The Magic of Reality

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True looks good.

I did need to watch the video twice to get the bad taste out of my mouth, but we must move forward and I don’t see that situation changing any time soon.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

258 Responses to The Magic of Reality

  1. Randy Owens says:

    It almost sounded like he was about to invoke The Might Be Giants’ description of the Sun, there.

  2. Roxane says:

    I have been assured that I will never have grandchildren, but I’m buying a copy of this just in case anybody changes their mind.

  3. Was this ever nasty to read. Why are you being a hypocrite and promoting something that leaves a bad taste in your mouth? You didn’t think that it makes you look charitable or forgiving, did you? Do you think this makes you look like you’re putting your hatred of Dawkins behind you? This is a crude insult not any sort of ‘making up with each other’ type of promotion. I mean, just don’t write the article at all, if you don’t like him.

  4. Roxee says:

    I bought the eBook for my iPad to share with my grandkids. It’s so interactive; the kids can conduct experiments related to the chapter topic. They can run a light through a prism to make a rainbow; measure the legs of frog, breed the long-legged ones then have them chased by a predater to see how natural selection works; get a sense of how big the earth is in relation to the size of the milky way, and get a sense of how.big the milky way is in relation to the universe, etc etc. The myths about each chapter topic are good too, although I don’t think he needed to devote as much time as he did to them – i do concede that it mighht take that much to be persuasive to a theist though. Well done Professor Dawkins, and Bah Humbug Mr. Laden.
    @Roxane, I call myself Roxee here but my name is Roxane too. I have never come across anyone in my 53 years whose parents mis-spelt their name the same way my parents did. Pleased to meet you – sort of.

  5. Michael Kingsford Gray says:

    Greg: Would care to expand on your strange but obviously snide and infantile remark “I did need to watch the video twice to get the bad taste out of my mouth, but we must move forward.”

    I think that I know that to which you refer, but I would like to see you commit to it in writing.

    You appear to have hit a new low.

  6. Hmm, it’s hypocritical and a “new low” to say a work is good and important but doesn’t require someone to spout rainbows over the author? Anybody care to rethink that?

  7. Stephanie, obvious insult is obvious. If it were my book, the embedding of a promo vid would NOT make up for using it as an excuse to insult the author. It IS hypocritical. Unless it was his intent all along to start another fight. From my view, he’s burned some bridges that a pseudo-promotion with further insults does not fix. If he thinks he’ll be able to later say, “see, I wasn’t so hard on him, I even promoted his book”, that’ll be a total fail to anyone who has read this pseudo-promotion.

  8. I’m pretty sure Greg has no intention of ever claiming to not have been hard on Dawkins. You might ask him, however, before sneering based on your assumptions.

  9. I guess you missed my “if”s, but no matter. After all, you know your stuff when it comes to insults, having been the first one to toss around the genital-based ones (Dear ‘Dick’). The funny thing is that you guys think ‘twat’ is somehow different than ‘dick’ when used derogatorily. It’s all goose and gander to me.

  10. Actually, you might not be aware of this, but “Dick” is a diminutive form of Richard. I was being overly and presumptuously familiar, not calling him a penis. There is, after all, nothing wrong with penises. There was something wrong with the presumptions he made in his comments on Elevatorgate.

    There’s nothing wrong with vaginas either, which is why it becomes so telling when people think that words for them should be insults.

    And my original point about books being separate from their authors still stands. Would you care to decide what you’re actually upset with Greg about?

  11. I believe that you were indeed using it as a genitally based insult, but if you’re denying it, go ahead. Just know that no one buys it. Not me, at least.

    And if you haven’t figured out yet by reading what I’ve written here so far, what it is I disagree with Greg about, I probably won’t be able to explain it to you again. I can recognize a brick wall when it’s pretending to listen to my part of a conversation. I give up when that happens, as communication becomes useless. Even the fact that you think that an opposite-to-rape situation should trigger rape fears in women, tells me you are not seeing reality.

    Opposite-to-rape situation being, in case you don’t quite get it, is: the polite offer, the no-fuss acceptance of ‘no’ to mean the ‘no’ that it is, the total absence of rape or even harassy type attitude of trying to change her mind or getting angry, etc. In my view, EG proved himself to be a fine upstanding fellow. And he’s NOT responsible for Watson’s special fear of 4am and elevators.

    Argh, why am I wasting my breath. You want it to be a near miss rape, and nothing I tell you is going to change your mind. Enjoy exploiting your victim card and have a nice day.

  12. Greg Laden says:

    Scented Nectar, I don’t live in the one dimensional world you imagine me to be living in. You are making unfounded assumptions about what I think and feel and you are suggesting that my life is a series of true/false questions, when it is, in reality, at least a series of multiple choice questions with the occasional essay.

    Having said that: You do have a (poorly formed) point. As I told Rebecca, this post, the one were are commenting on, was actually written before I saw Rebecca’s recent post, and schedule to come out later. Which is kind of funny, as in funny strange. And I almost deleted it.

    But then I didn’t.

  13. Greg Laden says:

    Michael, you want me to comment on my feelings about Richard Dawkin’s commments regarding Rebecca Watson? I have. Why is this a “new low” …

    What Stephanie said, actually.

    Stephanie [11]: Yeah, but Dawkins is a dick. He’s always been a dick, and everyone who has ever known him who was not star struck has known this about him. The only thing that is different beteen “then” and “now” is that once he let his diskishness get out of control, a lot of us stopped defending him in that regard.

    None of this (Scented) obviates the fact that he has done a great deal of important and excellent work. Among people in cognate fields, back when he was really taking off with his popluar books, I was one of the few defending that …. others, our colleagues, were saying rather unkind things about him, as are often said of successful communicators (I heard the same things about Diamond, for example). I apprecited his work … his speeches and his popular books … then as I do now.

    I am not being hypocritical. Read the sidebar. Nuance. Context. The world is complex, humans are complex.

    I’ve also criticized his anthology, quite properly. And I have a copy of it and like it.

    And, I’m very very pissed at Dawkins, still. There is no forgiving here (though that could happen, depending on what he does), and no forgetting. If I don’t happen to do things exactly as you would do them, Scented, you’ll have to live with that. Not everyone is you and I’m not sure why you would expect that unless you get some sort of rush out of being judgmental.

  14. Of course you don’t want to believe me. It allows you to say I’m the equivalent of the creepy people and that you’re all enlightened and above the fray. Your belief has no impact on the truth, however.

    I’ve never said that what happened in that elevator was a near-miss rape. I’ve also never been silly enough to call it the “opposite-to-rape,” given that it required ignoring all the “No” Rebecca had been saying up to that point.

    Nor is it either helpful or truthful to call a woman’s nervousness in late-night (i.e., isolated) elevator (i.e., exit-free) situations “special.” Not only are women very clearly told they need to stay free of those situations if they don’t want to be raped, but in fact, many women are actually raped in those situations. “Special” is dismissive of both of those experiences.

  15. Greg, I rather suspect I may like penises more than you do. Dawkins’ behavior doesn’t rate that high.

  16. First of all, I put you in no one dimensional world, so I don’t know what you mean. There’s no true/false involved. Hypocrisy, yes, but a dichotomy, no.

    As for Rebecca’s post, what’s this got to do with that? What (“poorly formed”) point of mine has something to do with it? My comment was about this post, not one she did. I’m not even sure if I’ve yet read whichever one you’re referring to, and I don’t know what you’re talking about as to its connection to yours or why you were going to wait or whatever.

    Anyways, I’m out of here. I see that no reading comprehension is here, nor willingness (or is it ability) to examine points, is any better here than in Pharyngula. Nothing that you just wrote, Greg, seemed to have anything to do with what I wrote. I expect I am being misunderstood and thought to be saying things I’m not saying. Since I’ve said all the important stuff I wanted to, I’ll call it quits here, hoping that at least some lurkers might ‘get it’. Consider all questions in the above as rhetorical. I don’t expect any answers from you two will make any more sense than your ones so far, so don’t waste your time. :)

  17. Greg Laden says:

    There’s no true/false involved. Hypocrisy, yes, but a dichotomy, no.

    Have you read the comments on Abbie Smith’s blog about Rebecca, PZ, me and a few others? I put those people in an irredeemable category of ignorant, hateful, misogynist, hopeless, horrid people.

    When Abbie’s first thread developed, I hoped and (with benefit of doubt) assumed she was not like those commenters. I even reached out to her. The response was that she ignored me and called that first thread “a monument to all she holds dear”.. so, Abbie went out of her way to prove that she is an irredeemable shit. She is in the same category as her commenters. She could talk her way out of that and with right actions redeem herself, maybe, but I doubt it.

    I felt it was more important, though, to try to build bridges rather than to only engage in building rifts. I really don’t see the point of doing only one and not the other.

    Do I think Richard Dawkins is in the same category as those troglodytes on Abbie’s blog? Not yet. That’s all I’m saying here.

    As for Rebecca’s post, what’s this got to do with that? What (“poorly formed”) point of mine has something to do with it? My comment was about this post, not one she did.

    I have complex feelings about this situation. What you are critiquing here is the manifestation of those feelings. I’m providing context that I realized was not apparent otherwise.

    I made a decision that you (quite rightly) criticized. My decision was based on things that I realized were not visible. I revealed those things, that’s all.

    Nothing that you just wrote, Greg, seemed to have anything to do with what I wrote. I expect I am being misunderstood and thought to be saying things I’m not saying.

    I really am trying to understand you and I would like to have the same in return.

    I don’t expect any answers from you two

    Despite my assertion that my feelings are complex, I am actually one person!

    Hey, I had no idea smiley faces worked here! :)

    BTW, love your blog.

  18. Thanks about my blog, and for explaining that there are some complex issues, but I’m still bailing on further stuff here. Conversations can’t go far when the initial premise is disagreed on. Just frustrates. Also, don’t know if you realize it, but I am one of those commentors on ERV that you don’t like.

    Bye again. :)

  19. Greg Laden says:

    Very funny. I thought you were a feminist who was annoyed at Dawkins and thus annoyed that I was giving him any leeway at all. Turns out you are a misogynist who is annoyed that I’m criticizing him.

    Silly me.

  20. Greg Laden says:

    Oh, I forgot: :)

  21. Might as well comment once more then, in order to let you know who I am.

    My ardent support of Dawkins’ first comment (Dear Muslima) has not stopped. It was sarcastic, yes, but in quite a beautiful way, making his point with an eloquence I rarely see. I fully agree with him that the EG situation was a ‘zero bad’. While Rebecca may feel any emotion she wants, she should not have dumped any of that on EG. It was not him who is responsible for her fear of 4am conversations.

    I participated a lot in the original 3 page comment thread where Dawkins commented and where he was being verbally bullied and beaten to shreds (with teeth but no logic) over at Pharyngula.

    I consider myself an egalitarian but not a feminist. The latter conflates the types (gender vs equity feminism – see wiki) with each other and does not explain my position. I am against sexism. Unfortunately for most gender feminists, that sometimes includes defending the rights of men too, as we see here with both EG and Dawkins being picked on due to EG’s non-harmful come-on and Dawkins’ opinions about that non-event. EG was slut-shamed by the crowd. Dawkins was called a rape apologist and many other nasty things that did NOT pertain to him in reality.

    I also wrote 3 main articles (plus some smaller ones) on ElevatorGate that made my stance on that very clear. It’s possible that you are mixing me up with someone else, since you claimed to read my blog and didn’t know that I was on both Dawkins’ side as well as writing in ERV’s comment sections too.

    I have a long, long history in regards to feminism and left it for true equality, dumping the thought crime ideology. You have me chalked up as a common misogynist and probably a gender traitor too. I have made quite a few videos and blog articles where various aspects of my feminist history and current opinions are explained. If you have any real curiosity about it, rather than the usual finding of silly reasons why only SOME of the women should be (as PZ puts it) ‘shut up and listened to’, I can easily direct you to the pertinent videos and articles, where you’ll see me fight sexism done by men and women both.

    It’s unlikely you’ll want to see those now though, since I:
    - like Dawkins and his comment a lot. He’s risen approx 100-fold in my estimation since EG started.
    - I dislike cries of wolf/rape/sexism.
    - and I dislike the irrationality of gender feminists. Equity feminist are fine though, due to basing things on evidence/laws/etc rather than ideology and mega-assumptions of the mindset and intents of men.

    So this puts me in the evil enemy camp to you. There are many women here with me, but saying we’re misogynist means you can get away with only listening to SOME of the women. (you know, only those who agree with you). What is it they call that in research studies, something about having a biased methodology in choosing test subjects?

  22. Greg Laden says:

    I don’t read your blog, I just glanced at it and was trying to be nice.

    I don’t put you in any camp. You seem to have missed the point that I’m trying very hard to not put people into camps, despite the fact that they (i.e, in this case you with this latest comment, clearly) are trying very hard to define themselves in camps.

    For me, Middle School was a very very long time ago.

  23. Ok, so that means you think lying is ok, as long as it will make for nice flattery. Yikes, that’s much worse than being honest and having something negative to say about it. And very, very telling of how your mind works.

    Must be handy though. With dishonesty one can justify any thing, any position, any opinion, any ‘facts’, etc.

  24. Scented Nectar, you might want to separate what Greg said from what you read.

    While we’re on the topic of how people’s minds worked, are you capable of acknowledging that Rebecca spent the day and evening saying, “No,” before she ever even got on that elevator?

  25. 1. I get it. As long as I separate the part where he says he likes the blog, from the part where he admits not reading it. You’re right, that DOES make the lie go away. Um, nope, not really. :)

    2. Rebecca did not say no to all males in advance. She specifically complained about emails that were of a threatening tone. IF Elevator Guy even did watch her talk (which he might not have), he would have heard her complaining about bad types of sexual communication. Why on earth should he consider his own polite offer (with it’s inoffensive accepting of ‘no’) as one of the things she meant?

    Did she actually say on the podium that no men must ever offer her sex in a friendly, non-harassing way, because she considers that creepy too? Or maybe… did she tell them “guys, I consider you all here at the conference to BE those bad ones I just talked about, so don’t none of you even nicely try to get to know me over a coffee or offer sex”? No, she didn’t. There was no way for that guy to know in advance that his words would be twisted into the kind of threat she talked about.

    Also, maybe he went to the Women and Atheism talk, but not the Communicating Atheism one where Watson was. She was scheduled to talk about communicating atheism, but suddenly, and without permission from the organizers, switched her talk to be about sexism and to put down Paula Kirby. At no time though, did she tell the audience that she hates nice come-ons every bit as much as the threatening ones she spoke about.

  26. Just out of curiosity, have you watched the Communicating Atheism session? You said something that makes me distinctly think not, but I’d really like to know for sure whether you have some weird blindness to what Rebecca actually said or you’re just content to flame on based on secondhand accounts.

  27. Greg Laden says:

    Scent,

    You are fond of telling me what is in my mind but you are very very bad at it. Telling you you had a nice blog was based on a scan of the last few posts and otherwise was a social nicety. It was not a lie. Calling me a liar on that basis is stretching it a bit, don’t you think?

    from the part where he admits not reading it.

    Admit? What are you, an inquisitor? I read it. Enough to say something. I don’t read it.

    Did she actually say on the podium that no men must ever offer her sex in a friendly, non-harassing way, because she considers that creepy too?

    SO YOU ADMIT IT!!!!! Asking for coffe is asking for sex I KNEW IT!!!!

    I have a request for you. In your earlier long rambling comment you listed a number of things that I must think. I mostly ignored that, which does not mean I think them, just that I find that method of argument unworthy of my attention. But I would like to know the following if you can manage it: 1) Define “gender traitor” and 2) Give me three or four examples where someone “on my side” (to put it in simple terms for you) has called you or someone “on your side” such. I have seen, among the thousands of over the top human-hating and misogynist bits of drek in comments on various blog posts, numerous instances where people on “your side” are playing the victim card with that term but I’ve not seen anyone actually use it. I’m probably wrong … it probably has been used and I just didn’t see it. So show me, so I can get a better idea of what it means

    Because, as you say, I think if of you. Might as well get my place in your delusion right.

  28. I watched it months ago and saw nothing against normal, non-harassing interactions. Are you saying that she DID say that type of thing that I just mentioned in my comment above, or not? What did she say that makes you think I didn’t watch or understand her?

    Most importantly, what part of her words were admonishing EG in advance, letting him know to not to “do that”?

  29. Tim Groc says:

    Greg: “Have you read the comments on Abbie Smith’s blog about Rebecca, PZ, me and a few others?”

    I’ve read a lot of really bad comments on a lot of threads.

    Greg: “And, I’m very very pissed at Dawkins, still. There is no forgiving here (though that could happen, depending on what he does), and no forgetting.”

    And I’m still very very pissed at Watson for her treatment of Stef McGraw. There is NO forgiving here (although it may happen, depending on whether Watson finally plucks up the courage and admit she made a mistake and apologises). But, I won’t forget this.

  30. Yep, as I thought. *poof* All mention of Rebecca talking about the “compliments” she receives conveniently erased because her saying anything about that doesn’t fit the narrative. Kind of like being in a big group at the bar with EG while she’s talking about how she doesn’t like to constantly get hit on at conferences. *poof*

    It’s like it’s magic.

    Tim, who are you, and why would anyone care whether you “forgive” Rebecca?

  31. thejusticar says:

    Greg @ 18: I completely agree. Abbie is an irredeemable shit. No matter how many times you nice, polite, white guys have told her what to think, she insists in the delusion she’s her own person.

    I’m sure as she ages and gets out of those terrible twenties, she’ll come to you on bending knee to beg forgiveness for not accepting your ‘reaching out*’ to her largesse.

    *read by the more cynical among as toe-the-line, woman.

  32. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie

    Why would anyone care what you or Greg think of Dawkins, or his book? You and Greg do not speak on behalf of any community.

    It matters, actually, because it is an elephant in the room. The form of cognitive dissonance reduction employed when ignoring Rebecca’s treatment of Stef McGraw is rather profound.

    I am also struck by Greg’s original message: but we must move forward. It doesn’t seem as though Greg (and others) want to move forward at all.

  33. Really, justicar? And what have you said to the women in this who have disagreed with you? Where is your moral high ground buried?

    For the record, though, the addition of “the” to the handle is hilarious. Not to mention a nice warning sign. Keep that.

  34. thejusticar says:

    Oh, I forgot. Stephanie, I totally was convinced that Dick was just your being overly familiar with Dawkins. After all, reading some of what you’ve written in direct address to others, it seems you do this all time, which is why Watson is Becky, Greta is Gre, Abbie is Abs, Scented is Scen, Hitchens is Chris, Ophelia is Oaf and so on and so forth. This one off is, I am certain, as you say just an odd happenstance.

    Mm hmm.

  35. Actually, Tim, the fact that people keep jumping on everything Greg or I have to say about demonstrates pretty solidly that people do care. Where’s your evidence?

    No, Stef McGraw is not the elephant in the room. It’s been discussed, you know. At length even. I did it myself, here: http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/07/talking-about-leadership.html

    justicar, the only options you can come up with are that I’m going to use over-familiar versions of everyone’s names or that it’s just coincidental? That’s very impressive–particularly given that I already explained the reasoning. Try reading comment 11 instead of having someone describe it to you.

  36. SO YOU ADMIT IT!!!!! Asking for coffe is asking for sex I KNEW IT!!!!

    Freak out much? It’s probable, although not certain, that EG was hoping that the coffee would lead to asking her to have sex. What’s wrong with that? Or maybe EG only wanted to talk over coffee and pick her brains about something, not hoping that it would lead to sex.

    There’s nothing wrong with offers of sex. So long as any ‘no’s are accepted without fuss. Why don’t you get that? Why is simply being asked a crime? Is it sinful according to the Doctrine of PeeZus?

  37. thejusticar says:

    Steph @ 34: to answer the question you put to me while I was typing the other reply (I hadn’t read it yet), I’ve said many things to them. The difference between us is that I own what I say. I don’t waffle. Twatson, of which I am the originator, not Abbie (contra Watson) was a direct response to the Dear Dick campaign on her site.

    Whatever else you can say, the whole bit about my claim to any moral high ground is irrelevant. No one else’s actions are contingent on mine in a way that obviates their decisions in what to say or do. Unaware of me entirely, you and Greg separately and together made decisions. Kind of a sloppy attempt there on your part to change the topic, but I am unsurprised.

    There isn’t an ‘addition’ of a ‘the’ to the title. There are just some places where there was a subtraction. The Justicar is the name of the title in actuality, but I grew tired of having to type it manually on certain blogs so I left off the article for my own convenience.

    I see research is your ever trusty companion.

  38. Greg Laden says:

    I’m sure as she ages and gets out of those terrible twenties, she’ll come to you on bending knee to beg forgiveness for not accepting your ‘reaching out*’ to her largesse.

    Not to me on bended knee, but yes, that is the pattern for many individuals as they mature politically. She will grow out of this phase, most women who experience it do. The men in this stat of mind often don’t experience the maturing process, however. Or at least, that seems to be the case.

