Palin open thread

Anyone who has a problem with #16 can't take a joke. Don't like it? Then ignore it. Complaining about a joke and demanding censorship is nuts. This isn't a Christian blog. People should be free to say anything here, no matter how disgusting and obscene it might be. Easily offended people can go visit a Christian blog or a blog for nuns.

we get the same reactionary response as any anti-sex christian or feminist would give

Just for clarity's sake, I'll note that nonreactionary, sex-positive feminists do exist... as you apparently know very well:

Having been raised by a single feminist mother who enjoyed her sexuality,...

;^)

If anybody knows of a blog for naughty nuns, please share. Or librarians.

@ carolinaGuitarman
"Try that on the next woman you meet and see if she thinks no force was involved. Especially if she has a Down's Syndrome baby and you set it up so that the only way she can be set free is if she gives in to your joking about the plight of her child."

You didn't answer my question. Where the fuck was "force" (or "rape" or "against her will", for that matter) mentioned in that original comment?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't familiar with this genre of humor, which is actually not uncommon these days (outside of church walls). It was just fantasy and nothing more. I would actually abhor that kind of behavior if it were against the person's will; but if both (or all) parties consent, then let them go for it for fuck's sake.

In a somewhat similar vein, telling someone "We eat aborted fetuses at our atheist meetings" (which I've probably uttered on a several occasion) does not mean that we actually do that or condone it. It's just for lulz.

Not all jokes involve Baptists and air conditioners, if you know what I mean.

"You didn't answer my question. Where the fuck was "force" (or "rape" or "against her will", for that matter) mentioned in that original comment?"

The part where she is bent over the bathroom stall, her hands tied, and her eyes blindfolded while the poster wanted to screw her, and he would only relent if she said *Down Syndrome*. Which is pretty sick against women, and pretty sick against babies with disabilities.

"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't familiar with this genre of humor, which is actually not uncommon these days (outside of church walls)."

Actually, I haven't been to a Church in about 25 years other than a few funerals and a few weddings. The only place that kind of *humor* belongs is in a psych ward.

"I wonder if he is of the camp that considers all hetero sex to be rape. "

No, I like it just fine. But lets call a spade a spade; post 16 is a sick rape fantasy.

" In particular, refering to PZ's clarification of the rates of Down's Syndrome births between younger and older mothers as "fanning the flames" of sexism is total garbage."

Luckily I never said that. I said he was fanning the flames of the IDiotic conspiracy that claims Palin didn't have her child.

"If reality and science are now to be considered sexist then humanity is in serious trouble."

If science is to be equated with the crap on this thread than no wonder cretards think evolution is left wing extremism.

" Having been raised by a single feminist mother who enjoyed her sexuality, I have a hard time with that attitude. "

Non sequitur. I love how decrying a clear rape fantasy is now being equated with saying that sex is bad. If somebody made the comments in post 16 about your mother, you wouldn't be defending it as a light-hearted joke.

" Either way, PZ's hesitence to censor the remarks should be commended. Free speech still reigns on Pharyngula, and I, for one, applaud his response."

Would he let the Klan on here to make racist jokes about Obama? I don't think so.

Free speech is one thing; giving sick bastards a forum is not commendable.

"Yes, you finally managed to back up one of your statements. Thank you."

Not that conspiracy nutters like you care. You've already pooh-poohed it away.

"Yes, I am very skeptical, and I am doubly skeptical of Republicans. I make no apology for that!"

The insane rarely apologize for anything. I'm not exactly shocked. :)

" I have no such friends, but what exactly is the "crap" she doesn't deserve? That she got pregnant at 16? That she might be complicit in a family-face-saving lie? The first is, according to you, empirical, thus not crap."

She doesn't need to be dragged through the mud by imbecilic assholes who hate her mother's politics. That is the ONLY reason people are questioning any of their statements and the statements of her townspeople.

"The second happens all the time in small-town America, and I'm going to leave that assertion undocumented. So sue me.""

You've left all your assertions undocumented. Why would I think you would change now?

Of course, it doesn't happen *all the time*. Women don't *all the time* pretend to be pregnant and pretend to deliver a baby that is really their daughter's. In fact, I can't think of any time that it's happened offhand.

And in this case it's only happened in the sick mind of leftists who are so scared of Palin (she has better positive poll numbers now than 3 of the other candidates, btw) that they've sunk to inventing bizarre conspiracy stories and who use as their defense, "Well, you can't prove it's wrong, can you?". Kinda like cretards who say we can't prove the world wasn't created last Thursday as it is. Like most conspiracy nuts, there is no amount of logic that will sway people like you.

