’, sometimes you’ve just got to choose a better class of friends. If you’re friends with Abbie, or Justicar, or Russell Blackford, or anyone else on the planet who thinks “Twatson” is just fine and dandy to say – then you can’t be friends with me. I demand better of humans than your saying that you’re “offended by MRAs” but still maintaining your friendly contact with them. It either makes you a liar, or too stupid or too cowardly to know when to take a stand.
Grow up, and take responsibility for your choices.
Come to think of it, why the fuck would I want to research you anyways? You seem to believe I care.
Also, you’re proving me correct about my theory-of-flouncing. It’s nice to have a ready-made test subject.
UGH sorry, had a brainfart. Typed the wrong name. That last post was from me. NOT blueharmony. I’m so sorry for that, I would never intentionally imitate another. Please delete.
Yeah, I know you weren’t trying to imitate bluharmony, although it was a little eye-catching.
You just meant to type blueharmony in the body of your reply so it would be clear who you were responding to, regards her silly claim of being “friends” with PZ.
Funny, that.
What the fuck is with the changing ‘nym?
Okay, one: It’s “under the bus”. “Under the bust” makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.
And two: I’ve sent PZ a couple of emails. Does that mean I get to claim him as my bff?
PZ! I’m so gonna make you a friendship bracelet!
(Lone Coyote, if that’s you sockpuppeting around, then I have lost a shit ton of respect for you. And you’ll prolly be banned, as a friendly head’s up.)
Hotshoes: I have now registered my nick to rectify the problem and prevent this kind of stupid fuckery from happening in the future.
Thanks for being understanding.
Audley: I honestly meant to type the nick in the body of the comment, not the name thing. I do not intentionally sockpuppet. It only happened once. I’ve taken steps to prevent it from happening again.
And I’m truly sorry.
Sounds good to me. But I’m only one of many.
For every bluharmony comment there is an equal and oppposite comment. Case in point:
Also by blu:
I can say with no hesitation that bluharmony is one of the most dishonest people I’ve ever had the misfortune to come across.
huh. Interesting stuff popped up after John D got banned, so let me quickly comment on some of it:
1)while I can sort of understand that penetrative sex work can be more traumatizing than other kinds of work, cam girls (and a lot of other sex workers, for that matter) don’t get penetrated by their customers, for obvious reasons
2)For a feminist/womanists (I apologize, I can’t remember how she identifies, if she identifies with either movement) perspective on sex work from a sexworker, people should read Eva Rivera’s posts on Womanist Musings
3)I really need to write the article I keep on procrastinating about about how to bridge the recurring chasm between radical feminism (the systemic, “patriarchy is the root of gender-problems” kind, not the lesbian separatist, transphobic kind) and a feminism that’s relevant to people who work/live in some of the most patriarchal structures of society (sex work, certain religions, etc.) by self-declared choice
4)I’d like to remind everyone that bluharmony is a libertarian feminist only concerned with the symptoms of sexism in society. That simply isn’t a “minor” disagreement. (also, she’s one of the people who think “would you like to come up for coffee” is not an invitation for sex)
5)nonetheless, I think Ing’s comment at 526 was uncool
I’d like to set one bit of the record straight. Russell Blackford doesn’t admire the dreck at ERV. He commented there a few times to make particular points, but not because he endorses everything there. I was a good deal too hard on him about it, and I’ve apologized.
The Lone Coyote:
It’s okay, sweetie. Mistakes happen and I just wanted to make sure you weren’t an asshole, is all.
One more thing: It was only that one comment. Honest brainfart. My ears are red as fuck right now.
@SC: Blu is clearly an equal opportunity asslicker.
ah, yes. I forgot that one was her creation. So, a dishonest libertarian feminist.
The difference between her and the feminists here is about as “minor” as the difference between Ron Paul and Barney Frank
Thanks Audley.
Blu: if you’re still reading, apologies to you for accidentally using your nick, but the rest of what I said and my main point still stands.
Friendship is something earned over time. Acting like everyone you hang out with just once or twice or chat to over the internet is a ‘friend’ cheapens the actual bond forged from a good long period of friendly interaction.
PZ! I’m so gonna make you a friendship bracelet!
yeah, but where is PZ on your friendship chart…
@Lone: I men PZ at a speech, and had a lengthy dinner with him and his mom. They both come from the WA area. Of course we’re not close friends, but I admire him gratefully. Moreover, he’s done kind things form me now and than that I sincerely appreciate (like forwarding a silly tweet). I won’t forget that. Things alike that are really special to me. I know that doesn’t make us best friends, but I hope it makes us congenial acquaintances. (He also mentioned me for being the first one to get his mother on Facebook.) In general, I think he’s quite charming. Not without flaws, but charming steel.
having one dinner and conversation with someone makes them a friend?
Huh. I don’t think I’d be comfortable with this much presumptuous familiarity. I’m not PZ though, so it’s not my problem, as long as I manage to avoid eating a dinner with bluharmony :-p
wait, just to be clear…
we can’t post youtube links here?
I linked to the “friendship graph” scene from Flight of the Concords, and it disappeared.
Yawn, why does BH think it has anything to say to us. Not sticking several flounces tells us all we need to know about its honesty and integrity, or rather, lack thereof. Buzz off liar and bullshitter, someone who will not sit down to dinner with the Redhead and myself. We don’t like posers and pseudo anythings.
it didn’t disappear; it embedded. you have to use html to post links, because just posting url’s of viceos embeds them
I’m still seeing it, Ichthyic.
If you want to classified my views, Jadehawk, I’m a liberal equity feminist overlapping with liberal egalitarian feminism. I support diversity programs. I’m not a Sommers drone. I have my own ideas on how to make things worse and how to get people involved, and maybe they’ll work, and maybe they don’t. But it’s worth a trial.
“They both come from the WA area. Of course we’re not close friends, but I admire him gratefully. Moreover, he’s done kind things form me now and than”
just curious… are you dyslexic by any chance?
I notice you commonly use incorrect words, though it’s obvious what you meant.
not just typos.
Blu,
Seriously, you should totes exchange BEST FRIENDS FOREVER charms with PZ.
[ichthyic, naked video links auto embed here. They need anchoring.]
TLC, I’m not bluharmony, but I hope you don’t get in trouble for that apparently honest mistake.
bluharmony, you’ve been over here annoying us for quite a while now under the guise of wanting to apologize. What, exactly, for? What specific comments have you made that you retract? What mistakes have you made? It’s very annoying to me for people to apologize when they have no intention of behaving differently in the future. So how will you behave differently in the future? What have you learned?