  39. Greg Laden says:

    Wait …

    .. is that “THE” Justicar????

    Wow!!!

  40. thejusticar says:

    Well, perhaps when she makes the transition to a good girl who knows how much the patriarchy is actually retarding her self actualization, perhaps she’ll do me the courtesy of ma’amsplaining it to me.

  41. Tim Groc says:

    Stef: Actually, Tim, the fact that people keep jumping on everything Greg or I have to say about demonstrates pretty solidly that people do care. Where’s your evidence?

    It means people disagree with what you say. But what you say about Dawkins and his book does not matter. It matters as much as me not willing to forgive Rebecca until she apologises. That is my point. I repeat, you and Greg do not represent any community.

    Stef: No, Stef McGraw is not the elephant in the room. It’s been discussed, you know. At length even.

    Elevatorgate has been discussed. Dawkins has been discussed. At length, even. So what’s your excuse?

  42. justicar, there was no Dear Dick “campaign” on Skepchick. There was a “Dear Richard Dawkins” post that included my letter with an inappropriately familiar address. So, now that you know that, are you going to advocate for people to stop saying “Twatson”? Are you planning to stop?

    Scented Nectar, there you go again, acting as though you haven’t already been informed that Rebecca had already been saying, “No.” What’s up with that? Can it be cured?

  43. Greg Laden says:

    There’s nothing wrong with offers of sex. So long as any ‘no’s are accepted without fuss. Why don’t you get that? Why is simply being asked a crime? Is it sinful according to the Doctrine of PeeZus?

    And that is what happened and no one said it was a crime.

  44. Greg Laden says:

    The Justicar is the name of the title in actuality

    What does it mean by the way?

  45. thejusticar says:

    Nope. Not THE Justicar. Just thejusticar. See. Lowercase and all. Right there in my handle. Just call me Justicar for short (promise no one will think shortening my name is objectifying or sexualizing me). I even happily answer to Justi, and cupcake. So too does my anally-Laden, quill-encumbered porcupine.

  46. Tim Groc says:

    Greg: “She will grow out of this phase”

    Who? Rebecca?

    An apology to Stef will be a mature move on her part. I agree.

  47. Greg Laden says:

    Well, perhaps when she makes the transition to a good girl who knows how much the patriarchy is actually retarding her self actualization, perhaps she’ll do me the courtesy of ma’amsplaining it to me.

    Actually, I suspect she’ll just walk right past you like she doesn’t know you.

  48. Justicar, Tim, the name is Stephanie.

    Tim, whether or not I represent any community is up to the community to decide, not you. Nice try, though.

    Now, I never said no one could discuss McGraw. You were the one saying no one would. You were wrong.

  49. thejusticar says:

    Greg @ 45: it’s a title one is given in World of Warcraft for a very long, tedious reputation grind with three factions warring in three zones by way of player versus player combat. It takes about a year to complete. As is commonly known, among other things, I’m a professional gamer.

    It’s the title my main character flies, and it’s what people in-game and then out-of-game started calling me. So, when I undertook to consolidate things under a central online name, it seemed the most obvious choice.

  50. Greg Laden says:

    Interesting. And “World of Warcraft” is … what? An online game?

    I know a guy who is Aragon for roughly similar reasons.

  51. thejusticar says:

    I think you misconstrue Abbie’s character tremendously. But seeing as how she so stubbornly refuses to do as you demand she should, I can see why you’d have so low an opinion of her. Or any of those other uppity broads all thinking that feminism is somehow related to their being able to make their own decisions and all. Without the requirement to check in with a trusted white guy for their marching orders.

    Why, any of them who don’t accede to the sagacious, and threat-Laden demands, is simply a victim of the patriarchy.

    One thing I find curious in all of this: I am constantly told that I should listen to what women are saying. So, I have been. I find some of them to have fairly cogent reasoning as to why they think and behave the way do.

    Turns out I’ve just been listening to all the wrong kind of girls – the stupid ones who walk around saying things “Galileo wasn’t actually executed by ‘the church’”.

    Silly girls.

    But take heart, you irredeemable shits, unlike men you’re capable of maturing.

  52. thejusticar says:

    Yeah, World of Warcraft is one of the online games; it’s the largest MMORPG around, with something like 11 million subscribers.

    You’re an anthropologist. Game culture would be a fascinating study. Indeed, it might even give you insight in why Abbie has responded the way she has. You should already be somewhat aware of this inasmuch as you blog and that implies at least part of your focus in life is in dealing with ‘the internet generation’. As Abbie has said, and correctly so, a lot of our behavior at her place, and elsewhere, is wrought in that. We’re doing what is old hat for the medium: when reason and honest conversation isn’t possible, escalate it for the comedy.

    I know this doesn’t fit with that rapist, rape apologist, gender traitor, reprobate meme you’re all too happy to perpetuate. This just shows a massive cultural blindness on your part.

    Odd for a student and ‘scholar’ of human behavior and its attendant culture. But, as John C. Welch said when he was DDOS my hard-drive last night, not my farm, not my pig.

  53. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie: Tim, whether or not I represent any community is up to the community to decide, not you. Nice try, though.

    Where did I say it was up to me? If it comes down to “the community”, then many in “the community” would say that your view is not representative of “the community”.

    Stephanie: Now, I never said no one could discuss McGraw.

    I never made any assertion suggesting otherwise.

    You were the one saying no one would. You were wrong.

    When did I say that? It is not that you won’t talk about it, it is the cognitive dissonance reduction in relation to Stef McGraw that I was refering to. So, your response did not address anything I said, and therefore, I will not give any credence to your opinion that I was wrong.

  54. For a brief period of time, I thought about Abbie and the riding of tigers and figured things would be pretty miserable once she disagreed openly with the MRAs about something. Then I remembered she’s basically feral when she’s passionate about something (being right being a different matter), and I realized that it would be pretty miserable for the MRAs.

    Tim, do you know what an elephant in the room is?

  55. 1. Your side is the one who calls women that, so go ask Skeptifem. She even made an article about it.

    2. Why just today, some guy named Greg Laden assigned me a side with “Turns out you are a misogynist who is annoyed that I’m criticizing him.” For more though, just go to any pharyngula thread I’ve been in. You know full well that it happens like crazy from your radfem (and apologists) side.

    You say you’ve seen people playing the victim card yet in the same sentence say that you haven’t seen anyone use it. Huh???

    As for showing you whatever it is you’re trying to say you want shown, no. If you want to deny anything I’ve mentioned, go right ahead. It would be a useless waste of my time. Your lack of comprehension regarding things I’ve said tells me that you won’t be able to follow or understand me right from the start anyways. Are you by any chance a commenter at PZ’s but under a different name? That same lack of comprehension, wild assumptions, and topic changing is in you as strongly as I’ve seen in a few people there.

    Stephanie, there was no *poof* as you put it. She made it sound like the emailed stuff was explicit and crude, rudely being sexual saying what they would do to her. Did EG cat-call Watson? No, but that would have been the equivilent to those emails she talked about. Not all offers are cat-calls. Why don’t you understand the difference? OR are you saying that she told EG at the bar that she doesn’t like getting hit on at conferences, but he did it anyways? Did she actually say that and he for sure heard it? I suspect not. Did you forget that she said she did NOT talk to him while in the bar? She just figured that everyone else must have been listening to her, even guys who she wasn’t talking with at all. Me me me me me me ad nauseum, that’s Rebecca.

  56. thejusticar says:

    Now, now, Steph: if you can handle Dick, then you can handle Steph. After all, reciprocal altruism is a good thing. And Dick was, as you maintain, just showing familiarity.

    How can you begrudge us, these perfect internet strangers, the same right to that as you arrogated to yourself?

  57. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie: Tim, do you know what an elephant in the room is?

    Stop evading the question.

  58. Greg Laden says:

    TheJustiCar: I have a rather high opinion of Abbie and I have not demanded anything of her. She has disappointed me, but friends do that sometimes.

  59. Actually, what Rebecca said was that she didn’t find guys telling her they wanted to have sex with her to be a compliment, that she found the assumption on their part that she was there for their sexual pleasure to be sexist. But it’s nice of you to note that your opinion of what happened is on much more solid footing than that of someone who was actually there. In fact, it reminds me of you telling me you didn’t believe my explanation about calling Dawkins “Dick.”

    I’m sensing a trend. Under what circumstances are women actually to be believed about their own experience?

  60. Tim, if the question is about when you said no one would talk about Stef McGraw, that was your answer.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elephant+in+the+room

  61. Greg Laden says:

    Why just today, some guy named Greg Laden assigned me a side with “Turns out you are a misogynist who is annoyed that I’m criticizing him.”

    Actually, no I didn’t. You told me that in an earlier comments. I stand corrected.

    You say you’ve seen people playing the victim card yet in the same sentence say that you haven’t seen anyone use it. Huh???

    OK, speaking very slowly and enunciating. I’ve seen X say “A is calling me and Y a gender traitor” but I’ve not seen where A did so. In this case, you told me that I probably think you are a gender traitor. I don’t even know what a gender traitor is, so I asked for a definition, and while I was at it I asked if you happen to have some examples of where you or your friends over on The Monument have actually been called that by someone, because I had not seen that.

  62. thejusticar says:

    Is it just me or is it getting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle up in here?

    It requires, of necessity, a low opinion of another to conclude that they will intentionally abandon a colleague or friend and pretend to not even know said person because of transcending the intellectual/emotional limitations of said person.

    You have here said that Abbie will snub me in the future for my having done her no harm. So, what remains is that she will have figured out, if you’re correct, a truth that may well be beyond me. And for this, she will put on the pretense (a form of deception) that she doesn’t know me.

    Clearly, one of us holds her in higher esteem than the other.

  63. thejusticar says:

    Well, Greg, let’s take a trip in the wayback machine.

    See here: http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/bad_form_rebecca_watson.php#comment-4306983

    96

    Yawn. Enjoy your fate as a gender traitor, erv. You’ll find out eventually, same as the rest of us, that its a game you can’t win. You’ll never really be one of the guys and you can never really overcome what being a woman in this culture means. The high fives and social approval you get from sexist jackasses won’t be worth it in the end.

    Posted by: skeptifem | July 3, 2011 4:54 PM

  64. Ok, I’m skipping some crazy shit here that would be silly to even respond to, except that yes, Greg, your side HAS made it a crime. Holy fucking DUH!!!

    Stephanie: Now you’re claiming that EG had an EXPECTATION that she’d have sex with him? WTF? Stop changing the story in your attempt to make sure you find something, anything, bad about EG. No one disbelieves that Rebecca felt nervous. What is disbelieved is that EG was at fault for that.

    You and Greg both are so ridiculously gish galluping and misinterpreting and jumping to such wild conclusions, that, mixed with your propensity to lie, that I won’t be back. And your lie, Stephipoopoo is that Dick was an endearing familiar short form. How do you like Stephipoopoo? Am I being overly familiar since we are, after all, arguing? I think so, but hmm, you did it while arguing with Dawkins so I guess it’s just as fine and dandy. You should at least admit that you were using ‘Dick’ derogatorily, but you won’t even do that.

    I’m out of here. Lies, evasion, and stupidity are not good qualities in conversational partners, so no more Lyin’ Laden or Stupid Steph for me. Buh bye.

  65. I really like Dawkins’ books. Gonna get this one just to donate to my former elementary school.

    I wish half of the blogs I read would get past elevatorgate though. It sorta seems like a team red/blue thing to me though. Not that anyone gives a shit about my opinion.

    Really really smart people have acted in really unbecoming ways and continue to do so.

  66. “I’m gonna flounce!” “But that trick never works!” “This time for sure!”

    Scented Nectar, before you come back screaming again, please learn to read. That wasn’t what I said about EG, and I specifically said that my use of Dick was “being overly and presumptuously familiar.” Of course if I had said that “Dick was an endearing familiar short form,” I would have been correct. I simply wasn’t using it that way.

  67. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie: Tim, if the question is about when you said no one would talk about Stef McGraw, that was your answer.

    I think you have misunderstood. Or you are evading the issue.

    I asked you what your excuse was concerning elevatorgate and Dawkins? You said that Stef McGraw had been discussed, at length, and I pointed out that so had elevatorgate and Dawkins. You can’t have it both ways. I never said you couldn’t or wouldn’t talk about Stef, and I have asked you to cite where I did. You didn’t, and you can’t.

    So, it is still an elephant in the room. You have not answered the question, and you have not addressed the issue of your cognitive dissonance reduction.

  68. I think I must have misunderstood. Reading your comments, I still can’t figure out what you’re on about. Would you care to ask a direct question?

  69. Tim Groc says:

    Okay, nice and simple.

    You stated that the Stef McGraw issue had been debated, at length. Why is this an excuse to now ignore the issue when the elevatorgate, and Dawkins issues have been debated to a greater length?

    So, again, I will ask, what is your excuse?

  70. Who said there was any excuse? In case you can’t reread the comments in order:

    You (30): I’m still pissed at Rebecca.

    Me (31): So?

    You (33): It’s an elephant in the room.

    Me (36): No, it’s not. It gets talked about.

    You (42): So what’s your excuse?

    Excuse for what? Is Greg supposed to make some excuse for not bringing up McGraw when he recommends Dawkins book despite not being entirely happy with Dawkins? Am I supposed to make some excuse for asking you what kind of stake you have in this instead of telling you’re wrong about something when I don’t even know what you think happened?

    If you want to talk about McGraw, by all means, make some point. You’ve already seen mine–because I’ve been talking about it. Tell us why you feel the need to judge Rebecca and then withhold your almighty forgiveness.

  71. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie, it is your response at 36 that is illogical.

    You said it had been debated, at length. I said that elevatorgate and Dawkins had been debated, at even greater length. You used this excuse to justify your cognitive dissonance reduction towards the Stef McGraw debate.

    It is this I am you to address.

    As for your request as to why I feel the need to judge Rebecca – I guess it is the same as how you and Greg feel the need to judge Dawkins. I withold my forgiveness towards Rebecca in the same way that Greg witholds his forgiveness towards Dawkins. That might change, of course, if Rebecca offers an apology.

  72. You used this excuse to justify your cognitive dissonance reduction towards the Stef McGraw debate.

    This has a superficial resemblance to English, aside from the part where it doesn’t mean anything.

    I haven’t excused anything. I simply said you were wrong to say it was an elephant in the room.

    As for Dawkins, I am judging what he said and the harm that it caused–because I am one of the people harmed, as are many of the people I care about. I am judging his failure to follow through on the apology he said he would deliver–because I gave him the explanation that he said was my side of the bargain and because the letter I wrote gave several people with heart-wrenching stories the opening to also become invested in that apology.

    Now, did you have something to say that is actually about McGraw?

  73. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie: This has a superficial resemblance to English, aside from the part where it doesn’t mean anything.

    It is okay to admit you don’t understand, or you don’t want to answer the question.

    Stephanie: I haven’t excused anything. I simply said you were wrong to say it was an elephant in the room.

    It was not wrong to say it, because your failure to deal with your (and others) cognitive dissonance reduction of that incident has exposed your bias/agenda on it.

    Stephanie: As for Dawkins, I am judging what he said and the harm that it caused–because I am one of the people harmed, as are many of the people I care about.

    Yes, and there are many (including me) who are judging Rebecca because of the harm she caused. Many of the people I care about have been harmed. Further, the harm that you perceive to have been caused by Dawkins was instigated by Rebecca. Then, the responses to Dawkins’ comments caused further harm. Your failure to admit this is another example of cognitive dissonance reduction.

    Stephanie: I am judging his failure to follow through on the apology he said he would deliver

    And I am judging Rebecca on the basis that she has not made an apology. Plus, what is it exactly you want Dawkins to apologise for. Being sarcastic?

    Stephanie: because I gave him the explanation that he said was my side of the bargain and because the letter I wrote gave several people with heart-wrenching stories the opening to also become invested in that apology.

    Your attempt at emotional blackmail by equivocating stories of rape with criticism of Rebecca for an unrelated matter does not impress me. These serious admonitions of rape by women should not be tossed around for comparison to a trivial event such as Elevatorgate. Rape and the violence it enscapsulates is too horrific and serious for that. A lot of women are angry for this lazy and wrong comparison.

    Stephanie: Now, did you have something to say that is actually about McGraw?

    No, I’m waiting for Rebecca to say something to Stef. Then maybe you or Greg about Stef.

    Sorry seems to be the hardest word.

  74. Have you read the letter to Dawkins or just descriptions of it? I ask because the letter is an explanation of exactly what I think Dawkins should apologize for and to whom. Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong, but don’t just ask the question again.

    Now, what harm did Rebecca cause? Or would that require you to actually talk about McGraw instead of using her as a tool in your argument?

  75. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie: Have you read the letter to Dawkins or just descriptions of it?

    Yes, I read it.

    I ask because the letter is an explanation of exactly what I think Dawkins should apologize for and to whom.

    Yes, I know, but you were building a charge on false assumptions. You compliation of testimonies of rape victims was not equivocal to the Elevatorgate incident, or Dawkins’ foot-in-mouth comments afterwards. As I said, actual stories of rape are too serious to be used in a straw man charge.

    Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong, but don’t just ask the question again.

    Don’t worry, I won’t ask again, because you’ve admitted you don’t understand.

    Now, what harm did Rebecca cause? Or would that require you to actually talk about McGraw instead of using her as a tool in your argument?

    The fact that you construct sentence two to affirm sentence one, suggests that it is you who wants to use your cognitive dissonance reduction of Stef as a tool. I’m all for talking about Stef McGraw, but I’m not the one who needs to do the talking. Certain other parties do.

  76. Nope, not what I said about the stories of rape victims at all. That isn’t why Dawkins owes the apology. That’s why I’m invested in whether he gives one. Two different things.

    But thank you. Now I know that you don’t actually have anything to say on this except that you think I have a bias and that this putative bias is more important to you than actually dealing with any argument.

    For the record, this is what ad hominem actually looks like.

  77. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie: Nope, not what I said about the stories of rape victims at all.

    What wasn’t what you said?

    Stephanie: That’s why I’m invested in whether he gives one.

    By your own logic, you must concede there are many people who are invested in whether Rebecca gives an apology.

    Stephanie: Now I know that you don’t actually have anything to say on this except that you think I have a bias and that this putative bias is more important to you than actually dealing with any argument.

    Translation: Yes, Stephanie admits she is biased, although she may not be aware she is implementing cognitive dissonance reduction.

    Your bias is not particulary important to me, BTW, but it is important to many members of the community. My argument is that you, Greg and others, are guilty of cognitive dissonance reduction in an effort to mitigate Rebecca’s actions, while using non-arguments (ie “that has been debated, at length”) to sweep the elephant in the room to the outside swimming pool.

    Stephanie: For the record, this is what ad hominem actually looks like.

    It isn’t actually, because for that, I would need to attack your character based on one of your false arguments. I have not attacked you, and I have provided the reasons for attacking your arguments.

  78. Oh, for fuck’s sake. It indoor elephants all over again. Ad hominem: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/09/15/what-is-an-ad-hominem-what-isnt/

    Still leaving out the part about actually explaining how someone was harmed, I see.

  79. gwen says:

    ‘Scented Nectar’ If you’d actually taken the time to listen to Rebecca’s first video, you would note that HE said he LISTENED to her talk, in which SHE said she was tired of men hitting on her at every conference. HE was also among the group at the bar afterward, although he chose not to speak. HE should have heard her say she was going to sleep. Yes, I am frightened on elevators alone with men, having once been attacked by one in an elevator. It is actually easy to do, you block the door/buttons, and in some cases you can even stop the elevator to finish the job. In this case, he did not stop the elevator, and someone finally got on and rescued me. In getting on an elevator at 4am, if a man were to hit on me, the first thing which would go through my mind is to wonder what he will do when I say ‘no thanks’.

  80. Greg Laden says:

    I would need to attack your character based on one of your false arguments.

    That’s not what ad hominem argument is and I know you are wrong because you are a git.

    ^Did you see that? THAT was an ad hominem argument.

    And Stephanie’s example, while correctly identified as ad hominem, is actually an appropriate use. If you identify a bias in a person that can be used to disregard and argument that you can’t otherwise deal with, given the economy of arguments and there being so many of them and all.

    Except that is does not work in this case because the alleged bias wasn’t there.

    Tim, and Scent too if you are still watching, there is something you may not realize, and in fact given the things you have been saying I’m pretty sure you don’t know. People like me, and maybe Stephanie though I’m not sure, and certainly PZ, did not come along to this argument vis-a-vis Dawkins with a bias against him. I knew Dawkins before any atheists had ever even heard of him. What he did, said, and how he has handled this is out of place and out of character. I was the last person to believe it was really him. I am not interpreting his remarks with a preconceived bias against him. I’ve interpreted his remarks with a preconceived bias in his favor. (My opinion of some of the stuff Abbie has said is the same.) I have been deeply disappointed by Dawkins.