This website is hurting science every bit as much as creationist sites like Free Republic and Uncommon-Descent are hurting secular conservatives/libertarians.

"You're using small-town high-school gossip as evidence now? Let me clue you in: The existence of that gossip does not constitute "documentation" of Bristol's pregnancy; it only means the "undocumented assertion" has at some point been made within earshot of Bristol's classmates. In fact, if I were planning to float a fake pregnancy story (not that I'm claiming anyone has done so in this case), leaking it to the girl's schoolmates is precisely where I'd start.
Evidence: "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Additional case in point:"

BWAHAHAHA!!! You're discounting what people who actually know the Palins have said, but you find internet rumor-mongering by people who have never met any of them as equal in weight? A cretard couldn't reason any *better*.

Every time morons push this crap, Palin's numbers go up. Only the nutters are giving it any credence. On the Right there are equally stupid people trying to show that Obama is really Muslim, or he faked his birth certificate. They have as much *evidence* as you freaks do.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Internet gossip doesn't count as evidence.

Yeah, OK, "all the time" was over the top.
But I still bear little resemblance to the caricature you seem to have in your mind.
And you're still a...
aaaa screw it.

You know, I've realized that it's not really fair to mock someone for their inability to read basic English. Illiteracy is a serious problem, and deserves a serious response. With that in mind, I'm going to do my best to help our guitar-wielding friend to understand where exactly he's going wrong.

Bill said:

I couldn't possibly give a rat's @ss about so-called "babygate,"...

and

In fact, if I were planning to float a fake pregnancy story (not that I'm claiming anyone has done so in this case)...

carolinaGuitarman, you responded:

You're discounting what people who actually know the Palins have said, but you find internet rumor-mongering by people who have never met any of them as equal in weight?

Now, you see the part in bold? That's the part that appears nowhere in any of Bill's posts. He didn't say it. He didn't imply it. You just made it up. The trick here is to respond to what people actually say, not what you wish they said. If you can master that, you might actually find yourself able to participate in meaningful discussion.

Martin, I think our axe-wielding correspondent was probably addressing me in that bolded passage, so even though I had given up on the guy, I want to respond:
In this case "people who actually know the Palins" actually translates as "the mother of a friend of Levi's." See if you can spot the differences (hint: there are 2).
And to directly answer the question, yes, I am discounting an unverified assertion allegedly paraphrased from an anonymous person and reported in a newspaper story. What I am granting equal weight is not "internet rumor-mongering" but rather an interesting list of circumstantial evidence which, however, as explicitly stated in my first comment and each one thereafter, I also view as unverified assertion. It is not me who is discounting statements based solely on my previously held political opinions. It's Guitar Sam.

"What I am granting equal weight is not "internet rumor-mongering" but rather an interesting list of circumstantial evidence which, however, as explicitly stated in my first comment and each one thereafter, I also view as unverified assertion. It is not me who is discounting statements based solely on my previously held political opinions."

As I said, you are giving equal weight to internet rumor-mongering (where do you think the accusations came from?) and the words of Palin, her daughter, and her townspeople. Also, you are calling the doctors who delivered the baby liars. Obviously, if there was a coverup, don't ya think they would be first people asked about it?

Anybody who considers this a worthwhile, newsworthy story is as stupid as the people who think Obama is a Muslim, or that he faked his birth certificate. It's something right out of the Weekly World News, not a website that is allegedly about rationality.

carolinaGuitarman:

I had been quietly thinking some folks had been a bit harsh to you, but now I'm convinced: You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?

You're discounting what people who actually know the Palins have said, but you find internet rumor-mongering by people who have never met any of them as equal in weight?

No, no, no! Look back at my previous comment (@493). I never said I believed the internet rumors (and I did affirmatively declare that I wouldn't care even if they were true), nor did I say I discounted the more local rumors. I addressed myself only to the question of whether "the word on the street" in Wasilla, AK, constitutes evidence of anything, as you suggest it does. You say...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Internet gossip doesn't count as evidence.

I never said internet gossip counted as evidence. But local, meat-space gossip doesn't either. I've been both a high-school teacher and (quite recently) the parent of a high-school student; I know how unreliable what "everybody in school knows" can be. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong; I'm just saying you're cosmically naive to assume it proves anything.

In fact, neither "she's pregnant" nor its counter-claim is a particularly "extraordinary" claim: Perfectly ordinary evidence — a home pregnancy test, a blood test, a sonogram, a bulging belly (not conclusive unless corroborated, of course), the actual birth of a child — would suffice to put the question to rest... but of course, no such evidence has been offered.