Yes, I realize baby blu’s pretty freaking annoying, but if she’s going to be here being tedious and irritating everyone, she might as well make her apology look a little more genuine. Or amuse us all with her dishonesty some more.
it didn’t disappear; it embedded.
ah, that explains it; I tend to block display of vids in blogs.
I can’t even see my own link :)
good enough then.
Oh, yeah, I’m seeing it as an embedded video and not a link. I should have registered my nick long ago.
Bluharmony: I can’t verify or debunk your claims. Maybe I’m wrong. Have been before.
You’re still a buttlicker.
I have my own ideas on how to make things worse
there it is again.
I assume you meant “better”?
thank you for confirming my statement
it would help your effort greatly if you bothered to learn some of the research in gender studies that’s out there. That way, you could stop behaving as if we didn’t already know the answers to a lot of the stuff you think we still need to do trial-and-error social experiments for.
Salty: my “lies” can easily be reconciled. Rebecca should be talkign about skepticism, atheism, and communicating science. But she should not go beyond the scope of her expertise. Is that so complicated? And I do think that at this point a course in Women’s Studies wouldn’t hurt if feminism is going to be her main subject of interest. That’s all. No lies.
English isn’t her native language, and she’s a sloppy writer.
[meta]
bluharmony specimen demonstrates its credibility:
1:51 pm: Feel free tear me apart now, I won’t stay around long to watch.
[blah blah blah]
3:34 pm: OK. Take your last stabs, I’m gone for good this time. Hugs to all. xo
[blah blah blah]
5:25 pm: This really is it. For good this time. Sorry for wating your online hours. I shan’t be back again, at least not for a long while. xo
[Still blabbing as of 6:31, I see]
Jadehawk, I don’t discount your school of feminist thought, and I think there are extrermely important concepts there. I’m aware of those concepts, although AI don’t buy into them entirely. Although, seeing some thing like the Hillary Clinton camplaign really makes me wonder if we’ve come as far as we thought we have.
My main issue, it that men and women have certian innate qualities (which is up for some dispute), then the women’s qualities are grossly undervalued in our societies. And that’ worth working one. Liberal egalitarian feminism addresses these issues in some respect. Also, I’ve said this before, but I support diversity programs. I’m far from a Sommers clone.
Speaking of lies, anyone wanna document how many times blu’s said she can’t comment here?
Bluharmony
Check John Morales post #633, then reconcile your lies to us who see you as a prevaricator. Can’t be done…
because as we all know, Women’s Studies classes are the absolutely only place one can become an informed feminist.
WTF?
Bluharmony,
I think that you are wasting your time here. The more reasonable you are and the more you apologize, the more they pile onto you. I have seen this before with other posters. Look forward to reading more of you on other sites.
jesus fuck. I tell her to go read the research, and she comes back at me with “concepts”
They most certainly can not. None of them.
You wanted to start a petition to “get her removed as an atheist speaker.” (And the utter obnoxiousness of that can’t be stressed enough.) People can read your words. I really don’t know that I’ve ever seen someone be so blatantly dishonest. You contradict yourself not just across blogs or threads but even within threads themselves. It’s fascinating, really. Repulsive, but fascinating.
Salty: I admire your clear and concise writing I do, but I’m sloppy. I have straight A’s in college, especially in my writing, and I have written for magazines, papers, textbooks, and various publications. And yes, I speak and write in two language fluently.
But I’m hurried and sloppy, an always don’t go back to correct.
bluharmony, have you at least bothered reading the research on slurs that I linked for you at B&W?
BH, do yourself and us a favor, and just fuck off. Your sophistry, lies, and bullshit isn’t appreciated here.
Salty: While I was sincerely mad after a range of personal attacks – Krauss, Dawkins, McGraw, Paula Kirby, I’ve always said she’s extremely intelligent and a great speaker. I’m sure if you quote mine you can find something that looks bad, but I don’t think it’s going to prove your point. But I can only wish that I’d be able to speak like her. She’s funny and entertaining.
Salty: I don’t recall saying that, but it’s not the realm of the possible. If so, it wold have followed right on the tail of the McGraw incident, which seriously upset me. I never discussed RW’s CV or any of that other nonsense. I did say, however, that she should not be speaking beyond the realm of her expertise, which has nothing to do with not speaking at all.
Oh, I got the blu-harm’ny blues, yes I do
Oh, I got the blu, blu-harm’ny blues, yes I do
She just won’t go away
she stays here all the day (yes she does)
I got me the blu blu blu blu blu-harm’ny blues
—
[use classic blues tune of your choice]
“quote mining” has a very specific meaning, and posting your entire post with a link back to its context (AS SC has done on B&W) is never quote mining. It’s catching you in contradictions that you wish didn’t exist. And if sy you only said that because you were “angry” , you’re admitting that you cannot be relied on to actually mean what you say. Why then would anyone listen to what you’re saying?
I also note that you list criticisms as “personal attacks” but have not gotten angry enough at the actual personal attacks against RW etc. to demand removal from speakers’ lists of any of the people who have made these attacks, not even in anger.
@Coyote. Damn, my typos are inexcusable. That’s what happens when you type in bed. (Or ad least like to think that’s my excuse.)
Postmodernism at its worst: denial of the fact that there is such a thing as (however imperfectly) observable reality.
lovely double standard. I’ve never heard anyone criticizing James Randi for talking about medical woo, for example
Your only excuse for posting at this point is abject stupidity, and an ego the size of Montana. When you realize we don’t give a shit for your lies, bullshit, and inane opinions, maybe you will finally become more intelligent, but not until then.
Jadehawk, I’m sure you’re a perfect person, but I’m not. Ophelia and I have had a long discussion, and we’re cool with each other. Other than that, I have no idea what contradictions you’re referring to over the last two months. I assure you that I changed my mind many times as new evidence came along.
Bluh(armony), I think you’re annoying because you’re proselytizing. Do you think the Horde has never heard any of what you’re droning? Do you think it’s (1) new, (2) enlightening, or (3) free of attempts to control? Oh, we’d really all feel differently if we only knew what you know deep in your heart? If only we took what you were saying on faith? (“Please, please,” your words imply to me, “if I say that I don’t remember exactly what bad things I might have said, agreed with, or giggled at, it’ll mean that somehow they weren’t all that bad. And I kinda sorta said some things you guys would agree with, too! Hugs!!”) No. You’ve taken too many twists and turns for truth. Whether you’re outright lying or bullshitting, I can’t say, but I do believe those to be my top category choices. I’m not interested in the Word according to Bluharmony.