    But overall I also think that is remarks are most not a big deal if placed in the proper context. The brownshirtesque masses of clueless self serving middle schoolish immature testosterone poisoned bullshit (along with it’s handmaidens of the “there are gender issues but my gender issues” victim-less victim cheer-leading brigade) is what I find … embarrassing, disturbing, and worth calling out and identifying for what it is.

  81. gwen says:

    Why in the heck has EVERY freethought/atheist/skeptic blog turned in to a misogynistic hatefest lately? I really wish you all would go into a room by yourselves and masturbate there.Alone.Away from people who actually want to have discussions… instead of watching the frothing spittle fly.

  82. Greg Laden says:

    Oh dear, did I just Godwin my own thread? Oh well. A brown shirt is a brown shirt.

  83. Greg, in order for that to be a useful shortcut, that would require Tim to need to choose between arguments. He doesn’t actually exist online except on this post. He’s just here to claim we have some bias so other people will ignore us. He won’t do the work to determine whether there is bias in the argument; he’s specifically attempting to tar us instead.

  84. Tim Groc says:

    Stepahnie:

    Oh, so the Stef McGraw incident is to be completely forgotten as a non-issue. Thank you for confirming your cognitive dissonance reduction.

    Greg:

    You and Stephanie are free to inform me where I employed my ad hominem (or whatever you want to refer it as). Good luck.

    And Stephanie’s example, while correctly identified as ad hominem, is actually an appropriate use. If you identify a bias in a person that can be used to disregard and argument that you can’t otherwise deal with

    I have asked Stephanie to reveal why debating one thing at great length mitigates one item, and not another. She ignored my question because she knew it was a non-answer. The fact is that it is not me who can’t “handle the argument”, it is Stephanie evading the argument.

    Except that is does not work in this case because the alleged bias wasn’t there.

    If that is the case, Stephanie should be able to come up with a rational justification for her preferences and statements. Saying “it has been debated, at length”, does not make it go away, and leaves the question wide open.

    Tim, and Scent too if you are still watching, there is something you may not realize, and in fact given the things you have been saying I’m pretty sure you don’t know. People like me, and maybe Stephanie though I’m not sure, and certainly PZ, did not come along to this argument vis-a-vis Dawkins with a bias against him. I knew Dawkins before any atheists had ever even heard of him. What he did, said, and how he has handled this is out of place and out of character. I was the last person to believe it was really him. I am not interpreting his remarks with a preconceived bias against him. I’ve interpreted his remarks with a preconceived bias in his favor. (My opinion of some of the stuff Abbie has said is the same.) I have been deeply disappointed by Dawkins.

    I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t be criticising Dawkins. I though Dawkins’ comments were stupid as well, but not indicitive of some of the rabid insults that came his way after. But, since you raise this, you have to be concerned at some of the “out-of-character” comments made in the other direction. You then say you have been deeply disappointed by Dawkins, but people have been disappointed by Rebecca, by you, PZ and others. Are you saying only certain people have the right to be “disappointed”. You can’t just disavow the fact that a lot of people along the spectrum of the argument have made ‘strange’ comments.

    But overall I also think that is remarks are most not a big deal if placed in the proper context.

    I agree, and this brings into focus the “demand” for an apology from Dawkins. Dawkins’ foot-in-mouth comments have been taken out of context, even PZ has stated that.

    The brownshirtesque masses of clueless self serving middle schoolish immature testosterone poisoned bullshit (along with it’s handmaidens of the “there are gender issues but my gender issues” victim-less victim cheer-leading brigade) is what I find … embarrassing, disturbing, and worth calling out and identifying for what it is.

    Again, I agree. Not everyone left angry at Rebecca’s behaviour has resorted to the hateful stuff you and others have mentioned. Also, not everyone angry at Dawkins have not resorted to hateful abuse. It is just a few people. That is no excuse, however, to try and dictate who speaks for the “community”.

  85. thejusticar says:

    I see that quite a good size of my comments have apparently wandered off the beaten path. The poor dears; I hope they’ll be okay.

  86. Tim, where did I say anything about McGraw being forgotten. I have repeatedly invited you to have anything specific to say on the topic. You’ve repeatedly declined. Are you ready to start now?

    Also, that “demand” thing? Dawkins offered an apology if things were explained to him.

  87. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie,

    You used the excuse that Stef had been debated, at length. I pointed out so has Dawkins. It is this cognitive dissonance reduction I am asking you to explain.

    Obviously, you have not explained to Dawkins why he needs to apologise. There are many who believe he has nothing to apologise for, except for being sarcastic.

    As far as I’m aware, Rebecca has not offered to apologise even after explanations.

    Contradiction in your thinking? I think so.

  88. Tim, the reason that no one lets you speak for them is that you make no sense.

    1) I wrote an entire letter to Dawkins about his offered apology, which you have said you read.

    2) Rebecca never offered to apologize. Dawkins did. You’ve already been told this.

    3) I’ve already told you I’m perfectly willing to talk about McGraw. You don’t want to. I’m not going to excuse your behavior. That’s up to you.

  89. Roxee says:

    I’m a new subscriber to Freethought Blogs and came to this page earlier to read and comment on what I thought was a blog about The Magic of Reality. As is my habit I checked the box to receive updates on comments. Instead I open my inbox and find adults engaging in childish squabble of the “he said, she said” kind. Shouldn’t conversations such as these be relegated to private email, or even the phone. Perhaps no-one wanted to have the discussion off the blogosphere because in some way they wanted to win the argument so the other kids in the school yard would like them more.
    No one knows what the real meaning or intent behind the comments made by each of the actual players in this drama was. If any of the parties involved are upset or angry about what another has said it is their conversation to have, the rest is just gossip if it is a discussion by outsiders of meaning and intent.
    To publicly insult someone for your interpretation of the meaning and intent of something they said, rather than the statement’s content, and to support a ban on product that person produces because of it, is reprehensible. After all, one could be waxing lyrical about someone elses product while at home they are molesting their kids and beating their wife.
    Please take these conversations off Freethought Blogs, or not only will you drive me, a subscriber, away, but you may just turn others off participation in discussions about what they blog was set up for in the first place.

  90. Roxee, who has “support[ed] a ban on product that person produces” anywhere?

  91. Tim Groc says:

    Stephanie: Tim, the reason that no one lets you speak for them is that you make no sense.

    Please cite where I said I speak for people.

    Stephanie: I wrote an entire letter to Dawkins about his offered apology, which you have said you read.

    Right, and the fact that he has not apologised, means you have not made your case than he needs to produce one. I agree – you have not made any case, unless you think Dawkins needs to apologise for being sarcastic.

    Stephanie: Rebecca never offered to apologize. Dawkins did. You’ve already been told this.

    In both cases, people are asking for apologies from both of them. I’m well aware that Rebecca never offered to apologise – that is what is upsetting a lot of people.

    Stephanie: I’ve already told you I’m perfectly willing to talk about McGraw. You don’t want to. I’m not going to excuse your behavior. That’s up to you.

    Please cite examples of where I am not willing to mention Stef.

  92. Hi Greg and Everyone,

    I wandered into the middle of this. Reads like decent fiction of the Mary McCarthy, Jane Smiley variety, a communal effort

    Hi Roxane and Roxane. Your parents spelt your name correctly. Roxane or Roxana was a Persian princess, a wife of Alexander the Great.

    People are complicated. Some important thinkers have rotten personalities.

    David

  93. Please cite where I said I speak for people.

    Non sequitur. Explanation =/= argument.

    Right, and the fact that he has not apologised, means you have not made your case than he needs to produce one.

    Non sequitur. There are other options.

    I agree – you have not made any case, unless you think Dawkins needs to apologise for being sarcastic.

    Denying I made a case does not make that case go away. Argue against the substance of the case or accept it as made.

    I’m well aware that Rebecca never offered to apologise – that is what is upsetting a lot of people.

    The only arguments I’ve seen for why Rebecca should apologize rely on “Oh, Stef is a poor, helpless female student” and ignore the fact that she is a leader who posted something worthy of criticism on her organization’s blog, making them quite relevant to a talk at a conference on leadership. Feel free to make a case that does neither. Any time now.

    Please cite examples of where I am not willing to mention Stef.

    Non sequitur. Mention =/= talk about. I can mention plenty of things I’m not actually willing to discuss.

  94. Greg Laden says:

    Stephanie [80]: Interesting. So you are suggesting that “tim” is a sock puppet? He does seem to have come and gone pretty fast.

    Huh.

  95. Greg Laden says:

    Tim:

    “And Stephanie’s example, while correctly identified as ad hominem, is actually an appropriate use. If you identify a bias in a person that can be used to disregard and argument that you can’t otherwise deal with”

    I have asked Stephanie to reveal why debating one thing at great length mitigates one item, and not another. She ignored my question because she knew it was a non-answer. The fact is that it is not me who can’t “handle the argument”, it is Stephanie evading the argument.

    I still think you don’t know what that word means.

    I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t be criticising Dawkins. I though Dawkins’ comments were stupid as well, but not indicitive of some of the rabid insults that came his way after. But, since you raise this, you have to be concerned at some of the “out-of-character” comments made in the other direction.

    Are you arguing that I’m supposed to do something that you have in your head that I’m supposed to do or else I’m doing it wrong?

    You then say you have been deeply disappointed by Dawkins, but people have been disappointed by Rebecca, by you, PZ and others. Are you saying only certain people have the right to be “disappointed”.

    So if I say “I don’t like grapefruit juice” then I must also say that I don’t like whatever other foods I don’t like or my statement is invalid?

    You can’t just disavow the fact that a lot of people along the spectrum of the argument have made ‘strange’ comments.

    Not mention does not mean disavow. In any event, you show me that anti-Dawkins or anti Stef comment threads that are equivalent to the shit on ERV and we can talk.

  96. Greg Laden says:

    I see that quite a good size of my comments have apparently wandered off the beaten path. The poor dears; I hope they’ll be okay

    Thejusticar, I’ve done nothing to your comments. I see nothing in moderation.

  97. Greg Laden says:

    Roxee: Welcome to the internet. This is what it looks like!!!
    :)

  98. Greg Laden says:

    David, nice to hear from you. I wonder if the fact that we’ve both noticed this “people are complex” thing is related to our shared background?

  99. Greg Laden says:

    Justicar: Your comments had been trapped in the Askimet Spam Filter. This probably means that you’ve been a very very bad boy and have been reported for spamming or spreading viruses or something. I’ve freed them but I’ve not read them (I may get to that later)

    • thejusticar says:

      This probably means that you’ve been a very very bad boy and have been reported for spamming or spreading viruses or something

      Yes, and the problem with me is that I’ve been such a bad boy this has happened in precisely one place in the whole universe of where I post. Curiously, starting with the post where I mentioned how odd it is for an anthropologist to be so completely unaware of the internet culture.

      Damn. That’s one crafty non-spam filter selection glitch there I dare say. Even further is that it stopped doing it right after I stopped talking about that aforementioned culture bit. Man. I must be up to some really, really bad stuff online!

      I think the answer lies in “or something” like, um, pointing out that it’s rather bizarre for an anthropologist to fail so dramatically and publicly to groc the intrawebz and its culture. Very cromulent indeed.

      Or maybe it’s that FTB isn’t setup all that smartly, hence all of the errors. As I said in my post, they seem to have wandered off. I didn’t say you were the culprit. Methinks the Laden doth protest too much.

      Anyway, I have viruses to spread and poorly organized blogs to DDOS by leaving a single comment over a thousand characters and then I have to find a way to blame it on John C. Welch. =^_^=

  100. Scrofula says:

    #18:

    BTW, love your blog.

    #23

    I don’t read your blog, I just glanced at it and was trying to be nice.

    No dog in this race, but that is bullshit. Either you’re a ridiculously sycophantic blogwhore, or you’re…no, I don’t see another option.

    Came here through a link, and whether you give a shit or not I won’t be back if your opinions are that malleable.

    Seems your commenters are equally shitstupid, #11:

    There is, after all, nothing wrong with penises…There’s nothing wrong with vaginas either, which is why it becomes so telling when people think that words for them should be insults.

    This moron cannot see the truth for the bush, apparently. If (s)he gets to act all menstrual over vaginal insults, why can’t someone else get ballache over penile vulgarities?

  101. Gwen wrote:

    If you’d actually taken the time to listen to Rebecca’s first video, you would note that HE said he LISTENED to her talk

    What?!?!?! Where did EG say that? Who is claiming that? If what you are saying is true, who is EG? Please note that I think you’re just making shit up at this point to create evidence to fit your pre-determined ‘crime’.

    In getting on an elevator at 4am, if a man were to hit on me, the first thing which would go through my mind is to wonder what he will do when I say ‘no thanks’

    You have a fear of elevators and come-ones, so maybe we should have separate elevators for the sexes, maybe if you wear a burka too, that will let men know not to come on to you ever. And I do mean ever, not just in elevators since the very offer itself seems to terrify you. Your fear is unreasonable, in that most come-ons are not ones that turn into rape if you say no. I doubt most rapes even start with an offer, since that would imply they are asking if you consent. Why would most rapists even ask?

    As an example of unreasonable fears, look what happened to Watson. EG offered politely and then he accepted ‘no’ with no fuss at all. See? Not every cigar is a penis out to rape you. Just because you had a bad experience in an elevator, does not mean everyone else has too. Rapes have also happened in places like homes, sidewalks, restaurants, etc. Shall we just ban all non-rapey come-ons due to the fact that someone somewhere might have bad associations with a come-on that became a rape in homes, sidewalks, restaurants, etc? How about we just ban all come-ons? Oh yeah, that bitch Watson scared two conferences into changing their rules to exactly that, listing non-harmful sexual talk in with the rules against ACTUAL harassment/assault etc. What’s next? Do we take along our fathers and swear chastity until we marry? You guys are turning into a prudish religion with all your thought crimes.

    ______________
    tl;dr
    EG is not responsible for YOUR fears, which are unreasonable ones,
    ______________

    Greg: Who said you guys had any pre-bias against Dawkins? Well, one of you further up did, but so what? What’s your point? All you’re saying to me is that you’ve based your hatred on just this EG non-crime he did. That makes me think even less of you than if you did have some sort of previous run-in. Speaking of which, whoever did mention it above, was probably referring to another event that Dawkins commented on months previous to EG, one where he used what is now one of my favourite phrases “hysterical twaddle”, perfect for situations of indulged, manufactured radfeminist victimhood. That was from when Jenny McWrong went waa waa at a conference with yet another manufactured victimhood complete with weepiness in the bathroom and “you said female instead of woman waaaaaaaa”. Gag.

    By the way, were you drunk or just brainwashed when you wrote this?

    The brownshirtesque masses of clueless self serving middle schoolish immature testosterone poisoned bullshit (along with it’s handmaidens of the “there are gender issues but my gender issues” victim-less victim cheer-leading brigade) is what I find … embarrassing, disturbing, and worth calling out and identifying for what it is.

    Gwen: If you think this is something to masturbate over, then it’s YOU who should go find a room. No one else here has said they are getting horny over this, so what the fuck?

    Stephipoopoo said:

    Also, that “demand” thing? Dawkins offered an apology if things were explained to him.

    What you’re not getting, is that no one was able to give him an explanation that was apology worthy. By the third page of those original EG threads at PZ’s, there was still no good reason for him to not still think of it as ‘zero bad’, and I totally agree. EGuy was NOT responsible for Watson’s fear. He didn’t even do the least of bads. He politely offered and accepted the decline of that offer. Yet you guys are slut shaming him and rape shaming him. I’m sure Dawkins would have apologized if the situation was actually a bad one, like if the guy got mad or harassed her by trying to talk her into changing her mind, but none of that happened. No rape, no harassment, no assault of any kind (verbal or physical). What the fuck is Dawkins supposed to apologize for? The truth, which is that zero bad happened? Come on, that’s ridiculous. Even if you pull the tone troll method of saying “waa waa he was sarcastic”, that was far far outweighed by the vitriolic attacks the pharyngulites pounded him with. What the fuck is HE supposed to apologize for? There’s no grounds.

    There were other things I wanted to reply to, but it was to things that just stood out as stupid and/or outright lies and evasion on the part of Stephanie and Greg. I can only roll my eyes and move along to the next insane sentence. The funniest one though is Greg saying:

    Are you arguing that I’m supposed to do something that you have in your head that I’m supposed to do or else I’m doing it wrong?

    Let’s redo that EG style for LOLs and giggles:

    Are you arguing that I’m supposed to do something (not ever come on to someone if it’s in an elevator at 4am) that you have in your head (potential rape!!!!!! help!!!!) that I’m supposed to do (never offer coffee or sex, you should have read her mind that 4am elevators scare her) or else I’m doing it wrong? (obvious wrong, EG, you didn’t read her mind, what’s the matter with you?)

  102. Justikibbles, of course I can “handle” Steph. But no, I didn’t maintain that it was “just showing familiarity.” I said it was deliberately inappropriate familiarity, used once to make a point. Are none of you crew able to read and retain a point once it’s scrolled off the screen?

    As for Abbie, there is no disrespect in noting that she has succeeded at science blogging while relatively young. There is no disrespect in saying she hasn’t stopped learning. There is no disrespect in noting that she’s passionate. And where is the disrespect in pointing out that she doesn’t suffer fools gladly (even if she does tend to define “fools” as people who disagree with her on issues that she’s passionate about, as many people do)?

    There is definitely some disrespect, although not to her, in prophesying that unless you play things very humble and are careful never to disagree with her, someday you’ll find yourself being treated as the fool that you are. Have fun with that.

    Scrofula, you don’t actually read anything you don’t think you can turn into a gotcha, do you? Greg clarified how much he read and loved, and “Dear Dick” was not calling Richard Dawkins a penis. Now, do you have any objections to anything here when it’s taken in context?

  103. Greg Laden says:

    Srofula, welcome to my blog! Please read the description off the blog on the side bar, then you’ll get a better idea of wht its all about here. Now, to your question:

    No dog in this race, but that is bullshit. Either you’re a ridiculously sycophantic blogwhore, or you’re…no, I don’t see another option.

    Let me use an analogy that even you can understand.

    Say I drive someones car and I get done and I say “runs great, I love the way it runs.”

    That’s a valid opinion.

    Then the person says “You are a sycophantic carwhore because last week it ran badly!”

    That person would be an idiot.

    Sorry you won’t be back!

  104. Greg Laden says:

    Scent, I was under the impression that EG’s presence at the events prior to his ham handed attempt at being a social being were documented.

    Are you sure this is not correct? I think maybe you just missed that.

  105. Scent, I was under the impression that EG’s presence at the events prior to his ham handed attempt at being a social being were documented.

    Are you sure this is not correct? I think maybe you just missed that.

    Really? Documented where? There isn’t even any evidence that he’s even a real person. We’ve all just been taking Watson’s word for it that he not only existed, but what he said to her as well. So, um, you know, like what documentation??????

    Not only has no documentation been shown, but all these after-the-event add-on ‘facts’ about him have no evidence, such as that he knew for sure that Watson was against any and all come-ons at conferences including non-harassy polite ones. People are making up shit about him right, left, and centre in order to make him sound rapey or harassy.

    I’m at the point where I’m questioning whether that elevator encounter even happened at all. How do I know whether or not Watson just made it up to sound all victimy and deserving of sympathy and attention? The only part of it all that makes me think the event DID happen, is that EG did nothing wrong. If it were made up, I think she’d have added some harassment or coercion to the story.

    So, show me this ‘documentation’ please. This should be really interesting.

  106. Oh, by the way, that was quite interesting how you excused your lying to me about my blog when Scrofula mentioned it, you phony.

  107. Greg Laden says:

    No, it has been discussed at length, and I’m not really the guy who does your homework for you.

    And I do so much regret what I said to you. I’m very very sorry. I was sincere when I said it, I really was, but I shouldn’t have.

    To make it up to you I’ll put your blog on my RSS reader and every time you post something I’ll make a sincere honest remark about it here, in comments on your blog, other places on the internet. Thereafter, the main thing people will know of your blogging will not be the blogging itself, but my reaction to it. Perhaps we can get a thread going here at The X Blog of just people babbling on about what a c*nt you are. That would be fun!

  108. Scented Nectar #102:
    It is late at night (or very early in the morning) and you have just stepped into an elevator to go back to your hotel room. A man, who doesn’t appear to be in a terrible rush, steps into the elevator with you, even though there’s more than one elevator and they could just call another, since it’s late at night and no one else is likely to use the elevators.

    The man says he saw you earlier at a social function, one where you just loudly announced your intention to go to bed, being that it is late night/early morning. He says he was interested in talking with you, and asks if you would like to join him in his room, now, for coffee — never mind of course that it is late night/early morning and a person wishing to talk over coffee would probably be much better off offering to meet in the hotel restaurant or at a nearby coffeehouse in the morning for breakfast (in fact, that’s what a reasonable person would do, respecting the fact that it is late night/early morning and coffee is probably the last thing on your mind right now).

    You notice at this point that the elevator control panel has a button on it marked STOP that will, quite obviously, stop the elevator if pressed.

