This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
“onsen” just means “hot spring”. No monkeys at the “Old Edo Onsen”.
Quite a few German tourists with their yukata wrapped wrong, though.
Just testing, as I’ve just had a comment disappear into the dark gloomy depths of Fucknowswhere on another thread.
Has anyone else noticed the phenomenon of mocking “white girls” for what is usually regular behaviour? It’s quite odd. One specific thing was mocking them for saying “I can’t even”; this had been common slang among my circle for a while, until it became a “white girl” thing.
@ Daz
My comments at Greta’s have all been poofing for the last 6-8 hours but I can post fine here. Greta says she doesn’t see me in the moderation queue or spam filters or anything.
D’oh. # 4 is me. I was playing around with doing a new account in the event Greta can’t figure out the problem.
At Narita.
Going home.
Seven of Mine
I think twas my own fault. I changed the Nickname box as well as the Display name one, in my profile.
Honkers:
Hong Kong Democracy Protests: CRT’s Live Blog Link: Chinarealtime
Voor Nederlands sprekende Pharyngulieten: China verwerpt ultimatum Hongkong: geen concessies voor demonstranten Link: Volkskrant
South China Morning Post: LIVE: Thunder, rain fail to dampen spirits of Hong Kong democracy protesters.
Share the love.
Your resident tardigrade peace-correspondent hopes to report on tomorrow’s proceedings on pharyngula.tv
Link to quote.
This is partly true. The business community has been fairly sympathetic to the Occupy movement. On the sidelines though, there have been a lot of apologists (not least politicians) saying that the protests damage business.
Yes, in the short term, wilful fools. But consider the long term. Hong Kongers are proving their integrity. They are proving their commitment and decency. At (potentially) great risk. Business is about trust. Business is about relationships. It is not about pliability. One can do business with honest, reliable people (that I see about me every day), not with RWA marionettes.
chigau #1
Thanks. I used to think it was a specific place. Now I know better.
At least they have something on. Some Germans I’ve met tended to treat any large enough body of water as their own personal nudist colony. :\
Got home.
Took the cat to Emergency. Bad diagnosis. Had her euthanised. Buried her under the apple tree.
Getting drunk.
chigau @11:
My condolences. I’m so sorry for your loss.
chigau, I’m sorry for your loss.
Oh, Chigau. I am so very sorry for your loss. Please, have a drink in honour of herself for me.
Chigau, the Pullet Patrol™ chipped in for top shelf rum. I’ll run it past the aged grog casks before serving.
chigau @11: One of the many good reasons for getting drunk. I think she was lucky to have you on her staff.
Chigau, I haz the sads for you and der puddytat. Have a virtual kittyhug from the fuzzy gang.
chigau
I’m so sorry for your loss.
Jesus Fucking Christ.
OMG, chigau. Please accept my deepest condolences.
My own cat is very old and sick and I dread the day when I would have to accept that course.
thank you, all
*hugs*
Oh, Chigau
I’m so sorry.
Aww chigau, I’m sorry.
Didn’t want to derail the NFL thread with this, so I’ll post my speculations here instead.
Would it be possible to train animals (say, penguins) to play football? Obviously, I’m not talking about complicated rules, nor do I expect them to form leagues or draft players. I just mean training animals to recognize the playing field, distinguish separate teams and the understand objective of getting the ball to one end zone or the other.
For example, if we first train our penguins to learn that getting the ball into the end zone means they get fish. Then we use colors to let them distinguish between one end zone and the other. We teach them that only the green end zone gets them fish and if the ball gets into the red end zone, they get an electric shock. Then we teach them to avoid penguins wearing red colors (possibly starting with dummies). Finally, we put our team into the same field as a team trained with the opposite color combination and toss them a ball.
Hopefully, each team will try to get the ball to the opposing end zone, while also trying to prevent the other team from getting the ball to the home end zone. The result should be something vaguely resembling football (presumably with less passing play) and then we can entirely remove human beings from the sport. Problem solved!
Someone should point out to Richard Dawkins that his favorite “feminist” gets a paycheck from Dennis Prager.
A “residential scholar” for Prager University.
Richard Dawkins should be fucking ashamed of himself.
In case anyone is interested, I sent these tweets to Richard Dawkins.
chigau,
Sorry to hear about your poor cat.
theophontes@9,
Yeah but think: if the demonstrators get political democracy, they might get ideas about extending social welfare, workers’ rights to collective bargaining and protection from dismissal, even – Xi forbid – workers’ control!
LykeX@21
LOL I had to think of a bug in that latest FIFA game, due to which all the CPU-controlled players chased the ball, even the goalkeepers (video on youtube)
Then I thought about the penguins, “who asked them? are they okay with it?”, and now I’m thinking about the bigger context, the system in which it would be realized, about potential abusers …
Relevant to the general theme: Tom and Jerry Cartoons Carry Racism Warning. Note the fuckwitted comments by Prof. Frank Furedi, an all-purpose glibertarian rent-a-gob who doesn’t know what “censorship” is.
Sorry, #29 was meant for the Lovecraft thread.
@ chigau
Sorry to hear about your kitteh.
@Nick Gotts
Yeah, we keep hearing from Beijing about how responsible the people and authorities are in Hong Kong, yet they never put two and two together and work out that Hongkongers would also make responsible democratic decisions. They think we are “responsible” children…or what?
After the scare on Sunday night, the police have been able to de-escalate the situation since, using more sophisticated methods like: not teargassing people, not beating people, not using pepperspray, keeping their assault rifles locked in the armoury, not arresting people, keeping close to HQ,… They have a whole new bag of tricks to keep The Harmony.
A relaxed atmosphere now pervades. It is a pleasure to walk amongst the people out on the streets. There is nothing but kindness and friendliness shown.
Urgent petition: ask Members of the European Parliament not to confirm “Señor Petrolhead” as Commissioner for Energy and Climate. Arias Cañete used to be chair of two oil corporations, and during his time as environment minister of Spain he allowed drilling for oil off the Canary Islands; he has sold his shares, but his son and his brother-in-law still hold influential positions in the corporations in question. On top of that, he made unspecified sexist remarks during the campaign for the EU parliamentary elections, the e-mail says.
The River Crab. (Explained in this comment.)
chigau: Very sorry. My sympathies.
Ooh, nice. :-)
Because PZ wondered in the post: from what I’ve heard in other Pharyngula threads, “university” is not a protected term in the US, and PZ really could call his bathroom Myers University and award BS degrees. I really don’t think Dawkins knows that.
*hugs for chigau*
what is this I can’t even
I’ve lost all ability to even
Nudism has a long tradition in Germany and is not illegal here; you’re not legally obliged to get tan-lines.
If you want “fleur du mal”, that’s flos mali (the Genitive Case Of Evil). If you want “evil flower”, that’s flos malus (because flos is a he, not an it).
theophontes@31,
That’s good to read – let’s hope the police continue to behave themselves.
Thank all for your sympathy.
chigau,
Sad I am to read that. Take care.
@ David Marjanović
Awesome linky.
.
If anyone wants to send a message of support to the people of Hong Kong:
http://www.occupier.hk/standbyyou/
I just wanted to signal boost something from over on the post about sexual misconduct at library conferences. There is a Change.Org petition asking that the man accused drop his lawsuit. Probably won’t do any good, but I imagine there are enough people here who care about this sort of thing to give that petition bigger numbers, which can’t hurt: http://www.change.org/p/joseph-murphy-drop-the-lawsuit?share_id=ebDOZFSzyO&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition
(warning for rape and weapons-grade Not Getting It)
Leaving this here because it’s far, far worse than the stupid nail polish idea, and I just don’t have the spoons right now:
Marcotte at Rawstory: Anti-rape app might actually backfire and make it easier to rape
Gotta look out for those innocent guys falsely accused of raping some b*tch who regretted it! *spits*
Stopping there because that’s exactly what my rape was – consensual sex that turned into rape when my long-term partner decided to ignore me saying “Quit it, that hurts!”
The hell with all these lying rapists who lie and rape and the apologists coming up with ever more victim-blamey magic “solutions” to consent just being so darn confusing, un-sexy and hard work. I’m sure Tfoot and all the other “feminazis will make us sign contracts in triplicate!” tools will be all over THIS app.
Yikes. Yeah, this would be bad, and yes, there are plenty of assholes who would look to use it in just this way.
I’m with Hess:
Why in the hell does there need to be an effing app for consensual sex? We come with built in apps for that – our brains, which are neatly able to communicate in verbal and non-verbal ways.
thanks, Dhorvath
chigau: I… I still don’t know what words would’ve helped me through the loss of my own cat a couple years ago. Same basic story, too, though I’ll spare you the details. My sympathies.
*cough* Um, well… *ahem* De-lurking to share this thing that dropped into my YouTube feed. It starts out surreal, and gets infuripressing.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to run away and hide from all the scary regulars. I’ll leave this as chaff to cover my escape.
Excluded Layman:
Aww, c’mon, we’re scary, but we’re loveable, too. New peoples adding their voice is downright shiny.
Mmmmf. I thought most keyloggers masquerading as “super-safe internets for the sproggen” were debunked as basic shit sometime ago. Seems not. Y’know, I understand parents being worried about their kids on the ‘net, but this sort of thing is not the answer, and while it’s extra-shitty to see cops gladhanding this stuff out, I can’t say I’m surprised.
Hugs and sympathy to chigau.
==============
Nice to know that I am still a thing over at Nugent’s blog. Because, yeah, a twelve-year-old who was groomed and trained by a rapist for about two years is evil for life.
===============
Back is getting better. I am currently on no pain pills, thought I am taking valium to relax the muscles. I still have a week-and-a-half before I see my doctor so she can decide if I can go back to work, or under what conditions.
Been playing guitar, reading (I strongly recommend The Burning of the World: A Memoir of 1914 by Bela Zombory-Moldovan. Translated by his grandson Peter Zombory-Moldovan. If anyone wants a really good narrative of what PTSD does, how it changes perceptions, how it changes who you are, this is a great book. It is also very unusual to find, in English, a memoir from Austria-Hungary. I mean, I know they exist, but finding them in the US is not easy. Anyway, good read.), organizing shit on my iTunes (how the fuck did I end up with a copy of Nashville Cats? I detest that song. There were some other weird ones which now infest a .zip file which will, most likely, never be opened.), enjoying some nice earthy brie, making pizza, driving Wife nuts, the usual.
Made lasagna last night. Had leftover lasagna tonight. Tomorrow, red beans and rice with smoke kielbasa.
===============
Huhs to all who need them. Or want them.
Ogvorbis:
It really sucks, being a target.
Glad to hear your back is getting better. I had a pain clinic session two weeks ago, and had my pain meds upped. Again. I wish spine transplants were a thing. I’d take a chance on the cadaver bone implant, if the neurosurgeon wasn’t a scary ass Catholic,* and the hospital wasn’t scary ass Catholic, too. Thanks for the book recommendation!
*on the stupid side, too. The consult with him all those years ago did not go well.
Excluded Layman @45:
I think you only have to worry about me and Sally Strange (per Iyeska’s comment about someone on Nugents blog saying that SS and I are the one who are likely to get up in a clock tower and start shooting people). So feel free to delurk more :)
Tony:
Small fix there.
Excluded Layman
Thank for your sympathy, have some back.
and welcome to delurkdom, please keep commenting.
—-
Oggie
Thank you.
Have a *chiropractic hug*.
Ogvorbis @47:
I’m glad your back is better.
You made my mouth water when you mentioned red beans n rice with sausage. That is one of my top 5 favorite dishes. NOM NOM NOM.
****
Iyeska @50:
Thanks for the correction.
Ogvorbis, I have explained to some of those slymepitter. (Including the main teller of the tale, Ricard Sanderson. He placed me on his “Woman Abusers List” for that.) But they do not care about the facts. By ignoring that this was an abused and groom child, they get to pretend that they are the on the righteous side.
Is it honest? No. It is not meant to be. And I am afraid that people who are not aware of the details might be likely to believe the story that “they protect rapists at FTB.
But please keep in mind (Thought I guess this can be difficult to do.), it is not your fault that many of them on that side do not value honesty. They are out to score rhetorical points. Real lives be damned.
(Though too many of them like to dismiss all of this because “the internet is not real life”)
@ Ogvorbis
Get well soon.
What Janine said: “They are out to score rhetorical points. Real lives be damned.”. They are also disregarding Michael Nugent’s prior request to cut such kind of bullshit out. Specifically with regard to blaming victims of rape. Yet there they are, infesting their new colony with impunity.
David Marjanović #36
Fair enough. I just want a clear separation between places where it’s practiced and where it’s not.
Also, some German tourist bring their habits abroad – where it’s never OK.
Iyeska #48
A cadaver?! If implants were a thing I wouldn’t settle for anything less than a cyborg spine.
Incidentally, that’s why I love Borg queens.