I am not benighted if I don’t believe you; I am not endangered if I don’t ascribe to your view; I am not in need of your “Can’t we all just get along?” while the side you’ve spent most of your time with is swinging from level to level to test if they can still sling shit from each one. You didn’t expect a comment about PZ sniffing after smelly snatch to splatter as it has since? Don’t whine to us after people had warned you repeatedly that it would.
There’s been a crucible set next to the sofa, Bluharmony, and you’ve ignored it to ask of those who put others into it, “Can I sit over here with you guys?” Your spot on the comfy cushion eliminates any effect the heat could possibly have on you, right? Until the sofa majority started accepting those who will begin saying outright that you share some of their crucible dwellers’ attributes and attitudes, sure. Becoming a little harder to speak up, isn’t it? You realize your comfy cushion was actually at the end of the sofa closest to the crucible. G’wan…just ignore it. You did before.
See, with the monument folk, you have to pretend you don’t mind. It’s essential that you perform as if you’re blind to most any oppression–their exercise of privilege and your pretense that you don’t mind makes their privilege “normal.” But it’s not sustainable, Blu, because the slimepit group has set not one fucking limit. How could they? Railing against limits is their raisin date.
So, they’ve begun disdainfully to push your envelope. Who are you to stand in their way? You didn’t mind it at the beginning; they aren’t saying anything new “in principle,” so the problems you’re seeing aren’t theirs, are they?
You’ve ignored what others have said; you’ve denied your own words; when they’re laid out for you, you’ve tried to explain them away with accusations of quote mining or “well, I was mad.” You think that since you’ve practiced blindness elsewhere, people here should/do practice it as well. Fuck that noise; we DO mind.
Which degree was that – communications, Russian lit, psychology,…?
That didn’t come up when you were trying to start a petition to get her removed as a speaker.
People can read what you write. They can read the small selection of quotations from you at ERV that I posted at B&W. People don’t believe you. It would take hours to list all of the things you’ve been dishonest about.
Why are you here?
Good question, why don’t you show some attention to what people say and answer it Bluharmony?
my, aren’t we condescending.
how is this relevant to anything I’ve said? Your friendship or lack thereof has nothing to do with the research on slurs that contradicts your claim that slurs aren’t worse than other insults; it has nothing to do with SC not quotemining you; it has nothing to do with anything I said in regard to Ophelia’s blog.
you have the attention span of an owl on acid. I’m of course referring primarily to your claims about RW as a speaker.
It was comment #1352 of the Dawkins CdG thread at ERV.
Wi u li blu?:
Since when does the communication department offer a bachelor of science (as opposed to arts)degree? I have a communications degree, it was a bunch of BS. I also have degrees is psychology, Russian language, and my JD (Law). Oh, and a masters in legal taxation. A communication degree is the joke of all colleges; it teaches NADA. I’m not saying that my degrees are worth anything, and at the moment, they’re really not. But communications? Good grief.
But she should not go beyond the scope of her expertise.
for someone who thinks people should shut up when out of their depth…
You sure talk a lot.
QFT
Wait, do owls have short attention spans? But but, they are wise!! And they are hunters, like flying kittehs! You should see my kitteh when he’s lying in wait for a mouse: amazing levels of patience and persistence. OK, done now.
Bluharmony is really pushing all my “forgive & forget” buttons, all my conflict avoidance tendencies are telling me to just let it be. So I’m glad that people are reminding me of the contradictions, because it’s just not safe. She’s all nice as pie NOW, sure, but when will she next have an outburst of twatting, and against whom will it be directed?
(SC, could you post a link to your B&W post?)
Cath, SC did.
It’s above @ #608. (The quote from blu about Watson’s degree that I failed to blackquote properly above was #8 in a list from assorted people that I posted @ #304 on that thread.)
Thanks John, I missed it in all the glurge. Sorry, SC.
I note Bluharmony tried the same schtick there, with as much success. :)
Oh, and Hi, ichthyic! Hope you’re doing well.
In dedication to the colored consonance.
So what was with the digging into Watson’s credentials, but also questioning those of Jennifer Ouellette, who wrote on the “chilly climate” for women at CERN? And Linda Henneberg, who had experienced it? And likewise, Ophelia Benson? There’s a pattern at work there, of other denigration alongside the questioning of women’s reputation (and if they are now “making shit up” about the ECO’s wife, then that too seems to be part of the pattern).
Oh, and Hi, ichthyic! Hope you’re doing well.
the stuggle continues.
GF is doing great though; she just got a permanent position with the Ministry of Fisheries.
now if only she could score me one too…
bluharmony,
I’ve read the comment SC linked at #608, and there’s this quote of one of your comments at ERV:
“Please objectify and sexualize me till your heart’s content. If I didn’t want that to happen, I would’ve worn a burqa.”
That’s kind of a deal breaker, really. There can be no common ground, no compromise with that mentality. Fortunately you said here you have changed your mind about a few things. Do you still believe people should do that to you? Or to people in general?
ok, i swore i wouldn’t get sucked into another endless blog about elevator guy (or is it elevator dude – whatever) but obviously i have, which is my justification for going way off topic…
Lone Coyote – i’m at least 20 years too old for you but you sound like just my kind of guy. long ago, i decided that dogs were a better partner choice for me and have been totally happy ever since. so… your description of yourself (from WAY back up this thread) sounded just like my current best beloved (a twice rehomed (at least) border collie) – he’s got a slim build, he doesn’t cut his hair, and he loves to chase bunnies and squirrels – and sometimes catches them.
couldn’t resist posting this. hope you’re not offended.
Jose, heh.
—
Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr: I can’t.
Fran: Can’t what?
Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr: I can’t inject you with window cleaner.
Fran: I don’t mind. Hey, what does it do anyway?
Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr: It causes your brain to die last.
Fran: I don’t mind.
(The Man with Two Brains)
John Morales,
I don’t really understand what you meant in your comment, but however I look at it, it doesn’t look good, so I’ll just respond with this video with nice, cheery guitar music in it while I wait for bluharmony’s response. Think of it as my version of John “Biscuit” Cage’s smile therapy.
athyco @ #654 – Very well said.