    You also notice that the top of the cage has grating over fluorescent lighting* that would cover any escape hatch, and that it would be very difficult to get up there without help besides.

    1. How can you trust that the offer for ‘coffee’ is really for just that, being that it is late night/early morning and you could easily just have a chat over breakfast instead?

    2. How do you see no appreciable risk in rejecting the offer?

    * – Most elevators I’ve seen have something like this to protect the passengers in case a bulb shatters

  109. Greg #108:

    Perhaps we can get a thread going here at The X Blog of just people babbling on about what a c*nt you are. That would be fun!

    I know you mean well, but please do not use gendered insults.

  110. Setar, Greg isn’t calling Scented Nectar a cunt. He is making an oblique comment that doing what has been done to Rebecca is not something she would find acceptable if it were done to her.

  111. Scented Nectar, would you care to provide a definition of “slut shaming” that would make comment #102 make the least bit of sense. Then you can stop repeating non sequiturs that have already been addressed and stop pretending to leave. You’re obsessed. You won’t leave.

    And as long as you’re here, let’s explore this inability of yours to hear Rebecca’s prior “No”s some more. Can your twisted brain contort enough to assume that Rebecca is telling the truth–that she spoke at length to a crowd that included EG, in such a way that he would have heard her say she doesn’t like to get hit on at conferences, and that he would have heard her say she was tired and wanted to sleep–and still call the proposition “zero bad”? Can you hold both those ideas at once, or does the assumption of “zero bad” crowd everything else out when you look at it?

  112. Setar, Greg isn’t calling Scented Nectar a cunt. He is making an oblique comment that doing what has been done to Rebecca is not something she would find acceptable if it were done to her.

    Sorry. I blame work, a messed up sleep schedule, and the fact that it’s insanely hard to tell if Scented Nectar is being serious or satirical.

  113. Greg Laden says:

    I know you mean well, but please do not use gendered insults.

    I’m not. I consider that to be a very bad think. I’m presenting Scent with a reality check.

    Oh, right, I see Stephanie has that covered.

    Hey if I wanted to “Twatson” Scented Nectar, I could totally do that. “Scented Nectar” is ripe for offensive wordplay. But we are too respectful here to do that.

    … it’s insanely hard to tell if Scented Nectar is being serious or satirical.

    I know, isn’t it? I’m thinking serious with overt developmental issues. Just a guess.

  114. Greg Liar-den wrote:

    No, it has been discussed at length, and I’m not really the guy who does your homework for you.

    Really? There is documented proof of the whole EG situation and it’s been already discussed at length? Bwwwaaaaahahahahahahah. Uh huh, sure. What do we have, elevator security film footage? Nope. Only a claim that some guy said “I find you interesting, would you like to come to my room for coffee” Yep, but that wasn’t documented. It was simply an orally told tale. Nothing documents it’s VERACITY.

    And I do so much regret what I said to you. I’m very very sorry. I was sincere when I said it, I really was, but I shouldn’t have.

    You were sincere about your lie? I don’t understand.

    To make it up to you I’ll put your blog on my RSS reader and every time you post something I’ll make a sincere honest remark about it here, in comments on your blog, other places on the internet. Thereafter, the main thing people will know of your blogging will not be the blogging itself, but my reaction to it. Perhaps we can get a thread going here at The X Blog of just people babbling on about what a c*nt you are. That would be fun!

    You seem to be under the impression that I’m upset that you don’t read my blog. No. I am upset that you LIED about it. I would have been just as appalled at your lie if it had been the other way around, too (I don’t read your blog, followed by I do read your blog). It’s the lie I’m pissed at, nothing to do with my blog itself. I’m not here for any recognition by you, but for honest non-lying discussion, something you’re unable to do. As for a cunt thread, do it if you want or don’t. I don’t care since that does nothing to mitigate the lie. Nothing can, since it’s a done deal. You lied. I highly doubt that you can convince me you had a good reason to do that. Nor will it make it all better by distracting me with showing me some exaggerated attention, or whatever the fuck that RSS feed thing is supposed to alleviate.

  115. Setar: Why would the guy wait for a different elevator? Is he scared of me? :) What’s this guy look like? If I find him attractive, maybe I’d like to say yes for coffee and then maybe ask him if he’d like to have sex. If he’s not attractive, then there’s two options. Maybe I’d say how about some coffee in the restaurant and avoid the awkwardness of turning him down for sex (assuming that I think that’s what he’s hoping for), or maybe I’d just say no thanks. As for escape routes, it’s not something I do in elevators. I don’t look for red buttons or ceiling escape hatches.

    1. I would likely assume that a coffee in someone’s room may or may not be the case that they are hoping for sex. That’s not a bad thing. Why are you assuming that I don’t want sex with him? Why are you assuming that it’s not ME who offers it?

    2. When an offer is rejected, the risk is almost always the embarrassment and rejection the guy feels, and maybe awkwardness on both our parts. Not a crime.

    But what if he’s a rapist, you’re probably wondering, well, rapists do exist, but you can’t go assuming every guy is a rapist and every enclosed place a trap where you will get raped. Do you assume that every stranger who comes up to you (maybe trying to hand out flyers or something) is about to mug you? Does everyone who looks at your new fancy car really want to steal it when they see you pulling your keys out to get in? Are you constantly scared walking on sidewalks because sometimes drunks drive on them and run people over? Is every restaurant you go to going to give you food poisoning? Food poisoning does happen sometimes, so let’s all be scared of restaurants?

    Sorry, but unless I see some actual malevolent behaviour (mean sneer, overly crude ‘hey, bitch’ talk, punching the wall, some ACTUAL warning sign of violence or non-acceptance of ‘no’s), I’m not going to assume that every guy is going to rape me. EG showed no threatening behaviour if Watson’s account is true. They merely had an uncomfortable awkward moment. I do not accept her mentioning to that she was tired to be an automatic don’t you dare ask me for coffee or sex. The coffee was likely a “want a coffee so that you won’t be tired and we can talk” in fact. Everything in life is risky to some extent. If you have a specific fear of being in elevators with strangers, YOU take the next one.

    Imagine this. A person who is scared that someday, they’ll have a heart attack with no one around to resuscitate them or call 911. That person might only feel safe in elevators if there IS someone else there. They might freak whenever they are away from other people. You can’t make assumptions about people.

    By the way, I don’t care if the word cunt is used, or cock, or whatever. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. They might offend me, but no one has the right not to be offended. EG did nothing wrong. Why are people assuming the worst about him? Oh yeah, because we are supposed to be scared of rape 24/7/365.

    Stephanie: EG is being shamed for coming on to someone. If he were a woman, and Watson a man, how would you feel if Mr Watson got on video and said, Ladies, don’t do that, don’t come on to me at 4am in an elevator. He would be shaming her for the ‘slutty’ behaviour of coming on to him. Goose meet gander. As for me not leaving, it’s been hard to resist answering the stupid here. I know, I know, I have no chance of getting you people to actually understand or accept the things I say, but at that point, I think of the lurkers. There might be some that DO understand what I’m saying and for whom a response by me is appreciated so they’re not left hanging as to what I would say in response to said stupidity. If this were a private conversation, I’d have bailed for real by now. Almost at the start actually, since my words would evaporate into thin air. I consider you and Lyin’ Greg to be brick walls that I’m trying to talk to. You’re every bit as dense as the pharyngulites that way. When I find I can’t resist one of PZ’s thread, the same applies. I’m only responding for the lurkers’ sakes.

    As for Watson’s ‘no’s, how do you know this guy was at her talk or even listening to her if he was? She’s rather boring, and if indeed this guy actually found her attractive, maybe he missed all her hyperbole because he was daydreaming about her? Oh yeah, you guys call that a crime too. The thought crime of ‘sexualizing’ and ‘objectifying’. No sex thoughts allowed, ever, until a woman orders him, “ok NOW think of me sexually”.

  116. Pteryxx says:

    I’m at the point where I’m questioning whether that elevator encounter even happened at all. How do I know whether or not Watson just made it up to sound all victimy and deserving of sympathy and attention? The only part of it all that makes me think the event DID happen, is that EG did nothing wrong. If it were made up, I think she’d have added some harassment or coercion to the story.

    …seriously?

    Because women getting hit on at conferences is so rare and implausible that the woman’s probably lying about it?

    Because after Watson gave a talk about the uncomfortable climate for women at conferences, which topic she was invited to speak on, but somehow that wasn’t enough attention? So she appended a brief anecdote to the rest of her video, somehow knowing “Guys, don’t do that” was going to get MORE attention than actually GIVING ENTIRE SPEECHES?

    Because being harassed and flooded with hate mail and death threats for months afterwards, to the point where she’s considering disengaging, somehow constitutes sympathy and attention in your eyes?

    Have you GOT a thought in what passes for your cranial vault beyond “lying bitchez ain’t shit” ? Hell, you’re an insult to question marks.

  117. thejusticar says:

    Pteryxx, traffic delays happen quite a lot. But when some is constantly late and it’s always, always traffic they cite to, one starts to wonder, particularly when they can’t specify where the traffic delay is.

    There’s a picture of all of the men in the bar with Watson. Yet she can’t pick him out. There are fewer than 10 guys in the picture. 3 at her table. So, he’s one of the 7 guys not at her table, and not the one taking the picture (PeeZus). That leaves at most 6 men.

    She can’t pick him out, but she can tell of his demeanor, quote him, localize the time, and just *knows* he was listening to her every word.

    And yet pointing and saying “that guy” is completely impossible.

    Evidence, sketpic, evidence. How about a little?

    Oh, and, um, a person being drunk and lying about what they were doing the night before is so rare and implausible that any old two bit story about a run down conference encounter must be true? Even when the person on whose testimony, alone, one is supposed to accept the story as true can’t pick the dude out of the only 6 people in the world who could possibly be EG on the facts alleged by her (or him if it were reversed)?

    We can speculate until the cows come home. That’s productive. One thing remains true: picture of men in the bar before she left exists. She is completely unable to point him out. But he was there and she just knows he was hangin’ on her every word.

    Your faith is as strong as $cientologist’s.

  118. Pteryxx says:

    Ah, so you have absolute faith in eyewitness identification, at least when it’s convenient to blame a woman for not memorizing every guy within earshot. How quaint.

    http://reason.com/archives/2009/04/08/eyewitness-testimony-on-trial

    And you’ve decided pre-emptively that frequent, independent reports of unwelcome harassment should be dismissed out of hand because of the gender of those reporting. In spite of an entire body of research on chilly climate going back decades.

    Bias, “skeptic”, you has it.

  119. thejusticar says:

    I think if anything is clear about my position it is that I do not place confidence in eye witness testimony, because it’s notoriously unreliable.

    The problem of having or not having evidence is not my problem; I didn’t make the claim. Watson did; the burden is hers to make her claim.

    Further, you seem to miss a salient fact: he wasn’t just a guy within earshot. They spoke. In an elevator. According her story about what happened while she was drunk in an elevator anyway.

    Presented with a picture of the guy in question, she can’t spot him. Curious.

    No body of research bears on whether there was actually anyone in that elevator with her.

    No scrap of evidence exists which indicates this was the case.

    Yes, I am biased. Like all good scientists, I’m biased towards things which have evidence to support them (and no evidence to contradict them), and biased against stories that lack any evidential support (and worse, have evidence that cut against them). This is what it is to be skeptical.

    Evidence, skeptic, evidence. You’ve got none indicating her story is true, and there is evidence to indicate it shouldn’t be taken as true. Namely, he complete inability to pick the guy out of a lineup – one she paid enough attention to in the bar to recognize him in the elevator (how else could she possibly know it’s the selfsame guy?), but can’t recognize him in a picture the day after?

    Even in a court where witness testimony is given some credence, this is what is commonly called the moment where the not guilty verdict was guaranteed.

  120. Greg Laden says:

    No. I am upset that you LIED about it.

    I didn’t lie about it. That is something happening in your head. It is funny how delusions don’t follow a pattern that links their severity (how strongly you believe them) with their importance. It is interesting to see you reach such as state of frenzy over this one little thing.

    I’m guessing you don’t have a lot of other accomplishments in your life, things going well, important things to do, friends, etc. etc.

    (I don’t read your blog, followed by I do read your blog)

    No, I said “I don’t read your blog” followed by “I looked at your blog”

    Translation for the overlyliteral/autistic: “I don’t habituatly read your blog, never heard of it before” followed by “As I often do when I see a link back on a person’s name on a comment on my blog, I went and looked at the last several posts and formed a very positive opinion of it.”

    Now, however, I’m seeing that you are a very, very mentally disturbed person. But you’re kind of funny to watch almost like a clown.

    I’m at the point where I’m questioning whether that elevator encounter even happened at all. How do I know whether or not Watson just made it up to sound all victimy and deserving of sympathy and attention?

    So, at this point, you are accusing Rebecca of lying.

    You have an obsession with that don’t you? Everyone who a) disagrees with you b) says something you didn’t will to go into their head or c) frightens you, is lying. I’d guess this to be the outcome of faily well developed borderline personality disorder. I’m right, aren’t I?

    Oh, by the way, that was quite interesting how you excused your lying to me about my blog when Scrofula mentioned it, you phony.

    Also, you’re 12, right?

    Pteryxx, traffic delays happen quite a lot. But when some is constantly late and it’s always, always traffic they cite to, one starts to wonder, particularly when they can’t specify where the traffic delay is.

    That isn’t what happened. I’ve explained what happened. Askimet classed three or four of your comments as spam, I assume because you’ve been reported by a number of people for spamming them. I released your comment.

    Justicar [12]
    Yes, I am biased. Like all good scientists, I’m biased towards things which have evidence to support them

    Are you seriously claiming to be a scientist? I don’t believe you. Proof?

  121. Pteryxx says:

    So you claim such expertise in attention allocation that you can reliably determine whether a specific individual in a specific instance should be able to recognize another and with what certainty. While claiming as your evidence the lack of eyewitness identification, which you simultaneously admit is “notoriously unreliable”.

    You don’t get to allocate reliability by wishing on your ego. Evidentiary standards fail.

  122. Pteryxx wrote:

    …seriously?
    Because women getting hit on at conferences is so rare and implausible that the woman’s probably lying about it?

    No, of course ordinary come-ons are not rare. Being harassed and/or assaulted IS. It’s the fact that she freaked over a non-harm that makes me think the initial elevator offer was real. If she were making it up, she would have added some actual harm to the story.

    Her talk was about nasty types of come-ons, threatening emails, graphic descriptions of what they’d like to do to her, that sort of stuff. How were polite, non-harmful people supposed to know that she was including them too? EGuy took extra care to make sure she didn’t think he was about to do that with “don’t take this the wrong way” to let her know he wasn’t about to be threatening or graphically explicit. I think she put this non-event into a video because either A: she really does think all offers are intrinsically harmful, or B: she just wanted a bit of poor me attention. How dare he come onto her, SLAP, “fresh!” (some of you may be too young to get that reference).

  123. Greg Laden says:

    Her talk was about nasty types of come-ons, threatening emails, graphic descriptions of what they’d like to do to her, that sort of stuff. How were polite, non-harmful people supposed to know that she was including them too?

    A lot of people miss the fact that in her talk and later podcast, Rebecca makes clear that there is a spectrum of behavior and that response to behavior needs to be adjusted accordingly.

    Scent, you need to start seeing nuance.

  124. Greg the Liar said:

    I didn’t lie about it.

    Ok, class, it’s Let’s Pretend time. Today we’re going to pretend the following two things DON’T totally contradict each other showing a lie:

    BTW, love your blog.

    I don’t read your blog, I just glanced at it and was trying to be nice.

    Sure Greg, we could pretend, but you’re not going to actually get anyone to believe it. Not without an overdose of cognitive dissonance, that is. And anyone unable to believe it is mentally disturbed, of course and most surely. :)

    So, at this point, you are accusing Rebecca of lying.

    No, that’s not what I said. Read the actual words and you will see that I’m saying I can’t know for sure and that I’m wondering if it’s true. Don’t jump to the conclusions when you paraphrase me please. You’re suppose to keep the meaning intact when paraphrasing, something you and the pharyngulites are appallingly bad at. Also, your projection problem shows when you do that, like the Borderline thing. You fit the bill far more with what seems to maybe be, compulsive lying.

  125. Greg Lieden wrote:

    A lot of people miss the fact that in her talk and later podcast, Rebecca makes clear that there is a spectrum of behavior and that response to behavior needs to be adjusted accordingly.

    What did we miss? Please quote her exact words, the ones that EGuy should have identified with as his own type of behaviour. What actual words told him she doesn’t want anyone at all to even think of coming on to her. Since you are a proven wrongful paraphraser, I’m afraid I must ask you for the exact words of hers, that you think he should have heeded.

  126. Scented Nectar #116: Are you trolling, or do you seriously not understand what a hypothetical situation is?

    When an offer is rejected, the risk is almost always the embarrassment and rejection the guy feels, and maybe awkwardness on both our parts. Not a crime.

    Yes, of course.

    There is no risk that, in an enclosed space that can be made almost completely escape-proof with the push of a button, that he might just decide not to take ‘no’ for an answer.

    None at all.

    But what if he’s a rapist, you’re probably wondering, well, rapists do exist, but you can’t go assuming every guy is a rapist and every enclosed place a trap where you will get raped.

    I’m going to stop here. In addition to complete failure at a hypothetical situation, you are now displaying black-and-white thinking in stating that one must either assume every man is a rapist or assume that they will not possibly be raped.

    You are either extremely ignorant, or deliberately dishonest. Please go back and look at my hypothetical situation, and try to put yourself into that situation. Then answer the questions provided, and we can go from there. If you cannot do this much now, then please leave and educate yourself before returning.

  127. Pteryxx says:

    No, that’s not what I said. Read the actual words and you will see that I’m saying I can’t know for sure and that I’m wondering if it’s true.

    Special pleading for misrepresentation.

    What actual words told him she doesn’t want anyone at all to even think of coming on to her.

    While willfully misrepresenting.

    Since you are a proven wrongful paraphraser,

    ROFL

  128. Scented Nectar #125:

    Greg the Liar said:

    Seriously? Seriously? Can we at least keep the shitty nicknames on ERV where they belong, or do you guys really never get tired of them?

  129. Setar and Pteryxx: Both of you are showing that you did not actually read what I wrote, or that you did and somehow concluded that I said all manners of different things than I actually did say. Not just a little, but completely. You seem to have not understand me at all. Soooo, I will respond to you both in the same manner that I do if a retarded person comes up to me and goes: “nghhh, HELLOOO gghshshhg (drool)”

    Me: *Nods kindly and smiles, nods kindly and smiles*

  130. Setar, surely you’re not tone trolling, are you? If so, I guess you must have been quite offended at the “Dear Dick” letters. No? Hmmmm.

  131. Greg #124:

    Scent, you need to start seeing nuance.

    Given her response to my hypothetical, she is either unable or unwilling to do that.

    Given the ERV-y insults she’s slinging, and the entrance of ERV’s vizier (Justicar), I’m leaning strongly towards ‘unwilling’.

  132. Scented Necatar #130:

    Soooo, I will respond to you both in the same manner that I do if a retarded person comes up to me and goes: “nghhh, HELLOOO gghshshhg (drool)”

    Me: *Nods kindly and smiles, nods kindly and smiles*

    Have you never taken an English class? The first thing you learn is that the writer is responsible for making sure that the reader is able to understand them. Our perceived inability to understand you is not our fault for making assumptions or anything wild like that, it’s your fault for not being clear about what you mean.

    That being said, I would say that I understand what you are saying quite well; the problem simply is that I (and everyone else beside me) am trying to carry out an honest discussion. You aren’t, either due to inability or unwillingness, and your readiness to throw ableist slurs and slanderous nicknames at us for what you call a ‘lack of understanding’ strongly suggests unwillingness.

    Now. You can either improve your writing and be more clear about what you mean — in other words, explain yourself — or you can go back to your happy fun little cesspit at ERV where you can insult us to your heart’s content. Pick one.

  133. Scented Nectar #131:

    Setar, surely you’re not tone trolling, are you? If so, I guess you must have been quite offended at the “Dear Dick” letters. No? Hmmmm.

    You expect me to believe that you don’t know the difference between ‘dick’ and ‘liar’?

    Go back to ERV, you dishonest sack of toxic misogynist sewage.

  134. meta: You know, I wonder what would happen if I went to ERV and asked why, if they’re so confident, they post here and not at Pharyngula. If they were so right, they should come on over and take us on like they were before.

    And if not, they should probably quit thinking that they can escape the Horde by simply moving to another blog here…that is, unless they really think we all go to cephalopod everywhere and have no way of toning it down for other blogs.

  135. Pteryxx says:

    Sheesh, Setár, some of us have homework this weekend! >_>

  136. Greg Laden says:

    I doubt you could draw them over here. They are too afraid of me. Nya nya nya nya nya .

  137. *Looks at Setar and Pteryxx, nods and smiles* :)

    Poor retards, next time I see a donation box for whatever it is that ails them, I’m going to put some money in.

