She'll be back: watch this mob of blinkered Republicans gush over Sarah Palin, especially Pat Buchanan, who makes up 'facts' as he goes along. The Republicans are accused of being a party that celebrates ignorance, Buchanan is asked if he accepts evolution, and he blithely confirms the accusation by repeating the notorious query of Soapy Sam Wilberforce.
I've heard a few times now the idea that the Republican Party has become the Know-Nothing Party. It's entirely true.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Under the fold, due to length. Like the previous couple of roundups, take your time - bookmark, read, and use later.
Fisking a debunking:
Clever Wife regularly participates in a forum for craftspeople who make soap. Lately the forum has included some long digressions into politics. She is usually…
As ThinkProgress points out, John McCain tried to stop the government from prosecuting domestic terrorists:
McCain's terrorism problem dates back to the early 1990s, when he sided with right-wing domestic terrorists and voted against tough new legislation cracking down on a wave of anti-choice…
Hmmm, I have not done one of these in a few weeks, so if you depend on me for your political information, check under the fold:
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama:
From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in…
Its Not Just Palin -- Its The Message.:
The brilliance of the McCain strategy and messaging is that it includes a trap for Obama. To push back on the McCain claim of "country first" and "the original mavericks who will shake up Washington" the Obama campaign's attack of "four more years of George…
Once Palin gets her GED in political science, world history and geography...look out!
I'm having hardware problems and can't actually hear the conversation in the video, but can someone offer a quick, witty response--or a concise technical response--to the assertion that humans are descended from monkeys? Thanks!
Oh dear, the most ignorant are always screaming the loudest RIGHT PAT? If you can't beat them intellectually, JUST SAY THINGS REALLY LOUD AND DON'T GIVE THE OTHER PERSON TIME TO SPEAK.
I would suggest that maybe Pat really DID evolve from a monkey, but that would be insulting to the monkey.
At age 44, with a Down Syndrome baby, a Redneck husband, a pregnant teenage daughter, a son in Iraq and a state government to run, does anyone really believe that this ignorant and arrogant woman will either find or take the time to study elementary and highschool basics?
She maybe smarter than George W. Bush, but she is as ignorant as he is and the fact that the Republican Party celebrates these idiots is the reason this party is becoming irrelevant in America!
Once Palin gets her GED in political science, world history and geography...look out!
That comment was hilarious. She'll learn, and someday be able to speak "convincingly" about international affairs. Dare to dream.
They are so far gone.
- SC, kin to a monkey
ROFL. That any Republican thinks the GOP will do anything with Palin now other than continue to throw her under the bus -- not that she doesn't deserve it, of course -- is amusing to me. She's singed her bridges a little too far to go back now. :) I think the "2012" chant is a prime example of a people who are already known for being unable to accept reality.
A side effect of Nixon's "Southern strategy", while pandering to folks who are confused about the uses of sheets, the GOP got along with the votes of former southern democrats, got the baggage. "Yellow dog rethuglicans" tends to explain why McCain - Palin seemed like a good idea to them, might've worked better if they hadn't looked like Boris & Natasha on the podium.
I don't understand why everyone's ripping on Palin. It's no more her fault than Bush's reign is that of W. The scape goat always gets it while the puppet masters stay back and enjoy the show.
Holydust wrote:
But the "2012" chant should be encouraged. And so should the purging of moderate Republicans. And we should reinforce the belief that Africa is a country and not a continent. The farther they sink the worse they'll do.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/11/can-you-hear-me-now.html
Bachmann / Palin - 2012
From wikipedia:
Every candidate gets a bump in the polls on the heels of his or her convention. As Obama's 'artificial' convention polling numbers faded, McCain's rose. That tidily explains the numbers trotted out by Pat Buchanan.
It's funny that Pat is so impressed by the initial positive reaction many people had. She was new. They were curious. She presented herself to their satisfaction. As soon as the teleprompters were shut off, her true color showed. And her true color is as brown as the shit she is so full of.
Sure, it sounds astonishingly stupid when simply written in everyday English, but when it's SHOUTED while SMIRKING it's highly convincing.
Buchanan's comments don't surprise me, unfortunately. He wrote an article called "What are the Darwinists Afraid of? "
http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-050808-darwin.htm
Give Buchanan time. He's got a thing for Rachael Maddow that's mellowing him out. I'm willing to go as far as to say that I think the biggest regret Buchanan has about Maddow being a lesbian is not the fact that in Buchanan's belief she's going to spend eternity in hell, but the fact her lesbianism prevents him from having a shot at being her sugar daddy.
PZ: I was just about to email you this clip.
This is a very nice piece. I love the idea of the "evolution test" as a titer for organized ignorance.
If one would make such a creationist statement here in the Netherlands, you would immediately disqualify yourself on an intellectual level, and you would be mocked for ages. This is a good thing, and I don't understand how these people are not laughed away and ridiculed.
This has been my impression for many years. A segment of our population wants to stay ignorant, and they're a big part of the Republican base.
The McCain people are pretty anti-Palin, rightly so, but the know-nothing social conservatives love her. The question is are the McCain types the future of the party, or are ignorant people like Palin?
I found this Hardball segment interesting
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27599593#27599593
Buchanan is merely Rachael Maddow's token Republican, not necessarily chosen to make Republicans look good. Just like Larry King has Ben Stein going opposite Robert Reich and Barney Frank.
How come you never see someone like Richard G. Lugar (whom Obama liked) or some other Republican doing these shows?
Attention Poll Crashers....and likely website crashers (this may be a real test to my hosting company)
I have published my first online poll over at my website.
How to reconcile God's will
http://thetimchannel.com/?p=242
Enjoy.
Buchanan is a loud mouthed fool who loves loud mouthed fools - hence his obsession with Scairabou Barbie. He's also of the same ilk as Bush / Chaney / Rove: say something loud enough often enough and someone will believe it... until the WMD can't be found.
Unfortunately, stupidity is not a crime.
Hold me, mommy.
I'm scared.
I think the moderate Republicans are making the decision that they'd rather vote for a smart person they disagree with than a stupid person they agree with.
My Buchanan doll (I couldn't be prouder!)
Has two voice settings: Loud! and LOUDER!!!
Just wind him up and pull his string;
He'll shout and shout just anything--
When Caribou Barbie invites him for tea
He's happy as a doll can be
They sit and talk and say dumb stuff
Until I think they've had enough.
They really are a funny pair;
When you open their heads, there's nothing there!
As dolls, these two have some appeal--
They'd be scary as hell if they were real.
McCain and Palin would've won their hard-earned victory, had the economical crisis not disturbed the mainstream media from the truly important stuff, such as the hype for Palin.