***
I started Nathan Englander’s book recently and initially read that as The Ministry of Special Fishes…
***
It was a fascinating comment. The assumption that anyone not in a burqa is asking to be objectified/sexualized. The idea that wearing a burqa is a women’s choice and prevents (and is intended by women to prevent) objectification and sexualization. The idea that asking to be objectified/sexualized and having that reciprocated is the same as having people objectify/sexualize you oblivious of your expressed desires… (and the whole thing about clothing and the internet…)
Jose, Bluharmony doesn’t mind; your attention is what matters, not what form it takes.
(And some things are not beyond parody)
—
PS Therapy, eh?
(Did it help you?)
My real name means ‘dog’, apparently. And thanks, I’m touched. Dogs are great people.
same here Cath. It’s weird. I’m willing to admit that there’s a maybe outside chance that Bluharmony may see the error of her ways and wise up. I say this only because it wasn’t long ago I, myself, used to be a huge douchebag. I got better, though it wasn’t easy and it’s a process still going on in my mind.
Maybe Bluharmony will make a huge personality turnaround and get a clue, but I doubt it. Her past does not hold up, and she doesn’t appear to recognize her true mistakes.
Many greater than many people.
Depends on the dog. I live with a dog who barks at me every time I leave my room or enter the house. She also runs to the back of the house. Never did a thing to the dog. And she is too stupid to realize that I have not.
I have also known dogs who were really protective of very bad people.
Hence the “many.” :)
***
Checked in at ERV to the extent I could stomach. There are no words. I hope that blog rots. If it ever comes here, I will leave.
Happy to see some moving to Scientopia. Don’t like Isis, but hope she finds a host. Rosenhouse’s here would be great.
(As would mine :D.)
I sense a rationale… Could this make sense from her point of view?
Don’t mind me. I am just really fucking annoyed about that dumb dog.
While more of a cat person, I am someone who walks up to large dog like Great Danes and St Bernards. I do a good job of reading a dog and knowing if they will allow me to approach.
I stopped read ERV shortly after the moronic shit storm started. I have seen enough comments to know I want nothing to do with anyone who finds succor there.
The dog is rather stupid. No rationale needed.
Bluharmony just cannot stick the flounce.
I stopped read ERV shortly after the moronic shit storm started.
I stopped reading ERV after I saw her “enlightened” views on the Pepsico blogging fiasco.
she knows fucktons about ERVs…. but is damned ignorant about most other things she whinges about.
Not really so different. I was a tremendous dog person, but, understanding that any animal needs to be understood in its own terms, I have a new recognition for the inner life of (some) cats. Some dogs/cats/people are stupid, but for the most part I try to take them on their own terms.
So maybe stupid, but not necessarily so.
@Jose:
“Please objectify and sexualize me till your heart’s content. If I didn’t want that to happen, I would’ve worn a burqa.”
This was a joke. Much as Rebecca has at the end of her videos, a joke. In poor taste perhaps? I’ll grant that.
But the point being is that if objectification means what Rebecca says it does, than I wouldn’t mind (and this much is true). Real objectification would be a problem for any woman, of course. As for sexualization,it simply means attributing the member of the opposite sex with sexual characteristics. We all do this. What’s even more interesting, is that RW complained of sexualization in her original video, but then changed it to objectification (and added a few details) when criticizing McGraw. This is old news, but it explains the context of the joke, which I admit was in poor taste, and apologize.
So funny!
Go. Away. Fabulist.
Huh? Wha?
Oh. It was nothing to be concerned about.
Go apologize to Rebecca Watson, you pointless troll.
We’re not interested in more of your blubbering about how you were just misunderstood and it was just a joke and maybe it was just a little bit in poor taste, but no harm done, let’s all be friends now. No, let’s not.
If you could find the honor to apologize to the people you have actually harmed, and if you could do it convincingly enough that they would actually forgive you, then maybe you can come back here with a cleansed heart and get a new start.
Until then, shoo. Scoot. Get out of here. Your kind are not welcome with humans.
You oblivious fucking moron, you think you’re the goddamn arbiter of what constitutes real objectification precisely why? And while you’re at it, go ahead and answer the questions I posed in 626. If you’re here to apologize, demonstrate it’s a genuine apology. If not, drop the act and get lost.
It was not a joke. I was reading in real time when you posted that (one of the only times I have ever read ERV, or will ever read ERV). You’re a liar, bluharmony. You weren’t being ironic, and your statement was not taken as such. You meant exactly what you said. Ugh, you’re pathetic. I am cringing now on your behalf. Please stop abasing yourself.
I know I’m setting myself up, but I do have a coupe of apologies I ant to make.
First, my stupid joke about the burqua. I didn’t mean it seriously, but what I was implying is that if sexualization/objectification were what Rebecca claimed them to be, the incident wouldn’t even register with me as a threat situation, and that’s coming from a rape victim, not counting one attempted rape. Date rape, it was. Very drunk date rape. It never happened again.
Second, I want to apologize to PZ. No one deserves to be maligned in that matter, and I took to part of that.
MRAs, especially on Abbie’s site give me the creeps, and I constantly call them names (benign ones, but names nonetheless).
I don’t use sexual slurs, and I never have. My mother told me it was bad manners, and I tend to agree. That applies to everyone, not just women. Further, even though I don’t know what harm they do, I prefer to err on the safe site.
You can quote-mine all you like, but if you read through from beginning to end, you’ll realize that I’m strongly pro-woman, and I’m simply disappointed by Rebecca’s recent and factually incorrect attacks on others. You may disagree with me on this point, and I’m more than welcome to listen. But don’t discount me (or do, if it suits you), just because I have a different opinion than others. Just because I’ve been hanging out in the *wrong* blog, doesn’t make my points less true. Take a chance and listen, or simply forgive me for being imperfect like the rest of us, and remember, even as to feminism, we agree more than we disagree. I think Rebecca’s conduct tends to make atheism/skepticism hostile to women — but that’s just a hunch, I have no empirical data on that matter, just a few anecdotes.
Heh. Draw blood!
I’ve said this before, and it’s a simple concept: The correct way of saying this is that “I felt objectified,” since based on ambiguous terminology, we can’t read someone else’s mind. We can certainly have a hunch, but so many people (male and female) disagree, that I think my doubts are at least warranted.
Further, for objectification to occur, the man in question would have be to interested ONLY in sex. There’s no evidence that this was the case.
It is not that you hang at the “wrong” blog. As documented, not quote-mined, you are a liar. You have hung out with MRAs, rape apologists and misogynists. Whining now that some gives you the creeps does not make up for it.
Also, your reading comprehension is piss poor. PZ does not seem interested in your groveling. Having eaten a meal with him does not seem to be in your favor.