Look to #Ferguson, those who can. Word has gone out that the citizens are being warned to evacuate or hunker down.
Good Morning America thread
I’m just here to say I fuckin’ hate men.
Cheers, Josh. So do I, at the moment.
Testing, testing…
chigau (違う) ~
Want to add to the chorus of being very sorry about your cat. :( It is a shitty thing indeed and I hope you feel better soon.
Kevin, Youhao Huo Mao ~ if you happen by the Thundordome anytime soon…
From the first reddit thread, you said
when talking about Yogscast/social justice type stuff. I would very much like some sort of answer as to why throwing out two women’s names has anything to do with what you were arguing. If I say that A Voice for Men features women, such as Janet Bloomfield aka JudgyBitch, does that make them a social justice forum? I am literally baffled as to why you would just throw out two lady-names as some sort of argument.
Got a call tonight from a force-birth-group. Literally told them to fuck off, and never, ever bother calling me again. Didn’t even bother to hear their message, just who it was.
*spits*
I don’t blame you, Nerd. I would have done the same. Grrrrrrr.
Nerd @60:
I share your disdain and imagine I’d have reacted the same.
Turns out Shermer’s been doing the “atheism is more of a guy thing” since at least 2000…
Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher Part 1
Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher Part 2
Um… I know I just posted, but it’s not here. It does have two YouTube links… is that why?
Um… so I know I just posted, but it’s not here. It does contain two YouTube links… is that why?
Nerd #60
Ugh! The most I’ve ever had to contend with is the occasional pair of JWs.
Speaking of disdain… I’m a member of a popular computer and tech forum (not as frequently now as I used to be). It’s a tightly moderated forum which doesn’t allow any rude behavior, political/religious discussion, illegal activities, etc… basically, anything that will start heated arguments.
But guess which prejudice is easily found on it? Yup, you got it:
I’m pissed off this morning. Dammit. Such a lovely Friday it was going to be.
Wow, Saad. That’s just all too typical. Admitting to having no idea what is going on, but still firmly insisting that BOTH SIDES are doin’ it wrong. And basically firmly opposing social justice because they don’t give a shit and they want everyone else to be as indifferent and apathetic as they are, so they don’t have to listen to conversations that make them uncomfortable. The first quoted person looks especially shitty. It looks like they are kind of person who wrings their hands about “political correctness”. Fucking whining about people DARING to make media more inclusive. Fuck.
anteprepro #69,
Oh, it’s getting worse. I’m calling them out on it (it’s a shame I can’t use choice words there) and there’s already one regular member who took my side too.
Here is some more sexist horseshit:
My reply:
Aaaaand…. here comes some victim-blaming. Boy, they sure know to stick to their scripts:
My reply:
And after this they just ducked out of the conversation because they just “want to play video games” and it’s “not worth their time”.
Okay… my comments are now coming up… okay…
Saad: I endorse your replies to that jackhole, by the way.
Italics is the bluff, bold is the tell. Hopefully the game he wants to play isn’t poker.
Oh my god….
OH. MY. GOD.
Women are at fault for “letting men use them”? What the fuck? Forget it, THAT’S the tell.
Also: What the fuck is with this “men raise sons” and “women raise daughters” thing? Parenting doesn’t work that way!
An Arizona court has ruled that specific prayers during House representatives meeting are permitted, but must be done in rotation, without excluding any religion. Some groups used it to make an interesting protest.
Here are the Humanist “secular invocations”.
And here is a pagan prayer (Youtube).
—
Saad
I know the situation. Something similar happened on the gaming site that I frequent: My guy was angry that people were fine when 4chan targeted Scientology, but became angry when those same tactics were used against Sarkeesian and Quinn (with a visible sexist underlining to his argument). Me and another member push back, and the guy bailed with no further comment.
I’m glad you’re not letting this attitude slide. Good replies.
This is merely a test.
Please pay no attention.
It would be a waste of your time.
Completely and utterly.
Why are you still reading this? Is there a better place to test writing comments?
Interesting.
Yes.
Very.
HTML works.
Imagine that.
Someone just discovered nested quotes?
Trigger Warning: Discussion of Rape Kits
16% of Las Vegas rape kits tested since 2004
chigau (違う)@77:
I was checking how the blog handles line breaks and paragraphs (HTML vs. text) in the comment box.
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism@78:
Actually I’m testing out a userscript I wrote to add a reply button to comments.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-board-school-bus-seize-toy-gun-6-year/#IvjgIGXCeVvjzgCE.99
As a society, our awareness of potential dangers is deeply skewed. The drivers’ reaction went overboard. The police were not needed for this situation. What’s really fucked up is that kids-young boys especially-are encouraged to play with and use guns, both real and toy versions. We live in a culture that fetishizes firearms, so is it any surprise that a kid is going to enjoy playing with toy guns? How do you take it away from him and tell him that it’s wrong to play with them when the wider culture at large says “Guns are fun for everyone”? How do you teach a child about gun safety when discussions of gun safety inevitably take a turn towards “ZOMG Obama’s going to take away our gunz”?
Pseudonym@80:
Anyone interested in trying and/or contributing can take a look here: http://pastebin.com/a8KaQSb7
Why would you add reply buttons to comments?
chigau (違う)@83:
Is that a serious question? It’s so I can click on one button and fill in the comment box with a properly cited and linked blockquote of the comment that I’m replying to. How often do people complain about others not using the blockquote tag, or not referring to the author or the comment number of the comment that they’re replying to?
chigau (違う)@83:
Oh, did you think that I was trying to add a reply button to the comments that I was posting? No, what I did was write a Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey script that runs in my browser and adds a reply button to any comment that I hover the mouse pointer over.
I should note that FreeThoughtBlogs is more than welcome to use or modify my script if they want to add a reply button on the site, and I’m willing to provide any sort of technical assistance needed to get that working, free of charge of course. I can’t think of any reason why this wouldn’t be a built-in function other than because of technical issues.
I think that would be a nice Greasemonkey to have. All the convenience of one-click reply, without the vile abomination of nested comments.
Unfortunately I can’t try it out as I don’t know how.
opposablethumbs@87:
Unfortunately it’s pretty complicated if you aren’t familiar with Greasemonkey-style user scripts. First off, it depends on what browser you’re using. I use Google’s Chrome, so I have installed an extension called Tampermonkey; I think Greasemonkey only works on Firefox, and I have no clue when it comes to Safari or Opera or Internet Explorer. After installing the extension, you’d need to add my script to your list of installed user scripts, but the recipe for that is browser-specific too.
Cape Town’s open mosque set alight.
Pseudonym, way beyond me then! But I’d enjoy this if it ever became a feature of FTB.
Fortesque:
You need a gravatar account, and you can change it there, which changes your avatar across WordPress.
Okay, I went and read. One valid point people had was that it’s not cool to use other peoples’ stories and experiences to bolster your point, unless you know that is okay with them. All too often, that reads like you’re simply trying to curry cookies, even when you aren’t. It’s better to go with general education and stats. A lot of people here have been raped or sexually assaulted, and we do use our stories to get through to people, if that’s what is needed.
For the most part, you looked on point to me, and you were seeing a lot of standard rape apologia, which is never easy to argue against, and it’s frustrating, because you’re up against people who do not want to see themselves as perpetuating and enabling rape culture, so they often won’t admit rape culture exists in the first place. Here are some excellent links for when you find yourself in such an argument (of course, if you’re arguing here, you’ll have a fucktonne of backup.)
Rape Culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
Rape Culture 101
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/rape-culture-101/
Arguments From Analogy in Victim Blaming
https://proxy.freethought.online/nirmukta/2013/10/12/arguments-from-analogy-in-victim-blaming
Meet the Predators
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
Predator Redux
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/
One more link: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/
Nerd of Redhead, take your burr under the saddle and kindly go fuck yourself, cricket. I took this shit to the lounge because I’m sick of your abject dishonesty and disregard for factual accuracy as well as your spurious slander in calling me an abettor of rape. Did you miss the comments where I quoted the multiple criticisms I made of Reddit before you accused me of defending their actions? Or do you just not give a shit about whether what you say is true?
PZ was riding a triceratops, right? Oh Gods!!1! http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/creationist-museum-our-fraudulent-ica-stones-prove-man-rode-on-triceratops-dinosaurs/
Pseudonym, you said here:
Whether or not you intended this (and intent isn’t magic), you come across as indulging in rape apologetics by framing things being legal / illegal. As it stands, rape is an all too common subject on Reddit, and not in a good way. PhilosophyOfRape not only has incitement to rape, there are claims of rape having been committed, multiple times. Incitement figured largely in the case of Cheryl Araujo. Incitement has also figured largely in wilding cases, and so on. It is not treated lightly, and yes, people have been found guilty of incitement, and convicted.
That, however, doesn’t matter much to your argument. Ethically, people inciting rape should not be given a platform, full stop. Any attempt to defend providing them with a platform won’t go over here, at all. There are a lot of rape survivors here at Pharyngula (I’m one of them), and we know, first hand, the damage rape culture does. It’s okay if someone else doesn’t grok that immediately, but when you have had things explained to you over and over, and you continue to argue that it’s okey dokey to give rapists a platform, people aren’t going to look upon you kindly, to say the least.
Pseudonym, you said here:
Whether or not you intended this (and intent isn’t magic), you come across as indulging in rape apologetics by framing things being legal / illegal. As it stands, rape is an all too common subject on Reddit, and not in a good way. PhilosophyOfRape not only has incitement to rape, there are claims of rape having been committed, multiple times. Incitement figured largely in the case of Cheryl Araujo. Incitement has also figured largely in wilding cases, and so on. It is not treated lightly, and yes, people have been found guilty of incitement, and convicted.
That, however, doesn’t matter much to your argument. Ethically, people inciting rape should not be given a platform, full stop. Any attempt to defend providing them with a platform won’t go over here, at all. There are a lot of rape survivors here at Pharyngula (I’m one of them), and we know, first hand, the damage rape culture does. It’s okay if someone else doesn’t grok that immediately, but when you have had things explained to you over and over, and you continue to argue that it’s okey dokey to give rapists a platform, people aren’t going to look upon you kindly, to say the least.
If you don’t want to be “slandered”, you stop abeting rape by pretending it is legitimate free speech, and stop conflating rape instructions, which are how to get away with it, with the instructions of the SCLC back in the sixties, where they expected to be arrested and jailed. Which worked beautifully, as they overcrowded the jails and broke the cities and counties trying to jail them.
So, your move Cricket, the fuckwitted idjit.
Iyeska, flos mali@95:
I get that, I think. I wasn’t trying to argue that it’s okey dokey to give rapists a platform, and I don’t think I ever made that argument. I pointed out several times that I disagreed with Reddit’s stance. I guess I didn’t put enough emphasis on that or something. I tried to carve out a consistent position of supporting legal prohibitions against incitements to violence while being hesitant about more general laws against hate speech as popularly defined. Evidently I wasn’t very successful at that. I had an emotionally defensive reaction to being accused of intellectual dishonesty, strawmanning, and abetting rape after I replied to an imprecisely worded comment about regulating speech on the internet.
Pseudonym #86:
Just testing a slightly less cluttered version of Pseudonym’s script.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls@96:
Citation needed. I already quoted your comment accusing me of not being able to admit Reddit is wrong after I had discussed several times that I thought they were wrong. When I accuse you of things I provide evidence to back it up. Criticize my tone all you want, but have the decency to apologize when you’re caught in a straight-up lie that you use to slander me. As someone mentioned once, remember, you are mortal.
Hmm. Needs a way to turn <p> tags into double line-breaks.
You failed miserably, because it kept coming back to the rape instructions that you kept mentioning. You had to drop them utterly and totally, and move on.
We don’t treat the concept of absolute free speech here very charitably, and that appears to be where you are coming from. With freedom comes responsibility, and you appear to be avoiding having folks take responsibility for their hate speech and the acts that arise from it. Hence what you perceive as attitude.
Pseudonym:
Yeah, I understand you weren’t trying to make that argument, but that’s the way it came across. Here at Pharyngula, we’ve been fighting against rape culture for years, dealing with one rape apologist after another (and boy, there are a fucktonne of them), men and women. It’s a tough fight, and we get exhausted, angry, and frustrated.
I do agree that arguments involving hate speech can get dicey. For all that though, it doesn’t do any good to ignore the power of words, especially when those words enable, encourage, and allow rapes to continue to take place, and drives yet another anchor into rape culture. Getting into rules lawyering over speech isn’t helpful. People end up splitting hairs to no point – I think it’s better to base discussions on ethics. (Where oh where is Doc Freeride when ya need her?)
Daz:
If you’re talking about the script, I haz no help. For a double break, I use
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls@101:
Do you understand the phrase “citation needed”, or are you like Tethys in thinking that you can make up whatever definitions you find convenient for any given phrase? Do you even recognize the fact that I criticized Reddit? Yes or no. Then give me a definition of “absolute free speech” and then explain how that concept accords with my criticism of Marion Pierce, an actual freeze peach absolutist.