All their laughing, hahahahahya hahahaha oh Lawrence. Is ridiculous. They think ignorance is something to be proud of and knowledge is something to be laughed at. WTF
Republicans embrace ignorance! I like the phrase.
castletonsnob writes
If you think evolution means that humans descended from monkeys, you don't even know what you're denying. No modern species descended from any other modern species. Humans and monkeys - and all living things - share a common ancestor. That is evolution.
Some moderate Republicans have probably done like I did, and become Democrats.
There's an example of why I am so disgusted with the mainstream media hosting panels. Whenever somebody breaks the ground rules by shouting or overtalking somebody else, it is a simple matter for the moderator to cut off their mike. Then the viewer gets to see the spoiled brat get his comeuppance and the grownup who'd been talking gets to finish their point.
None of them shows any such discipline, which means they would rather have the tirades and shouting matches than reasoned discourse.
Pass it on.
Did Pat Buchanan evolve from a monkey?
No, he keeps his tail hidden.
How about, "I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'll fall for that rhetorical trick."
The Republicans just dont realize how far out on the bridge to nowhere they really are because they choose to be ignorant. I, for one, hope they remain in that state. They will get further ridicule heaped upon them as the votes for them keep shrinking. And they will get to see what the 'real America wants.
I get more and more positive comments here in Kansas when I wear my FSM tshirt. The Republican ignorance has jumped the shark.
I think Pat Buchanan must sit at home and write in his notebook:
"Mrs Sarah P. Buchanan
Sarah Buchanan
Mrs. Sarah Palin Buchanan"
Hope springs eternal.
This is a crisis point for Republicans. Eight years ago the conservative punditry was claiming that it would be 100 years before a liberal would be elected president. The Republican hold on the federal government didn't even last as long as Hitler's Thousand Year Reich.
The right wing of the GOP, neocons like Rove and Limbaugh and religious conservatives like James Dobson, are whining that McCain wasn't conservative enough. Moderate Republicans like Charles Krauthammer, Christie Todd Whitman, and Arlen Specter are saying the right wing has worn out their welcome with rank and file Republicans.
It'll be interesting to see if the right wing continues to control the Republican Party or if the moderates will make a comeback.
Palin is genuinely stupid, a low IQ. She couldn't even find Africa on a map, didn't know what NAFTA was, and so on. You will notice, for the entire campaign they kept her away from the press conferences and interviews as much as possible. Clearly her handlers thought she was incapable of normal levels of thought. Some estimates of her IQ range around 85 by who knows really?
Bush seemed to have average intelligence at one time. Something happened, drugs, alcohol, aging because it appears to be gone.
Reagan had Alzheimers during much of his tenure in office. What the Theothuglicans do with these cognitively challenged "leaders" is use them as meat puppets. Palin is and will be a meat puppet for the fundie Death Cults.
"Where ignorance is bliss, Tis folly to be wise", Thomas Grey. This sums up the loony branch of the Republican Party rather well.
Yeah - or at least he wants to take a falafel to her (that was Buchanan, wasn't it, Rev.?).
This is merely a funny rhetorical joke but it does get the point across. When a person challenged me on evolution, asking how I could believe that we were descended from monkey/apes, I would ask who would they rather have in their family tree, Jesse Helms (Or any other loathsome fool) of The Great Apes Of Africa? It is amazing how many people who laughed and admit they rather be related to the apes.
As for the video, it is funny that Richard Wolffe is there. He called Sarah Palin's comment on fruit fly research one of the most stupid and ignorant statements a politician could say. Funny how he did not get as loud as dear old Pat.
Full scale civil war in the GOP right now. Most of the stories leaked to the press are agit-prop and ammo.
Fundie cultists versus moderate/conservatives.
The fundies claim Palin and McBush weren't extreme enough, a stupid strategy to move further into the lunatic fringes and lose forever. Just repeating the same mistakes again.
Hard to say whether the pragmatic thinkers will win or the ignorant fanatics. So far the ignorant fanatics seem to be ahead but it is early in the game.
raven wrote:
I was ready to believe that, Palin did look bad on her first interviews, but I've got my TV on CNN right now and they just had an interview with Palin and she denied it was true.
Then I think about the original sources -- The McCain campaign and Fox news. Maybe it's not true.
The Palinfreude just goes on and on and I'll have to update this post:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/11/can-you-hear-me-now.html
How much do we really believe that this is the end of ignorance?
The thugs are already talking.
We've got Palin, Huckabee, Jindal all gearing up for 2012.
We simply must do what we can to support Obama and give him the best chance to succeed in getting this country back on track.
I'm not saying we should blindly follow his every move, but we should make sure that we are doing our part for this country. Show them what an intelligent leader may be able to accomplish.
We're all pretty fed up with ignorance at the helm. Let's keep that in mind for the next four years.
It's truly unfortunate that the republicans are taking on this reputation.
One might think that they would learn from this election, and take steps to, I don't know, maybe ditch the religious right pandering and embrace a more responsible and honest platform.
But, after hearing the republican strategists speak, it doesn't sound like this will be their plan. Instead, we'll likely get more of the Sarah Palin types.
We, the reasonable portion of the population, need to speak up and make it clear to them why they are losing our support.
When did the republican base become the ignorant? And how long do they intend to keep this up?
lol. I just love it when people like BUCHANAN ask/shout people to give an answer but shout so much that the person cannot give an answer.
What a joke.
..and Cuttlefish, that was a brilliant response :)
The best way for the dems and Obama to win again, is very simple. Competent government and success. Worked for Bill Clinton.
We haven't had either for 8 years now. Bush/McCain/Palin bad, Obama good is a false dichotomy. Obama has the ball right now, if he runs with it he will be a hero. If he falls, 2012 won't be pleasant. Wish him well and hope.
I disagree. Palin isn't a genius but she isn't stupid either. She's extremely ignorant about even quite basic things like world geography and foreign affairs. I believe her main problem is that she doesn't know what she doesn't know.
She came without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges that a candidate requires, let alone an elected official. There is nothing to suggest that she saw a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Charles Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience.
What didn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance was guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. It was because she didn't really care about those things and many others.
Like George W. Bush, she lacks intellectual curiosity. What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents--and her supporters celebrate--the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance.
Jackal wrote:
imo john hawks says it better - if we traveled back some 6-7 mya to our common ancestors with Pan, what word would immediately spring to mind besides "ape"? and some tens of millions of years further back, again - "monkey" would be the most appropriate descriptor! (hey, use 'quadrupedal hominid', or 'primitive catarrhine', if it makes you feel better....)
no, they wouldn't be chimps, or gorillas, or baboons, or macaques, or any other living species; but surely there'd be an inescapable resemblance. denying this just strikes me as mealy-mouthed and a tad disingenuous.