No, blu, your “points” do that. Your distortions do that. Your outright blatant lies do that.
There are plenty of lovely imperfect people who don’t engage in misogynistic shit-flinging the moment they’re given the opportunity. There are plenty of people who don’t spout bullshit that is readily falsified as soon as someone fact-checks. There are plenty of people who aren’t bleeding idiots with regard to gender, and there are plenty of people who don’t presume to tell women that what they experienced wasn’t “real objectification.” It’s not necessary to scrape the bottom of the barrel, and you’re it.
Don’t make stupid assumptions, bluharmony. You’re not my ally, and you won’t be until you own up to your lies and demonstrate that you will stop them, and until you stop pushing back against feminism and start pushing back against misogyny.
You lie like you breathe, blu. I think I speak for most here when I say
Go back to ERV.
That’s your community. You’ve cheerfully and of your own initiative made your place there. Enjoy.
you’re not being quote mined. the first time you said that, you had the excuse of ignorance. Now, you’re just lying about it.
citation needed, bigtime
then I highly suggest you find some evidence before you continue maligning her.
Shorter bluharmony : It’s still all about meeeeeeeee !!!
All this time and she still misses the fucking point. SC is right, go back to ERV.
You are the perfect person to tell us the correct way of saying these things.
Please, got any other pointers for us?
Salty: Also, just because I’m flustered and mistype, as I’ve noticed going over my contributions, doesn’t make me dyslexic. It just makes me frustrated, and wishing to engage with some understanding. I’m sick, my computer is in bed, and it’s difficult to be perfect in that regard. Sorry. This isn’t a graded essay, thesis, or legal opinion, so my standards of writing are greatly different. I’ll work on that. (And I realize I’ve used wrong words multiple times.) Truce, at least on that part?
what? that complete bullshit. sexual objectification is certainly most prominent, but objectification is making someone an object upon which one acts out ones desires and thus denying that objectified someone agency. That’s precisely what EG did when he asked a woman who already clearly stated her wishes to disregard them and instead fulfill his wishes. And that’s true regardless of whether he wanted sex or he wanted her to stay up and drink coffee, instead of doing what she’d already said she wanted to do and was going to do: sleep
Oh, so very this. And by the way, blu, I’m really amused that you’re apologizing for that joke while still trying to defend its basis. So what you’re apologizing for is taking part in the shit-spouting against PZ, which you have also, above, claimed you didn’t take part in and in fact called out when it occurred, and making a joke that you don’t seem to understand the problem with. Fantastic.
Here are definitions from prominent modern feminists on objectification:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/
Please try to see how they fit the elevator scenario if at all. Moreover, changing the facts from the original story to the CFI speech doesn’t seem right to me. I’m sorry if that makes you angry, but that’s how I feel.
And this isn’t about me, as Rorschach seems to think, it’s about integrity and, in some small way, justice.
Dumbass, are you aware that your link doesn’t support what you’re saying and, in fact, supports what we’re saying? Christ.
Do you fucking understand what anyone is saying to you? Do you think that SC gives a flying fuck about coming to a truce over your atrocious writing? She is telling you to go where you better fit in.
PZ said nothing about objectification, at least not as far as I know. Moreover, even if he did, how does an error make someone an unworthy person? I fail to see it.
oh yeah, this is also not correct. And I’m sorry for citing Wikipedia, but it’s not like blu reads any other of my links, anyway:
what the everglorious fuck are you talking about
*facepalm*
what?!
what facts do you imagine she’s changed from one telling to the other? (with citations, since you’re a documented liar)
seconded
I said nothing about dyslexia. You’re extremely confused.
I don’t know what your problem is. I do know that you’ve been dishonest repeatedly over the past month. Standards of writing are secondary here. Standards of evidence and truthfulness are primary. You do yourself no favors here.
No.
oh, and I should note that the APA’s definition of sexualization also renders blu’s claim that RW “changed the story” when she called it “sexualization” in one talk, but “objectification” in another. Note the second to last point.
rendersrefutessex·u·al·ize
verb
\ˈsek-sh(ə-)wə-ˌlīz, ˈsek-shə-ˌlīz\
sex·u·al·izedsex·u·al·iz·ing
Definition of SEXUALIZE
transitive verb
: to make sexual : endow with a sexual character or cast
–Websters.
Granted, sexualization to the exclusion of other people’s characters is indeed a bad thing. But there’s no evidence that this is what happened here.
@ bluharmony
If you can’t get CC’s (#698) advice:
Let me spell it out for you. You are hanging out at ERV because people there don’t call you out on your shit. You can say all you want to there because it makes you feel “free”.
Change is painful, getting called out is painful. But it is a necessary part of growing and learning.
You may be considered a “moderate” on ERV. Here you are not. There you have been marching lock step with a huge group of trolls. From time to time you may mumble “left, left”. But essentially you are just going with the flow. Have you asked yourself why you feel so at ease with them? Or why you feel you are pushing against the horde here?
When the penny drops you will flow here and fight trolls there (though not for long – they make one quite ill).
My suggestion: No good will come of your claimed good intentions staying there. Everyone here has been more than generous in pointing out what you should take time out to think about. For a little while at least, comment less and lurk moar.
Jesus fuck. I give her the APA, she gives me a descriptive dictionary.
you’re an idiot, blu
Yeah, but for the first time since she’s been here, she really entertained me with that one. I’ve had a stupid and irritating night (gee, what else is new, Cipher?), yet I’m sitting here grinning to myself like the Cheshire Cat. Webster’s. Ye gods, where do they grow these people?
She’s just like John D. “No no it says in the dictionary that misogyny means HATRED of women! Since I mostly feel contemptuous apathy towards women, it’s unfair to call me a misogynist.”
Fuck off, bluharmony. You’re not welcome. By attempting to defend the indefensible once again, you’ve demonstrated that all that noise about making peace was just more lies.
blu, at this point this is the ONLY thing I have to left to say to you:
stop using than when you mean then.
example:
otherwise you haven’t said anything consistent, or even worth listening to, since you came into this thread, AFAICT.
if your horrid and continued grammar failings (this being one of many) are the result of your illness, suggest you STOP posting and go get some sleep.
I mean, when you use “worse”, when you mean “better”… people are going to misunderstand you.
example:
I don’t think they really ARE misunderstanding you here (I think they have you nailed pretty well, in fact).
frankly, you’re both a lousy writer and a lousy communicator. Might want to consider how that might impact your future?
just a thought.