I’m a virtual know-nothing, regarding JS. I managed to get the full URL into the nym-anchored link and lose the cite=”URL” which has never done anything but add clutter. Also added a blank line after the nym-and-number line, just to separate header from content so to speak.
The problem with the tags is that they’re not supported as comment-input. It needs a blank line (ie hit the carriage-return twice, just like within a pre tag) but that means actually adding stuff to the JS, which is beyond my ability.
Should read:
“The problem with the <p> tags is that they’re not supported as comment-input.”
Pseudonym, I want to expand a little, if you don’t mind. All of the years worth of discussion we’ve had here about sexism and gender equality, etc., one thing we’ve seen a fair amount of is this: a man who, because of one bad experience with one specific woman, ends up extrapolating increasing bitterness and loathing on to all women. This is just one example of the kind of person who might find themselves attracted to something like PhilosophyOfRape. There are a lot of people out there who don’t require much convincing at all, and will latch on, hard, to something like POR, because it validates their feelings, and gives them justification. It’s dangerous.
Iyeska, flos mali@102:
I get that, no, really. I’ve dealt with or at least encountered close to a metric fucktonne of rape apologists myself. I sort of got triggered by the mind-boggling stupidity of a few commenters, Tethys and Nerd of Redhead in particular, who couldn’t seem to parse basic English sentences. It felt sort of surreal to be accused of inventing the “hate speech” straw man when I wasn’t the one who brought it up in the first place and got accused of being intellectually dishonest when I noted that fact. It’s like facts and truth didn’t matter any more, it’s all about jumping on this mindless bandwagon with the popular kids and calling out the evil rapists.
Pseudonym
A constitution provides protection for all of its citizens, no matter what they do. That is why we do not summarily execute murderers. That is why breaking the law under some circumstances will not lead to immediate incarceration (though I’m sure black folk would demand to differ). That is why you do have a right not to obey the law if the law is trampling your human rights – the consequences, however, are up to the authorities to dispense. And up to you to bear. And up to the system to survive (or not, as it were).
Anyway. Done with this.
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism@105:
I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but I’d be happy to mess with the script to fix any problems. I was going to try to download the WordPress source code and look at their comment-sanitizing functions to figure out how to deal with line and paragraph breaks, I just haven’t had a chance yet. (Give me a break here, I’m defending my honor at the same time! Kidding…)
For anyone else who wants to reply, what specific clause in the U.S. Constitution provides protection for civil disobedience? What Supreme Court cases have established the boundaries of that protection?
Pseudonym:
If I may…
This is another thing that has history here at Pharyngula. Some years ago, half the internet exploded over a woman saying “guys, don’t do that.” Misogynists came boiling out of the woodwork with the battle cry of “Free Speech!” – this battle cry had an addendum though: Around here, we mock this battle cry as Freeze Peach.
There is a good portion of the atheoskeptisphere who seems to think that free speech does indeed include the right to be free of criticism, along with the right to any and all platforms. A blog owner’s decision to ban someone? Any sort of criticism at all? These are the same peoples who fight for their right to call people cunt, and to continue sending rape and death threats to those they don’t like and disagree with. This is a *small* example: http://skepchick.org/page-o-hate/
We get the joy of dealing with these assholes much too often, and there is definite battle fatigue involved.
rq:
Ideally, yes. It doesn’t work out so well in practice – Mike Brown, frinst. Most civil disobedience is against the law, however, there are good grounds for being civilly disobedient, so a person can often win a case on those grounds. Then there is civil disobedience within the law, which I brought up in the lounge. We are supposed to have certain rights, yet standing on certain rights will bring you nothing but grief. Any of us who have stood up to cops know that one, up close and personal.
rq@109:
We don’t summarily execute murderers or immediately incarcerate all lawbreakers because of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. You have the right not to obey a law that tramples your Constitutional rights because Article VI of the Constitution provides that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land” and the Supreme Court has established the practice of judicial review. These are concrete legal rights explicitly mentioned in the text. Where is this right to civil disobedience? When Thoreau refused to pay taxes because of his moral beliefs, what constitutional protections did he enjoy above and beyond the due process accorded to any other lawbreaker?
The problem comes when somebody says “I am not a XXXXX, but…..”. Essentially we dismiss everything before the “but”. Claim what you will, like you don’t think a given type of speech is right and can be dealt with by the service provider, and you follow it with a “but” involving free speech, what are many of use will just see the free speech claims. It saves time and energy to ignore that before the “but”, as you have essentially dismissed it with what comes after the “but”.
Speaking of Doc Freeride:
Source.
Pseudonym #110:
It’s a minor quirk really. The script outputs the markup into the comment box, with paragraphs formed by html <p>…</p> tags. Problem is, we, as commenters, can’t use those tags to make paragraphs, but instead have to form an empty line by hitting carriage-return twice in order to do so. So if you use the script to quote multiple paragraphs, you still need to replace tags with empty lines.
Like I say, a minor quirk, given that blockquoting two paragraphs at a time is a fairly rare thing to do.
FWIW, changes I’ve made:
'<a><span class="comment-author-link"></span>@<span class="comment-number-link"></span>:</a>\n' +'<blockquote></blockquote>' +
to:
'<b><a><span class="comment-author-link"></span> #<span class="comment-number-link"></span>:</a></b>\n' +'\n' +
'<blockquote></blockquote>' +
fake.find('a').attr('href', '#' + id).end()to:
fake.find('a').attr('href', link).end()And
.find('blockquote').attr('cite', link).append(content.clone().contents()).end();to:
.find('blockquote').append(content.clone().contents()).end();———————————————————————-
If you have Firefox handy, this addon lets you download a page as an archive with all the CSS etc files included. Much easier than working with in-browser dev tools, IMO.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls@115:
Once again, citation needed. What you’re saying is that the rules of the English language don’t apply to you. Even if I were to say “X, but Y”, subsequently accusing me of never saying X would be a bald-faced lie. The word “essentially” is sure doing a lot of work covering up your faulty reasoning there. Your fee-fees don’t define the rules of logic, cupcake.
Pseudonym
Despite my mind boggling stupidity, I still find the endless whinging + complete reframing of the thread to cast yourself as the superior thinker, ( fer rats sake, you were the one who pulled out an entire field of civil rights concern strawmen!) to be hallmarks of intellectual dishonesty. Also, could you please stop filling the threads with your narcissism? Nobody is obligated to give you a remedial education in civics or social studies. You have a brain and a computer, go use them to educate yourself rather than taking over yet another thread with your poor me act.
Pseudonym,
What Nerd is saying there is that when someone says, for example “I’m not racist but…” that “but” is almost always followed by racism. Nobody is paying attention to your “I’m not a XXXXX but..” We’re looking at what comes after the “but” and if that matches with our understanding of what XXXXX is, that’s what we’re going to call it no matter how vehemently you deny being XXXXX.
Pseudonym, I met a few idjits like you back in my academic days, folks whose ego was larger than their talents, and chronically upset that nobody sees their greatness, and the greatness of their ideas.
If you want to be seen as a great intellect, start showing it, rather than believing what you have said must stand and must be defended by reiterating refuted stuff. Part of intellectual honesty is seeing that you can be and are often wrong, changing things, and moving forward without attitude.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy@120:
And that’s an understandable reaction. I keep asking for citations because I’d like the chance to clearly state that I am not XXXXX because YYYYY. I am not a freeze peach absolutist because I believe threats and incitements of violence should be outlawed. I’m not going to lie and say that I support Tethys’s malformed idea of applying over-the-air broadcast regulations against “hate speech” and “incitements to crime” to the internet just because it’s convenient. That doesn’t make me a rape abettor.
IANAL so I cannot cite cases. I seem to recall that there was one case involving a bunch of people in Boston throwing tea in the harbor to protest taxation without representation or something like that.
Iyeska @113
I know, which is why I further the comment about working outside the system to change it (either by breaking the law or by breaking social norms). I’m not at the height of intellectual alertness right now, though so I don’t have the spoons to clarify, sorry about that, but I hope you understand some of what I mean.
Anyway, it was mostly just for Pseudonym because I hate the whole ‘civil disobedience is not a right’ thing I’ve been hearing from xir. Precisely because I have been following Ferguson events still on-going very closely (or as close as an ocean and several time zones will permit).
So I apologize for not elaborating as much as I should, honestly I can’t continue this conversation right now, but I do hear your point.
Pseudonym:
It would be nice if you’d listen. You are coming across as a rape apologist. As I have mentioned, we deal with rape apologists all the time, so if people keep saying that, there’s a reason.* Take the time to turn your critical thinking skills on yourself. I’ve tried to explain things to you, more than once, and I’m losing patience. You need to truly understand that your need to rules lawyer everything is not fucking helping.
See this post by Ginmar.
Honestly, if I’m living in a country where I’m not allowed to express my disagreement with the law, I’m living in a dictatorship.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls@121:
If I gave the slightest fuck about whether you saw me as a great intellect, I wouldn’t be acting this way, now would I? I don’t give a shit what you think of me, as you’ve clearly demonstrated your gaping deficits when it comes to intellect and honesty. I came here hoping for an interesting discussion, and to call your comments a disappointment would vastly overestimate the Bayesian priors in your case. Am I supposed to be intimidated by the vast intellectual reserves of a blog that needs a third-rate JavaScript coder like me to implement a basic reply button? Fortunately, people like Crip Dyke, Iyeska, Daz, Seven of Mine, Tony, SallyStrange have interesting things to say.
Tethys@123:
Holy fuck, do you not even understand that the Boston Tea Party was illegal? And thus not constitutionally protected? You know, besides the fact that Great Britain doesn’t even have a fucking written constitution? The stupid, it burns.
rq:
Disagreement with the law is not the same as civil disobedience, though.
Psuedonym:
Yeah, we know it was illegal. That didn’t mean it was not effective, or the catalyst of great change. Sometimes, the only right thing to do is illegal. That’s how it goes.
Also, Pharyngula is global in nature, a good portion of the commentariat is not in the U.S., so don’t take that tangent, okay? Reddit is based in San Francisco, California, United States – please remember that.
But you can express disagreement with civil disobedience.
If that’s the best (or only) option you have left. Resorting to civil disobedience is the sign of a broken system, to my mind. And while the system may not agree, you do have a right (a better phrasing would probably be ‘should’) to express your disagreement in the way you think best.
Anyway. I’m not listening to myself. Sorry for continuing.
Pseudonym@139:
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls@156:
ginmar@240:
I wonder why.
rq
Seconded.
@ Pseudonym
What’s making people call you a rape apologist is that you repeatedly derailed a thread about how reprehensible it is that Reddit turns a blind eye to subreddits which incite rape so that you could philosowank over hair splitting hypotheticals. Derailing is a tactic rape apologists use: they pretend real concern over some hypothetical corner case, not because they actually give a shit but because they don’t want people talking about rape being bad. We all get that’s not what you’re trying to do. What we’re saying is that your behavior here has been virtually indistinguishable from that of people who ARE trying to do that.
Fortesque in another thread:
Eeee, such fun! The library was my favourite place as a sprog.
Tethys@124:
Tethys@123:
Iyeska, flos mali@130:
I don’t understand how better to structure an argument here, sorry. I criticize Tethys’s suggestion that civil disobedience is protected by the Constitution, and they bring up an illegal event that occurred over a decade before the constitution was written. And I’m the one accused of intellectual dishonestly.
rq:
Absolutely.
Seven of mine:
QFT.
Pseudonym, pay attention to this ^ and what I posted from Doc Freeride @ 116:
Jesus Fucking Christ, people. Forget about tone trolling arguments for one fucking minute. Will nobody admit to the fact that 1773 temporally preceded 1789?
Let me state that I’m honestly sorry for derailing the conversation in that thread. I thought the legal issue was an interesting discussion, that it was a bad idea to let factual inaccuracies and spurious accusations go unanswered, that my opposition to Reddit’s policy was clearer than it turned out to be, and that comment threads were allowed to wander away from the original topic more readily here.
Pseudonym
What the actual fuck is your problem? You’re the one crying a fucking river because people are calling you a rape apologist and then, the minute someone explains why that is and tries to help you avoid it in the future, suddenly you don’t want to talk about it anymore. Fuck off.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy@140:
Am I being overly caustic? Probably. Why? Nobody on this blog will admit to basic unescapable truths like the fact that 1773 happened before 1789 because that might suggest the bad mean stranger who’s not part of the in crowd has an actual point. Will somebody actually stand up and try to explain how the chain of logic Tethys shat out here makes any sense? Or do facts no longer matter?
Iyeska, flos mali @ 135:
Yup she loves it, but because she is almost 2 I had to hold her upside down while checking out, else she would have ran down a huge set of stairs leading to the basement (where the children’s section is) and it would not have ended well.