O'Donnell is the rationalist in this video. And yet later in the day, on Rachel Maddow's show, he was arguing in favor of keeping Lieberman in the Dem caucus, letting him keep his seniority and Homeland Security chair.
The center has held, but there is plenty of work to be done.
I think it is hilarious that these tubewhiners are still working after the election they tried to Influence with their brilliance.
Poor old Pat. He has a long term contract with nbc because of something someone said that gave him the choice of a payoff via settlement, or a long term job. It is pretty pathetic that they allowed him the job considering how laughable he is.
Just like Candy Crowley. If someone hadn't made fun of her size, she wouldn't be working on TV any more. She nailed a long term contract instead of taking the payoff for the libel suit.
Frank Zappa said it best. I will paraphrase. Just like high school only guns and money are involved. Too bad so few people ever really graduate high school, isn't it?
The GOP really ought to ditch the fundies. The rule in politics, when you have a captive segment, hold them and reach out and steal the other party's groups.
The fundies won't vote for Dems even if jesus C. was running.
The majority of the population is sick of the wingnuts, polls show that. And they are a dying group with nothing to offer but death, lies, destruction, and a return to the Dark Ages. Most of us would rather watch TV than sit on a pile of rubble, while skinning a rat for dinner, and chanting "Jesus loves us".
What would be interesting to know is that how abstract intellect is tied to ignorance, are the current "IQ" tests really tests if abstract intellect or culturally bound, and is "abstract intelligence" a measurable, or even existing quality at all.
The assertion that "X is stupid, hence has low IQ, because of lack of information on certain fields" looks just an oversimplification to me.
Oh, going off-topic.
I think it's important to remember that "intelligence" is not just one entity--it's a group of different data-processing functions that are only somewhat correlated. Bush, Palin and many of the right-wing talking heads all seem to me to have a high social intelligence: They are very skillful in mapping the social landscape, and have a lot of tools for dominating conversations. And that's all they need. Actual data, or reasoned argument would just get in the way of their quest for social dominance, so they usually just treat it with contempt.
raven
Totally agree.
What I'm saying is that we should all be active about it.
Get your house rep. and senators offices on your contact lists.
They can't represent you if they don't know where you stand.
Be aware of what our country is faced with, and do your homework. Get involved.
Obama says we'll change this country together from the ground up. Let's test that theory.
I would hazzard a guess that the folks who frequent forums like this have above average intellects, let's get in there and mix it up.
If our problem is ignorance, we fight it with clear, rational, constructive thought.
I see the hand of pharyngula all over my poll because the Withes are way ahead...
http://thetimchannel.com/?p=242
Of course we're common ancestors with the monkeys, it's just that some of us have evolved a lot further than others.
Enjoy.
Tim
I liked the witch answer but I've always been partial to "didn't pray hard enough" as a knife in the heart response for occasions such as this.
I may have bet on a losing horse in this race, but I bet on a winner earlier this week, so I'm alright with it.
hehegigglegiggle
Didn't pray hard enough.
Also visit my site and learn how to grow a bigger penis... in a vat!
The argument they are having over evolution is an attempt to shape an environment for Palin to return in 2008. If the media outside the confines of my small blog would press the 'meme' that Palin wants your daughter to carry the rapist's baby to term, we could quickly put her aspirations of a political future to rest. Why is that such a hot potato? For me, it's the main reason she avoided press conferences.
Enjoy.
So I said to Burning Umbrella "Thanks but no thanks to that bigger penis." However, I did wonder if he/she could help me with my premature ejaculation problem.
Well...it's not a problem for me...but...y'know.
#2: can someone offer a quick, witty response--or a concise technical response--to the assertion that humans are descended from monkeys?
In debate with the Bishop of Oxford, "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce, T. H. Huxley was reportedly asked whether he'd prefer to be descended from an ape on his grandfather's or his grandmother's side. He did not reply that he would rather be descended from an ape than a bishop, although fainting couches were required. No exact transcript of the debate exists; Huxley recalled his rejoinder in print long afterwards:
I'm happy for any thread on which Ken Cope shows up. :)
The Old World monkeys are more closely related to us than to the New World monkeys... If you want to use the term "monkey" at all, then we have monkeys among our ancestors.
What future?
The point is, Castletonsnob, that we humans and monkeys are both descended from a fairly distant common ancestor.
More recently, however, we apes split from the monkey side of the family, and we don't like to think of them as more than second cousins nowadays.
Looks like the GOP will vote for hari kari, suicide. Rather thoughtful of them really. Better they commit suicide than bring the USA down first in a murder-suicide duo.
@ Zhok, #8
Yes, it is primarily the puppet masters, but without knowing exactly who they are, it is difficult to rip into them. For Bush, I think many people recognize that Cheney was in many ways in charge, and many people despise Cheney as much or more. Even if the puppet masters are entirely in charge, though, it is still the fault of the candidate that they lack both the intellectual strength and commitment to truth that would allow them to be their own person (at least to a certain degree, I recognize all politicians have a certain degree of behind the scenes manipulation to attend to). Not caring enough to know enough to realise that you are being manipulated into a terrible and indefensible position is worthy of contempt, in my books.
They are using not being able to name the counries of North America as a sign of serious ignorance. Not to claim Gov. Palin isn't grossly ignorant but is naming the countries in North America actually all that easy?
I wouldn't know whether to include the little central American ones (I think geographers tend to) or the Caribbean islands (and I'd be bound to miss some if I tried). Bermuda? Greenland?
#58, aw shucks, now I'm gonna be speechless for a while.[/blush]
---"Tis Himself said
Palin isn't a genius but she isn't stupid either. She's extremely ignorant about even quite basic things like world geography and foreign affairs. I believe her main problem is that she doesn't know what she doesn't know. ---
I agree, but some elaboration is needed. Not only does she not know what she doesn't know, she doesn't care about what she doesn't know. She doesn't value knowledge.
But she's not stupid. It's just that all her fuctioning brain cells are dedicated to image, not substance. That makes her good at politics. It did take political skill to craft her image and beat the old boy establishment in the Alaska GOP. One of her first acts as governor was to hire a publicist. In this regard she is very similar to Bush- good at the shallow political performance arts, incompetent at actual policy.
I tell ya, if your not working for a Palin/Joe the Plumber ticket for 2012 your not a commie, socialist, islamo-caliphate-enabling, terrorist coddling, godless-horde-worshiping, liberal fascist America hater worth you salt.
Shovel Baby Shovel!