Blu, you get “flustered” and “mad” and “jokey,” then type something you have to take back. You start commenting in this thread by wondering if you’ll get “murdered” for saying something, which says to me that you know you must be clear and precise about what you say, yet you don’t see the reason to proofread/edit before you post because, hey, it’s not a graded essay or legal opinion. Your lower standards are not ours.
You’ve been seriously oblivious to the low value of content you provide in three venues I know of: here, B&W, and ERV. The difference is that–for a while–you were hailed at ERV. Now, your comments there are less often acknowledged, fewer and fewer of them result in even partial commendation, and some of the more aggressive against you are extremely belittling. However, there are monument fellows who are reading here–Horace and Phil–who are willing to take you back after your dips into Pharyngula. You can make up your mind to be oblivious to those who ignore you or belittle you and focus on them. They’ll give you your validation; all you have to do is point to a comment here you can’t “believe.” They’ll take it from there. It’s just a little more stretching of an oblivious history, after all.
oh, I have a vague idea that she might have done this because I told her in another thread that logical is not a synonym for rational and used a dictionary (not Websters, I have more respect for the English language than that) to show it generally refers to arguments with formal logic.
I think I might have to give that word up to the descriptivists.
Nonetheless, giving a descriptivist definition in an attempt to refute the APA’s definition is just fucking painful.
What are my lies, then? I’d like to hear this; in fact, it’s of crucial importance to me, since being called a liar is actionable. Of course if I did lie, it’s a non-issue.
Ah!
(another recent Interlude with a message)
At B&W, most of my substantive comments were deleted, leaving only whiny tripe. The originals are on ERV’s thread, for what that’s worth. Further, Ophelia stated that without good reason my comments will no longer be deleted, and that she thought the treatment of me was unfair.
As for being the grammar police, you’re hardly perfect yourself.
PZ and Ophilia are fabulous writers, but that is all.
You start commenting in this thread by wondering if you’ll get “murdered” for saying something,
I love watching this kind of behavior and trying to see if I can figure out which logical fallacy the speaker falls into.
in this case, I’m going to describe blu’s opening move as…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity
which is a subset of the appeal to emotion fallacies, which is a type of red-herring.
in fact, as I see it, the red herring is blu’s favorite debate tool.
Some low-hanging fruit:
As for being the grammar police, you’re hardly perfect yourself.
*yawn*
right, because I so often use the exact opposite word to the one I actually want to use…
try again?
Oh, please sue. Please, please, please. Even if you don’t, please describe the alleged bases for your hypothetical suit.
since being called a liar is actionable
what did I tell you?
there’s ANOTHER red herring, right after I concluded it’s her favorite tool.
I’ll go with the specific label: “appeal to fear” there.
Oh, for fuck’s sake, blu, don’t even try. You’re damn near incomprehensible at times. You’ve gone so far as to misspell your own name. Either make the effort to type readably or shut the hell up about it and accept that people are going to be irritated by your posts.
Right now, the most relevant lie seems to be that you’re interested in compromise and making peace. Actually, your actions demonstrate that you’re interested in getting attention. Compromise and making peace would involve showing that you’ve learned from your mistakes and are trying to do things differently now, because you were so spectacularly wrong before. Instead, you continue to try to justify the attacks on RW, with these idiotic quibblings about the difference between being sexualized and objectified. As I said, I was reading in real time when you posted that bit about wanting to be sexualized because after all you’re not wearing a burqa, and it did not come off as a joke. People didn’t treat it as a joke, and you never corrected them. So there’s another lie right there.
I’d continue, but I should really go to bed.
I think Morales has you pegged:
Like I said before, you need to stop abasing yourself. Who even knows what you real views are; you change them as easily as you turn your head. No wonder you’re attempting to paint RW as a fickle story-changer. Projection much?
Anyway, at this point the only question on this subject that remains to be answered is what about your psychology has made you so, well, messed-up. But that’s not a particularly interesting question. My only request of you is that you stop trying to ingratiate yourself with people who detest you. I’m sure it’s not healthy.
i fucking dare you to sue me
Jadehawk, as I must point out to you, you missed the argument from authority, which is indeed a formal logic fallacy, aside from the looser use of logic. Pinker (an equity feminist) also does a great speech on various slurs, explains why they’re relatively harmless, and distinguishes how inviting someone to see “etchings” is different from coffee.
And logic, not in a formal sense, but in a commonly accepted dictionary sense, means reasoning. There’s really no argument here. Chalk it up to a mistake on your part.
This is a hilarious comment. Even if the first part were true, which I’m sure it isn’t, the second is quite an admission.
I wondered what that stink was.
blu, I have already explained to you how linking to a video by someone is not an appeal to authority, and how it was you who insisted that I must either accept pinker’s authority on everything, or not use a video made by him to make a point. if you’re not going to read what I write, why should i take you seriously?
“People didn’t treat it as a joke, and you never corrected them.”
How can I correct something that I’ve never seen or heard of until now? As soon as I heard of it, I corrected it.
*sigh*
it’s like talking to a vegetable.
if he doesn’t refute the research I cited, his opinion is irrelevant
*sigh*
once again, since it was so awesome: Eddie Izzard on the meaning on “coffee”
Oh, do go to ERV‘s threads and read bluharmony’s comments there.
actually, wait. does this mean he’s suddenly changed his mind on this?
I means, seriously, at LEAST since that Seinfeld episode, everybody with even the slightest social clue does know that “‘Coffee’ doesn’t mean coffee! ‘Coffee’ means sex!”
Pretty much what you’ve left around here too, bluharmony, though I so hate to break it to you. Or is PZ in his tentacular might preemptively deleting all the substance from your posts here too?
Allow me one last clarification. When you made that comment, you gave every indication about being perfectly sincere in your assertion that you don’t mind being objectified, because you figure if you didn’t want to be objectified, you’d communicate that by wearing a burqa. People took that statement at face value. If they found it funny, it was because of the contrast it drew between you, the attention-seeking “good girl,” and the annoying uppity bitches like RW who were insisting on raising their voices about their discomfort about being objectified.
You never corrected them. You never said, “Hey, hey, guys, I know you find it funny and all but really I do sometimes mind when a man objectifies me and makes me aware of it.” Or, “I personally don’t mind but don’t take my personal preferences as a guide.” Or, “I hope you realize I was just joking around, and that joke was in poor taste.”