  138. I’m confused about comment 86. If Justicar was in the spam filter at the time he was writing #86, how did THAT comment get through in order to let Greg know to release all the trapped comments? If anyone could explain that to me, I’d appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

  139. Greg Laden says:

    Scent: The first thing you need to realize in order to understand this is that you have a very tenuous grip on reality, absolutely no sense of variability or context, and apparently not much technical knowledge of how things work. You also don’t trust other people, which I suspect is because you are such a dick to everyone else that they don’t treat you respectfully, and because of your delusional paranoid tendencies which often accompany severe borderline personality disorder which you clearly have.

    Having said that: Thejusticar, the middle school student who won all those wards for gaming, made a series of comments. A subset of them were trapped by the askimet spam filter. The askimet filter uses mostly unknown and mysterious criteria for trapping comments.

    What we have here is NOT a situation where you understand how commenting and spam trapping work and can conclude on the basis of knowledge that something is wrong here. What we DO have is a situation where we’ve had a chance to observe the behavior of the Akimet filter vis-a-vis TheJusticar’s comments. And maybe learn something.

    Me? I wasn’t paying much attention to what was different about those comments but at least one had link. Maybe that’s a clue.

    Now, I’m curious to see how you are going to use all this to accue me of being a liar again, which seems to be your obsession.

    That’ll be fun to see.

  140. pornalysis says:

    Scented: “I consider myself an egalitarian but not a feminist.”

    Yeah, but you are obviously missing the point: there can be no true equality until white women control ALL the resources, including the ‘colored people’ ooops, what is it they call them? Oh, yeah : “the people of color”…

    So true equality means not just the 80% that they already control, via U.S. policies of social and capital allocation which are currently in the hands of their husbands, sons and fathers–and them of course, but the rest of the pie–that elusive 20% that the Bedouins of Libya, and the rest of the ‘natives’ are squandering.

    Oh–and all the bad menz from the ranks of the tyrannical masses are killed off and locked away in prisons.

    It’s always the wrong people who breed, isn’t it? If only we could pass a law that said that only the academics, the ‘good’ wealthy like Warren Buffet, white women only ( and their favorite ‘other’ women)and gender lesbians could procreate,–why we’d have a better world! Test tube, feminist taxpayers and toilers!

    Duh…

  141. Actually, Greg, all I’m going to do at the moment, is ask how on earth you went from my rather mundane question about the spam filter to a conclusion of detailed mental illness. I should probably just assume in advance that you must be projecting again, or, you actually think that made for a really good insult, or, maybe that you actually believe that stuff. No matter, either way, you now get a prize, a…

    *nod and smile* just like those other two retards got. :)

  142. Greg Laden says:

    The Justicar: Are you seriously telling me that you think I purposefully held your posts?

    Just tell me if that is what you think.

    Here’s the thing. If I want to hold your posts up, delete them, or simply let them be posted, I’ll do that. I’ll do what I want. I don’t need you to be under the delusion even for a second that you are commenting here entirely at my pleasure. The truth is, they were caught in the spam filter. That is the truth.

    Now, are you really accusing me of lying about that?

    • thejusticar says:

      I don’t recall having said that you did it. I said it was odd, and as I mentioned to a couple of people last night I was fully willing to just believe that it’s the setup on the shitty server here (since it still has quite a few problems).

      On my business site, I’ve noticed that askimet tends to hold for moderation things based on previous sets of criteria I’ve used in filtering.

      And it lets me know when it holds something for approval/moderation.

      If one thing has been made quite unambiguous in this summer’s imbroglio it’s that those of your stripe engage in conversations, or permit conversations, not with any respect for free, open and rigorous discussion. No. Indeed, at those posts of other places with all the wrong kind of people we’ve had a lot of conversations about the eagerness to censor that attends your side. It’s only the people who are so wrong who, you know, aren’t working under the premise that people are only allowed to criticize us at our pleasure.

      I haven’t accused you of lying, but there wasn’t the remotest suggestion on the table that you had your hand in preventing the comments’ propagation. And yet you had to write about that.

      I can understand why you’d probably feel need to though: again, all that censorship you guys have been engaging in over the last months probably does lead a bit to a guilty conscience.

      It’s cute being called a middle school student by an anthropologist who plies his trade online yet fails so dramatically to understand the culture of the internet. Even cuter when you’re pointing out that my ‘wards’ from those ‘video games’ come on the heels of running a successful company wherein I make a fairly decent living. To play. And have fun.

      Dash cunning for a kid I’d say turning that whole having fun thing into a business!

      =^_^=

  143. Porn: What? Those Bedouins of Libya et al are hoarding away that 20%? Damn. Can I get in on this? I’m not sure if I’m white enough though. To those who know I’m a full-blood Ashkenazi, I’m not white in the least. But I always pass, what with the pale skin and blue eyes and all (“that’s funny, you don’t LOOK it!”). Not sure I’m into the eugenics side of it though. And, I don’t want to breed, even though blue-eyed men sometimes want a kid with guaranteed blue eyes.

    And sadly, I must admit that I don’t really want to kill or imprison all the Menzâ„¢ either. I, um, well how can I put this, I want to keep some of them as playmates, you know, in my bedroom. That’s not wrong of me, is it? Can I still call myself an egalitarian? :D

  144. Greg Laden says:

    If one thing has been made quite unambiguous in this summer’s imbroglio it’s that those of your stripe engage in conversations, or permit conversations, not with any respect for free, open and rigorous discussion.

    Yeah, right. This is you noticing that I’m getting just annoyed enough to ban you. You are a very unpleasant person. I’m already getting complaints. Be careful.

    For me, here, Askimet simply puts stuff in the “spam” pile and in a given day there will be hundreds of items in there. When I look through it, it is all obvoiusly spam. The only time something that was not spam that’s gotten in there is this set of posts from you, thus my assumption of the porn/bad behavior/whatever connection to you.

    One of your caught posts, by the way, had “world of warcraft” or whatever that game you are addicted to is called. That could look like spam!

    It’s cute being called a middle school student by an anthropologist who plies his trade online yet fails so dramatically to understand the culture of the internet.

    The term ‘anthropologist’ does not mean what you think it means, apparently. You may be thinking of “cultural anthropologist” which I am not. Not even a tiny bit close.

    • thejusticar says:

      The comment might have had world of warcraft in it, but so too did an antecedent comment, all without issue. But ok.

      Complaints? Oh no – people whining that people they don’t like actually have the nerve to talk! Careful? Let’s see, I’ve managed my entire life to do without posting at your blog. I think I’ll be okay when you again demonstrate how much you love fascism. =^_^=

      Addicted to? I guess it is true that I’ve always been a bit of a workaholic.

      I had imagined that an anthropologist was one who: stud[ied] the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.

      But you’ve implied that you study neither culture or social or behavioral issues. Bully for you then.

      It’s also true that I’m not known for being particularly pleasant to those who are, you know, bigoted, deceptive and mentally vacant. I guess I’m guilty as charged.

  145. Greg Laden says:

    Hey, Scented Nectar: I know Porn. I can totally set you up with him if you want.

    • Greg: Huh? What are you talking about? If Porn and myself want to interact sexually with each other, I’m sure we could figure out what to do without your help. Probably a lot better than WITH your help. Anyways, I thought you said you weren’t in middle school anymore. Who sets people up with each other once they’re past school age?

  146. Greg Laden says:

    theJusticar: Wow, you can look stuff up in Wikipedia! Good for you!

    Scented Nectar.. right, I forgot. No social skills, no sense of humor. Porn, in fact, is too good for you anyway.

    • If nothing else, he has a functioning (if odd) sense of humor.

      Scented Nectar, I see you weren’t actually able to meet my challenge. You got closer than I expected, though, further than Justicar got. Care to try again?

    • Well, at least you’re proving your claim to not be a cultural anthropologist. And it’s probably best if you don’t ask me to explain that one to you. :)

    • Stephanie, what challenge? You’ll have to remind me because I don’t feel like searching through the comments to figure out what you’re talking about.

    • Stephanie: I went into detail regarding how EG was slut shamed in one of my posts already, and as for Rebecca’s ‘no’s, I’ve also discussed that a few times, including asking questions that if answered, I can continue discussing. But you’ll have to look for all of that yourself, and for the latter topic answer some things so that I can continue with a full understanding of what you’re claiming. I don’t feel like going through all my posts to find them all for you. They are here somewhere.

    • Replied to this already, but it’s slow in showing up. In case I forgot to actually click ‘submit comment’ or something, here it is again:

      I showed how EG was slut shamed in one of my comments, and discussed Rebecca’s no in a few of the other ones. The latter topic is awaiting some answers though to a few questions I had, from what I remember, and if you want to continue that topic.

      I don’t feel like searching them out for you though. Too much work. If you somehow missed reading them, you’ll have to either look again or forget it at this point.

  147. In case anyone wanted to see what kind of “censoring” was going on in July, I posted a bunch of samples of the things that didn’t make it through: http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/07/comments-you-didnt-see.html

    Then there’s the one that came in later:

    What a bunch of fucking cunts.

    For every “almost raped” post in this comment, I will sexually harass a woman.

  148. Pteryxx says:

    I see that the fans of misogyny don’t care for blog owners’ boundaries, either. Much less politeness, honesty, accuracy or just about any mode of behavior that treats others as equals and not targets.

  149. Greg, could you please check if my last two replies to Stephanie landed in the spam filter. I answered her twice due to the first one not showing up. I figured that I must have forgotten to click ‘submit comment’ the first time, but now since my second attempt did not appear, I figure it’s stuck somewhere.

  150. Greg Laden says:

    What the heck is slut-shaming anyway? This is something I am not familiar with. Am I missing something?

    • It’s shaming someone (usually women) for being sexual, or having more partners than the norm, or doing it while not married/committed, or having a type of sex that someone disapproves of, etc. With EGuy, he was shamed for making an offer of coffee that he most likely hoped would end up with having sex.

      Now picture opposite genders. Picture a Mr. Watson being offered sex by ElevatorWoman. Now picture Mr.W making a video telling women not to do that, that they are somehow bad for offering/hoping for some sex with him. Wouldn’t we all be telling him to leave her alone and stop slut shaming her? All she did was ask and then politely accept his no. She didn’t push herself on him, just accepted the no. Why is she bad? Is it unseemly or sinful (thought crimes!) for a woman to be sexual with a stranger? She must be a dirty slut, right? Nope. She’s just been slut shamed by Mr.W. She did nothing wrong, but he thinks badly of her for even hoping for sex with him under those circumstances (4am elevator). Are you seeing my point at all or am I wasting my breath?

    • Yeah, a guy who doesn’t want women to “do that” totally gets piled on for slut-shaming and has people obsessively blog about him for months, just like this: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/07/05/sexism-in-skepticism-or-just-sex-in-skepticism/

    • Stephanie: From the article you linked to:

      In no way do I hold anything against our propositioners (if that’s a word) whom we turned down, with the exception of one or two who don’t seem to understand what “No thank you” means.

      That does NOT look like slut shaming. He’s made it pretty clear that even though him and his wife received a lot of propositions they did not want to accept, it’s only the ones who did NOT accept their no’s who were problematic.

    • So, you can hear all the “No”s when Brian says them, but you still can’t acknowledge Rebecca’s discussion in the bar when you say, “zero bad.” Now, what would be the reason for that, I wonder?

    • So, you can hear all the “No”s when Brian says them, but you still can’t acknowledge Rebecca’s discussion in the bar when you say, “zero bad.” Now, what would be the reason for that, I wonder?

      Ok, let’s try this again. What did she say in the bar to EG? Considering that she claims to have not talked to him, why are you assuming that he listened to her every conversation with other people? Or are you still trying to twist “I’m tired” into “don’t you dare offer me coffee to help me sober up/wake up”? I would like to know the specific and actual words that EG was supposed to understand as meaning that. Sometimes you allege it was something in her speech and other times it’s alleged to be something she said while drunk (and TO drunks) at a bar. Give me her exact words AND tell me how she knew EG was listening.

      Also, have you ever tried listening to her? I usually only last about a minute on her videos. She’s boring as fuck. Maybe he was listening to someone else or daydreaming. Why does she figure that everyone clings to her every word? I don’t get that. The only ‘no’ that anyone can nail down in her ever-changing story is the one she must have said to him in the elevator itself, which we only know about because it sounds like she must have turned him down (she didn’t tell us the exact words she used in her decline of his offer – she may have just shook her head or yelled “fuck off you sexualizer!” who knows?).

      Did you read any of my previous posts where I had questions about the alleged pre-elevator no’s that EG is said to have not heeded? You’ve not answered any of them, so you probably won’t answer these ones either. The whole expectation that EG was supposed know in advance not to “do that” is very flimsy and vague beyond belief, so now I would like to know the specific EXACT words from either her speech or drunk time (the drunk part in the bar, that is) where she told him ‘no’ in advance. I maintain that he most likely (unless you can show otherwise) had no way of knowing that she meant she hated POLITE come-ons like his (IF he even hoped for more than just coffee) just as bad as all the nasty, mean, and/or overly graphic ones that she referred to in her speech.

    • So, no, you can’t do it. You’re incapable of even positing that things happened the way Rebecca said they did, because then you would have to admit that the event was not “zero bad.” Good to know you’ve actually got some spark of humanity buried under all that denial.

    • So, no, you can’t do it. You’re incapable of even positing that things happened the way Rebecca said they did

      What???? I am asking you what happened, and your answer is to say I’m not even positing it? How about you actually tell me where Rebecca told EG ‘no’ in advance, before claiming I can’t posit it. Did you even read my comment? I’m asking to tell me what happened according to Rebecca, not tossing away your answer to that unconsidered (cuz you HAVEN’T ANSWERED ME YET TO BEGIN WITH).

      So, let me try this once more (for LOLs cuz I can’t imagine you’ll answer this time either – I’ve only been asking over and over and over…). I would like to know the specific and actual words that EG was supposed to understand as meaning “don’t come on to me politely either. I hate that just as much as the mean/explicit ones I was talking about” You can’t answer that, can you. EG was supposed to have magically read her mind, right? He was supposed to read “don’t offer me coffee to wake up” after she said she was tired? Are you in Bizarro World or something? This is insane. You can’t be this stupid to keep ignoring my direct questions so many times, can you? Apparently you can. *mega-eye-roll*

      because then you would have to admit that the event was not “zero bad.”

      Actually I’m still waiting for you to tell me where the bad part is. You do realize that, don’t you? I’m quite serious. You don’t seem to be able to even nail down whether she said her alleged advanced ‘no’ in her speech or the bar, much less which of her words were the advanced ‘no’. “I’m tired” doesn’t cut it since lots of people get offered coffee when they’re tired. Do you have anything at all to base the advanced no on? I don’t think you do, or you’d have shown it to me by now, since I keep asking over and over.

      Good to know you’ve actually got some spark of humanity buried under all that denial.

      Ah shucks, a compliment. What part of my comment do you see as a spark? I’ll bet you can’t even tell me that. You are more evasive of answering direct questions than creationists and politicians I’ve argued with. It’s amazing that you even can make sense of your shoelaces when you put them on. How is it you cross roads without wandering in front of vehicles? Your comprehension level and ability to respond to the actual things I write indicate that you should be institutionalized. Holy shit, I don’t see this high a level of fail very often. You win the award this week, Ms AvoidAnsweringCuzSheCant.

    • The challenge never required exact words, and your requirement for exact words is utter bullshit. As I asked above:

      Can your twisted brain contort enough to assume that Rebecca is telling the truth–that she spoke at length to a crowd that included EG, in such a way that he would have heard her say she doesn’t like to get hit on at conferences, and that he would have heard her say she was tired and wanted to sleep–and still call the proposition “zero bad”?

      Make up whatever words you want as long as they meet the above requirements. Then try answering the question.

    • You don’t want to cough up exact words, yet you say “in such a way that he would have heard her say she doesn’t like to get hit on at conferences“. Did she actually say “she doesn’t like to get hit on at conferences”? If so, we’re getting closer. Or do you think she IMPLIED that, in which case he can’t be expected to have figured out her hidden unclear meaning? The “in such a way” part makes me skeptical. Care to elaborate? And where was this, the bar or speech?

      As for being tired, well, maybe you didn’t know this, but coffee is a stimulant and tired people get offered a coffee quite often, maybe even more often than alert wakeful people, as in “You look tired, would you like a coffee to help you stay awake?”. Also, drunks often get offered coffee as they are finishing off their night of drinking. Some people think it helps to sober them up a bit, although I read somewhere that it doesn’t actually work well for that purpose.

      In order to be able to answer your loaded question, which assumes that she did actually tell him she doesn’t like to get hit on at conferences, you’ll need to start answering at least some of mine first. I need to know what she actually said, because my answer will be based on that.

      And why do you want me to make up words? That’s just plain stupid.

      I think it’s becoming clear that you figure all sorts of implied stuff should have been treated as if it were explicit and direct. I didn’t realize that some skeptics believe in mind reading. Then again, you’re not actually a skeptic, just a common faith-head with a predetermined conclusion you believe in.

    • Not only can you not posit it even for the sake of argument, but asking you to do so makes you froth at the mouth. Fascinating.

    • Ok, Stephanie, I get the hint (finally after what seems like 100 tries). You’re NOT going to answer my question. I will assume that I am correct and you are making a big stink over an IMPLIED advance ‘no’. Wow.

      Hahahahahhahahahaha, Tons of comments here asking you, and you still can’t even come up with what Rebecca supposedly said. BECAUSE SHE DIDN’T ACTUALLY SAY WHAT YOU’RE IMPLYING SHE SAID. :D

      *smiles kindly at the retard “Is your mommy nearby? Let’s make sure you’re not lost”*

    • This was a test of your thinking process, silly. I told you that up front and repeatedly through the process. You demonstrated a repeated failure that was interesting. I pointed it out.

      As for what was said at the bar, Rebecca has said that she spent significant time discussing the fact that she doesn’t like getting hit on at conferences. I wasn’t there, so I can’t tell you what the exact wording was, which is why a request for exact wording is bullshit. However, I have no doubt that the woman who suggested that guys who feel the need to corner women in elevators to get any go get a Real Doll instead made herself entirely clear on this topic as well. After all, she does have that degree in communication.

    • Aratina Cage says:

      To Scented Nectar

      Also, have you ever tried listening to her? I usually only last about a minute on her videos. She’s boring as fuck. Maybe he was listening to someone else or daydreaming. Why does she figure that everyone clings to her every word? I don’t get that.

      Ingenious! I suppose that is why he asked Rebecca to come back to his room for coffee–because he found her “boring as fuck”.

      I think you killed two paranoid fantasies with that one: 1) That it was an innocent request for coffee and 2) That he didn’t listen to her. Because, like you wrote, people often want to get to know other people they find exceedingly boring over a cup of coffee at 4 a.m. in their hotel room. Yep…

  151. Roxee says:

    for goodness sake STOP!

  152. hotshoe says:

    The fake twitter feed looks like Justicar. It’s got that so-much-to-say-can’t-type-fast-enough quality that his blog replies show when he gets really exited. And it matches his sense of “humor” that he’s already demonstrated.

    Of course, Justicar wouldn’t give in to the temptation to call the fake “Twatson”, because that would spoil the fakery.

  153. Greg, are you sleeping? I wrote a comment at least an hour ago and it’s not shown up. Surely this can’t just be the slowness of your bad server, so I guess maybe you are moderating posts. When you wake up, could you post it please? It’s in response to #151 as a nested comment.

  154. Greg Laden says:

    I’m still getting a fair amount of crap that should be caught by askimet, but askimet has not learned yet, so I’ll be moderating for a while longer.

    Yes, I did sleep for a while, hope that wasn’t too much of an inconvenience!

  155. Justicar says:

    I just thought I’d respond to something here since my name was associated with it: I am not that person on twitter.

    Everything I write on this issue is done under ‘justicar’.

    The person in question, not that I’d expect you clowns to do any research, has already made himself known. Like at least as late as yesterday afternoon.

    But you asked on your blog who it was, so that’s close enough to research I suppose.

  156. Pingback: “Elevatorgate” Challenge #1 | Almost Diamonds

  157. pornalysis says:

    Scented: “And sadly, I must admit that I don’t really want to kill or imprison all the Menzâ„¢ either…..Can I still call myself an egalitarian? :D

    You don’t want to killall da menzes or put them in prison for imaginary rapes?/? That makes me wanna cut yer dick off!!!….Oh, wait, Steph went there already with “Dick” but only metaphorically….what’s left?

    TRIGGER WARNING FOR THE FLAKES WHO MIGHT BE READING SOMETHING OTHER THAN RAPEFLATION STATS OR ROMANCE NOVELS

    [..dooooom, duh duh doooom duh dooommm...here comes the imaginary raperists to scare you out of your knickers!!! duh doooom, duh duh doooom....]

    No, you are definitely disqualified, Scented–because not only did I NOT see a look of horror on your face over that phrase, that, but you also didn’t shit pink puss from any orifice, or call the internetz puhlice.