Not to claim Gov. Palin isn't grossly ignorant but is naming the countries in North America actually all that easy?
The only ones she needed to be able to name were the NAFTA signatories: Canada, The United States, and Mexico. NAFTA had been a big deal in the primaries.
Oh, great - and it's my fault. Talk about unintended consequences.
and probably is proud of her ignorance. Maybe not but it's a common personality ..um.. characteristic flaw of those types.
Or as john stewart said
Us, Gay us, and the burrito place.
Humm. meant to put a link with that last one
Here
HA! Ok that's good evidence of ignorance.
#68 and it's my fault.
Not so! I'm suffering through time management issues that are making a course in Symbolic Logic even more challenging than it should be, while also having to regurgitate a US History teacher's views on history. Last week we were covering the 1950s, during which I was at least present (1955) and found myself correcting him. "Beatniks." "No, that was a Herb Caen pejorative. They were 'The Beat Generation' or just 'The Beats.'" When commenting on the election, he told us he didn't think there was much of a future for Sarah Palin, but we should watch out for a future rising star of the GOP, Bobby Jindal, I'd already used my outside voice to respond, "The theocrat who wrote about performing an exorcism on a classmate when he was in college?" I don't know why I was busy learning how to animate instead of getting a degree for the credentials to teach back in the 70s, but I'm paying the price now.
So, I lurk way more than I'd like.
#69 is proud of her ignorance.
She has the confidence of one who believes she was ordained and appointed by goB to succeed. Do you suppose she blames the outcome of the election on some of those Guys! and Gals! who just weren't prayin' hard enough? Fightin' that spiritual warfare is what this election was all about, ya know?
This thing that a lot of right-wing pundits like to repeat like parrots drives me crazy : "that if there hadn't been this market crash, the GOP might have won..."
Do they realise what they are saying these idiots ?
How can they separate the market crash from the past history of policy mistakes ?
I mean already for at least a year before the crash, most people with half a brain knew that the recession clock was ticking, but Bush tried very hard during that period to postpone as much as possible the evidence of a recession with a useless stimulus and manipulation of economic data.
Oh, if they could hav hidden it a little longer !
Assholes.
It's a bit as if the captain of Titanic would have said, "if that Iceberg hadn't been there, we wouldn't have sunk."
Is Hank Fox off the air? I just referred to his blog for his story of how evolutionary knowledge cured his racism: "Earthman's Notebook: Thank you, Mr. Darwin. Again." and came up with "site not found." Could he be economizing? Would he take contributions?
Q. Are humans descended from monkey?
A. No more than you are descended from your third cousins.
Q. How come there are still chimpanzees?
A. Did your uncles die when you were born?
Ah yes, tribalism in action. I guess when it comes to monkeys, we're all conservatives.
Did I just insult conservatives, or monkeys?
Continuing on post #75, it's easy to deny reality :
when these right-wing pundits say "if there hadn't been this market crash, the GOP might have won", what they mean in the real world is "if there hadn't been 8 years of Bush before, the GOP might have won".
Be kind. I don't have any nontraditional students where I'm currently teaching (though I adore and respect the students that I do have). When I did in the past, I loved their contributions, but at the same time feared saying something historically ignorant. I must have done a decent job, since no one that I recall ever challeged the factual accuracy of my historical statements. That said, I would never expect, or want, my students to regurgitate my views, since I genuinely want them to think critically. It's a shame when professors do. I'm sorry you're having to deal with that.
I always enjoy your comments here.
Well, if we want to use in a way that is neat and logical from a scientific point of view it would seem to imply that we (and out fellow apes) ARE monkeys, right?
Yes, I'm afraid it's absolutely true: humans did, in fact, descend from monkeys. Certainly not from any extant species we call a "monkey," but equally certainly both the common ancestor of us apes and extant Old World "monkeys" and the common ancestor of extant New World and Old World "monkeys" would have to be classified as "monkeys" if we could identify them. I find the "common ancestor" answer to be misleading and disingenuous. The right answer is straightforward agreement: Yes! I descended from monkeys and so did you! Also from synapsids, lobe-finned fishes, and various "worms." Deal with it.
I think it just dawned on me. HOLY SHIT! Obama's going to be president! He actually won!
Right now I'm guessing she's out in her back yard with her AR-15 taking shots at pictures of McCain's campaign staff.
Never mind - the problems with connecting to Hank Fox were on my end. He's back.
Thanks for naming the Dunning-Kruger effect; I was thinking of it the other night when I said that Palin was not stupid but unskilled and unaware of it and thus overestimated her abilities. It's weapons-grade ignorance.
Rev.,
What's the link I had in mind in #36?
I think Palin's school bus may have been a tad shorter than the standard version.
~*~ Just an OT side note. ~*~
I had the comments for this blog post open to be read before I went to sleep (yes, at noon... shaddup) but paused to watch the latest episode of "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" that I had on DVR from the 5th. I had forgotten it was coming on.
It was S&M themed. Whoever wrote the episode clearly didn't understand that "Song Fic"-style writing should be left to amateur fan-fiction writers and not the actual television show. If I never hear that stupid Linkin Park song again, it'll be too soon.
What am I getting at here? Halfway through the episode, my doorbell rings. I live on the 2nd floor of an apartment complex and my door is on the first, so I go out on the balcony to find a kindly old man distributing the Good News in pamphlet form, including six questions to know about Heaven.
Meanwhile my TV is on just inside with S&M-flavored CSI.
I'm so exhausted from all of this nonsense lately that, to his almost meek question of "can I just leave this at your door" I cheerfully responded "yes, you can leave it" and let him go.
I just didn't have the heart or the energy to ruin his day. He seemed nice. It could have been that I've been watching YouTube clips about the Phelps family lately; any random Christian distributing literature deserves a little break from my frustration when compared to those psychos.
I almost felt guilty.
And honestly, I just felt sorry for him. Would I want to be walking on foot through Section 8 housing distributing pamphlets in the November cold? No.
*rubs face* *sigh* As you were. At first I wanted to post this to point out how amusing it was to me at first, but now it's just depressing. :D
Thanks SC; I was harshing too much on him, because he really doesn't have time for anything but pole vaulting past all the interesting stuff, and no time to discuss any of it, let alone deal with my helpfully intended snark. I can say things he'd rather not, after all. I have no issues on the tests, as they're all in-class essays on one of two potential topics, along with a matched test identifying and listing the significance of a list of topics, so without critical thinking, an A wouldn't be possible. All I've had to do for that class is be present, while Symbolic Logic, an eminently useful and challenging class, requires more time than I have outside of class for homework. If you don't do the five-finger exercises you won't learn to play the instrument. I'll probably have to repeat the course, just to be a couple of weeks ahead instead of a couple of weeks behind.