Mind you, as I've consistently said, I don't give a rat's @ss whether Bristol Palin is pregnant, nor who Trig Palin's mother is. But I do care about you spreading your stupidity so promiscuously around this forum.

Speaking of which, why in FSM's name do you keep repeating the details of a comment you claim to have found deeply offensive? No matter how offensive the original comment was, you're now many times guiltier than its author, because you keep republishing it. IDIOT!... or worse....

"In fact, neither "she's pregnant" nor its counter-claim is a particularly "extraordinary" claim: Perfectly ordinary evidence -- a home pregnancy test, a blood test, a sonogram, a bulging belly (not conclusive unless corroborated, of course), the actual birth of a child -- would suffice to put the question to rest... but of course, no such evidence has been offered."

The extraordinary claim is where Sarah Palin is alleged to have faked her pregnancy to cover up the pregnancy of her daughter, even though her daughter is 5 months on and the baby was born 4 moths ago. Also, it is much more likely for an older woman to have a child with this condition than it is for a 17 year old.

"Speaking of which, why in FSM's name do you keep repeating the details of a comment you claim to have found deeply offensive? No matter how offensive the original comment was, you're now many times guiltier than its author, because you keep republishing it."

Because, asshat, the only way I can demonstrate that the post wasn't some lighthearted *joke* is to post some of what it actually said. Otherwise, asshats like you and your friends would claim I didn't provide any evidence.

You can be sure this is not the only place that post will show up.

Also, you are calling the doctors who delivered the baby liars. Obviously, if there was a coverup, don't ya think they would be first people asked about it?

For the last time: I cannot judge any statement from any doctors who even claim to have delivered the baby, for the simple reason that no such statement has been reported. If you can point me to an attributed quote by a physician that can be documented to have assisted in the birth, I'll accept it.
There is NO evidence available to me that establishes the kid's maternity. That is, and continues to be, my only position on the subject. When such evidence is presented, I'll have some basis to claim to know. Your basis for claiming to know is simply accepting what you've been spoon-fed by Republicans. *shrug* Rock on, guitarzan.

Sven:

Martin, I think our axe-wielding correspondent was probably addressing me in that bolded passage,

Maybe, but if so he's confused, since he placed that passage immediately after a sizable quote from my comment.

Of course, the notion that he's confused looks like an increasingly good bet, so perhaps you're right.

yeah, I was taking his confusion as a given. I know a lot of guitar players :-)

The extraordinary claim is where Sarah Palin is alleged to have faked her pregnancy to cover up the pregnancy of her daughter,...

And you've seen me make (or even so much as agree with) that claim... where???

...even though her daughter is 5 months on...

Probably... but (for those who care) so far this is only based on the uncorroborated word of those who have a vested interested in this being so...

...and the baby was born 4 moths [sic]ago.

Again, probably... but not documented.

Probably everything is as the Palins say it is... and even if it isn't, I DON'T CARE... but your claims about evidence are nothing more than organic buttfog.

Because, asshat, the only way I can demonstrate that [Comment 16] wasn't some lighthearted *joke* is to post some of what it actually said.

I see: It's deeply, damagingly offensive, but the relatively trivial point of arguing with third parties about precisely how offensive is sufficiently important to justify repeating the offense multiple times.

Asshat is as asshat does, I suppose.

Sven:

I know a lot of guitar players :-)

Now, now; let's not "be musicianist".

Speaking of which, while we good liberals are whingeing over whether we've been sexist in our response to Sarah Palin, key Republican surrogates are calling Obama "uppity" and claiming to be shocked! shocked! to learn that the word has racial overtones. Nice, eh?

Of course, they've been working the "presumptuous" and "elitist" meme for weeks, and that's just code for "uppity," anyway.

@carolinaGuitarman,
"The part where she is bent over the bathroom stall, her hands tied, and her eyes blindfolded while the poster wanted to screw her, and he would only relent if she said *Down Syndrome*. Which is pretty sick against women, and pretty sick against babies with disabilities."

No, you still didn't answer my question. Where in that original comment was "force" (or even "rape") mentioned? If it wasn't in there, then just be honest and admit it.

"Actually, I haven't been to a Church in about 25 years other than a few funerals and a few weddings."

Plaudits, seriously.

"The only place that kind of *humor* belongs is in a psych ward."

You don't get out much, now do you?