@91:
Thanks for that. I appreciate you taking the time to go over it. Also I’m sorry to hear a lot of people here have had that experience firsthand.
Pseudonym
I said nothing about your “caustic” tone, fuckwit. I called you out for demanding that people stop explaining to you something YOU demanded an explanation for.
If a GOP congresscritter like Michele Bachmann or Steve Stockman had suggested that civil disobedience against Obamacare was protected by the U.S. Constitution, and used the Boston Tea Party as their example, PZ would be mocking them and the rest of the usual crowd here would be joining in commenting on how stupid those Tea Party Republicans were.
Pseudonym @ 142:
Look, going on the defensive and claiming, hey, in this post I said, and that post I said isn’t going to work. You spent a lot of time on rules lawyering, hair splitting, and derailing. If that’s over now, great, move on. People here do read each post, however, we pay attention to all posts by a person as a whole, a body of work, if you will. You’ve gotten a lot of people angry, and being defensive isn’t going to help anyone to de-bristle. What people here were trying to talk about was Reddit’s abysmal use of “oh, hey, free speech, man. We can’t make people be good” in their defense of the indefensible. People here were trying to talk about the point of having principles, and the active harm being caused by Reddit. When you waltzed into the middle of those discussions, you weren’t helping, and people got pissy. We’re still pissy.
Fortesque @ 143:
Hee. I’m childfree, but I do suspect that being held upside down is not a cause for upset. :D
Iyeska,
Gee, you would think the word disobedience would be a clue? My patience with explaining the history of civil disobedience in the US just evaporated with that last UR SO STUUUPID post asserting that the Boston Tea Party is not relevant. I am enjoying the discussion on the ways that invoking some rights is punished. Reddit is currently punishing the people who are trying to invoke their rights to be free of the hatred that is directed at them. The fully informed jury site has a concise quote about being fully aware of your legal rights.
The US was founded on the principle of civil obedience. There was a revolution. A constitution was written that established as law that the rights of the people always outweigh the rights of the state, the people have the right to decide whether the law is just or unjust*, and the state is not permitted to make any laws that infringe upon the right to civil disobedience. I do not understand how any USAian can be ignorant of such basic facts about US history. *does not apply to any crime that violates other peoples civil rights ie murder, rape, harassment.
Iyeska, flos mali #130:
This kind of dichotomy is why, IMO, we should be looking to the UN to address internet law. No matter where the servers may be physically located, the virtual reality (pun intended, sorry) is that the internet is akin to international waters. We need an internationally agreed set of laws to govern it.
Pseudonym @ 145:
What, exactly, are you trying to fucking get at here? There can’t be civil disobedience anywhere, ever, because reasons? Civil disobedience never, ever works, because reasons? What? Or are you just pissed off at rq and Tethys, and want to keep railing because?
If I recall correctly, rq isn’t in the U.S., while Tethys is in the States. While I haven’t claimed that civil disobedience is protected, it is tolerated (protests!), and cases of civil disobedience can be won in a court of law. Civil disobedience can be a highly effective tool.
Daz @ 149:
Agreed, agreed, agreed. Yep.
Iyeska, flos mali@146:
Oh, I know, that’s abundantly clear. I’m sorry that I’ve pissed off you in particular because I don’t really disagree with anything you’ve said here. But this is the Thunderdome, and 1773 still precedes 1789, and I think it’s ridiculous and insulting that pissiness so easily overrides basic logic here on a forum that flatters itself constantly over its supposed preference for empiricism and reasoning over civility.
Iyeska, flos mali @ 147
It is usually pretty fun for her. She enjoys being picked up and swung around :) It helps me being able to put her legs over one shoulder and I can keep her in place with 1 arm pretty easily like that when she is getting fiesty. For some reason the checkout at the library was moving really slowly, so I had to do the self checkout before she escaped me completely.
Pseudonym
On the other matter…
That script: ✔
Awsome bit o’ work. Thank you
Tethys@148:
What do you think the phrase “civil disobedience” means? Define it. Does it have anything to do with what Thoreau practiced when he penned the essay with that name? If so, what does it mean that Thoreau’s actions were found to be illegal and not constitutionally protected? Where in the constitution are there protections for civil disobedience? What article? What amendment?
And just to make it clear, I already provided chapter and verse, so to speak, when it came to protections against summary execution, imprisonment without bail, and defiance of unconstitutional laws. Citation needed.
And what does this have to do with the topic? Yes, the Tea Party preceded the US Constitution. The Constitution was also was preceded by the Articles of Confederation, which didn’t work so well. And this has to do with civil disobedience in the modern day how?
@ Pseudonym
You want to talk about basic fucking logic? Your “1773 precedes 1789” schtick is a response to a single specific comment by a single specific person and yet you’re attempting to impugn the reasoning abilities of everyone here over it.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. I’m pretty sure I linked this already.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
Legal Dictionary – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
Earlham College, Philosophy Department – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
Iyeska, flos mali@150:
I sort of agree with that… but… the right to protest is explicitly protected by the Constitution, though, in the First Amendment’s protection of the right to peaceably assemble. If you want to argue that peaceful protests constitute civil disobedience, because the authorities in practice crack down on them even if they’re constitutionally permissible, that’s fair, but it’s not what Thoreau or MLK were talking about when they explicitly advocated breaking the law. There’s no constitutional right to refuse to pay taxes because of one’s disagreement with government policies. That’s what Thoreau did when he penned his essay. And, as shown by Gandhi and MLK and Mandela, nonviolent protest and civil disobedience is undeniably effective. But there isn’t any constitutional protection for illegal behavior that constitutes civil disobedience. The very notion is self-contradicting: if it were constitutionally protected, it wouldn’t be illegal. If it were protected by, say, the First Amendment’s right to peaceably assemble, then it’s not civil disobedience in the sense that Thoreau or MLK invoked when they voluntarily went to jail for their actions and admitted that being jailed was both legal and constitutional.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy@158:
I’m saying that nobody here will admit that Tethys’s reasoning is ridiculous. Nobody will even admit that I’m right about one specific comment by one specific commenter, a comment that Tethys continues to endorse and which they still doesn’t understand the stupidity of… preposition, crap.
Pseudonym:
You’re pretty much inviting an Oh, do fuck off now. You’re harping on and on about one person, and one post, and extrapolating from there. Don’t do that. You want a grudge match with one specific person, go for it. That said, we don’t care for self-styled Vulcans of any form, including those made of straw. Sure, we thrive on good argument here, however, our arguments are full of passion, and often full of anger. We aren’t here to pretend to we have passed the Kohlinahr and have shiny NeoNitpicking certificates. You’re pulling an old and well known trope out of your pocket, and if anything, that will make things worse.
Try taking people as individuals, and put your SuperSpecialSpock™ certificate down.
Iyeska, flos mali@159:
The very first sentence of the Stanford encyclopedia entry: All I’ve been arguing here is that it’s ridiculous to argue that that sort of civil disobedience has legal or constitutional protection (since the constitution is, by its own account, the foundation of the law). A breach of law by definition can’t be legal.
I took the point to be that the USA was founded, in part, on an act of civil disobedience. Such disobedience may not be enshrined in the constitution, but it’s surely part of the USA’s self-image.
Pseudonym @ 161
And why does anybody have to admit to that? I have at no point been involved in the discussion about what civil disobedience is, whether it’s protected by the constitution. It’s not my job (or anyone else’s) to answer for something said by someone who isn’t me.
Pseudonym @ 160:
Pardon, but who gives a fuck? What is your point, going on and fucking on and on about this? Do you need someone here to say “yeah, civil disobedience isn’t protected by the United States constitution”? Fine, civil disobedience isn’t protected by the United States constitution. Happy now? Will you shut the fuck up now? Jesus.
Daz:
Yeah, which I think was the bulk of Tethys’s point – the U.S. was founded on civil disobedience, what with that revolution and all. There’s a fine tradition of civil disobedience in the States…that whole civil rights thing, y’know, and more.
Pseudonym:
Well, you won’t shut up about it.
Utter and total non-sequitur. I still don’t see what your point is, if you have one. I don’t think you do, or it is so obscure it is meaningless.
ARTICLE: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
If you want to pay for the article, have at it. It took me 5 seconds to find a whole fucking lot of articles about the constitutional defense of civil disobedience, even though it may not be writ large. *shrug*
#132: Because you insist on jerking off intellectually in a thread about men threatening to rape women? Christ, but you’re a pretentious little wanker. You earned everything people have been saying about you——and worse. What a onanistic, grandiose, arrogant, smug, misogynistic little smear of self satisfied self regard you are. Spare us all and get some lotion and a mirror. It’s less dishonest.
Also, one more thing on the whole civil disobedience business: I’m tired of fucking pointing out that civil disobedience can take place within the law.
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism@164:
I agree with that whole-heartedly, but that’s not the entirety of what Tethys actually wrote. They wrote that civil disobedience was protected by the constitution. It’s like I’m bashing my head against a brick wall here:
Tethys: Civil disobedience is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Pseudonym: That’s fucking stupid. Civil disobedience is by definition illegal.
Tethys: But the Boston Tea Party. Checkmate, Pseudonym.
Pseudonym: Holy fuck, you brought up the U.S. Constitution and now you’re talking about something that happened years before.
Tethys: Civil disobedience is important to the founding of this country.
Pharyngula: Yay Tethys! Isn’t this obvious? Boo Pseudonym!
Pseudonym: What the fucking fuck? I never disagreed with that. But how can an event in 1773 have any bearing on whether civil disobedience was legal under the 1789 constitution?
Pharyngula: And what does this have to do with the topic? You want to talk about basic fucking logic? You’re pretty much inviting an Oh, do fuck off now. And why does anybody have to admit to that? Pardon, but who gives a fuck? Happy now? Will you shut the fuck up now? Jesus. Well, you won’t shut up about it. Utter and total non-sequitur. It took me 5 seconds to find a whole fucking lot of articles about the constitutional defense of civil disobedience, even though it may not be writ large.
This type of “If the shoe was on the other foot…” hypothetical is really fucking annoying. Whichever side is doing it.
And yes, it’s a valid point that civil disobedience can take place within the law, but when I’ve specifically mentioned Thoreau, MLK, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as examples of civil disobedience that explicitly violates the law, I’d hope you could get over it.
Suggestion, shut the fuck up, get a nights sleep, and try again in the morning wherever the fuck you are. By the way, you are showing you are a 20 watt bulb in amongst bulbs of much higher wattage. Think about that before you post again, and start from A to B, then try to get to C.
Throwaway @ 174:
Yeah.
“If I had come in and agreed with everything you all said and didn’t derail the thread about serious issues that have affected members of this very board then you wouldn’t be treating me this way!” is another annoying hypothetical whinge that I hate. Partly because it eliminates reasoning ability of the other party. Partly because it’s omniscience. Partly because it’s projecting.
@ Pseudonym
Oh do fuck off. The Pharyngula commentariat is not a fucking monolith you self-important piece of shit.
And this shit:
Half of the shit you’re paraphrasing “Pharyngula” as saying wasn’t even in reference to what you’re quoting yourself saying there. And yet you can’t figure out why people are calling you intellectually dishonest. Jesus fucking Christ on a cracker.
Pseudonym #173:
What you’re doing is arguing over trivialities. Civil disobedience cannot be, by definition given it means disobedience to established law, protected under law. There is, though, a history of civil disobedience leading to reform of the law, and so being—loosely speaking—constitutionally ratified.
My advice: drop it. You don’t appear to disagree with any of the important points which have been made. This seems to be a lot of fuss and fury over nothing.
pseudonym
And even though we keep asking you to stop bashing your head on the wall, you just keep making like a woodpecker.. *shrug* If I say “yay pseudonym.” will you stop with your petty crusade against me? The evidence suggests that you will continue in woeful woodpecker mode no matter what anyone says, so why should we spend any more time trying to change your thinking?
Also because it’s an absolutely fucking vacuous observation. “If things had been different, things would be different! I’ll take my gold debate club star now, please and thanks!”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls@176:
So what part of this cascade of fail on your part did I misrepresent? You still haven’t provided any fucking citations to support any of your shit-slinging. I pointed out the exact fucking moment that you lied about what I said. There still isn’t one person here who has the courage to admit that your precious Tethys is full of shit. Bullshit is bullshit, no matter how nicely presented or familiarly sourced, and you know it.
Throwaway:
Oh yes, very much yes, and QFT. I just went and had a quiet rant with my partner, explaining recent events, and partner says: “PhilosopyOfRape? Corrective rape? And they [Reddit] don’t fucking care?! What the hell does this have to do with civil disobedience?”
I loves my partner very much.
Pseudonym, very easy to make your point. Say “this is what I think, and this (links to evidence) is the reason why.” Not rocket science, as they say. But it does mean you must realize you are starting from scratch, and you must stop trying to obtain revenge for [mis-]perceived mistreatment.