Nerd that was Bill O'Reilly
Andrewe at #22, that's essentially what I did. I'm nominally a libertarian, but I hate John McCain so much I couldn't in good conscience vote third party and split potential Obama votes.
please don't say that word
Judging from what I've seen, you're quite brilliant. I'm sure you can pull it off. Now is when I should probably be suggesting that you do tear yourself away from Pharyngula, so I will do that, despite my own wishes, and look forward to more of your comments in the future. (Feel free to ignore me, of course, and comment at will - I sure as hell won't mind. :))
Good morning, and welcome to the new world.
Well, I'm certainly descended from an ape. At least, I'd say that if all the descendants of some animal are apes, then that animal is an ape. If not, what is the "least common ancestor" of some group of animals? Certainly the animal which is the least common ancestor of all humans alive today would be described as 'human'.
Ah! I guess I tend to get them confused - both arrogant blowhards, after all. Who you callin' nerd?
My first post this thread. A little confused as to the reference. I think it was for SC.
Robert Thille wrote:
You're just a fucken primate dude.
As for me, I'm descended from worms and sponges.
whoops
*sigh* "The more things change, the more they stay the same".
Say it isn't so...
You must be one of my in-laws!=P
Posted by: Tim Fuller @ 52 "Of course we're common ancestors with the monkeys, it's just that some of us have evolved a lot further than others."
I think you mean 'we've (as in we have) common ancestors with monkeys', and no we've all evolved the same distance from then ... several million years.
Wetback. My family goes way further back than yours. They call me the Monomer Madam.
Don't worry, America, we aren't alone. Apparently One in three British teachers think creationism is a legitimate world view.
raven #48,
I agree with you, the problem is that the vast majority of the people who make up the body of GOP officials just won't get it.
Unfortunately, you will notice that of the fewer elected officials that are left of the GOP, the proportion of conservative far-right fundies has actually increased. And the younger rising stars of that party like Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin seem to be continung the fundie tradition very nicely.
Typically, they should have gotten the message when McCain won the primaries, afterall he was the least fundie of them all (remember Huckabee or Romney !!). Yet he ended up being put on the preferred track by the machinery of the party.
My view is that only a total lanslide defeat in 4 years could cause a complete renewal and force the GOP to ditch the fundies and the far-right.
Pat Buchanan behaves like the shit flinging monkey he has evolved into.
If i see another Sarah Palin post I'm going to continue posting that she's a CSW until it stops.
that moron has had her 15 minutes. Stop giving her more.
CSW?
If that stands for what I think it does...
FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF
negentropyeater wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. The Republicans need to be defeated more soundly yet. Alas, when they wiped the Republicans from the House and Senate on Tuesday they wiped the moderate Republicans mostly and left most of the fundies.
However, Palin is claiming that the McCain people are lying about her. Welcome to a taste of your own medicine Palin. If she did some harder interviews where her basic knowledge would be tested with new questions so we can find out what she really knows I be inclined to give her a chance. Let's find out what she knows about evolution, Islamic religion, (does she know about Sufis?), Russia, Europe and China (let's see if she ever heard of the Boxer Rebellion).
"Well, I'm certainly descended from an ape. At least, I'd say that if all the descendants of some animal are apes, then that animal is an ape."
Chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. Chimps are apes. Gorillas are apes. I don't see how we escape being apes.
OH OH. OH.
Re: Sarah Palin.
If you want to see the kind of disturbing viewpoint that typical "Good Christian housewife" types have of her, check out the comments on this little gem:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/thank-you-sarah-palin
I think I'm going to have nightmares tonight.
"Thank you for your obedience to our Lord and your sacrifice for our country. It is time for the Esthers & Deborahs to arise.."
It's thousands of those. Yeeesh.
qedpro wrote:
No way! She is the key to really bringing down the fundies in the GOP in flames.
SC's last comment reminds of MAJeff's "blahs". SC, give MAJeff a big "hi" from all of us here.
qedpro:
Who died and made you arbiter? Since the thread was predicated on Palin and the Buchanan rejection of evolution was incidental, then ignore this thread and move on to another more suitable to your tastes.
Alas, when they wiped the Republicans from the House and Senate on Tuesday they wiped the moderate Republicans mostly and left most of the fundies.
This is what I'm worried about. Unfortunately, in a system based on geographical representation, where a party is soundly defeated and reduced to a rump, it tends to be the most extreme elements who retain their seats and therefore become the dominant force, making the party even more unelectable. It happened to the UK Labour Party in the 1980s, for instance.
I would like to see the Republicans return to the great libertarian-conservative intellectual and philosophical tradition, which dates back to Jefferson; and I'd like to see them return to a broader, less sectarian ideological standpoint that can appeal to a more diverse range of people. But I'm increasingly concerned that, over the next few years, they're going to become increasingly a party of white rural Christian conservative voters and sectarian religious interests, and will irredeemably alienate the more diverse and secular parts of America.
And I'm terrified of Palin being nominated in 2012. She represents all that's worst about the modern GOP - narrow religious sectarianism, anti-intellectualism, elevating ideology over competence - and she would, undoubtedly, be defeated in a landslide.
Will do! He's working so hard. I admire him, but miss seeing him lately. :(
please no
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
@ Raven #43,
I don't think the Democrats want another Bill Clinton. I hope Obama isn't another Bill Clinton. Some of Bill Clinton's accomplishments off the top of my head:
-Defense of Marriage Act
-Bombing Sudan, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq. Thousands of civilian causalities.
-Jumped on the welfare reform bandwagon
-Enforced draconian jail sentences for small drug offenses
-very pro death penalty
OMG! We've lost the Rev! (looks around) You! YOU there! Walton... it's YOUR fault!
# 99: Breaking news!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm
I already doubted Kaczynski's claims when I read the original version.
Come on, you know the answer : nothing !
Why would she know anything on these subjects ?
1.What's her education ? Basic, well Bachelor in Journalism from a very average University, I'm not inclined to believe that this corresponds to a top general cultural level.
2.What's her international cultural exposure ? Zero, her life was split between Idaho and Wasilla, and until recently didn't even have a passport.
3.Did she read many books and international newspapers or magazines ? Nope, she said herself she didn't read much and she couldn't name a single newspaper.
So where would she get the knowledge from ? By looking out her window to check if she sees Putin flying away ?
the Macain concession speech
was just about the only part of the "campaign" that they let Macain speak his own words and be himself. The whole campaign was so scripted and controlled that it was next to impossible
to tell who they were in realty. It was so bizarre watching them trying "do the act". The idea that anybody has a real understanding of who or what Gov. Palin is besides being an aggressive ambitious politician from watching the campaign is projecting.