    So, you are not a femlationary rapeologist who needs to employ rapeflation to get your point across, which means you are double disqualified. Because, after all, there can be no equality until da menz penises are firmly in the hands of gender lesbians, and their race and class biased enablers…

    Is it just me, Scented, or do you also brush against the scent of a pogrom on the fall air too—that seasoned with a little bit of class bias, and uber-man/ idealized woman ideology? And about eugenics–isn’t it interesting how team bonobo here always brings up sex–like they can influence our mating or not mating? Sounds like a good idea and all, but they use that derogatorily.Kinder, gentler eugenics…

    And, really, Greg–that was a Soooper patriarchal comment about pimping me to Scented. Pimping is sooo,old-school, and these days only radfem’s are getting in on the “sex supply”like that.

    And of course, it isn’t a Godwin, when the topic, or the commentators are potentially headed in a fascist direction, or employing tactics that echo the bootsteps….er, walk the walk, of fascists.

    This self imposed ghetto of *freethoughts* is turning so ghetto… ghetto pimp’s and rapists and rapeflationists everywhere. I just don’t feel safe here anymore…..

    • Pornalysis wrote:

      No, you are definitely disqualified, Scented – because not only did I NOT see a look of horror on your face over that phrase, that, but you also didn’t shit pink puss from any orifice, or call the internetz puhlice.

      Damn, you’ve seen right through me. I even giggled. Mind you, real rape would be a different story, but I just can’t see the horror in pseudo-almost-rapes. Sick and insensitive of me, I know, but what can I say.

      The pogrom is a never-ending village burning over at PZ’s ghetto, stakes ablaze with innocent fempecked visitors to their little town, but recently the wind spread the fire like an STD, and a few other blogs are now infected with radfeminism. They are trying to spread it to healthy villages too, but not having the luck they wish. Most blogs seem to be vaccinated against ideology.

      As for eugenics, they are selecting against themselves and that’s probably good, not that I’m a fan of planning this sort of thing. It’s just that they are doing it to themselves so I can laugh as their memes die out without any ethical issues getting in my way.

      Greg’s attempt at pimping is unfortunate, but simply due to the fact that radfems and their male pets don’t get out much. They usually subsist on mercy fucks, or charity fucks as I sometimes call them. The pickings at most sex-phobic hangouts are not the best, but ocassionally a generous person will offer them sex. It takes guts though, not just a charitable heart, because it can backfire when they have psychotic almost-rape breaks. Maybe these people offering them sex are just thrill seekers.

      More seriously though, I’ve gotten a little pissed off at how EGuy has been treated. I blogged a post about it earlier today in a post called Stop Slut Shaming ElevatorGuy.

  158. pornalysis says:

    Scented:”Mind you, real rape would be a different story, but I just can’t see the horror in pseudo-almost-rapes. Sick and insensitive of me, I know, but what can I say.”

    I just saw you over at ERV’s blog, and left you a note–so now I am here, and you are too!

    TRIGGER WARNING: STALKER ALERT FOR THE RAPEFLATION CHALLENGED, AND THE FEMTARD AFFECTED–GO GET HELP NOW!!

    [dum dum dum DOOOM dum dum dum DOOOM....stalker is making conversation with a wyminz twice in one day....dooom, dum dum doooOOmmm...]

    Shit–you’re still here Scented?…!!

    [dum dum DOOOOOOOOOM dum dum DOOOOOOOOOOM.....rape is never funny unless it is the rape of men in the Congo, or men in prison, or dialectic rape perptetrated on the internet by rapeflationists who are in bed with police, rather than the poor, the disaffected, or the victims of actual rape! If you think this is funny you are a massageGynists!....dum dums DOOOOOMM>>>>>]!!!]

    Scented? Scented??? YOUR STILL HERE??? Wow, you definitely HATE wymins, don’t you!

    You can’t see the horror of imaginary rape in the heads of women who are afraid to be alone in huge, dark people-transporting openings late at night??–and compound that horror by sharing that journey into, and out of huge dark openings with others??? OF THE MALE PERSUASION???

    Well, take out my big rubber strap-on and pummel me soundly. You musssssst hate wymin…!

    Well, then. Magnify the horror by realizing that maybe, just maybe, we are all a bit awkward about huge dark openings–the ambiguity of shared space, non-verbal cues, and mis-cues, leads, come-ons and/or following….much less pushing the right buttons? Up and down,up and down….

    The horror is Freudian, I promise you. Lacanian, or Krystevian.

    Projection comes to mind–repressed desire transmuted into wolf cries, and serving as a distraction away from real issues–like a need for elevator safety switches, or better yet, women who can handle themselves in public, rather than TOTAL reliance on police state mechanisms.

    Or leaning on (using?) silver backs just long enough to gain some independence…innocent Erendira and all…

  159. Porn: You forgot one of the “rape is never funny unless” types of rape. The one where they don’t actually touch you, but order you to do it to yourself by inserting a dead porcupine up whatever orifice they choose for you. I mean, that one is just sooooo funny, especially coming from such a rape-aware crowd, that I’m slapping my knees. :(

    Strap on? Hmmm, sounds like I’ve got you pegged. Hahahahah, couldn’t resist that one. I mean, you were asking for it and all. :D

    Not sure what silver backs are (people with money?) or Erendira though.

  160. Rumtopf says:

    Yeesh, neckbeards…

    On topic, the book is awesome. I like the question/answer chapter format and how different myths from around the world are explored, human imagination is fascinating after all. The sciencey parts were interesting and clear and the illustrations/artistic page formats complimented everything wonderfully. 12 year old me would have had it glued to her bedside table(with my wildlife books).

  161. Thanks, guys. As someone who has been sexually assaulted, I really appreciate you treating my quite reasonable fear as laughable. That’s real humanity, that is.

    • But pharyngula’s constant porcupine rape jokes don’t ‘trigger’ you? Funny how that works. I’m much more offended and appalled by that being said, due to them being serious, than any joking around that Porn has done here.

  162. pornalysis says:

    That’s great coming from you Steph–after all, this blog is the one of the few blogs in town where I was laughed at, disbelieved, ridiculed, mocked and slandered after I mentioned being molested by multiple women when I was young.

    Offline dear, is the best place for that dialogue–because you folks here just mock, abuse, flame and re-victimize male victims of sexual assault and abuse, while gyn-adulating, vaginating, and rapeflating over female victims of abuse–been there, done that with team bonobo, Steph.

    But if this is just a place for more white women’s tears only, let me know–I will snip my testicles and leave them at the door for all of your friendbots to ogle, and covet.

    And how many times have you trotted that po’ me thing out, while minimizing, mocking or laughing at the impact of rape on men? I remember not long ago…but if you really want to share–offline, because I won’t be re-victimized here, again.

    Oh, yeah: BTW, this was a conversation between two consenting adults–me and Scented Nectar, who each have our own stories too–difference being, neither of us has yet to label you either a man or woman hater, and, as far as I can tell, neither of us make webz-cash talking about it.

    So I am sorry if you felt that was an invitation for you to mind our business, or tone troll in the disguise of perpetually exclusive, white female victim. That thread is called ‘any blog at team bonobo, freethoughtsblogs.com “.

    I thought this thread was about another male victim of sexual abuse who was recently mocked, re-victimized and pissed on over here–that old silver back Richard Dawkins, who has sustained quite a beating from two well known male atheists here in Minnesota.

    TRIGGER WARNING: I AM ABOUT TO REPLY TO A SENSIBLE EGALITARIAN WOMAN WHO HAS A WELL DEVELOPED SENSE OF HUMOR

    Scented: yup–pegged would be right–like all those poor young male sex slaves in Thailand et al that NEVER get even an honorable mention or even a brown star for the great oppression they suffer. Too icky to talk about here at the freethinkers convention. And not half as fun or as cute as little Asian girlzz for white women to adopt!

    Oh, shit!! I forgot to buy my wolf-tickets!![ *scritch, jingle, tug...sound of me, rifling through my pockets to find wolf-ticket before I get kicked out of here!! Ah, here it is " HEY I VOTED FOR OBAMA, man! Wheeeew....]

    Over here, only imaginary rapes are important; to white, middle class-to-upper class females, and recovering-Catholic taxpayers, gubernminters and akademikicists– the women from the troop who they pedestalize, and the wyminz they take their marching orders from.

    But while on the topic of silver backs [small pause...]they are male gorilla’s who head troops of females and younger males–they gits all the bitches in the troop, until another younger, stronger male (or two) beats him up and then, he/they gets all the bitches, and the next book deal… (I am using bitches in an inter-species manner–is that wrong and sexist? I can be such a DICK sometimes).

    Erendira (it seems I lost some text here that might appear at the bottom) is the heroine of the story “Innocent Erendira and her heartless Grandmother” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez; a virgin who is sold, and resold by her grandmother to repay an imaginary debt owed to the grandmother.

    It is a masterpiece of short story, magic realism, and stands nearly alone in it’s use of the archetypes of Erendira as nubile virgin, pimped over and over by her old bitter grandmother until she escapes…

    It also stands alone as a a rare story that had the balls in the era of white womens feminism to discuss female on female sexual violence–and Marquez was able to tell that story because he came from within “non-white” culture.

    Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_and_Sad_Tale_of_Innocent_Er%C3%A9ndira_and_Her_Heartless_Grandmother

    • I think you know better than that. I think you know that I haven’t mocked, abused, flamed or re-victimized male victims of sexual assault and abuse either in general or specifically on that basis. I also think you know that I care and talk about and urge action on those things that negatively affect men’s status (including the simple act of being children) and make them more likely to be victimized.

      I think you also know that, for the most part, the dynamics of rape aren’t that different for men and women, and that having a discussion about how inequalities are used to blame the victim helps victims of any gender. If you don’t, you might want to read something I wrote a bit over a month ago: http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/08/male-rape-victims-lets-talk-about-men.html

      I’m not sure you understand, although you probably should, that the idiots who dance around claiming that Rebecca deserves X, Y, and Z for claiming a right to self-determination are the same idiots who call a guy a fag after he’s been raped and shame him for not having been able to get away from an impossible situation. And I don’t understand why you’d want to hang around that bullshit.

      But feel free to tell me that isn’t something you want to discuss around here. I’d get that.

    • Pteryxx says:

      Hai, and I spoke up for male rape victims in the Skepchick thread and on Pharyngula. @Stephanie, thanks for the link. I’m glad to have another good reference article besides the ones on NSWATM.

    • Only token responses are made regarding the rape of men. I remember back in my Dworkin-cult days, we always found a way to blame it on the men even when the woman was the rapist/assaulter and the man was pure victim. If you can’t find a convenient man to blame, the patriarchy in general will do.

      And if it’s a man on man crime, we always found a way to convince ourselves it was only because the victim was being thought of as a woman.

      I sure hope the times have changed a little on that one from the radfem camp.

    • Oh yeah, I remember now about silverbacks from documentaries decades ago.

    • The word bitch? Using that word is as bad as raping everyone who heard you say it. Didn’t you know that?!?!?!

    • Pteryxx, I wish there were more good articles on the topic. Sadly, most of the people who talk about male rape victims are using the topic as little more than a “don’t talk about female victims” bludgeon. They don’t actually write about it any more than the people who complain that existing domestic abuse shelters don’t take men work on starting up shelters that do, despite the fact that those shelters were set up by the women who felt the domestic abuse of women wasn’t being taken seriously enough.

      pornalysis is half an exception. He does actually write about the topic but not about the actual causes of the problems, or at least the actual causes tend to get buried in an avalanche of “Everything that’s wrong in the world is the fault of mothers.”

    • Stephanie wrote:

      Sadly, most of the people who talk about male rape victims are using the topic as little more than a “don’t talk about female victims” bludgeon. They don’t actually write about it any more than the people who complain that existing domestic abuse shelters don’t take men work on starting up shelters that do, despite the fact that those shelters were set up by the women

      Isn’t that nice, a little touch of victim blaming to add some flavour, and make sure it’s all steered in the right direction. :(

  163. pornalysis says:

    Steph, The only thing I know for sure is that you have conflated my words to Scented Nectar with your personal agenda, and once again tried to derail a discussion about how white women’s abjected, fearful responses negate truly progressive dialogue; such privilege is always in the way of true equality.

    Subtle misandry is the most harmful; it is the mother of misogyny, and most vile of them all, because it gives young boys and girls bitter mothers who are indelibly etched with self loathing, and inner conflicts that harm children–and also etched with bizarre power struggles against ‘othered’ women.

    Or, as Nancy Chodorow would have us believe ‘it will all magically go away if we objectify our daughters, first…’

    There have been many points along the way where you could have dropped your personal rape bomb, but that( ^above^) wasn’t a good point to do that, because it was like getting on an elevator with two others who were engaged in a dialogue, and dropping a four star fart.

    I do think you have been very responsible for steering the dialogue here in that general direction of conflation–Greg has chosen you as his blog mother, his ‘non-gender traitor woman friend, girl co-author, cool patriarch upholder’ and so forth, his ‘personal’ partner in white female rapeflation crimes…

    But ERV? Man is she a good speaker! Facts, figures, stage presence, real HARD science(sorry Abbie..)–and as John Welch said STTEO–’her eyes light up when she is intrigued by a question,’ as if there is an actual recognition in her of what a good question is, as opposed to her thoughts on Galileo, dialectically raped Elavatorguy, or the Spatzkyites…but, of course, I could be wrong, and her obstinate stance against irresponsible statements in the atheist/skeptic community is just more conflation..

    But from what I get, she has so far refused to narrow her mind to the size of a mere vaginal canal, or restrict the dialogue, though Greg is silver backing like a pro up above to influence her otherwise.

    She seems to be taking it in, and sparking on what sounds true, laughing at what is laughable, and not at all commenting about shit she has NO CLUE what she’s talking about.

    But of course, that is just my knee-jerk response to her, based on her honest attenmpts to encourage–not censor, conflate, or actively work against dialogue.

    She has either brilliantly, or magnificently, or humanely allowed the people that team Pharantulation has attempted to shame into silence to have a voice in a dialectic, not just more werdz about “change for fearful privileged, non-merit based middle class white women who confuse having a vagina opening with having what it takes to open your mouth about science at a conference.”

    Also, I consistently notice that among those marginalized or stigmatized by Myers type rhetoric( and of course, including the sort of contorted misandrist, femtard/drag queen commenters that he encourages there–a parody of actual discourse), there are often men who have damn good reason to distrust rapeflating women.

    And all of them have at one time or another been victim shamed, labeled and marginalized by this gynofied sort of dialogue that you describe above–that you are very often part of.

    Re: “things that negatively affect men’s status (including the simple act of being children)”

    No, clarify: how simple is the act of being a boy? No REALLY? tell me? Like I have consistently maintained, many rapists and many men who later abuse women were often abused by women, first. Elevator guy, and all the dialogue behind his back…?

    And rape is rape–yet you consistently, degenerately, and narrowly focus your own mind and heart to restrict your inner rhetoric to the point where you yourself become a ‘dialectic rapist’ shaming men, instead of examining your own repetitive motions. You blame the car, not the motor when your radio doesn’t work right.

    No really–men don’t get raped–that was child abuse…and prison rape? Congo rape? Abu Ghraib? Impress me by writing about that. But more violated white vaginas? Please–how pandering; how pedantic–how pornographic, and short sighted.

    And where in the life of the boys that you claim to understand do you not get it–but the power shoe is on the other foot when a boy is little and a girl or woman, baby sitter, or other female caregiver is ‘big.’

    ‘Big’ surprise when a guy rapes a woman much later then.

    And I could only read up to yet another point of your misandrist male shaming, statistical stick-on-the-head before my femtard bullshit detector went off, and I remembered that you are one of those who like to further isolate the abuse that little boys endure by saying ‘but child abuse is child abuse and rape is rape’.

    Motor/car, Car/motor…but you? Radio, leaning toward Prius…

    Yeah–white women raise rapists alright–just look at the last 2 thousand years–they are good at that, and then, even better denying their own impulses, desires, and desperate methods to attain or maintain power (Prison Corp of America anyone?).

    Steph–more of the same old same old. Wanna write s/th impressive? Write to your favorite rapeflation charity ( I hear the Schapiro Group needs more willing liars and rapeflationists to get ‘the message’ out), and ask them to initiate a study of how women abuse their power over children, or abuse their authority over children, and how that is positively correlated by rapists self reports of being sexually abused by women–then I might be able to read top, to bottom.

    Or, maybe, I can finish your work, if you can finish mine–what are your thoughts on Little Red Riding Hood always being a white girl?–and how that is positively correlated with every rape narrative ever rapeflated?

    Oh, Rebecca W. has Red Hair? Go figure; how predictable, disingenuous and white…

    http://pornalysis.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/little-white-girls-red-riding-hood-and-flawed-white-feminist-narratology/

    But more rapeflated feminist science?

    More regurgitation’s of how poorly rape is defined by your FBI?

    Another 90 years of not examining how women who use children as pawns and tools of power creates a flawed narrative of ‘what is rape?’

    Real power, begins with real hard looks at real hard facts.But you, et. ass. focus on propaganda, and pander to well known, wore out tropes. Change starts at chapter one, and the RW chapter is already transparent.

    And don’t take this personal–but I might as well re-visit Freud’s thoughts on your orgasms if I want to know about the buy-products theory of the Big O, or how to sell a book to a white female audience–but generation next? There;’s a dialogue–and it deosn’t necessarily start with old, wore out, Little white narratives, and rapetropes…;-)

  164. pornalysis says:

    Steph: On re-read #2, I found this gem of condescension, from you, and read it again–

    “I’m not sure you understand, although you probably should, that the idiots who dance around claiming that Rebecca deserves X, Y, and Z for claiming a right to self-determination are the same idiots who call a guy a fag after he’s been raped and shame him for not having been able to get away from an impossible situation”

    First, show me ONE of them–because you are actually implying that SOME have implied rape, or other harm, and dragging the inference that others are actually threatening harm ( a crucial falsehood that enables rapeflation–it’s ONE THEME within your trope).
    But no one has–yet; because your sides rapeflation has not yet had it’s full effect.

    Let me extract the relevant piece that has been consistent in all of the white woman, rapeflated femtard dialogues, ever: “Rebecca deserves X, Y, and Z for claiming a right to self-determination are the same idiots who call a guy a fag after he’s been raped”

    The short answer is YES. She might learn something from it*…. But in her case, personally, she is still a miniature femflator–no harm has occured–yet, until your rhetoric, combined with larger conflationary machinery, finds its difficult to find source and e-mails the sexist crap your- selves.

    (*so goes the well worn feminist trope of what men who are falsely accused of rape should feel.)

    You can call me a fag till you are blue in the face, and I will beat you down for that( metaphorical, hypothetical, dialectically distanced ‘you’). But men are not a threat to most men–women abuse little boys, and that’s a fact, and boys thus abused recognize the harm of trusting a dialectic that does such.

    But no man EVER had my ass–it was always the mothers, the female baby-sitters, and the women in general who messed with my genitals, my sense of personal autonomy, and my personal boundaries.

    And no young boy, in any nation, anywhere, is equipped or empowered to escape from feminine, maternal, or kyriarchically empowered feminine control and authority. No boy anywhere is safe, or free from female control, or EVER HAS BEEN. And no boy is safe from the endless hunger of women othering feminine constructs of hidden, denied, or unrealized power; the stifled, stifling hunger of women…

    The real problem isn’t a bunch of he-men rape shaming. The real problem, is women who create children who would do that to another human being; the real problem after that, is the women who become like that by sacrificing(pimping) their sons first–the women who neuter their sons and circumcise their boys minds, and create dialectic punching bag boys so that they never have to personally face their own inferiority feelings, or devise truly equal, empowering schemas of escape. The mothers who abuse, and hide it behind medical necessity, or conflate it with nurturing.

    I personally ran out of pity for the po’white Rebbecas at ” rapeflation over actual rape= personal selfish power to eventually play with the sex of my own kid to create a better world.”

    That equation wore off some 2000 years ago and counting, dearest Mary.

    She oughta’ deal with what I have dealt with; or any male whose sex has been formed, enabled, or otherwise ‘engendered’ by women who choose the role of sexual precipitator( ala Chodorow et al).

    Or, deal with what the 22% of male survivors of prison camp rape in the Congo have dealt with–and correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t there a huge segment of Congo ppl that are matrilineal, if not matriarchal? Either way–the 22% are the SURVIVORS of the rape that other mothers children perpetrated are the ones who SURVIVED…)

    Until then? Same old shit, filtered through white women with agendas, and rapeflators that favor, or conceal them.

    • Pteryxx says:

      Well, there’s the display of core belief… blaming women for men who rape, just because they once had mothers.

      @pornalysis, I’m sorry you were violated and betrayed. Yes, by women. I’m sorry you have to live in your exploded trust, and I hope you find some peace someday, for all our sakes.