Also asked partner “Do you think the U.S. constitution protects civil disobedience?”
Answer: “Outside of the right to assembly”, no, but it does protect the concept of civil disobedience, it’s half our history, FFS.” So yeah, very much a ‘merican thing.
Also, Ferguson. A fucktonne of civil disobedience going on.
Tethys@181:
You accused me of intellectual dishonesty after I quoted the comment you explicitly referenced. Apologize for that, sincerely. Admit that when you used phrases like “hate speech” and “inciting of crimes” that you didn’t know what the fuck you were talking about. Admit that your idea that the U.S. Constitution legally protects illegal behavior is stupid, and using the Boston Tea Party as an example of that makes you an utter moron. Then go fuck yourself.
In which way is PhilosophyOfRape similar to MLK?
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy@179:
Yes, it’s a silly paraphrase, I admit that. It’s not like any of those comments are hard to find here. So admit that you agree with Tethys’s logic and you don’t care about trivialities like the advancement of time.
Pseudonym, get off the law and civil disobendience. You are the only one arguing it at the moment.
Pseudonym:
Get over what? Provide a simple, clear, one line answer. You are the one maundering on and on about civil disobedience breaking one law or another. Yeah, it often does. Plenty of people have said as much. So fucking what?
More to the point, what in the fuckety fuck does any of this have to do with Reddit knowingly providing a platform to rapists, racists, and other scum? What in the fuckety fuck does it have to do with Reddit hiding behind free speech as their answer? What in the fuckety fuck does this have to do with perpetuating rape culture and causing actual harm to actual people?
Iyeska, flos mali@187:
Great. Now, for the fuckteenth time, tell me which article and/or amendment to the U.S. constitution protects that civil disobedience from any legal consequences, and how that applies to the Boston Tea Party.
Vaiyt:
We had better not hear this. Just sayin’.
Pseudonym, keep in mind we don’t respond well to appeals to authority, unless the authority is real science. Why? It is about the only arguments theists/creobots/IDiots have. And you have no authority.
Pseudonym:
Ugh. Your question is both stupid and fucking irrelevant. I’m not going to indulge you. You can talk about PhilosophyOfRape and Reddit or not, that is what I’m going to talk about. Jesus Fuckin’ Christ, it’s no wonder people were so pissed off at you.
And I really, really wish we had our killfile again.
I think there is also confusion regarding the difference between how the law is applied in criminal cases, and how the law is applied in civil cases. The US Constitution goes to great pains to spell out that the basic rights of life, liberty, happiness, freedom from discrimination, freedom of speech etc., are inalienable and intrinsic human rights that cannot be granted or taken away by a piece of paper. It’s called cilvil disobedience, not civil crime, to protest unjust laws or failure of the state to protect these inalienable human rights. While the right is not writ large as in free speech, it is writ tiny in the phrases that forbid the state from passing any law to make civil disobedience a criminal offense, or prevent people from engaging in civil protests.
vaiyt@189:
It isn’t at all. I will freely admit that, and I understand why even pursuing this line of argument would be considered derailing the original thread. My point is that civil disobedience, as generally defined, encompasses illegal behavior, and the definition provided by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as well as the writings and practices of Thoreau and MLK endorse that. Tethys, by contrast, thinks there are constitutional and legal protections for civil disobedience broadly defined, i.e. encompassing illegal activities. I try to refute that notion and everyone here jumps on me as if any of the bullshit they mention has any bearing on the truth of Tethys’s proposition. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. But nobody here seems to care about whether facts or propositions are actually true, just whether or not they’re derailing the preferred narrative.
youtube.com/watch?v=2pi5jdkO94A
Yep, Skokie, a heavily Jewish Chicago suburb, had to give the KKK a parade permit. At the end of the day, the police had to protect the paraders….
Tethys@198:
That’s the fucking Declaration of Independence. The U.S. Constitution does not contain the word “happiness” anywhere in its text. But nobody here will dare to agree with me on the simplest basic logical propositions like that. Congratulations, folks, your precious reasoning doesn’t even stand up to a web browser’s find command.
@ Pseudonym
If you must keep harping on this could you at least do us the courtesy of not making shit up about what “everyone” or “nobody” here does or thinks or cares about?
Pseudonym #193
The first, you pathetic nitwit. Specifically, the part that goes “… the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. For fuck’s sake.
Having said that, I feel I should add that I do not, in fact, care at all what the U.S. Constitution says about the matter; if it didn’t protect such actions as the residents of Ferguson are engaging in, I would be arguing it needed changing, as I do about many elements of it. Frankly, it’s dated, clunky, and badly in need of serious overhaul.
Daz Thanks for the link. A lovely and apropos score to the current discussion.
@ Pseudonym
Jesus fucking Christ, it wasn’t a direct quote, you fucking dishonest fuckwaffle. Your entire fucking argument at this point rests on deliberate misrepresentation of every fucking word being said to you. You have completely lost plot at this point. Go take a fucking nap.
Daz:
Song.
Thank you, that was very nice.
Dalillama:
Apparently, that doesn’t constitute protection.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Oh, the NeoNitpickian ways of the StrawVulcan, they are fuckwitted to behold.
Tethys #205:
It’s either my curse or my blessing, but nearly anything can remind me of a song. Glad you liked.
The NFL is sorry that a Muslim player received a penalty for his end zone prayer
This is a brand-new species of troll!‽!!
Chigau:
I don’t think so. I do think Pseudonym can count themselves lucky that it’s the weekend, though.
Dalillama, Schmott Guy@204:
I see a difference between (a) protest movements against unjust laws that are legally and constitutionally protected, (b) actions that are constitutionally protected but outlawed by unconstitutional laws, and (c) actions against unjust laws that are both illegal and unconstitutional but still morally justified. Look at what Thoreau did that led him to write the essay that coined the phrase civil disobedience. He refused to pay a tax because the federal government supported slavery and was prosecuting the Mexican-American war. There’s no legal or constitutional justification or excuse for refusing to pay that tax. It’s not part of the First Amendment’s protection of the right to peaceable assemble. The government actions that Thoreau was protesting were also clearly constitutional and legal at the time, however repugnant they might be to notions of human rights.
Where in the constitution is there any sort of legal protection for that sort of action? And how does it legalize the Boston Tea Party?
The problem here, again and again, is that however much I agree with sentiments like the idea that the residents of Ferguson should enjoy constitutional protections for their actions, it’s still irrelevant to the factual accuracy of the proposition that the U.S. Constitution protected the legality of the Boston Tea Party. I prefer factual accuracy, but opinions vary.
Seven of mine
Oh, but lets pretend that those two documents have nothing to do with each other, just as the Boston Tea party and American Revolution are not evidence that the right to civil disobedience is a founding principal of the US.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy@206:
Your argument is that when Tethys mentioned “the basic rights to life, liberty, happiness” as being something the “US Constitution goes to great pains to spell out”, they meant “great pains” and “spell” only metaphorically rather than literally, and didn’t mistakenly reference the three basic rights that the Declaration of Independence literally went to great pains to literally spell out? And you’re lecturing me about Bayesian priors?
Tony @ 210:
I suppose that’s nice, but it would have been much better if it hadn’t happened in the first place.
Can Pseudonym do ANYTHING but hairsplit about tangential issues in order to distract from the big picture? Is that the only trick left in their bag?
Pop quiz: what document goes to great pains to spell out the basic rights to life, liberty, and happiness?
Who the fuck are you, who can’t even say “this is what I believe, and this [link] is the evidence to back up my claims”. Until you stop with your present idiocy, you can’t move forward, and if you don’t move forward, we will point and laugh at your incompetence….
Pseudonym
OMGWFTBBQ YOU MISQUOTED!!!! THEY SAID “OF” NOT “TO”!!! THEREFORE, WHARGGLGARBLGARBL.
Did I out-Spock you yet?
anteprepro@217:
Sure, it’s hairsplitting. It’s because nobody is making any effort to sincerely engage with anything I’m saying, and various parties are continuing to make flatly illogical shit up to the point of utter ridiculousness.
anteprepro@220:
That is what intellectual dishonesty looks like. You won’t admit that Tethys’s quote about the Constitution is a flat-out falsehood because I mistyped a word that has no semantic significance.
Anteprepro:
Going by the evidence, no. Back to the wonders of Reddit, the Men’s Rights sub-reddit is having a discussion on pussy economics, y’know, pussy supply, peak pussy, a pussy bubble, all that. I’m sure it’s crucial to men’s rights somehow.
Seriously, Pseudonym, if you aren’t actually intentionally trolling, you might want to try canning it. You are obviously not aware of you are coming off to others. And to us, you look like a handwringing, pedantic wanker who may or may not be doing so in order to deviate conversations that you are not comfortable with. Contrary to what chigau may have implied, this is FAR from a new type of trolling. So if trolling isn’t your goal, I suggest taking a step back. Breathe, and take in the bigger picture. Every time I give this kind of suggestion to people who seem like they might be reasonable but are merely coming off as a troll because they started seeing red and now are in blinded frenzy mode. They are on tilt. And despite my friendly word of caution, they continue to plow forward and they become a laughing stock or go beyond the pale and get banned. So I can only hope that you perform the rare feat of gaining some perspective and clarity before continuing tilting at windmills while we are trying to tackle giants.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
@ Pseudonym
My argument is that, while the Declaration of independence actually used the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” part of the job of the Constitution is to spell out what that means in more practical terms beyond a simple declaration that everyone has those rights. My argument is that Tethys wasn’t claiming to be quoting directly from the Constitution. My argument is that it’s possible to say X document is about ABC even though X document doesn’t necessarily contain the phrase “ABC” in so many words. Jesus fuck, you’re pathetic.
Iyeska: By. Fucking. God.
They don’t have an ounce of shame, do they? It goes well with their lack of empathy.
What you’re doing here, Pseudonym, is exactly like fuckwitted right wingers who point to the fact that the words “separation of church and state” don’t appear in the Constitution to argue that there is no such concept.
Pseudobrain, you are just poking a hornet’s nest with a sharp stick. Are you that bored? You are definitely not interesting.
Heaven forfend that anyone should ever speak loosely. That would be, like, normal speech or something, and where would we be if everyone spoke normally? Anarchy! Fucking anarchy I tell you!
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy@226:
If it weren’t for all that business about how the Constitution goes to “great pains” to “spell out” those supposed rights, I might believe you. But take your argument up with Nerd of Redhead.
But yeah, this isn’t important stuff at all. Nope, much better to moan and whine at length over someone saying something I don’t agree with *nodnod* Pseudonym, fuck off, old chap. Go have some tea and biscuits with civilised people, who will understand your intense need to nitpick split hairs over talking about women being harmed, because I’m sure they’ll agree with you that bitches ain’t shit.
Liar! This sentence actually shows that you like to take your hurt fee fees and go on petty crusades , rather than give one seconds thought to any of the ideas that the horde keeps lobbing softly over the plate for you. Poor, poor you is a very boring refrain. If your logic is so feeble that you cannot connect the dots between tea dumpers ,inalienable rights, civil disobedience, and constitution authors, pharyngula is not the place for you.
Pseudonym:
I take it you didn’t get that I was just making fun of you, huh? Yes, the word does have no semantic significance and is a non-issue. Fancy that. Imagine the parallels!
Anteprepro:
No, they don’t. It’s always so wonderful to read about women being reduced to walking vaginas.
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism@230:
Look at that link I just posted. Nerd of Redhead posted almost exactly the same sentiment in a different thread, and not one person bothered to raise an objection. So none of you actually give a shit about whether any particular argument I make is reasonable or not. You just want to prove me wrong.
Iyeska: It’s always wonderful to see the absolute fucking the “Men’s Rights” crew go to and then have disciples turn around and say it is just nice lil’ inoffensive Feminism For Men. Fuck them all.
Pseudonym @236:
Not I.
At this point all I want is for you to just SHUT. UP.
@ Pseudonym
Check pretty much any online dictionary and you’ll find that “spell out” has a figurative meaning something like “describe in great detail so that its meaning is clear.” The Declaration of Independence used those exact words. The Constitution spelled out what they mean in greater detail.
So that’s about it, then.
Pseudonym
Honestly, it looks to me like that’s a bit of projection on your part.
Also: Some real SERIOUS BUSINESS is afoot.
Also also: Can you just shut the fuck up already? For your own sake? Really, I’m getting fucking embarrassed for you.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy@239:
Take it up with Nerd of Redhead. All I did was echo pretty much the same thought. Get Nerd of Redhead to apologize for doing the same fucking thing that I get excoriated over.
Tony:
Rats Below, me too.
Pseudonym
Says the guy who thinks that pointing out that the word “happiness” doesn’t appear in the Constitution even though nobody has claimed it does somehow refutes….something.
Pseudonym:
Gonna keep hiding behind a comment made 5 months ago? And keep whining about people not caring for your pedantry? Excoriated? “Lynch mob” or “crucified” wasn’t sufficient for your purposes, I suppose?