Walton wrote:
I'm not going to give a shit about the Republicans until Obama's policies turn out to be a massive failure. I don't buy into the core philosophy.
That tells us how few people see the world the way you do.
If you want to prevent it, ask for more hard interviews of Palin.
Rev.,
Check your emails for explanations.
Off topic, but it would seem the Iranian theocrats are slightly less nutty than the American ones. That is to say they are at least more pragmatic. Guess their band of clerics said life begins three months after conception which allows for:
Iran invests $2.5b in stem cell research
http://www.payvand.com/news/08/nov/1059.html
So taking a back seat to Iran in ground breaking research.
Well hopefully Obama will give a green for it. Still losing eight years of research (this goes for much of the West too).
Actually, Juan Cole made a post weeks (probably months ago now) on how Palin and her particular brand of death cultist is even worse than the Middle Eastern variety in some respects. Was an interesting read.
Stem cell research in Iran, next Cats and Dogs will be living in harmony...
Reality check: Where's the "mob of blinkered Republicans"? I see the despicable Pat Buchanan and some Palin-apologist "moderator" (sorry, but I've misplaced my Field Guide to the Right-Wing Pundits), plus the estimable Richard Wolfe and Lawrence O'Donnell. The first two definitely qualify as blinkered, and Pat's a formidable presence (in a non-intellectual sense, of course), but do he and Blondie constitute a mob all by themselves?
Dunning-Kruger Effect, repudiation of the "common ancestor" dodge, Earthman's Notebook - all good stuff. Too bad about that "CSW" thing. Sigh...
If the liberal wing of the Democrat party wants to throw rocks at the GOP for being the party of ignorant racist fundies, they better look around their own tent.
A whole bunch of them there. Its one thing to oppose such people, but to pretend that they are not there in order to keep their votes democratic, is quite another.
By definition? "Ape" isn't generally a scientific word (as is "Hominoidea"), so it's definition has almost always excluded humans. And it makes sense to have such words that exclude the group that the speaker and listener belongs to, such as the word "them".
By the way, I think I've posted it before, but here is an image I've used to illustrate that, yes, we indeed decended from monkeys.
http://karmatics.com/img/yes-we-evolved-from-monkeys.gif
Examples?
negentropyeater asked:
Because she wants a high ranking job in national government.
I think we should have a Sarah Palin Amendment where it is required of all candidates to such high offices not just be interviewed by accredited members of the press but by members of the Congress and the Senate representing both parties. Question all candidates in a more job-interview style. And then more town hall meetings required with questioning members of the public selected based on a raffle. Make the campaigns a much more formal process where candidates must be questioned by the opposition. The problem with just having "accredited members of the press" do it is that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh might be enough to get another Palin over that hurdle.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-amendment.html
Just did
ugh
really.
There are so many other things to call her that actually attack her positions / ignorance. CSW is not one of them. That's just fucking dumb and really hurts any argument you may have no matter how good it is.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8077
http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&…
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Christian_Democrats.html
The first link is a protester, not someone in the party running for Vice president who continually riled her rally's around fear of a black man.
I'm not sure where you are going with the second link.
Chimpy, isn't funny that the frat boys who insist on using such terms for Palin then use the same terms on SC when she calls the frat boys on their misogyny?
I'm not sure anyone refutes the fact that there are anti-abortion or christian democrats. The "fundie" charge stems from people who wish to impose their religion on others. I don't get that from the two posts that I assume you are using to support your point.
The first post, while an example of an idiot, has nothing to do with the party.
"If the liberal wing of the Democrat party wants to throw rocks at the GOP for being the party of ignorant racist fundies, they better look around their own tent.
Examples?"
Yes on Prop 8 in very liberal? California.
*headdesk*
***
Apropos of nothing, in case no one's mentioned it yet, we in MA voted this week to:
1) not abolish the state income tax
2) decriminalize pot (lamely, but it's decriminalization for small amounts)
3) ban dog racing
Asshole, thank you for pointing all of that out. None of us had any idea. All was peaches and cream with all of the people you call democrats. Yet you pay no attention to where people are coming from. From what I can make out, SC has more of an anarchist leaning then anything else. PZ hardly sees Obama as the great redemer and the same can be said for most of the others here. Shit, there was a minor squabble about PZ's recommendation of a speech by a Maoist.
If you stopped and actually read what is going on here, you would see there is a lot of disagreements going on. But if the people who are involved are smart, they are learning from all of this. But you, asshole, are not here to learn. You are here to spread your stink.
Have I told you lately that I love you? :)
Raven @ 48 : "Most of us would rather watch TV than sit on a pile of rubble, while skinning a rat for dinner, and chanting "Jesus loves us".
Good one.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
(Bertrand Russell)
SC, I am blushing.
Worse - I'm a real, fire-breathing anarchist. Ooo.
Well Rev. Fundies are in the Democrat tent. So are the ignorant. What I am getting at is they exist in both parties.
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
H. L. Mencken
So was I while typing that. :)
Janine. This is for you.
Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.
H. L. Mencken
Eric Atkinson wrote:
Yea, but Democrats usually don't put them on the presidential ticket and have far fewer in Congress and Senate.
Republicans have put them into P and VP positions.
Guys, its eric
You have a better chance of finding meaning within astrology or the random letters your head makes when it hits the keyboard after trying to argue with him for an hour.
Yeah, well that Philosophy was probably well suited for what were the United States at the beginning of the 19th century; an underpopulated agricultural nation of yeoman farmers minding their own businesses.
Actually, Jefferson even wrote that he didn't envision, contrary to Hamilton, that the country should move towards a nation of commerce and industry, because this offered too many temptations to corruption.
So Yes, maybe if the USA could isolate itself from the rest of the world, get rid of all this inter-connectedness and trade and all kinds of things that are complicating the vision of Jefferson, ensure that everybody just has to mind his own business you know, maybe then Libertarianism might be a good idea.
I don't disagree, but the GOP relishes in it where most of the Dem party would like to change it.
And in relation to our resent election:
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken
Asshole! I am mortally wounded! How can I come back against that one.
Oh. Wait. That is come from the idea that all women are back stabbing bitches who are all competing to get the richest man.
Um, could that be any dumber in context? I don't think so.
And most of us got it really fucking hard the last eight years. What is your point, Asshole?
The blonde is Mika Brzezinski standing in for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue presenter David Gregory. She has been called a "supporter of Senator Obama" by John McCain in the recent campaign but has responded "I think that was bad joke in some ways because it's a little bit hard for a journalist to be made fun of in that way. ... No one has been more defensive about Sarah Palin as a working mother than me and I've taken on my own peers."