    • There are also the 1% of American men who are in jail, usually for nonviolent ‘crimes’ like drugs, and who get raped while in there, in high numbers and on a regular basis. That’s the type that most feminists will have no problem laughing at and making soap dropping jokes. I’ve heard many radfeminists say that rape doesn’t hurt men the way it hurts women, although some will give it token sympathy for a few minutes.

    • Nobody should ever have to deal with what you’ve dealt with, pornalysis. Nobody should have to deal with what I’ve dealt with. And nobody should have to deal with what people much less fortunate than either of us have had to deal with.

      However, there is nothing about decreasing anybody’s right to self-determination that is going to make that better. There is nothing in deciding that anyone deserves to be degraded or harassed that is going to fix it. Nor are you going to do any good trying to heap all the blame on a broader version of the people who hurt you. You describe part of the problem, nothing like all of it.

      I’ve written about all of those things you think I should write about, pornalysis, and more. You apparently can’t see past my skin color to notice that. I’ve looked at the studies on what the perpetrators have in common, too, and it isn’t abusive mothers, although some of them do have them. No, the people who rape are the ones who don’t see other people as fully human: sexists, racists, classists, able-ists, homophobes, soldiers conditioned to war, and people who view children as property. And if you don’t think I’m doing my damndest to dismantle all of that, you’re not paying attention.

      Does that sometimes mean talking about something that some people consider trivial? Sure, and I’m fine with that. Frankly, nobody should have to put up with crap much less severe than what any of us have been dealt.

      As for timing on bringing up my personal history, when do you bring yours up? It’s always going to interrupt something.

  165. Nor are you going to do any good trying to heap all the blame on a broader version of the people who hurt you.

    I agree. It would be like, sayfor instance, if some guy in an elevator got blamed for what some other men have done, just because he’s male too, the broader version being all men in this case rather than all mothers.

  166. See now, there you go again with that blindness. It isn’t all men at all. It’s that subset of men who refuse to listen to “I don’t want you to do that to me.” Unless you’re saying all men are like that.

    And no, it’s not victim blaming. That “people who complain that existing domestic abuse shelters don’t take men” is generally not composed of people who are saying they have been abused. Nice try, though.

  167. Synchronicity, how does it work? Sorry Greg, but I seem to have accidently copied you. I have a new post on sandwiches. Then I saw that you put one up 12 hours earlier. Just wanted to let you know that I’m not trying to copy you on purpose. :)

  168. Greg Laden says:

    Interesting. So you want me to believe that? Just because you said it? Yes indeed, very very interesting. I would have to assume that your motives were not intentionally nefarious. Something that I usually do with other people, but that you seem to have a very hard time with.

    Shoe, meet foot,other.

  169. You can, and maybe should, be skeptical about it. It is a weird thing where you can’t NOT wonder “why did she do a sandwich post too?” I mean, ***I*** know for sure because I AM me and therefore know that I hadn’t seen yours first. But YOU have no way of knowing it without reading my mind, and I am unable to provide proof. I can acknowledge that. There’s just not much I can do about it though.

    If I had seen yours first, I would have held off of posting or even making the video this morning. Why? Because I would have worried thinking it would look like I’m copying or something stalky like that.

    Lesson I’ve learned: Make sure I’m up to date with my newsreader and new videos before posting. If it helps to know, I don’t like this sort of coincidence if it means that the other person might wonder if I’m doing weird headgames or something. Feels icky, even when it’s someone I’ve argued with.

    But, by all logic, I hate to say it, you SHOULD be skeptical. I would be if the situation were reversed.

  170. hotshoe says:

    4:06

    Only token responses are made regarding the rape of men. I remember back in my Dworkin-cult days, we always found a way to blame it on the men even when the woman was the rapist/assaulter and the man was pure victim. If you can’t find a convenient man to blame, the patriarchy in general will do.

    And if it’s a man on man crime, we always found a way to convince ourselves it was only because the victim was being thought of as a woman.

    I sure hope the times have changed a little on that one from the radfem camp.

    4:15

    But pharyngula’s constant porcupine rape jokes don’t ‘trigger’ you? Funny how that works. I’m much more offended and appalled by that being said, due to them being serious, than any joking around that Porn has done here.

    4:21

    Oh yeah, I remember now about silverbacks from documentaries decades ago.

    4:26

    The word bitch? Using that word is as bad as raping everyone who heard you say it. Didn’t you know that?!?!?!

    4:30

    There are also the 1% of American men who are in jail, usually for nonviolent ‘crimes’ like drugs, and who get raped while in there, in high numbers and on a regular basis. That’s the type that most feminists will have no problem laughing at and making soap dropping jokes. I’ve heard many radfeminists say that rape doesn’t hurt men the way it hurts women, although some will give it token sympathy for a few minutes.

    Jayzus. Are you high, or what ?

    You know, that conversation you think you’re having, that voice you’re hearing in between your rants, it’s not real. Sorry, I don’t know how to tell you this any more politely – but, it’s … all in your head.

    I hear taking a megadose of B12 helps some people with symptoms like yours.

  171. hotshoe: Unless the people I’ve been talking with have had their comments deleted, it’s you who has a problem with thinking I’m not talking with anyone.

    Looks like their comments are still there. I just checked. They are just not in the same order as they used to be. They were threaded in order earlier on, but now no longer show clearly which comments I was responding to. Care to retract what you said to me just now, hotshot? :)

  172. I hear taking a megadose of B12 helps some people with symptoms like yours.

    Also, that’s a nice little bit of woo there, Dr. Hotshot. You should at least try and use real medical info in your insults.

  173. Greg Laden says:

    Is B12 woo because you self identify as a “skeptic” and therefore assume all vitamins are woo? Or is it because you don’t have myelin decay and pernicious anemia? You certainly do have the irritability but I think hotshoe was referring to memory issues.

    Which can also be caused by switching back from threaded to non-threaded comments .

  174. pornalysis says:

    First, I would like to tell anyone reading that I was assaulted by a woman late last night while I was on my way home. I will be writing about that as soon as I have the time.

    I was struck with a hard blow in my back–a blow to my kidney from an anonymous woman in a crowd of of people, and that is not at all an unusual event, as women’s violence often takes the form of public forums to express itself, where it is seldom if ever held to account.

    That woman proceeded to flail and punch at another woman, and any men who tried to restrain her. All in all, from my brief interaction there, she committed at least four fifth to third degree assaults, and at least two counts of terroristic threats “I will kill you bitch.” etc.

    And, like women who commit violent acts daily in America, she was hurried out of the scene of her crimes by female violence enablers.

    pteryxx:

    Your comment is typical, demeaning, and odd. “Well, there’s the display of core belief… blaming women for men who rape, just because they once had mothers.”

    In fact, I lean toward your comment being idiotic. Not all mothers are created equal, my femdeluded friend. Or are you still woprshipping at the feet of the Monolith?

    Let me ask you: have you ever actually known a rapist? I mean, other than the one in your imagination–that boogieman that team white female bonobo drags out in EVERY discussion? Because I have known a few–and I knew their mothers too. And those women were brutal.

    Match that, discuss that, or f@ck off.

    And my peace is none of your business, touchy-phelia tone trolling is passe’–and before this thread becomes another victim shaming trope, attempting to isolate, marginalize, and victim shame someone who has a willingness to discuss such things, you are on notice from me that I think you are utterly disingenuous.

    Steph:
    “as little more than a “don’t talk about female victims” bludgeon.”

    And @ “mothers”.
    There you go again–trying to turn this into the femtard trope of “mommy issues.” Fem-Derailing 101.

    If you actually ever read anything i write, you will see that mothers are just the large part of women’s sexual abuse of children, and that auntie’s, babysitters, and other female dominated ‘institutions’ are all culpable as well.

    The piece about Nancy Chodorow’s “Mothering” is a symbol of a larger social construction of ‘women,’of this generation, and the enmeshed nature of women to other women, and then boys and then men.

    I read through your piece, and, despite more male shaming language–the title alone almost implies that you are merely gossiping, not genuinely engaging the subject, and not too subtle misandry–you are more and more on the right track, and I applaud you for that.

    I would even say that it is nearly the only purportedly feminist article I have read anywhere near here that actually makes an attempt.

    But what did you think of my thesis about the Little Red Riding Hood always being a crying white girl? Yes, Steph, race matters–and it is ALWAYS white women in these dialogues; profiting in the literal sense, from these dialogues.

    ALWAYS white women seeking to get ever closer to that pot o’ gold of congressional, academic, and think-tank funding with the net effect of completely ignoring the real situation on the ground, in favor of the catchy tunes of patriarchy and rapeflation.

    It’s been over fifty years of the same old same old rapeflation; that which reframes, generation after generation, white women as victims. Net effect? More men ofall races in prison for drug crimes, more dead soldiers that feed that construction, and more cops on the streets upholding class and gender(white female) privilege.

    Scented:

    “It’s that subset of men who refuse to listen to “I don’t want you to do that to me.” Agreed. And the women who raised them.

    But you are starting to look like an equalist–be careful–the gynocracy doesn’t tolerate that at all! It could create a gynorift in the gears of the rapeflator! Run! Get some gear lube, and hold it out like a sacrificial offering before they other you with the word masseuserist!

    The actual stats tell us that somewhere near 5-10% of men actually admit being raped in prison–and that is a gross underestimate due to conditions of coercion, and actual (not imaginary) punishment from authorities for reporting. And THAT is counted by single occurrence, whereas the systemic coercion inherent in such a scenario negates the possibility of reporting even further.

    And, as the DOJ study of TEN years ago noted–there is NO ESCAPE behind bars–no red button to push while you get your “shit pushed in”, and no cops to call–and they in fact are often the rapists; there are no expedient rape kits or reporting mechanisms.

    http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/12/15/us-federal-statistics-show-widespread-prison-rape

    The little Eichmanns of feminism work hard to whittle down the figures of male rape, while inflating figures of female rape with impunity(ala the recent well publicized Schapiro Group study on sex slavery)which is where I imagine your 1% comes from.

    I have posted in many places actual statistics of such rapes that they are whittling down by the hour–for instance the Health Canada site and the Invisible Boy report, and have always been brutalized in the rhetoric.

    In the mean time, [putting on touchy feely bonobo gloves now....]I hope you get the help you need, and find peace if what I said uop there ‘triggered you’ in any way…. ;-)

  175. Greg Laden says:

    Ouch. Sorry that happened.

  176. Raging Bee says:

    Porny-boy, you accused me of supporting Sherriff Arpaio and advocating the rape of boys. You never produced one smidgen of evidence to back up the charges, and you never retracted the charges either. You’re an unhinged fucking liar. Why the hell should we believe you now?

  177. Actually, pornalysis, the “mothers” thing isn’t exclusive. It’s just the largest category of women responsible for child sexual abuse. It’s shorthand, not obscurantism. And the title is a reference, not a slur. I guess I shouldn’t have assumed you’d get that.

    You’re not going to get any argument from me on the white girl crime victim thing. You’re not going to get any argument from me that prison rapes are a serious problem. You’re not going to get any argument that child abuse is a serious problem. You will get arguments on the stats, because I’m up to my eyeballs in the literature.

    You will also get an argument when you suggest that working to undermine any woman who is calling for self-determination helps any other woman. It just doesn’t work that way. If the meme is “bitches lie,” a brown woman isn’t miraculously going to escape that meme. She’s just going to get hit twice as hard because she’s a woman and not white.

    And no, I don’t read every word of yours any more than you read every word of mine. You’ve got some good pieces over there, though. Little Red is one of them. Did we publish your first blog post, or had you been writing elsewhere before that?

  178. Pingback: The Problem with Privilege: (or: Evidential Skepticism) | Lousy Canuck

  179. pornalysis says:

    Thanks, Greg. It has happened so many times I can’t count ‘em.

    Rasping Butt: Don’t forget that I also think you are a likely pedophile, or an evil drag queen in the mold of Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.

    And one of the most lonely, desperate, substanceless parrots on the internet. Oh–and one of the most angry, cowardly people I have ever met on the internet.

    (to anyone looking in, stumble over to its substanceless navel gaze of an empty blog, and get a glimpse of what 3 generations of gubermint work can do to ones brain) Ahh, the fresh smell of entrepreneurial America!!

    Butt, I don’t need some walking hemorrhoid of a third generation gubermint werkers approval, agreement, or belief, Butt.

    And that goes twice for you–I am not here to provide you with, or exclusively baby-sit another round of flames for you to indulge yourself with as you click through those i-chat sites full of nekkid wiminz with your hand glued to your groin–

    Oh, hell,yeah I will! You lying, self-effacing, useless parrot-tard.And how is your drug-relapse going for you anyways? Because your rage is showing–and it is only slightly overshadowed by your stupidity, adherence to dogma, and cowardice.

    Steph:
    “the title is a reference, not a slur. I guess I shouldn’t have assumed you’d get that”

    Yah, I know, I’m too stoopid to get that…but over here, there is always subtle slurs, conflation, and minimizations, so pardon me if I am feeling it in advance…

    “when you suggest that working to undermine any woman who is calling for self-determination helps any other woman. It just doesn’t work that way.”

    Yah–that’s why I’m gonna vote Bachmann, 2012, dontcha know. She’s empowering generation next wfp–I mean, what other PeePee is there?

    http://pornalysis.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/wanna-see-my-peepee-my-political-privilege-silly/

    Oh! You mean Rebbecca Watson, first relying on–piggy backing on– Dawkin’s cred? And then, shitting all over him at the opportune moment? That moment when he called her on her white female privilege; and then hopping back into Greg and PZ’s nests? Little Red Riding Wolf…

    Yeah–really self reliant…and it does work THAT way. But really, I ain’t gonna play that either–all this name dropping ( and I have probably written her name what? Maybe ten times or less since this whole navel gaze began?) feeds the femflation, not the solution.

    re:”If the meme is “bitches lie,” a brown woman isn’t miraculously going to escape that meme. She’s just going to get hit twice as hard because she’s a woman and not white.”

    I think you need to refer to Greg’s thoughts about voices in the head up there–but me and you weren’t even close to this conversation.

    But while you bring it up–the meme all men are rapists ( via the Rape Switch of Wrangham) sure has built a substantial war machine, and an ever growing prison system. Didn’t do much–didn’t do ANYTHING to help black men either.

    Hell, it even got Dick Cheney to endorse Hillary for 2012! That’s the marriage of the men are all rapists meme.

    So who are you voting for in the next election? The white person on the right, or the other white person on the right?

    Grassroots, woman, not dyed roots…humanism, not more rapeflatulence and fauxminism. I mean–isn’t there some other way to get women excited and united about something that ISN’T rape? Well, there is Macy’s black friday sale…Maybe tie that in with the release of the next book of atheist revelations, called “Why RW is Well Suited to Perpetually Remain Absolved; or the Infallible Virgin Mary, Reincarnated–but wait! This time without G-d! Cuz G-d is such a DICK!”

    Naw–that would be a long title…maybe how bout just ” Sexism Sucks: a human beings guide to hypocrisy and double standards in Janet Swims interpretations of Benevolence.”

    No wait! ” Benevolent Wut? Why Ur Nutz and I’m not.”

    Oh never mind…

    I remain skeptical that feminism and skepticism are compatible. Behe/Laden? Naww…there is no compromise there, nor should there be–and that one is, as they say, the ‘good fight.’

  180. Greg: When a stranger who is not a doctor, much less your own doctor, insults you with saying your talking to yourself, and then ‘prescribes’ mega doses of vitamins, I think it’s safe to call it woo. Mega doses of B12 does not cure talking to oneself or the schizophrenic hearing of voices that the moron seems to have accused me of.

    S/he might as well have said take some magic water or switch to raw foods only or rub crystals and think positive. Since Hotshot was obviously trying to insult rather than actually believe it as a ‘cure’ for whateverthefuck, let’s call it to ‘nonsense’ instead of ‘woo’ if you like.

    There we go, fixed for your hopefully easier comprehension. Unless of course, you too, are trying to diagnose me with something and then cure it. Are you doing that? No. You’re just being silly and running along with their insult too. Call the nonsense whatever you want. I expect even insults to NOT contain woo when I’m at places that are supposedly skeptical of such things, but run and play with it if you are seriously saying they were serious. Whatever.

  181. Porn: I saw a study written about yesterday, but unfortunately didn’t bookmark it. It found that rape under war conditions (and I’m guessing it will show to apply to similar but not as massive disputes/conflicts, such as jail conditions/competition) was NOT a method of ethnic cleansing like some say, but a bonding method that the group of warriors/soldiers do.

    The Congo was studied and guess what? The worst group of raping fighters they found, happened to also be the one with the highest numbers of women among their fighters. They bonded with the men in their units and raped too, by a mix of helping to hold the victims down and also raping with bottles, etc. The study showed a couple of well-believed myths to be wrong – the ethnic cleansing purpose and that it’s totally a male thing.

    “Perpetually Remain Absolved” Hahahah, Our Lady Of Perpetual Persecution Who Does No Wrong. She who must always be believed. After I saw the video of her yesterday from TAM3, where she admits that no, she doesn’t have a conscience, and laughed heartily about some horrible headgames she did to the woman assigned to be her helper/handler, she’s moved in my opinion from common narcissist to full blown sociopath.

    Feminism and skepticism are NOT compatible. Egalitarianism certainly is, but almost all feminist theory, remains just that – theory (in its non-scientific definition). Look at Watson’s thought crime ideology, where if you are male and have any thoughts about sex at all, you are ‘sexualizing’ and ‘objectifying’, etc.

  182. pornalysis says:

    Scented: I would love to know where I can find that Congo study you mention. Is that something you will be writing about? Link?

    but I must take issue with you here: “but almost all feminist theory, remains just that – theory”

    It has long moved out of the Women’s Studies Professors bedroom, and is actuated as ‘practice and peracticum’–no longer just a theory.

    Donald Ewen Cameron in all his fantasies of power could not have concocted a more vile system of social control–oh, wait–he DID help give us the basis for modern feminism and its psychopathic heraldry of bizarre power paradigms!

    (sorry bout the wiki link–it’s just easier sometimes…and while your there, look up Dr. Sidney Gottlieb–these guys gave us the modern acceptance of the path-narc as leader)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron

    Talking about ppatriarchy is one thing–becoming matriarchy is…, well, really same old shit with boobies this time…

    Yeah, it is truly amazing how the best of things–raising awareness of rape–becomes the worst kind of people doing most of the research, and actually denying the existence of some forms of rape (this whole conversation has essentially been a dialectic rape, a show of power for some at the absolute expense of others–compounded by objectification of the worst sort by those who know better).

    Steph: “I don’t read every word of yours any more than you read every word of mine.”

    I think I didn’t emphasize it enough–but I did read every word of that post, and again, I would say you are miles above the competition by even acknowledging male rape, and the subsidiary violence that men endure because of it.

    I would suggest–seeing as how you have become a clearing house for the data;-) that you look at this hypotheses:

    Rape is a crime of power plus opportunity. Those who have the desire for power through rape, victimize those who they perceive as weak and vulnerable.

    Men commit most rapes of adults, and men get prosecuted. Those men who rape most often are multiple offenders, working from a window of ‘opportunity’ and risk.

    As an equality minded man who has given it as much thought as you, certainly ( been there done that with what data/propaganda exists), I ask you–where do women have power?

    Over who do women have, and then exercise power? And then, if power plus opportunity equals rape, who do women rape, if not those more vulnerable than them, at the opportune moment?

    Or do we just keep calling that ‘child abuse’ or argue about the penis=rape paradigm, as the current paradigm has us doing, or: just avoid that topic for another century?

  183. Greg Laden says:

    correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t there a huge segment of Congo ppl that are matrilineal, if not matriarchal?

    No.

  184. Porn: I tried to find the article again by checking a couple of blogs that I thought I saw it on, but unfortunately I didn’t find it. Maybe a google search of only the past week on Congo, rape and research or some such combination could find it somewhere though.

    There has always been the conflicting stuff where some say rape is only about power and others say it’s only about sex, the latter usually arguing for their claims against wearing sexy/slutty clothing. I think both must be right. The power thing is obviously there, but so is the need for the rapist to be able to get sexually aroused. I think it’s a mix. As to the ratio for how much of each occurs, who knows. I think opportunity may only be what limits its occurance, but I suspect that’s somewhat true for all types of sex, both consenting and nonconsenting.

    Greg: Yes, I think the article mentioned the matrilineal thing, but I’m not 100% sure. I may have seen that mentioned somewhere else in the last couple days.

  185. Isn’t it matrilineal yes, but matriarchal no, just like with judaism (which is only done because one always knows who the mother is but not the father)?

  186. Greg Laden says:

    Scented, you are talking to an anthropologist who did his thesis in the Congo. You’ll need do document these societies and it might be nice if you gave an indication you have clue what “matrilieal” and “matrilocal” and “matriarchal” mean.

    There are are fair number of Uxorilocal residence systems in the Congo.

    The largest number of matrilineal systems is probably New World Native American generally and some East Asian.. There are no Matriarchal systems.