Step away from the keyboard. You are visibly too fragile to continue along your current trajectory.
Pseudonym:
Nothing could interest me less. What I would like is for you to yank the hair inscribed Tethys out of your arse, and for you to get the fuck over yourself. We were trying to discuss Reddit providing a platform for people who think rape is a good thing. And what does Pseudonym do? Yak endlessly on about a paraphrase, as if it fucking mattered. You’re an offensive git, thinking that shit is more important than women being raped.
Pseudonym
Are you seriously going to argue that because Nerd picked a similar nit fucking 5 months ago in a completely different thread on an unrelated topic that somehow makes you not full of shit now? Have I mentioned how pathetic you are in the last few minutes? Christ…
anteprepro@245:
Do you have any intellectual standards? I’m not hiding behind that comment, I’m flaunting it, because I think it’s hilarious. It lays bare the fact that you’re not actually responding to any of the arguments I make but only to the perceived threat to your ego. Why is that argument sound when some well-known commenter like Nerd of Redhead makes it, but not when it’s brought up by some unknown? Well, because your hurt personal fee-fees matter way more than the actual arguments.
Pseudonym #236:
I don’t want to prove you wrong, right, left, right, long, tall or even Sally. I think you’re making a helluva lot of fuss over trivialities.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy@247:
Yes, I’m going to argue that the soundness of a logical argument does not depend on what month or thread topic it is invoked in.
YOU apologize for YOUR behavior. Leave other folks out of YOUR problems.
Pseudonym:
All you have to do is admit that Nerd of Redhead was also once full of shit on that occasion. It wouldn’t make you right, but at least you’d be consistent. But no, that’s just a bridge too far.
Pseudonym:
In a comment submitted two days later, PhilosophyOfRape went on to explain that “harlots” were in need of “corrective discipline.”
“Simple, swift, brutal, rape. Impassioned and indiacriminate [SIC]. A whole team of holy soldiers, cutting these abominations down to a place where their feeble heads can even see Their selves for the meek and lowly creatures they are, and will greatfully [SIC] bow, averting their eyes in humility and spending their dazed working quietly, tending the home and reflecting on HOW they had once thought it fit to behave.”
The user details a rape fantasy in which the woman enjoys being sexually assaulted.
“I was wet the whole time. Incredibly,” the group moderator wrote in the voice of the victim. “I was terrified true, and I did scream and plead and squirm and hit, but my little fists couldn’t even compete against the oppressive weight of his body. And what’s worse is that not only did I stop fighting, but as I came closer and closer to cumming I caught myself PUSHING BACK against him, unconcoously [SIC] I began HELPING his thrusts.”
Iyeska, flos mali@252:
You certainly refuted my argument about the text of the Constitution with your quote about the awfulness of Reddit. Guess what? I agree that it’s awful. If you read my response to Marion Pierce you might understand why.
Pseudonym:
Pseudonym:
Well it looks like Pseudonym is going to harp on this pet peeve/triviality for a while, so can someone send up a flare when it’s all done? I’ll skip the Dome for a while bc this is well beyond an annoyance.
@ Pseudonym
Well, that’s good because it certainly looked like you were about to argue that, because Nerd said something stupid 5 months ago, the rest of us aren’t allowed to say it’s stupid now that you’re doing it.
Well, if people are tired of pseudonym, ansatz is back in the gamergate thread.
Pseudonym:
Blatant projection. Seriously. Have you even read anything I have written? Lose the Spock act. It is blatantly obvious that you are in a blind, frantic, defensive state and you will say or do anything that you think looks like you are making your “case”. We don’t give a shit. I don’t know how many times it needs to be spelled out. YOU are the one who is digging in. Not us. YOU are the one who keeps fighting on this subject that no one gives two shits about. That is, in fact, our criticism. YOU are the one who wants the die on the hill of “That’s the Declaration, not the Constitution, HUR HUR HUR”. We don’t give two shits about that hill. We want to get back to talking about shit that MATTERS. And you continuing to fling shit and whine and cry and shriek out “pay attention to ME”? THAT is what you are being criticized for. Not for being inferior in the game of Logic Fu.
And now I wait for you to inevitably “reply” to this with a statement that illustrates, once again, that you aren’t understanding a fucking word that I am saying to you.
Tony:
Aye, I’m out for the night too. I’ll check in tomorrow, and hopefully, will be able to send up a flare.
Next week at this theatre: “How many, to five decimal places, is meant by ‘many’?”
Iyéska #260
Maybe we could introduce ’em to each other.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy@259:
Pseudonym
a) I’m not a trained parrot.
b) Just as soon as you demonstrate that I even saw the comment five months ago, shitwit.
Because nobody has to explain anything to an abject idjit like yourself, and YOU must apologize for YOUR behavior, without reference to anybody else. Until you show personable responsibility, you have no credibility. Just another WAHHHHHHH snob who didn’t show the intelligence and maturity they think they have.
And Pseudonym, I’ve found that sometimes shutting the fuck up and going away for a couple of days helps. You should try that.
Pseudonym
Wow, so you actually read my post correctly for once. Small miracles.
Now you are pretending to be the arbiter of Factual Accuracy and Objective Truth and Logic, because you just want to argue about the wording of a sentence JUST that hard. Fucking pathetic. And you want to claim that we have “unwarranted feelings of self-righteousness” in the same breath? We are self-righteous, you say, right after ranting at the top of your lungs about how we are all disingenuous villains and you are the Champion of Truth?
You are a fucking joke.
Pseudonym
You do realize that the U.S. Constitution was not in force, and indeed did not exist, at the time of the Boston Tea Party, right? Since you want to play nitpicker.
Nerd of Redhead, when it comes to the original post, I looked up Reddit’s “freeze peach” glibertarian defense of their behavior, posted a link to it, and explicitly critiqued it. anteprepro subsequently quoted from that page after I posted the URL, although I don’t know if they found it via my link, and you and PZ posted quick one-sentence reactions. So when it comes to “engaging the enemy” I’ve written more words than anyone else here.
Dalillama, Schmott Guy@270:
This is what I mean, it’s like Alice in Wonderland here. I get criticized all over the place for harping on the fact that 1773 < 1789 and hence Tethys's argument makes no sense, and then Dalillama comes along and posts the exact same thought like it's some brilliant revelation.
I expect within 24 hours Pseudonym will have fully written their non-fiction novella “Why I Am Right, You Are Wrong, And Why You Should Stop Being So Mean To Me, You Dummies”. Bound to a best seller for mental masturbators everywhere.
Therefore, all the bloviation you’ve done so far is irrelevant to the actual subject at hand.
I rest my case.
I don’t even think I’m necessarily right here. It’s just clear that you’re wrong. Do you think Dalillama was correct in their criticism? Is it asinine to suggest that the U.S. Constitution was in force during the Boston Tea Party? Is Dalillama the idiot here, or is Tethys? Is Tethys right about the Constitution going to great pains to spell out the basic rights of/to life, liberty, and happiness, or is Nerd of Redhead right that that was in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution? These are simple factual questions that would be considered too easy for a third grade social studies test, but you still won’t give me a straight answer and admit that one of your allies is flat-out wrong.
Pseudonym: Shut up.
Honestly, Pseudonym, I am not inclined to do you any favors. You have passed the threshold of plausible deniability. You were given so many explanations and so many escape hatches. You can’t be regarded as anything but a troll at this point.
Also: the debate you have manufactured isn’t about history. It’s about English. It is all about the way you are reading and interpreting what other people are saying. And I would say you are doing a shit job of it.
Pseudonym @ 272
Holy shit. I go to sleep for 8 hours and you’re still going? I take back my comment in the other thread, I no longer think you’re posting in good faith you’re just being a pedantic wanker. In the interests of ending this, you’re right about every everything. You’re so very right. You’re the rightest person ever. I’ve never encountered anyone as right as you. We all bask in your mighty rightness. There, does that get you off shithead?
Dalillama
Yes, ze understands that bit. Ze seems to think that pointing out that fact somehow negates my actual point about the Boston Tea party and civil disobedience. which was that it is a founding principal of the US. It was a mocking answer to a stupid question, and pseudonym cannot abide being mocked so ze begins another cycle of whining and nit-picking.
It’s not just that you’re wrong, Seven of Mine. That’s not why you want to shut me up. It’s that you don’t care. You don’t think it matters. You have important battles to fight here for great justice. You don’t really care about what the opponents in those battles are saying, or forming a coherent argument in response. Sure, anteprepro, post extended quotes of the Reddit blog entry that I had just linked to without giving me any credit or mention, like you just happened to stumble on it, because it’s more than clear that you don’t give a shit what I have to say even when it is directly relevant to the situation. No worries, I’ll just wait for Nerd of Redhead or Crip Dyke or Dalillama to come along and make the exact same argument that I’ve been making, and laugh as you sputter and dissemble and change the subject.
Pseudonym:
Oh my fucking Christ, cry more. I’m sorry forgot to mention that you provided the link. My sincerest apologies. Happy, you passive aggressive little shitweasel?
Tethys@124:
Tethys@123:
Tethys@279:
Time for your next attempt at retconning.
This is just fucking baffling. I don’t remember ever seeing someone so petty, obsessive, and self-absorbed. And that’s including all the trolls of yesteryear. It’s fucking amazing.
I mean, sorry for my poor reading skills, but I must have missed the part of the Constitution next to “life, liberty, and happiness” that made it “very clear that civil disobedience is a right that shall not be infringed”.
Actually reminds me of African Genesis, an egotistical amoral over-opinionated evidenceless liberturd (sorry about repeating myself).
One more thing…
Pseudonym:
Do not bring arguments from elsewhere into the comment threads. Do not talk about another commenter in the third person; do not call out commenters from other threads.
From da rules.
anteprepro@283:
I don’t remember ever arguing with a group of people who see no problem in referring to the Boston Tea Party as a Supreme Court case. Okay, that’s not technically true, I did venture onto WorldNetDaily once. I just expected a little better here.
Nerd: Shit, I forgot about Africangenesis. Creationist troll right? I’m not even sure if I was commenter back then, but I do remember reading some of those exchanges!
Yo, dipshit! (pseudonym):
II. You may be banned from a comment thread if:
1. You cannot control your posting habits, and are dominating the discussion.
2. Your comments are repetitive, especially if you repeat arguments that have already been addressed.
3. You demonstrate that you are unwilling to have read previous comments or the opening post.
Get. A. Bloody. Clue.
Do you just want a cookie? Is that what you want? You are fucking desperate for attention. Even if it wasn’t continuing a fucking non-argument for ridiculous lengths of time, you were making a loud display of “Look at me, and mah scripting!” earlier. Do you want a pat on the head and reassurance that you are a good little pseudonym?
Who’s a good Pseudonym? Who’s a good Pseudonym? You are. You are. Booogaboogaboo.
Iyeska, flos mali@286:
The part of those rules you neglected to mention. Intellectual honesty indeed.
Do you think it’s off-limits to refer to a nearly identical replica of an argument I made when defending myself?
By the way:
Nerd:
Oh man, I remember that one. What a piece of work.
Seeing pseudonym parrot on and on and on and on, ever so grievously wounded, and of course, their VulcanNitting is ever so much more important than all those silly bitches being concerned with actual harm is a lot like AG in many ways.
Pseudonym:
Oh, fuck off. PZ takes those recommended attitudes seriously. Why people have been banned for being willfully obtuse assholes, and not paying attention to those rules. You must have missed the ‘you may be banned from a thread’ part. Then there’s the really serious crime, which isn’t written up: being boring. And you are past boring, Cupcake.
Okay, if continuing to post is really against the rules, I’ll stop. Sorry for the distraction, all.
I just couldn’t leave well enough alone.
Pseudonym @280:
Now you’re going from people are wrong about Fact X to people don’t care what their opponents say in arguments completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. WTF?
Haven’t you yet realized that many of us are just sick and fucking tired of your goddamn whining?
I’m with bargearse: You’re right. You’re the rightest fucking fucker in the fucking history of the world. Happy now? Or are you going to continue? I suspect the latter as it appears you love to hear yourself talk (do I need to explain that this is a metaphor?)
Pseudonym’s Grand Finale:
*rage twitch*
Really? Really? THAT’s what makes you give up your egotistic crusade for TROOF? Yeah, I’m so sure that you are sorry. So sure.
Fuck off.
Oooh, I can do pedantry too!
Pseudonym @291:
Glances up at comment #253, 275, 280
(Yes, I’m being nitpicky, a concept which should be familiar to you. I think it is best to include nym and comment number, but at the very least the nym when you’re addressing someone specific. That you’ve done both most of the time doesn’t mean you always have, so it’s ironic that you’re pointing it out to someone else in an apparent attempt to once again be the one who is right.)