I think she views her role as anchor to be playing devil's advocate to the other correspondents, who in this case with the exception of Pat Buchanan are liberals. She normally cohosts Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough, who is former Republican representative for Florida's 1st District.
She is the daughter of Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Richard Wolfe is a very experienced political analyst who has covered both Republican and Democrat political campaigns. Lawrence O'Donnell is a former producer and writer for The West Wing. They represent the conventional wisdom that, irrespective of her "hockey mom" appeal, Palin is too stupid to ever be a serious candidate for President.
I thought she was familiar! She was our local anchor in CT when she was starting out years back.
There is the Theothuglican mob, right there in that new poll. 69% of the GOP think Palin is OK. The other 31% probably think she is soft on Moslems, Catholics, and Mainstream Protestants and doesn't have enough clips of ammo for her automatic rifle.
You have to remember Theothuglican and intellectual is an oxymoron. Their leaders hate to be reminded that they descended from (extinct) monkeys because they resemble living ones so much.
Janine. I can't image anything of the sort could have happened to you.
Asshole evading the question? I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
SC. See post#135 for your "context"
Asshole, that was SC's point. That there is no point.
You're painfully stupid. In that post, Janine was coming to the defense of a fellow woman, as she's done in the past, and as many of us did on a recent thread (to which she's referring). To her comment, I replied that I "loved" her, after which you produced an idiotic quote about women hating one another. That's the context, jerkwad.
What's funny with these polls is that they forget to mention that republicans represent less than 30% of the population. And that it's shrinking, slowly, but surely, and that independents are growing.
So that 64% actually represents less than 20% of the electorate, not exactly enough to win an election. So if Palin gets high scores amongst republicans but alienates the vote of independents and the rest, that poll might not be very indcative of what would be the right choice for the republican party.
Add me to the list of people mystified by the initials "CSW"...
I recounted this anecdote elsewhere, but there may be some relevance here.
When my company was being briefed on the legal ramifications of the just-passed American Disabilities Act in the mid-90's, the presenter of the seminar was asked several questions regarding people who were retarded and the accommodations that should be afforded them in qualifying for jobs. One woman asked what the difference was between an individual who was retarded and one that was just stupid. The presenter pointed out that a retarded individual knows they are retarded.
Maybe Mencken was refering to heterosexual women.
If I offended the sapphic sisterhood, I do apologize.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD94AHS080
Of interest, I think.
The reason I "know" this is that I responded to (IIRC) the same repugnant individual several days ago:
cock-sucking whore
I looked it up and the most likely are Community Support Worker or Commercial sex worker
I vote for the hooker interpretation
and it appears both my choices are wrong
:[
Can i at least get extra-credit?
I'm a heterosexual woman, you disgusting, racist little putz.
Hmmm...the style of argument was very similar to the conference on climate change I recently attended: never mind fact or logic (and plainly there was neither here) - just shout down your opponent and don't give them opportunity to answer. Works every time.
I'm a heterosexual woman
You're still cool, Janine.
Democrats trying to steal an election?
The very ideal.
Could be these voters
A. Forgot to vote for Franken
B. Were too careless in filling out their ballots
C. Couldn't stand to vote for any of the candidates
D. Meant to vote for Franken but were slipped defective markers by Rethugacan operatives
I hope Franken looses by one stinking vote.
"Chimpy, isn't funny that the frat boys who insist on using such terms for Palin then use the same terms on SC when she calls the frat boys on their misogyny?" - Janine
We'll all note that I was not among those who responded in kind, or used gendered profanity in the first place - for whatever that's worth. Though, Janine, I must admit, your use of "frat boys" looks a lot like a gendered pejorative to me (be careful, SC will have your head). Is this less serious than gendered profanity, I wonder, or more serious for being less ambiguously hateful toward a gender class?
And, if "frat boys", used as you've used it, isn't misandric, I have to wonder why you think SC was correct to characterize a less direct, though more profane, reference to women as misogynist?
I suppose the question is: do you hate men, as SC's thesis would assert, or was SC's thesis lacking in some way?
CSW?
Oh, CSW. Pfffft. That's not necessarily a perjorative. So is PEW or CEW the opposite? Or would that be NonFC (non-Fellating Celibate)? Oh Waaaaaalton....
BTW Eric A =killfile
O/T : Funny news of the day :
AIG is asking the US government for a new bail-out less than two months after the Federal Reserve came to the rescue of the stricken insurer with an $85bn loan.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b1b2622-ad2c-11dd-971e-000077b07658.html
jeez, not another thread hijacked into the yes-it-is/no-it's-not discussion of the inherent misogyny of certain words. Can't we all just agree to make fun of Pat Buchanan and Sarah Palin in this thread?
I mean, they don't "believe in" common descent! That's, like, so stupid! Right?
EV=AIIFC
Oops, unfortunate pun...
No, the question is: Can Jams construct anyhitng remotely resembling a coherent argument? Or sentence even?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/sarah_palin_ignorant_and_ant…
So CSW should just be ignored? So sorry.
You have offended me as well, Eric Asshole. That is a blanket statement, that is wrong to begin with. The cooperation of women is responsible for many of mankind's great inventions.
Woman's greatest predator is not other women, it's men.
(15)
No, unfortunately some here want to offer false equivalencies or kvetch over Palin fatigue. Whatever.
@SC
Cry and wail, and employ all the dismissive rhetoric you want. You know you're behind the eightball with this.
Was Janine's use of "frat boys" misandric or wasn't it?
Of course it fucking wasn't. She was referring to specific individuals and their specific behavior, you epic twit:
At most, it was anti-frat.
Jams,
Try not to be so stupid: "frat boys" is quite clearly aimed at a particular kind of man.
Eric Atkinson,
you are more disgusting than:
a purulent festering sore,
a pile of fermenting hyena excrement,
a suppurating syphilitic gumma,
a swamp of pus in which a cavalry regiment could drown,
a Guinea worm,
a worm-infested dead seagull found in the water tank,
or even Sarah Palin.
Fuck off and die.
I can't help but wonder why intelligent, educated, thoughtful people such as John E. Jones III are still in the GOP.
It would be cool if Obama appointed him to SCOTUS, wouldn't it? :)
It's obviously a button that's easy to press and get a wounded response. You're giving the language more power than it deserves. I agree misogynist language is crude, and so is racist bile and homophobic slurs and even general misanthropic hate speech. Refuse to give the words little validity and the spewer of hatred is disarmed. You can be offended, but realize that they've won when you react with a disproportionate response.