BTW, we probably discuss eating more tasty babies than fetuses at our local atheist meetings, but you get the point... Would we _actually_ carry through with it? Nah. Not even if the fetuses were well cooked.

carolinaguitarman (is someone paying you to keep this thread going?)You should stop.

"The part where she is bent over the bathroom stall, her hands tied, and her eyes blindfolded while the poster wanted to screw her, and he would only relent if she said *Downs Syndrome*. Which is pretty sick against women, and pretty sick against babies with disabilities."

No "rape" here........no "force".

IF her "safe word" were "downs syndrome" it would have been a word SHE AGREED to use when the people in this particular FICTIONAL SCENE spoke PRIOR to the scene beginning. And, the poster would not necessarily "SCREW" the woman, he might just let the Cindy McCain character flog her.

"pretty sick against women"? I don't think so. It is actually a safe way to live out one's fantasies. Perhaps you should visit my Dungeon.

carolinaguitarman (is someone paying you to keep this thread going?)You should stop.

"The part where she is bent over the bathroom stall, her hands tied, and her eyes blindfolded while the poster wanted to screw her, and he would only relent if she said *Downs Syndrome*. Which is pretty sick against women, and pretty sick against babies with disabilities."

No "rape" here........no "force".

IF her "safe word" were "downs syndrome" it would have been a word SHE AGREED to use when the people in this particular FICTIONAL SCENE spoke PRIOR to the scene beginning. And, the poster would not necessarily "SCREW" the woman, he might just let the Cindy McCain character flog her.

"pretty sick against women"? I don't think so. It is actually a safe way to live out one's fantasies. Perhaps you should visit my Dungeon.

Now, now; let's not "be musicianist"

Oh, I'm equal opportunity in that regard. Heard the one where it seems that three musicians and a drummer walk into a bar...?

If somebody made the comments in post 16 about your mother, you wouldn't be defending it as a light-hearted joke.

And you know this how? The "toilet stall" thing was presumably a jab at US republicans, and my mom is not one of them, so that particular scenario wouldn't make any sense. But if you want to fantasize about kinky consensual sex with my mother, suit yourself.

Which is pretty sick

Like I said earlier, easily offended people, and people who can't take a dumb joke, should visit only blogs approved for nuns.

I recently noticed some comment I made on a religious blog was edited to not hurt the feelings of a hopelessly stupid creationist retard. That's censorship and it's disgusting. The people who want to suppress free speech on this blog because they are offended by jokes should stay away from this blog and only visit blogs for Christian assholes who love censorship.

"No, you still didn't answer my question. Where in that original comment was "force" (or even "rape") mentioned? If it wasn't in there, then just be honest and admit it."

The part I posted had it. Maybe that's how YOU think sex is supposed to be; tying someone up, blindfolding them, and taunting them about the disability of their infant son. I'm sorry if you think that's the way sex is supposed to be. You need psychiatric help.

"And you know this how? The "toilet stall" thing was presumably a jab at US republicans, and my mom is not one of them, so that particular scenario wouldn't make any sense. But if you want to fantasize about kinky consensual sex with my mother, suit yourself."

I apologize. I didn't realize what a degenerate you were. Of course you wouldn't care about people making rape fantasy jokes about your mother( the post in question does not describe consensual sex). I shouldn't have overestimated your character. You have none.

I'm sure she's very proud of her boy.

I am also against censorship.
I don't like comment 16 and I've explained why (thats' part of free speech).

But I would never demand that it be deleted by PZ, not unless the commenter in question would have kept with that type of comment in a boring and anoying way, than he would have fallen in the categories of troll to be put in the dungeon.

But quiet desperation clealry stopped this and said he was sorry for it, (see his comments 28 and 88), and many commenters expressed ther dissaproval of this comment, so I really don't see why people like carolinaguitarman are still trying to spin this into some bullshit conclusions that PZ and other Pharyngulites (the "leftists") approve of it.

"I recently noticed some comment I made on a religious blog was edited to not hurt the feelings of a hopelessly stupid creationist retard. That's censorship and it's disgusting."

Actually, that's someone (or group) exercising their private property rights. Censorship is when the government tells you what you can say. You don't have the right to go onto a privately owned website and demand they give you a forum for whatever assholery you wish to spew.
Editing a blog you run is not censorship. Not that I would expect a socialist to understand how property rights work.

( the post in question does not describe consensual sex)

for the nth time, bondage can be consensual. The post may have been in bad taste but it's also completely harmless.

I'm sure she's very proud of her boy.

I'm sure she is, but I'm not her boy.

@carolinaguitarman,
"The part I posted had it."