Tony
You mean that there really aren’t a bunch of comments that say “Yay, Tethys!” like Ze was complaining about? Gosh Tony, next you’ll be claiming things like context matters and civility is overrated. ;)
Holy shit, how pathetic, Pseudonym. You couldn’t even keep track of the original derail. The original derail was an argument not about whether civil disobedience is constitutionally protected under the first amendment (duh, it’s breaking the law), but whether discussing tactics for engaging in civil disobedience would be protected under the first amendment.
The only reason you brought that up was because you thought that making incitement to rape illegal even if specific people are not being named as rape victims would lead to a slippery slope where the government would be able to crack down on speech about civil disobedience, since it can be seen as incitement to a crime.
Which means that your first specific reference to this conversation, here, where you said
was based on a misleading, implied premise, namely, that anyone was arguing that civil disobedience itself was constitutionally protected free speech activity.
Your posture of superiority vis-a-vis thinky stuff is not warranted.
Pseudonym:
Thank the cold, uncaring universe.
It was not a distraction. It was a derail. You should read Derailing for Dummies, you are in many sections of that helpful document.
SallyStrange @ 299:
Thanks for that, I wasn’t in the discussion at that point. At any rate, pseudonym, this is not an invitation to start up all over again.
Tethys:
All hail Tethys!
SallyStrange:
As far as I could tell, they couldn’t even be trusted to interpret individual comments properly. Keeping an eye on the rails is far above their capacity. Figurative myopia worse than my literal myopia. And that’s saying something.
Also, as Iyeska pointed out earlier, ansatz is back shitting all over this thread:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/10/03/a-gamergate-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-861719
All Gamergate apologetics, all the time.
Sophisticated Gamergatology.
#NotAllGaters
Pseudonym @139
No. Just no. Turning a conversation about rape into a conversation about legalities isn’t just a prime example of what rape apologists do. Coming from anyone, it shows an astounding lack of empathy. It overlooks rape victims, sets them aside for some hypothetical discussion. This is not the subject for interesting discussions of legal niceties.
This is about a confessed/claimed rapist demonstrating to other men how to rape women and get away with it.
It’s about the moral bankruptcy of a site that allows that to happen.
Who gives a flying fuck whether it’s strictly legal under one country’s laws?
Would you shrug and tell a woman raped as a result of this that there was nothing to be done, this creature had the right to say what he did, and reddit had the right to post it? No, I don’t believe for a moment you would, but that’s the impression that comes from a tiny bit of this is abhorrent compared with comment after comment after comment of legal, legal, constitution, freezepeach, civil disobedience, blah, blah, blah.
You’ve written a fuckton more comments here about the US Constitution. BIG FUCKING DEAL. As has been said, not everyone here is American. More to the point, this is about incitement to rape. Believe it or not, that has a hell of a lot more impact on a hell of a lot more people than one country’s constitution does. You’re totally trivialising the whole matter.
Or in other words, Pseudonym, read Iyeska’s repeated quotes from that rapist to get it into your fucking head what this is about.
(Sorry, Iyeska, hadn’t caught up with all the thread when I posted – my bad.)
Wow. Glad I was away today since it was just filled with Pseudonym jerking off into his own mouth the entire time.
Thanks Sally Strange for your concise and logical assessment of the derail. I replied to that back at #123 with
which quite obviously forever proves that I am a big stupid, meanie-pants who doesn’t know anything.
2kittehs:
No worries. It makes me furious when someone acts like JAQing off and nitpicking in front of everyone, the everyone including many survivors, is not only okay, but it’s more important. I can’t count the amount of times we have seen this tactic of “Oh, well. Rape. Let us now split hairs over something else.”
It’s just like every discussion we have ever had about FGM turning into a fest. So whatever works to drive it home, that derailing a thread about rape and those who enable is seriously fucked up is fine.
Tethys:
Remember the time I had Meanypants OM appended to my nym? You could be Meanypants Extraordinaire. :D
Okay, so I haven’t been here that much over the last few days. For various reasons.
But I’m kind of disappointed that pseudonymous used an interaction where I expressed disagreement with a statement to say that I was raising the same concerns as pseudonymous.
Here is the comment:
Unfortunately, I didn’t make it explicit enough. I was disagreeing with you, pseudonymous, in your assessment that, “outlawing hate speech would in practice make it more difficult legally to make harsh criticisms.”
It doesn’t work that way in Canada, and needn’t work that way elsewhere. That few countries choose the same balance point as Canada doesn’t mean that it is difficult in practice to do. There is no real collateral damage, that I can tell, from Canadian hate speech provisions. Glenn Greenwald, Dawkins, lots of outspoken people with harsh critiques have even gotten visas to come speak here.
I disagree with your premise.
I disagree with the idea that the ability to make harsh criticisms of religion are so likely to be impinged by laws against incitement to hatred that we should consider them seriously in discussions of outlawing such incitement.
I also disagree that I “raised” similar concerns to yours. I did not. I might have mentioned in passing concerns similar to yours, or I might reasonably have been misread to have done so. But to the extent that I wrote about them, I didn’t raise them. I was responding with an insufficiently precise criticism to a point of view I consider reasonable but erroneous. I conceded that I once endorsed that point of view, but made it clear that I do so no longer. I don’t mind that you have that point of view (that we should be mistrustful, or at least skeptical, of a government attempt to impose criminalization of hate speech – whatever that may mean in a local jurisdiction). But I wanted to add my 2 cents.
It seems from my less-than-thorough reading that others objected to writing of yours that was apparently no less careless than my own. Further, they objected to venue. When you used me to try to accuse others of hypocrisy – or at least differential sensitivity, and potentially sensitivity based on style rather than substance, which is something we try to avoid around here – perhaps you could consider that they didn’t read me as agreeing with you. Instead it’s possible that they read me as I intended to be read, that criminalizing hate speech was reasonably possible and didn’t (inherently – local circumstances are still local circumstances) require running risks of cracking down on criticism of religion. As a law/legal studies nerd with a background in looking at the US and the Canadian constitutions, quite a number of people here are familiar with me geeking out on topics like this. Instead of taking offense that our (in your reading) identical statements were given different value and different reaction, consider that our statements weren’t identical and weren’t read identically by others, and that this, rather than hypocrisy or erroneous sensitivity is responsible for the differing reactions.
Finally, I reiterate my objection to your simplistic statement that people should know what “hate speech” means – that there is one authoritative definition that someone could look up – in an international forum such as Pharyngula.
As a coda, there are a number of things that you have expressed that I find reasonable. But mostly I simply haven’t read the numerous exchanges you’ve had with others. I’m not here condemning everything you’ve written. I’m here stating that I wrote insufficiently clearly, and that as a result you misread me, and that because of that you misused my comment and my example.
Iyeska, too true. I’ve seen it so often here, and you’ll have read 18367905498796879 more Pharyngula posts than I have. It’s the same with some of the trolls on WHTM, though we get fewer of them now (damn I like being a mod, heheheheh). The privilege – whether male privilege or someone-who-has-no-empathy privilege, or both – just drips off comments like those. Whether about FGM or rape or anything else that disproportionately, or solely, affects women, it screams “Don’t expect me to pay attention to your concerns for five minutes, because they are so boring and trivial. I’ll pat you on the head and say ‘yes, rape/fgm is bad’ if you’re very nice to me. Then we’ll talk about man stuff that’s actually important.”
Iyeska
If it takes meaniepants to make people see that the endless whinging about civil rights are fucking beside the point when the issue under discussion is criminal, my conscience demands that I continue in my meaniepants ways. There are some very thought provoking comments in the civil disobedience discussion, so at least some of the whinging isn’t a complete waste of pixels.
I want The Meaniepants of Conscience to be a thing now.
So… the most upstanding among the Horde, the one that reminds us of our best selves and encourages living up to the ethical duties we embrace when our behaviors fall short, is that person now going to become known as the Conscience of the Meaniepants?
Or, well, if one person is a meaniepants [because pairs of pants, right?], I guess that would be the Conscience of the Meaniepantses.
Wasn’t that one of the dances in the Sweets divertissement?
yeah, I’m pretty sure that was it.
::nods:: Definitely.
2kittehs:
Conscientious Meanypants!
I laundered the hotpad cover.
The only person to use it of late was the kitteh.
*sigh*
so it goes
So sorry for the loss of your kitteh. chigau They really are the bestest things, and the sense of loss that is grief is one of the worst. hugs/rum/cookies
2kittehs:
They work especially well with the Hobnailed Boots of Justice. The proper attire when one dances the La Conscience des meaniepantses is so important to the fashionable SJW.
Tethys, now I have the mental image of Nanny Ogg dancing La Conscience des meaniepantses. And she would, too.
And on that note, I’m off to bed.
@Tethys, #320:
Fixed that for you…and for us Fashionista Feminists.
Crip Dyke
I was picturing something with a cuban style heel. Perfect for showing off your fancy footwork AND grinding enemies to dust.
Iyeska
Ooh yes!
chigau, hugs.
Anne
Tethys, now I have the mental image of Nanny Ogg dancing La Conscience des meaniepantses. And she would, too.
Too right. Probably with Casanunda in tow.
I think there needs to be a whole fashion line of the Boots of Justice. Jackboots, hobnailed boots, spiky-heeled boots, flats for us orthotically challenged SJWs. These Boots Were Made For Walking On The Bunions Of Poor Suffering Dudebros.
Well, that was a different way of borking the html, I guess …
The Meaniepants of Conscience certainly sound more appealing than the gloomy and purposeless trousers of Uncle Vanya.
2kittehs @325, don’t forget the Birkenstocks of Justice, for us hopelessly frumpy old ladies in California. These feet were made for stompin’.
Daz @327,
Wouldn’t almost anything be?
Well that was fun. Great performance by Pseudonym with high tenacity, thread dominance and crowd participation. All in all, a respectful 5.1 out of 6.0 on the troll scale. It would have been higher, except the Russian judge had to deduct points for Pseudonym being called out too early. Now back to our regular program.
—
theophontes #89
That didn’t take long. :(
At least only the exterior was damaged.
rq #131
Civil disobedience is just a tool that doesn’t signify anything other than the willingness to use it. Remember the Ultra-Orthodox Jews who refused to sit next to women? They use civil disobedience all the time. They routinely block streets which they deem as theirs and refuse to let anyone pass, they prevent people (most notably women and non-Jews) from entering places that the law permits them to enter and they often confront the police. The sitting down during takeoff and then standing in the middle of the hallway? Classic civil disobedience tactics that they have perfected in other places.
So no, there is nothing intrinsically noble or moral in civil disobedience itself. You may agree to its implementation in one specific case, but it’s just a tool, and like all tools it can, was, is and will be used by immoral people to further their immoral ends.
Daz #149
In a court presided by Saudi Arabia, I presume?
At any rate, local legislature isn’t all bad. Take for example Britain:
Peter Nunn jailed for abusive tweets to MP Stella Creasy:
If the US had similar laws there wouldn’t have been a “GamerGate”.
bargearse #279 and Tony!
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS! (Youtube)
chigau #319
*hugs*
AlexanderZ #330:
I didn’t say it would be easy. Situations where both the harrasser/abuser and the victim are in the same country should be relatively straightforward, as you say. What happens if both are in different countries, and the server is possibly located in a third though; all countries involved having different legal definitions of harassment (or whatever)? Currently, it seems to be a mess of overlapping and sometimes contradictory legal systems. (Britain’s reputation for libel tourism springs to mind as an example of this scenario.)
And much as the “Saudi court” picture certainly is, erm, unappealing, neither am I particularly happy with the idea that internet justice should be hostage to the good will of any country, merely because messages happen to be routed through servers located there.
AlexanderZ
They’re perfectly allowed to use civil disobedience – in their minds, the system is broken. So… my point still stands.
(Just because they’re wrong doesn’t mean they can’t use the same tools at everyone’s disposal, and they think they’re right, so let them, and let them face the consequences (which, in my mind, should have been a lot harsher in the particular example you chose). Just remember to point out that they’re wrong and silly and dangerous.)
chimera:
Care to elaborate on what you mean by rhetorical and moral purity around here?
Also, I’d love for you to elaborate more on this:
Specifically your comment about Muslims.
When you’re done with that, how about explaining what you meant here
Or this:
Tony! @ 333, re: chimera’s comments
Quoted for sheer idiocy. “I see no harm in X and I do see harm in Y but they’re both related to Z, which is bad, so why aren’t you against both? Is it because you’re opposed to members of A group being treated unfairly? What a hypocrite!”
I just can’t even…
Seven of Mine @334:
Her comment about people at FtB believing Muslims are brown is something I’m really curious about. We’ve had more than a few commenters over the years that don’t understand that there’s a huge racial component to Islamophobia in the West. Part of me suspect chimera is in that group.
@seven of mine, #334:
I already pointed out that according to chimera’s logic, chimera is either for harm or against it.
ugh.
PZ is against harm. He has repeatedly said he wants public policy based on fact not faith. He has also repeatedly endorsed freedom of religion – “an it harm none, faith as you will.”