You never said any of that, because it never occurred to you. Now, someone objects to it, and you spin on a dime and attempt to claim that it was “just a joke”? Sorry, the “just a joke” defense didn’t fly for the people who sent racist emails about Pres. Obama, and it doesn’t fly for you. Fuck you. You didn’t see anything wrong with it then, and you don’t see anything wrong with it now, and for some reason you’re trying to pretend that you do understand why it was such a fucking wrong and horrible statement to make, but it’s obvious from your writing that you have no clue. You’re just trying to curry favor. Attention-seeking, as I said.
I do confess that you vex me. You’re such a slippery character, unlike the cunt-smelly-snatch-Twatson crowd. They are at least up front with their vileness.
Now. Seriously. To bed. Good night Cipher, Jadehawk, SC, Coyote, and all the rest. See you round.
It’s nice to know that my key error is that I used “then” instead of “than.” It was a typo. I like skittles better than chocolate. I was hungry, so then I decided to go to the drive through. Seriously. Is this all you can cling to?
As for RW’s changing the story at CFI, it went as follows:
1. I her original video she didn’t say the man was part of the group.
2. In her original video she didn’t say the man broke away from the group.
3. She said she never talked to him, but he heard her say that she was going to bed. How she knows what he heard is a mystery.
4. She said the man broke away from the group in the CFI video, whereas in her original video she simply stated that some man got on the elevator with her (he couldn’t have been an atheist or not).
5. Most importantly, in her original video she complained about sexualization, not objectification, which are vastly different concepts. McGraw, had no clew that objectification wold be addressed (and more over a very narrow description of objectification at that).
6. In her original video, RW didn’t say the man was a stranger.
7. Since she claimed face-blindness on blogging heads, it’s hard to say how she could say the man was in the audience of her panel speech, or that she could recognize him thereafter.
And that’s just for starters. If you take issue with any of this, please let me know.
No, PZ has been more than fair, and I feel the need to stop, because I don’t want to argue on his blog. This is his realm, and he’s free to do with it whatever she likes.
My issue, is that I simply like discussion the things that strike me as odd in this scenario.
That by no means that Rebecca had no right to feel uncomfortable, or to warn guys of what might make her and other women so. Just not all women.
Your errors have been constant, blu. The worst, I’d say, was when you said “worse” when you meant “better.” Though “clew” is pretty funny too.
Terribly amusing that you think adding information that wasn’t originally deemed necessary is “changing one’s story.” Cool. An excerpt from bluharmony’s life, as imagined by Classical Cipher:
acquaintance: I’m sorry I was late to your party. I got pulled over by a cop for speeding!
bluharmony: Oh no! Did he give you a ticket?
acquaintance: She was a woman actually, and no, I was only a few miles per hour over the speed limit, so she let me off with a warning.
bluharmony: OH SO YOU’RE CHANGING YOUR STORY?! You didn’t say anything about being only a few miles per hour over the speed limit, you said “speeding!” And since when is the police officer in your story a woman? You didn’t say anything about that the first time you told it!
G’night SallyStrange! I’m almost through with the stomping for tonight. Gotta go clean the moldy crumbs and foul-smelling slime off my spiked polka-dot waders before bed.
“Who even knows what you real views are; you change them as easily as you turn your head. No wonder you’re attempting to paint RW as a fickle story-changer. Projection much?”
Great Flying Spaghetti Monster!! Blu is STILL here whingeing on and on?!!
Talking to a vegetable would be less irritating than listening to her flip flop and try to justify her documented tripe.
Sorry, can’t help myself. LIAR.
Please please sue me.
Oufti. Faîtes des beaux rêves, tout le monde!
You make my skin crawl.
Night SallyStrange.
I have a high tolerance for slime. And feces. And stench.
I used to work on a commercial chicken farm.
You won’t stop though, you persistent little anal fissure.
1-4 and 6 are not “changing the story”, they’re explaining the story further, since obviously it was relevant and the explanation was necessary (and is still necessary, since people still think there was previous interaction); 5 is bullshit, as per the APA’s definition for sexualization. 7 is an assumption she made, possibly unwarranted, not “changing the story”
CC, you are so quick! LOL…I finished reading your excerpt from bluharmony’s life and got an image of you as Legolas whipping arrows from his quiver at Gondor. Thwipp, eighteen..thwipp, nineteen..thwipp, twenty….
Sweet dreams, SallyStrange!
though, I wonder. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that dude neither heard her talk, nor was part of the group of people who hung out at the bar (and thus wouldn’t have heard her say anything; not about not wanting to be sexualized, and not about going to sleep). So, this is just some completely random dude, being for the first time ever in RW’s vicinity.
In what universe is it normal behavior to invite someone to your room the very first time you get within hearing distance of them?! how is that not objectification!?
sure, that would invalidate RW’s claim that he didn’t get her talk, but not that objectification happened, or that it was creepy as hell. “you don’t know me, but i know you enough to give such an invitation” just screams (celebrity) stalker. So even if it was just garden-variety objectification due to a sexist social script rather than stalking or something else dangerous, it would be highly unpleasant to wonder if one has just encountered an “overenthusiastic” fan
It was a typo.
bullshit.
Pinker (an equity feminist) also does a great speech on various slurs,
by the way, right after you mention an argument from authority… you write… that…
which is an argument from authority….
you’re broke.
and I don’t mean that in the monetary sense.
Oh, that reminds me…belatedly – “anal polyp” and all variants thereof (including but not limited to “inflamed”) are the rightful intellectual property of Sir Brownian of Gay Sexonia.
maybe if enough people start calling blue a liar, we can all be included in a class-action libel suit?
fuck me, but that would be a hoot!
No, PZ has been more than fair, and I feel the need to stop, because I don’t want to argue on his blog
how can you POSSIBLY type that without breaking into hysterical fits of laughter?
wait… you meant it SERIOUSLY???
HHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaa….
*gasp*
AHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
*ouch*
I just pulled a muscle laughing at your complete obliviousness!
I’m now dialing my lawyer to sue you for personal injury.
That squares really nicely with all the shit you and your handful of creeps were flinging at her for doing just that, blu. No, really. And at the rest of us for defending and agreeing with her.
—
It’s actually kind of disturbing to see how comfortable the poisonous cupcake is with blatantly lying.
—
Hee. Thanks. Now it’s to the decon shower, then off to bed with me!
You gives a flying fuck about various textbook definitions and varieties of feminism!?
Basic human manners FAIL. Fini. No mas. The end.
Emphasis mine. How odd, huh? But like virtually all of the oddities you’ve listed, quite trivial.
Then whip the arrow out of your quiver that will transfix us all, blu! It will consist of this: a link to the blog post, comment, letter, transcript, video, or audio recording in which Rebecca Watson says she’s speaking for “all women.”