You mean the part where you just added "rape" to it?
What I'm talking about is the _original_ comment (#16). Where in _that_one_ is the word "force" (or even "rape") located? Like I said, if it isn't really there, just be honest and admit it.

"Maybe that's how YOU think sex is supposed to be; tying someone up, blindfolding them, and taunting them about the disability of their infant son. I'm sorry if you think that's the way sex is supposed to be. You need psychiatric help."

It's not my bag, baby, but if it's consensual amongst other people, there isn't a problem. The dirty/cruel taunts would actually add a little spice, I guess.
BTW, the psychiatric diagnosis was so thoughtful of you, and a nice touch, but no thanks.

@499

Your charge that economists ignore evidence about the minimum wage is simply not true. For one of the best round-ups of the empirical data, check out this article:

Charles Brown, Curtis Gilroy and Andrew Kohen, "The Effect of the Minimum Wage on Employment and Unemployment," Journal of Economic Literature, June 1982, pp. 487-528.

Of course, it's more difficult to test economic theories than, say, physics theories, and the existence of a range of variables means that sometimes the data won't show unemployment after a minimum wage increase (or, as we economics teachers like to call it, "an arbitrary increase in the marginal cost of labor"). For instance, if interest rates are artificially low, then production will be spurred and some workers might be hired after the hike. But, just like roosters don't make the sun rise, it isn't the case, necessarily, that the minimum wage hike didn't cause unemployment at the margins. It may have, but that unemployment may have been offset by other variables.

Ultimately, demand curves slope downward. That's an iron law in economics, as firm in our field as heliocentrism in astronomy. And because demand curves slope downward, when labor becomes more expensive, firms will buy less of it.

When an economist hears people deny that basic, fundamental fact, she reacts the way, I'd imagine, a climatologist reacts upon hearing a global warming denialist, or a biologist listening to a creationist.

Censorship is when the government tells you what you can say.

Censorship is the suppression of speech. The government doesn't have to have anything to do with it. Some people try to suppress the speech of others by harassing them because of a dumb joke they told. They figure if they harass him enough he will voluntarily suppress himself. That's what I have seen going on in this thread by people who would be better off visiting a blog for nuns.

Not that I would expect a socialist to understand how property rights work.

You really are an extremely arrogant and biased individual !

Guys

After reading, and rereading both sets of comments, both here and on Mr Harbison's blog I have come to the conclusion, and I'm pretty sure it's accurate, that Carolina Guitarman is a sockpuppet of Mr Harbison.

PS on his site he also claims to have called the "secret service" and they are "getting back to him". May I be the first to call bullshit? I think someone is living in a James Bond fantasy.

PS on his site he also claims to have called the "secret service" and they are "getting back to him". May I be the first to call bullshit?

Sadly, it isn't too far fetched considering some of the other things we've been hearing about lately. I guess Harbison thinks that an off color sexual comment from some unknown guy on the internet is more worrying than authorities using police-state tactics on peaceful bloggers. Maybe "Right Wing Professor" is jerking off right now imagining a raid on PZ's house (OH NOES IM BEING SEXIST)

At #449, Bride of Shrek wrote:
he was deliberately trying to portray ALL people who had posted in this thread as evil bastions

Wha?!

I'm the only evil bastion that's posted in this thread! And, for the most part, I'm the only evil bastion that ever posts on Pharyngula.

I did see a post from a Bastion fairly recently, but have no idea if the Upper case B Bastion is evil or not.

Looks like I was right after all ...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0

Little pond, lotta scum, wait long enough and maybe some higher forms of life will generate here.

Little pond, lotta scum, wait long enough and maybe some higher forms of life will generate here.

Oh how cute. That was really special.

Charlyweiss, I couldn't have said it any better. The people on this blog are no less petty,childish, and prejudiced than the people they oppose. It's not right for people to call themselves liberal when they're only liberal for their way of thinking. Fascist would be more accurate, only it's the other end of the spectrum favored. I don't like you hardcore, militant right wings or left wings. You're all friggin' crazy bastards and all you do is divide people not unite them. I'm Lana and I approve this message

I don't like you hardcore, militant right wings or left wings.

That's ok, we don't like you either :)

The people on this blog are no less petty,childish, and prejudiced than the people they oppose.

Doubtless true of some. People are people, and many of them act poorly, especially when baited.

It's not right for people to call themselves liberal when they're only liberal for their way of thinking.

Not true. We as a whole value thinking, that's the point. What we don't tend to value is non-thinking, such as Doing What a Really Old Book Says™.