So he’s not inconsistent, nor am I. We oppose harm. Those portions of religion that do no harm and/or bring good to people’s lives are the portions I do not oppose. Celebrating after a touchdown with supernatural humility, while shunning the more typical human hubris, is a choice that harms none, and I could even imagine it bringing some good [though I have no evidence such good exists]. Moreover, an employer embracing some forms of religious expression but punishing employees who engage in other forms of religious expression is one piece of a pattern of behaviors that has been conclusively linked to harm in the past. Therefore, we oppose the harm of Charedi publicly shunning and shaming women. We oppose the harm of the NFL creating or enforcing penalties disparately based on religion. We support the right of players who intercept passes and run them back for touchdowns to choose a muslim religious celebration over a christian religious celebration or just a moment of vainglory.
We oppose harm.
What the fuck do you oppose?
um…somewhere along the way I forgot I addressed that to 7 and wrote as if to chimera. Blargh, what a mess.
I’m agreeing with you, 7, sorry for any confusion.
@Tethys, #324:
Our only choice possible is
CD @ 337
I knew what you meant. No worries.
On the subject of assorted footwear Of Justice:
I have dibs on the Kelly Green Chuck Taylors Of Justice.
@ AlexanderZ
Yeah, there is an undercurrent in Cape Town that is flat out revolting. “Die drol in die drinkwater”, as we say in Afrikaans.
SallyStrange @300:
Sorry, I neglected to quote or reference the comment that I was replying to:
Tethys @124:
pseudonym
SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. YOU. NARCISSISTIC, ASININE. LYING. PIECE. OF. SHIT.
rq @332:
What do you mean when you say “allowed”? That it’s morally acceptable for them to use civil disobedience in support of an action that is morally wrong? Or am I misinterpreting that?
Is it just me, or are we getting extra-thick visitors recently?
Pseudonym!
No. Do not even think of clogging up this thread with more of your trolling, just because it’s a different day. Shut the fuck up, and even better, go away.
Goddamn!
Are you really going to start this shit up AGAIN, pseudonym?
Is it bc you have to get the last word in?
Do your fee fees get hurt if you don’t correct everyone when they say something you view as incorrect about you?
Is it that fucking difficult for you to just drop this, especially when the rest of us would dearly like you to?
Seven of Mine:
I haz the black and pink Chuck Taylors of Justice. And the aqua blue and yellow Chuck Taylors of Justice. And 5 more pairs of various Chuck Taylors of Justice. I love me Chucks.
@Pseudonym
no1curr
Iyeska:
I very much want to get assorted colors of Chucks so I can mix and match them. Can’t justify the expense though, more’s the pity.
They also fit me weird since they only come in whole sizes and my right foot is slightly smaller than my left. My right shoe always ends up too big but if I went down a whole size, my left shoe would be too small. :(
Just got done rescuing what we could from the garden, rosemary, thyme, oregano, sage, lavender, lemon balm, daisies. The monstrous big beautiful pepper plant didn’t make it.
Seven of Mine:
Aye, that’s fun.
Daz #331
There are extradition agreements for that, and yes – it is a mess, particularly because this topic asks what is considered free speech, but at least it’s a workable mess. The UN in all of its years of existence has proved that it cannot even get people to agree not to commit genocide, let alone any other crime.
I don’t think that the country of the victim should matter (in the same sense that the Police shouldn’t wait for an official complaint – they can and should investigate crimes without one). You are left different legal systems, but as the UN example shows, that goes for all crimes. You can’t change the entire world – you’ll be lucky if you manage to change your municipality.
Regardless, prosecuting cases where both the harasser and the victim are in the same country should generally be enough. Harassers aren’t exactly bond villains with fake passports. Generally they are people that personally know the victim or have some cultural connection to her, so they tend to be in the same country. When harassment comes from different countries (like with celebrities or the whole “GamerGate”) they still come from a limited group of countries (you don’t see many Chinese calling Quinn a slut, despite them outnumbering English speaking gamers), which means that extradition should (hopefully!!) be enough.
Getting proper law in even a few countries – now there’s the real challenge.
rq #332
Eh. Pseudonym ruined it for me.
I think I agree with him on this matter – if they are arrested by the police than no, they don’t have that legal right. Whether they have a moral right is beside the point because they don’t care about your morality nor do you (I assume, correct me if I’m wrong) care much for theirs.
I don’t understand why you want to glorify civil disobedience. It’s just a tool in your arsenal that you use when the time is right. The people in Ferguson are right because their actions harm no-one and they’re fighting for a just cause. The Ultra-Orthodox are wrong because their civil disobedience is the exact opposite. That’s it. There is nothing more to it.
When it comes to willingly disobeying the law in order to change it, the only thing that matters is the morality of the issue and morality is subjective. There can be no common ground. I agree with some actions and ambitions just because I do, and nothing else matters.
AlexanderZ @ 353:
Please, drop the subject, as we really don’t want pseudonym back, droning on and on and on and on.
Pseudonym is kinda right and kinda wrong. As is rq.
Civil disobedience isn’t merely breaking the law. Merely breaking a law is insufficient to be civil disobedience.
Merely breaking a law you believe is unjust is insufficient to be civil disobedience.
Breaking a law you believe is unjust in a manner that forces the government to take action against you, then publicizing your choices, the nature of the law you broke, and the nature of the government’s action against you all in order to demonstrate to others the injustice you believe is being ignored and/or tolerated by wider society…THAT is civil disobedience.
Part of civil disobedience is the acceptance of the legal consequences.
If you’re willing to go to jail, you may, of course, rob a bank. It doesn’t mean you have a legal right to rob a bank, but it means you have the practical ability given the nature of constitutional strictures on government actions pre-crime. The government can’t lock you up because you **might** commit a crime.
Moreover, because you have the right to counsel, even after conviction in many cases, the government has no legal power to stop you from communicating a message about your opinion of the justice of the law you broke and the government’s response.
So do you have a legal right to break the law? Duh. Nope. Pseudonym has that right, but that’s not civil disobedience.
Do you have a right to highlight unjust government action? Yeah. Of course. rq has that right, but that’s not civil disobedience.
If the Charedi were going to jail for their aisle-praying, or being fined for their aisle-praying, then they would have the necessary first parts of what would eventually constitute civil disobedience. Even if the airline kicked them off they wouldn’t, as the airline isn’t the government.
So I don’t think rq is more right than pseudonym, but my sympathy is much more with rq here since pseudonym isn’t more right than rq, but is much more arrogantly certain in a wrong view.
@Iyeska, 354:
Given that, I apologize.
Consider my mark stricken from the record.
It would be so nice if people would stop dropping bait for pseudonym.
CD, we cross posted. Sorry!
Eh, my net connection is going serious wonky because it’s very windy out. I suppose I’ll go clean the cat box,seeing as I’m running out of excuses here…
Okay, cleaned stuff up. Somewhat. Mister is now turning our grape harvest into juice.
Iyeska #354
Consider it dropped.
(Not targeted at Crip Dyke #355. Just a random rant)
This is what’s wrong with the English language. I just hate that ambiguity. In case someone isn’t clear on the proper pronunciation, it’s supposed to be Ḥaredi like Juan (as opposed to Chernobyl).
What you people need is a Russian alphabet.
And some discipline.
AlexanderZ @ 360, are you aware of the fact that CD is Jewish, and not only knows the proper pronunciation of Charedi, as well as the spelling? Just because it doesn’t match up with your preferred spelling and pronunciation does not mean CD was wrong. Your nitpicking is displaced, and I see no reason for you to snipe about it in the first place.
Also, this:
merits a hearty fuck you.
Nid wyf yn credu eich bod yn deall ystyr y gair “cyfieithu.”
Daz:
I agree. And I love the Welsh language, I wish I wasn’t so awful at pronouncing all of it.
Daz @363, nice!
( Yes, I applied google translate.)
AlexanderZ @360:
(bolding mine)
You ought to look up the history of the phrase “you people” before using that again. It has a history of being used to remind people-especially black people-to “remember their place”.
See here for one.
Here’s another:
Tut!
You don’t “pronounce” Welsh. You gargle it.
Wait, English needs a Russian alphabet so that us people can properly pronounce Hebrew or Yiddish names? Even if we ignore the fact that Yiddish and English are both Germanic languages , that doesn’t make one bit of sense. Fuck your discipline and your lame insult.
We need a monitor to alert PZ to the racist, misogynistic, homophobic troll. Xe was banned but is now back.
The 26 letters of the “English” “alphabet” don’t work for “English”.
Why would anyone expect them to work for “other” languages?
Fuck, ludicrous won’t get off that hobby horse.
Daz:
Oh, so that’s my problem!
Tony!
You don’t need a Monitor to send an Alert.
Use the “Contact a Monitor” on the sidebar.
How do you say “tut” in Welsh?
Daz @327 wins the thread with a Pratchett quote!
Anne@328
And the Ziera boots with removable inner soles of Justice, for those of us with substandard feet. :)
chimera, quoted by Tony! @333
No, you’re not. Talk about oversimplifying things (and people). See also, Crip Dyke @336, putting it much more eloquently.
Thanks to SallyStrange for pointing this out: The Womansplainer.
It is awe. some.
@chimera
-______________-
I shudder to think what kind of regime you would inflict upon such football players (and who knows who else). It’s not a big deal. On the other hand, I very much hope you understand why people would rail against the ideological refusal to sit next to women.
But worse fail is your reach to convey simple tolerance of forehead touching as being racist in some way.
This is so ironic also, where you go:
But then go:
You are ridiculous.
not just ridiculous, but rhetorically and morally vacuous.
chigau (違う) #374:
Tudol or twt, apparently. The second being just about a homonym of “tut,” I’d guess the first is the “pure” Welsh and the second an English import.
Tony! @376
Damn, why didn’t I think of that? I coulda made a fortune!
Imagine what a great “work from home” job ad one could create for it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-06/ben-affleck-blasts-so-called-racist-comments-about-islam/5793664
Crip Dyke
Thanks for clarifying upthread.
Also, my apologies to the Thunderdome in general (if one is permitted to apologize), my responses to Pseudonym were begun without actually delving deeper into the context of why xe was coming to the ‘dome (well, Lounge first, then here) to engage. I have managed to get caught up on that thread, and with that context in mind, I’m sorry I ever continued that conversation with xir. It’s a reminder to myself not to get involved if I’m tired and/or not caught up with the appropriate comment thread. Sorry about that, better in the future, etc.
I’m putting this here, not on the “12 year old boys” GamerGate thread, because I don’t want to derail that thread, and know nothing about GamerGate. Ludicrous is quite right, even though derailing: comparing adults to children as an insult is wrong, PZ was propagating a harmful sterotype of 12-year-old boys, and there is nothing “immature” about bigotry, or for that matter making up absurd names for actions or campaigns. The right response to ludicrous was not “You’re wrong, shut up”, but “Take it to Thunderdome”.
I’m with Nick on that. Whenever some rando commenter comes in and goes “arglbargl 12 yr old boys” we slam them for othering.
@Iyeska
from post 6 of the Putting the argument in their own terms thread.
What I was trying to get at is that if someone’s honest answer to the question “do you think the nazi uniforms look bad ass” is “yes” that doesn’t make them a worse person than if their honest answer is “no”.
I didn’t say wearing a nazi uniform was just fashion, nothing more.
I read this article on Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and note that they have a very good response to the whole “clickbait” accusation, which really could be recycled by PZ, with a few minor modifications.
Concluding line: “It is possible to criticise games and gamers, while at the same time being a gamer, loving games, loving gamers. And that is precisely what we will continue to do.”
(italics theirs)
I’m also reading how GamerGate may well be the product of an orchestrated 4chan sockpuppet campaign. #NotAllGamers, indeed.
(Disclaimer: I play a few puzzle games like Freecell and Bubble Shooter and similar very rarely, and would not call myself a gamer given how little I play)
Original sentence: “RPS is a colossally stupid failure at clickbait, sacrificing such lucrative “You Won’t Believe What Call Of Duty Did To This Child’s Face!” headlines for “Here Is A Game About A Happy Lion, Gosh It’s Obscure”.”
Possible variant: “Pharyngula is a colossally stupid failure at clickbait, sacrificing such lucrative “You Won’t Believe What The Nye-Ham Debate Did To This Creationist’s Face!” headlines for “Here Is My Zebrafish Tank System Setup”.”
/IdleAmusements
It is. The whole debacle is well documented at this point.
It started as a harassment campaign directed at Zoe Quinn – both the #burgersandfries chat where the initial raids were planned, and the #gamergate tag itself, are references to Zoe. The tag itself was adopted in place of #Quinnspiracy because Adam Baldwin coined it – to equate Zoe’s sex life to a scandal, natch. The same chats also show how 4channers and assorted scum spammed #notyourshield with sockpuppets.
NEW THREAD.