I’d still love for blu to show me where Pinker says that an invitation for coffee isn’t an invitation for sex, since previously he even directly said that it is:
not that it would change much, but I’m simply curious whether it’s blu lying, blu misunderstanding something, pinker having some reason to change his mind, or something else.
what else is there left but to pursue the trivial, yet continual mistakes being made by this person?
they have apparently no ears to listen, eyes to see, or brain to reason with.
they are a tape recorder.
and it needs fixing…
I love how you explain how an argument from authority is a formal logical fallacy… And proceed to make an argument from authority. Seriously, someone who quoted Pinker doesn’t have to agree with Pinker’s views on everything, any more than a person who quotes Shakespeare or the Bible has an obligation to swallow them whole.
Jadehawk, I missed out on whatever you’d initially (way back) linked to with Pinker to make a point to bluharmony. Was it the RSA Animate of “Language as a Window into Human Nature?”
It’s true in that one that he only uses “etchings” for the innuendo, but I can’t see how anyone could watch all of that–especially as it went on to explain “individual knowledge” and “mutual knowledge,” and still think that only “etchings” and not “coffee” would pertain to late-night private offers to adjourn to an even more private location that included a bed.
yep. And I came to the same conclusion about it that you have, but apparently some people think it’s really the content (“etchings” vs “coffee”) rather than the form that’s significant in this situation.
But even that is ultimately irrelevant. In that video, pinker used only etchings. elsewhere though, he used the clip from Seinfeld as an example, which does feature coffee specifically. Hence my interest in claims that Pinker now says “coffee” cannot function like “etchings”
Clew! It’s a clew! Blu Harmony has fallen through a rift in spacetime from the 19th century, which is why she has no grip on modern language and has to rely on dictionaries.
If only we’d said “etchings” instead of “coffee”. Or perhaps noted that he’d mistaken her for an Athanasian, and asked her to put Nebuchadnezzar out to grass.
A) See the B&W thread for evidence that this position is a lie on blu’s part. This remark is fully in contradiction with earlier statements.
B) As I pointed out on that thread long before she commented, this is ridiculous: “I want men to ignore my expressed wishes. I want men to proposition me in elevators alone at 4 AM.”
blu has ignored the comments about her burqa remarks, but they haven’t disappeared.
Oh for fuck’s sake. She leaves the hotel bar at 4 a.m. and heads up in the hotel elevator. Even if he didn’t hear her, where the fuck else would she be going? And why the hell did he see fit to wait until he got her alone in an elevator to make his sleazy little offer?
that’s not the part blu implies RW is lying about. blu is implying that in fact, RW did talk to him and that’s how she’d know that a)he listened to her talk, and b)heard her say she’s going to sleep
this implication is necessary to make EG’s approach in the elevator less-than-creepy, because if they’d talked and dude misinterpreted that as flirting (as many American men are quite unfortunately wont to do), he might have interpreted her “i’m going to sleep” as exactly the sort of individual knowledge/mutual knowledge we’ve been talking about (because that’s an even bigger stereotype than the coffee thing).
For that to work however, there must have been extensive (as in, more than single courtesy-nods and one-syllable, one way utterances) communication. Unfortunately for EG’s defenders, RW never claimed that there had been any communication whatsoever; her “changing her story”, if you’re going to assume she’s being dishonest, makes more sense in the other direction: that she over-assumed when she said he heard her talk/heard her say she’s going to sleep. But, as per my #761, that doesn’t help their case any.
Thanks, Jadehawk. Initially I understood the claim as having a narrower meaning, but then, I have been losing track of just where on the donkey the ERV brigade pinned the tail.
Bluharmony :
Well actually, yes, they most certainly do fit into the Elevatorgate scenario:
The term “lacking” here does not mean the person is totally devoid of a quality, but that their property to have it has been diminished. As RW made clear, she had announced her intentions to call it a night at 4am; EG’s proposition to continue talking over coffee was in clear disregard for her expressed intentions, and prioritising them well below his own. So that looks like a firm “yes” on both those counts. Let’s continue:
And here we have the perhaps creepier aspect of the situation, that EG’s proposition were the first words he had actually spoken to her, in an isolated, confined space, and the one where we have seen defensive excuses of the sort “what if EG has Asperger’s?” (being probably on the Autism Spectrum myself, I find this both offensive and unrepresentative, but I don’t speak for everyone) which has been mostly ruled out since RW clarified that the guy was confident and clearly knew what he was asking.
And again, the anecdote clearly ticks the boxes on both counts, that there might be a time and a place for such propositions but this wasn’t one of them. The clinically obtuse free speech rights people don’t get this, but we need not rehearse the many reasons why people with empathy don’t intentionally creep other people out.
So by my reading that’s a strong “yes” on four of the seven criteria stated by Nussbaum, and I could probably assert criterion 1 (instrumentality) and also 4 (fungibility) are probably relevant as well. Langton adds 3 additional criteria, but no one is saying that objectification must consist of traceable elements of every single crititerion for it to be objectification. But four of the main seven criteria and possibly two others is a strong match.
So there is little doubt in my mind that RW’s characterisation of the proposition in her CFI talk as “objectification” is a valid and appropriate term for her to use. Whether “sexualise” was an accurate term to use in the earlier YouTube video depends on how likely the proposition for coffee was really a proposition for sex – and Pinker doesn’t agree with you there either.
I continue to feel that the early criticisms of RW’s video made by Rose St Clair and Steph McGraw were basically naïve and largely missed the point in the process to wrongly make other points, and while I have sympathy for Steph since no one enjoys being criticised in public, I do think her ideas were wrong and deserved a polite rebuttal in some forum. (Whether the CFI talk was the right forum is a different argument.)
(Obligatory disclaimer: My A$0.02 as usual; I don’t speak for the Horde, and they are free to call on my BS.)
*Sigh* Blu,
Why don’t you just come back home? Even when we disagree with you we still engage your ideas. Here you will just just find people dismissing you b/c you don’t like to edit and people telling you fuck yourself with a particular Rodentia. There is nothing of value here at Pharyngula anymore. There is a place where your time could be spent clarifying the views of others and changing minds.
Of course she didn’t. A clew is the lower, aft corner of a sail.
‘Rodentia’ is the name of an Order; a group. It’s plural. If you mean ‘a particular rodent’, say that. If, on the other hand, you think that bad Latin makes you look smart, carry on.
Someone needs help sticking the flounce, so here we go: this thread is closed.