    Matrilineal systems are typically very patriarchal. And, if you understand human kinship systems, the reason for that is blindingly obvious. If you go by linking up words like “matri” and “patri” with poorly formed pop anthro concepts, you won’t get far with thinking about this stuff. Probably better to leave the heavy lifting to others.

  187. Greg Laden says:

    The matrilineality of Judaism is very unique and unrelated to other forms of matrilineal kinship.

  188. pornalysis says:

    Greg: “Uxorilocal” Thanks for that word–the fancy form of matrilocal…like the Mosuo women of China then, i.e. a system whereby the husband becomes part of the wife’s family–if at all.

    Yeah, that’s where I was going with that. Essentially matrilocal though, right? They are all a bunch of !Kung-s

    Beyond all of the side discussions about the effects of colonialism, etc, do you think this form of–and I qualify this because uxorilocal/matrilocal societies are all different–do you think that the relative absence of genetic fathers in such arrangements interacts in any way to create that specific mass-rape culture?

    Or should I say activates the potential for this possibility?

    In most of these societies, the fathers live in separate households, right? And essentially, the children’s sole parent or primary parent is the mother. And in such societies there are resource issues/division of labor, etc., butalsio sexual resource allocation.

    Sex is a resource, as is food. Do you have any data about sex and puberty rites there that would indicate sexual expressive-v-sexual repressive practices in that region? Or specifically practices and differences between the warring factions?

    Are the women there as likely to have sex with each other during their formative years ( and I base my question here on Shostak)? What are the taboos?

    Are the Congolese factions all uxorilocal, or? And really–for a guy who is against rape, you sure didn’t post much about that–after all that story came out in the ‘heat’ of the RW conflation…and 22% of men reporting rape is a pretty big number for the NGO’s to sit on, cover up, and dismiss.

    So really–what’s the harm of using matri and patri in such a pop way? I mean, isn’t that sort of equivalent to using “spoke to me/looked at me/assaulted me/raped me/guy’s just don’t do that” interchangeably?

    Scented: “I think opportunity may only be what limits its occurance,”

    How do you think that idea of ‘opportunity’ would carry over for, say, a baby sitter and her charge, or a bad auntie and a comely nephew–or one of his friends?

    Aside from the school teacher/9th grade boy trope that the media is so fond of, I imagine that those boys who have the guts to report are the ones who have been assaulted more than once.

    And I also wonder what pre-disposes boys to not report? Key word “disposes.”

  189. I don’t know what matrilocal is, but you’re just confirming (I think) that the matrilineal ones are, like in my judaism example, patriarchal societies, right? Or am I getting this wrong? It sounded like you were confirming it more than disagreeing, although your tone suggests otherwise.

    Anyways, if it wasn’t clear enough, I only read this stuff somewhere and I’m not saying I know what’s true or not (I wrote mostly in question form if you didn’t notice), just that I’ve read it somewhere and am not even certain my memory is correct about some of it. I thought that was clear, but perhaps not.

    Confirmation or denial about what I read, as well as whether my definitions are either right or wrong would actually be appreciated, but there’s no need to act as if I’m trying to pass bad info or should know better, or whatever that is that you seem to be giving me shit about.

    Were the wars happening when you were there? If so, maybe YOU can tell US something about it, especially if you know anything about the research I read about yesterday, but if you’d rather insult than be useful on something that is your area of expertise, go ahead. Whatever.

  190. Greg Laden says:

    Tone is not information and I prefer to “confirm” reasoning or facts, not shit you pulled out of some orifice.

    As I said matrilineal societies are typically patriarchal. Again, the “Jewish example” is an utterly different situation. It is in no way like other matrilineal societies. In fact, if you compared jewish kinship to other kinship systems you simply wouldn’t classify it as matrilineal.

    but there’s no need to act as if I’m trying to pass bad info or should know better, or whatever that is that you seem to be giving me shit about.

    I’m giving you shit because it is clearly what you want me to give you. You have hardly passed a word to me that was not rude, snarky, obnoxious, accusatory or judgmental. I treat people I don’t know nicely by default. When someone steps on my toes, calls me a lair again and again, and generally acts like a sunburned spoiled seven year old with sand in her shorts then I do not extend the courtesy of being nice.

    You have only earned my disdain, and it is absolutely unbelievable that you would expect anything else.

    Were the wars happening when you were there?

    I was there for the first shooting matches. I was briefly jailed by the secret police, and on a different occasion put in front of a firing squad. Two of my crew were kidnapped for a while. On, and I was briefly taken into custody by the Navy, but we had better boats. I won’t speak of the pirates or the the raping, killing renegade soldiers because our encounters with them were comparatively mild.

    So, no, things were much much worse after I was there. But I’ve kept in touch of course.

    but if you’d rather insult than be useful on something that is your area of expertise, go ahead. Whatever.

    I am a scholar and a teacher and I love informing people about things where I have some information and insight. And for this matter, I do.

    But again, you’ve not earned that from me. The insults are much, much more satisfying. And, after all, exactly what you have been asking for. Right?

  191. Greg Laden says:

    Oh, on that firing squad thing … they never pulled the triggers, though they cocked the guns.

  192. Porn: It sounds to me like those women in your examples had the opportunity, so if they were so inclined, it would probably happen.

    And not just boy children. When I was a fairly young teen, a woman in a position of authority over me, put out feelers to see if I was groomable. Started with stuff like telling me that she thought there was nothing wrong with pedophilia as long as the child was not hurt, suggesting that it could even be made enjoyable for the child. That was to see my reaction, which was not one of agreement! She persisted though a few other times, trying to convince me of that, eventually outright asking what I thought about the idea of joining her and some guy she was seeing for sex. WTF??? My reaction to that was so loud and insulting to her (did I ever give her shit!), that it made her realize I was NOT going to ever be groomable or bedable. That was her last attempt with me.

    I tend to speak my mind strongly and stand up against authority that I disagree with. I can only imagine though, where someone more polite, obedient, and trying to please would have ended up. Maybe there WERE some that she convinced, most likely even, I now realize. I don’t know for sure though. She certainly also did something that seemed inappropriately like grooming to a boy child too, which was done in front of me, a boy who was even younger than me, maybe 11 or so. Not sure if she actually abused him later or not. He was much more passive and obedient towards adults than me.

    Being a sexually abusive woman is no less vile than being a sexually abusive man. But a lot of people think it’s just not the same. And in cases where where women abuse boy children, the boys probably fear they’ll get an awful reaction if they tell – laughter, disbelief or even high fives for supposedly scoring. Ugh.

    As sexual types of assault become a topic that is talked about more openly and with less silence, I wonder if it will lose it’s shame and triggering ability. That would be good. Like how we can talk about robbery and other crimes. People aren’t so afraid to report those, and maybe that’s due to there not being a stigma of silence, and discomfort about relaying to the police (or other adults who can help) what happened. Also, if more kids stand up to it, just like they would if an adult stole from them, that would be good. “Hey, you can’t do that, that’s stealing and I’m telling!” lowers the opportunity. That kid is not a good target anymore. The same with being loud and argumentative would help in sexual abuse too, I suspect.

  193. Greg Laden says:

    Greg: “Uxorilocal” Thanks for that word–the fancy form of matrilocal

    Not it isn’t.

    They are all a bunch of !Kung-s

    Officially (in textbooks) !Kung are pretty much patrilocal.

    relative absence of genetic fathers in such arrangements interacts in any way to create that specific mass-rape culture?

    Or should I say activates the potential for this possibility?

    There are almost no people involved in the Congo Wars that come from non-patrilocal societies. The Central African people who are not patrilocal are not matrilocal in the way that traditional people in North America or South Asia are. Totally different situation. I see why you are saying this but the thesis does not hold.

    Anyway, kinship systems are delicate. They are like spider webs. A spider web can be blown apart in a breeze, but freshly built and properly maintained they can trap prey and are inescapable. Rules of kinship, lineality, descent, residence, and inheritance hold a society together, but the society must hold the system together. Once a society starts to fall apart kinship and related systems go out the window.

    Typically, non-patriarchal and non-partrilineal systems become patriarchal and patrilineal when warfare goes from traditional to mechanized, by the way. If the kinship system holds at all.

    In most of these societies, the fathers live in separate households, right?

    Not in the Congo.

    Sex is a resource, as is food. Do you have any data about sex and puberty rites there that would indicate sexual expressive-v-sexual repressive practices in that region?

    Rule of thumb about interpreting symbols in the region: If it’s not about menstruation, it’s about sex or fertility. But occassionally it is about the garden. Which is about fertility. And thus, sex.

    Are the Congolese factions all uxorilocal, or?

    Everybody is pretty much patrilineal and parilocal.

  194. “I’m giving you shit because it is clearly what you want me to give you.”

    Oh don’t be ridiculous. Your whole problem with me is simply that I’m on the opposite side regarding Watson, and as for being a liar, well you DID lie. In fact, that lie showed very clearly that your tone was affected solely by which side you thought I was on. I hadn’t change the way I talked to you, which was to disagree and be angry with what you wrote, but your perception of my tone changed suddenly. It was exactly when you realized I wasn’t a radfem.

    You know full well that you lied too. At least you’ve admitted, by the sounds of it, that you are letting your dislike of me influence this separate topic of lineage. Do what you like. I’m not usually a tone troll, but I do notice this. I saw that your above lineage comments to me to be angry when the topic was not the one we argue about. Acting as though I had stated things as factual certainties instead of questions, and that I should be expected to know the details that are obviously in your area of expertise and not mine.

    I quite often set aside arguing for moments of subtopics where there is no disagreement, but I guess many people don’t do that, as is the case here with you. Whatever.

  195. Greg Laden says:

    and as for being a liar, well you DID lie.

    No, I did not.

    your dislike of me

    Oh, you noticed that? Actually, I kind of like you. I just disdain you. Zero respect, very low expectations. Don’t ever put me down for a reference!
    :)

    I quite often set aside arguing for moments of subtopics where there is no disagreement

    No you don’t.

    You are done here. Bye.

  196. pornalysis says:

    Scented:
    I knew there was something unique, and bold about you. And ya know what? I would wager that most of the people labeled, flamed, insulted or otherwise maligned in this dialogue as ‘massageGynists” likely have similar stories. That flaming is designed shaming of exactly such a dialogue.

    It takes ONE HECK OF A WOMAN to recognize the harm of females who use girls as sex toys; who are most often disguised as caregivers. And not to diminish the harm of your personal experience–but what you described fits the profile to a tee.

    Pageant moms anyone?

    And it takes MORE courage than reporting a rape–talk about not being believed! So many girls and femflationists just crumble at the thought of THAT kind of dialectic equality.

    You just won my “biggest, bestest, healthiest and uber-coolest, most courageous, instructive and overall most DTE, honest human ovaries on the internet” award

    Sorry its so little though, that’s all I had in my pocket at the time ;)

    You broke the REAL actualsilence!

    Look out now for repercussions–because all those fertile Myrtles who are crying all the time about imaginary rape? That is what is often at the bottom of the anxiety(no pun intended).

    The Health Canada site has some great stuff about women who abuse little girls, and the not-so-startling thing about it? They only talk about it after they work through other b.s.–like the projection of fear onto men.

    Wut? Menz rape and stuff? Wut? Ahh, but women who prey on girls? There’s a topic.

    And @ “I wonder if it will lose it’s shame and triggering ability. ”

    Did you mean to say “it’s leverage over men as a tool of control?”

    But it takes courage to not be redundant; more courage yet to tell it like it is–that opens up equality for all of us–and potentially gives us something interesting to talk about.

    And talking about women who abuse children is really, the last-if not the only- taboo left in this culture. And I applaud you for sharing that.

  197. Greg Laden says:

    Shut up. She’s gone.

    • Darn, i was so enjoying this old string too…Scented Nectar and pornalysis simply had the superior posts. Scented Nector bested Laden and Zvan repeatedly both rhetorically and with intellectual honesty. Plus, she was FUNNY about it too. Seems Laden could not admit his shortcomings and had to resort to blatant cowardice in the face of a vastly superior thinker.

  198. pornalysis says:

    re:”!Kung are pretty much patrilocal.” Yeah, and then they get to choose after some years and such, right? Or at least that appears to be the case from Shostak.

    No disagreement from me on mechanized warfare. But “if the kinship system holds”? You mean that this is a good thing, or a necessary, or even ‘all the time’ thing? Kinship demands thatin times of mechwar that all societies become patriarchal?

    And do you mean traditional defensive war, or “preventative” war or preemptive war? I ask that because the style of warfare that we are currently engaged in has a positive correlation with the rise of women’s power in this country.

    “kinship systems are delicate. They are like spider webs. A spider web can be blown apart in a breeze, but freshly built and properly maintained they can trap prey and are inescapable.”

    Nice prose. But–Oh shit–you remind me I am on freethoughts blogs…where most thoughts are free, and controversial ones will be tossed into dungeons full of peg-chairs! Then eaten by huge mantisgynas!

    But in a side note, re, the firing suad: there’s nothing quite like the click of that trigger at your head is there? That’s a sickeningly fucked up rush if your not expecting it…and when you are expecting it, it’s a maddeningly empowering thing.

  199. pornalysis says:

    Shut up? I won’t even try to guess what is going through you when you speak like that. I’m sorry you are feeling that right now.

    “Rules of kinship, lineality, descent, residence, and inheritance hold a society together, but the society must hold the system together.”

    And rules of silence, too, Greg.

  200. Raging Bee says:

    Feminism and skepticism are NOT compatible.

    Really? I think there are quite a few skeptical feminists who would beg to differ.

    This flat assertion sounds a lot like ignorant right-wing Christians insisting that evolution and Christianity are NOT compatible — despite large numbers of Christians who somehow manage to also accept evolution.

    Oh, and porny-boy? Just a little friendly advice: once you’ve proven yourself a liar willing to make accusations that you know are false and unsupportable, you lose your credibility, and no amount of laborious insults will bring it back.

    (to anyone looking in, stumble over to its substanceless navel gaze of an empty blog…)

    Yeah, and while you’re there, note the lack of false accusations against innocent people. Unlike your comments here, there’s nothing on my blog I need to apologize for.

  201. Ripping Britches: Well, since all the important folks are “watching”–how did you like Scented Nectar’s tale? Is the coven gonna’ come after her now, and pull her hair, or pass notes?

    Do we name names, and pogromify this all up? Go to Google Maps, and find addresses and so forth? Show up at eachothers workplaces with faux dicks in our hands to fight the good fight? Cool. Have at it. Onlookers are a two way street.

    Where’s my tinder when I need it…

    O.K., RB I will give you one more shot–which you will blow–because that’s what you do best! Butt here goes: Rasping Butt, can you spot the stooopid in your statement below?

    “a few skeptical feminists who would beg to differ.”

    [Big pause while I file my toenails, sharpen my nib on thumbs calloused and over-developed from NOT doing the soft-palm gubermint work that Rasping Butt performs nightly while drooling over its computer...a little longer now...]

    But real feminists DON’T BEG!Even if to differ, dumnutz

    Now, before I let you get away with this whole po’ butthurt Rasping Beanie routine, remember: I neither seek your validation, or want it–in fact, I would appreciate it if you would stop stalking my conversations and such, but gee whizz, it’s what you do!

    And after that? Fair game, you demented little Buffalo Billtard.
    You know what you said, did, and where and when, and again, any extra time spent responding to your lil’ tiny hurtz is wasted.

    Or you can apologize–but you have to do that first. You have proven yourself too, asshat. Over and over.

    And the other thing that you said which causes me to doubt your weird ideas about your version of ‘credibility’ anywhere else you have stalked me? Is this comment below, where you said:

    “I Think.”

    No, my not-friend, you don’t. You parrot. You attack, therefore you cower. Thinking is for the “heavy lifters” as Greg said, and we all have our own version of a burden; our own tale to tell. What’s yours white government worker man? But you don’t get to shit on my narrative.

    And if you do have a feeling of electric-like tingling in your lobes? It’s just more rage filled, drug-relapsed, stinkin’ thinkin’.

    And you know, Dr. Gottlieb? SPEAKING ABOUT ‘WE’ ALL THE TIME–YOUR DELUSIONAL. Or just another wanna be patriarch to guide the young gurlz to FerMeAndMyism. But keep feminism out of it.

    And yer not the only one watchin,’ either. But man, do you put the whole ‘big sister is watching’ thing out there like a projector. Big sister can eat my scrote, and film it if she is so inclined.

    What makes you think that I care what the assholes [you] the rapeflators [people who lie to get ahead], and the misandrists [you again, et al.] say about anything?

    I came back here cuz Greg said–and I quote

    “nyanyanyanyanya….”

    I need, or want war-making, misandrist trolls like you to think about what I write? I seek the wheat from the chafe; the cream of the crowd, the occasional interesting stranger, and certainly–I never asked for your bizarre, obsessive attention, or your misplaced rage.

    Even though–in the deepest part of your pebble gnashing craw, you believe that all feminists are femtards with no sense of humor? I will get my mileage out of that when I need it.

    Feminists–begging.

    That was a fracking hoot, and quite an image too.

  202. Pingback: Hey–Dude’s–Where’s My Piece? And I don’t mean Amy Goodman. « pornalysis

  203. Raging Bee says:

    But real feminists DON’T BEG!Even if to differ, dumnutz

    Um…you are aware that “beg to differ” is a widely-used figure of speech, in which “beg” is not meant to be taken literally, aren’t you?

    I neither seek your validation, or want it…

    Really? I find that hard to believe, because there’s BILLIONS of people on the Internet who don’t need squat from me; and in all that huge demographic, you’re the only one who spends so much time — or ANY time, actually — making up asinine false accusations about me and dribbling on and on about my private bodily functions. I’m not a psychiatrist, and I really don’t care about you, so I can’t diagnose what you need from me; but I can say this: you have a serious problem, more serious than anyone else I’ve encountered on the Internet has shown, and you really need to spend less time on the Tubes and more time getting professional help.

  204. Raging Bee says:

    Oh, and…

    I would appreciate it if you would stop stalking my conversations and such…

    Sorry, Skippy, but if you deliberately lie about me in a place I frequent with any regularity, then pointing out to others that you’re a fucking liar is a perfectly appropriate response on my part. If you don’t like that, then you’re perfectly free to either go away and stop disgracing this place with your presence; or admit you lied, apologize specifically for each and every lie you told, and stop lying. You are NOT free to tell others how to behave, because this isn’t your blog, and you have no integrity or credibility.

  205. pornalysis says:

    To all: Repetitive Absolutist, my net-stalker, says it is–

    ” pointing out to others [you, dear reader] that you’re [me, pornalysis] a fucking liar is a perfectly appropriate response on my part”

    Um, yeah–in grade school–MAYBE, from the social misfits, and the damaged, anti-social kids who skippedtheir appointment with the school counselor.

    “You’re a…” “No, YOU’RE a…!” Counts as argument, for a net stalker.

    Pointing out that you are a liar/whore/slut/bitch/faggot/mysoginist/misandrist/cheater/etc, etc. is always O.K. justification to a stalker!

    It’s their self appointed stalking DUTY:

    “Stalkers always have an excuse, and justify their behavior”–so do rapists, and bullies–”he/she deserved it!”

    And it’s always the victims fault!

    Creature, you are FUBAR. Such a feminist!

    Let it go, or change your own behavior–FIRST. Butt, you have shown a complete lack of ability to stay on track without employing verbal violence–your name implies as much. And I ain’t yo’ mama. You gits what you gives–and if this were real life?

    You would be licking hot pepper spray off your eyelids while being plastered to your ears with hard rights and lefts.

    Stalker facts:

    The stalking behavior begins after either:
    The relationship (or imaginary relationship)has gone “sour”, or
    The offending individual perceives some mistreatment
    The stalker begins a campaign either to rectify the schism, or to seek some type of retribution

    Note the highlighted, italicized areas, Ripping Britches–that applies directly to you.

    More on stalking here: http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm

  206. pornalysis says:

    RB: I guess I missed your first rant: “a widely-used figure of speech,”

    Language is so sexist isn’t it? Why do words need their figures talked about?

    And, everything else you wrote appears to be the same rant as always, but you are clearly developing a bit of an intellect–mine! Every time you paraphrase one of my comments to try to make it your own.

    And, really, dipstick–because everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!

    Oh, and BTW, Beer? Here is a feminist for you to adulate–she fits your criterion: http://pornalysis.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/bare-naked-violent-white-women-foxy-knoxy-and-bloody-knives/

  207. Pingback: X Blog 2.0: New Policy | The X Blog

  208. A cool blog post there mate . Thanks for that .

  209. Pingback: den led chieu sang

  210. seo says:

    Howdy! Quick question that’s completely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My website looks weird when viewing from my iphone4. I’m trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to fix this problem. If you have any suggestions, please share. With thanks!

  211. Greg Laden says:

    I thought we already were. I don’t have a small smart device, so I can’t check it out myself. I’ll pass your concerns on to Central.

  212. Hey there, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
    When I look at your blog in Opera, it looks fine but
    when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.
    I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!

    Other then that, wonderful blog!