To anyone who has a pet peeve or a specific type of hateful language, let me remind you -you're specific sensitivity does not entitle you to any special treatment. EVERYONE has been singled out by hate speech at one time or another. See:Foucault; Othering.
Palin hits back at Republican critics. Enjoy!
"At most, it was anti-frat." - SC
And "stupid cunt" is at worst anti stupid? The context was clearly pejorative, not against fraternities, but against the gender of the commenters.
Tell me you don't honestly think Janine was trying to take a shot at fraternities?
"Try not to be so stupid" - Nick
Try not not to be such a fool. See the above.
Jams,
You're still being an idiot. Or a liar.
Oh, fuck that. "Refuse to give the words little validity and the spewer of hatred is disarmed." Assuming you mean "validity" rather than "little validity," that is not empirically true. Calling people on hateful speech is not a disproportionate response. Several recent threads have contained misogynistic slurs, which fed on each other and formed a hostile pattern. I'm going to speak out against it, and if you don't like it you can kiss my fucking ass.
You're citinf Foucault to me, in this context? Vah.
Is Jams playing the "Janine is a dyke so she must hate men" card? No kiddo, never had much use for Andrea Dworkin.
Seriously, are you trying to say that "frat boy" equals "stupid cunt"? What world are you in? First off, is "frat boy" as bad an insult as "stupid cunt"? Second, are there people who use "frat boy" interchangeably for "men" as some people use "stupid cunt" interchangeably for "women"
Please get back to me when those insults carry equal weight.
I think Eric Atkinson has probably reached my max. tolerance limit.
I didn't think I would ever need it, but... how does one install this kill-thing again ?
At what point can I deem someone too stupid to engage?
No, "anti-Jams" is anti-stupid.
Fraternities = men. *rolls eyes*
I want to be sure I have this straight: Anyone can come on here and talk about cunts and bitches and niggers and fags and dykes and kikes and spics and gooks, and everyone else should just ignore it because it's giving them power to call attention to it? Is that right?
Posted by: SC | November 8, 2008
At most, it was anti-frat.
While there were plenty of guys involved with frats that I liked, yeah I hated frats. Funny thing, I felt the same way about sororities. Maybe I should have said an anti-Greek boys statement. But I am afraid some people would think I hate Greece.
Also, I assumed you were straight. Alter all, you hang out with that big ole queen, MAJeff. Will he be coming back at any time? I miss him.
This is why I hate to line up under any banner. There are some very good people who are Republicans just as there are some assholes who are Democrats. It would be wonderful to cull both parties and create a third party, but trying to get a consensus on just what that hybrid party would actually stand for ideologically would be impossible.
As an atheist, I know many atheists that I wouldn't piss in their mouths if their tongues were on fire; just because we share one common notion doesn't mean we agree on all issues (exhibit A: Eric A.).
I tend to like the idea of fiscal conservatism though I'm very socially liberal. Dems tend to overbuild and like forests need the undergrowth thinned out. Reps used to be like prairie fires, destructive but necessary, thinning out the detritus so the Dems can nurture us back to health. That's long gone, if it really ever existed. The current administration with it's fascist and theocratic leanings has disfigured the politcal landscape, but preceding administrations have some blame to claim as well, and yes, I was a Clinton supporter -but I'm not willfully deaf and blind to what he did policywise.
Ok,Ok I'm off the soapbox.
Just to make it clear, my beef with Palin is that she's an ignoramus yes, on that i'm pretty sure we all agree.
But what is most offensive is how she uses her sex, her body and her winking to get votes. Its disgusting and its an affront to every woman who has succeeded on her own merits.
I give you this to ponder. Let's say Palin looked like a typical Walmart shopper. About 50 lbs overwieght and perhaps a nice scar running down the length of her face. Do you think her intellect and folksy charm would have got her on the presidential ticket?
No i didn't think so.
Damn straight! Give them rope, teach them to tie a noose, and send them to play in the orchard. They'll hang themselves.
@ Janine
My argument is that you don't hate men. SC's argument is that you must. Pay attention.
"Fraternities = men. *rolls eyes*" - SC
Oh man. You really are simple. "Frat boys", as it was used, is simply a gendered pejorative. There were no actual "frat boys" present. You see SC, it's what we call a "metaphor". Feel free to look that up. It's a useful concept.
No. It is the way you respond. There is the screaming, frothing "heart on my sleeve" response and then there is the measured, stern "that's not appropriate/ I'm not going to dignify your stupidity" response. Or snarky/snide humorous response. Or even a nice elegant flip-off. If someone is provoking a response, losing your composure just gives them their jollies.
Jams, WTF are you talking about? Where are you claiming SC said Janine must hate men? It seems your reading comprehension is as poor as your ability to put together a coherent argument.
Qedpro, why do you think so many people reacted so strongly to Rich "Starbursts" Lowry's piece about the Sarah Palin/Joe Biden debate. And guess what, one could bring up the topic of how Palin was using her physical attractiveness who using misogynistic terms.
I have to point out, there are no ugly men being elected President. Can one see a person as homely as Lincoln or as portly as Taft running for office?
And he completely ignores the fact that as people saw more of her and heard more of her, they didn't like what they saw and heard. Face it, Pat: The people were asked what they thought of Palin, and they didn't think much of her.
By all means, run Palin for senator, for president. Let her be the face and the voice of the conservative movement. Progressives couldn't ask for more.
qedpro = Camboy
I feel the same way. My mother's still very involved with her sorority alumnae group, and I have several ex-sorority/fraternity friends, but institutionally - horrors...
It's funny - I went into NYC last weekend for my friends' Halloween party. By the end, it was a room full of wild, beautiful straight and bi women (would've killed poor clinteas) and gay men - extreme even by New York standards.
I don't know if Jeff will be returning. He has so much work to do, and I know what finishing a dissertation in our field is like, so I try not to presure him to come back. I do pass along everyone's best wishes, though.
Nick Gotts, If you keep up that dirty talk to Eric Asshole, ol filthy Philty is going to get jealous. You flirt.
(16)
*facepalm*
Right. I've been screaming and frothing and losing my composure. Please see the fucking thread I linked to above. And again, kiss my lovely fucking feminist ass.
OK, Jams don't pile on SC.
SC: I'm not a prude, I have no problem with expletives or the concepts of expletives but yes, I get offended by the intention - the idea - behind the language. Words, in and of themselves, are never taboo to me (Thank you George Carlin).
I detest racism. I detest misogyny. I detest homophobia. I detest people who ridicule physical aspects of people (with the exception of really badly done plastic surgery, but that's another story...) In short: I hate mankind's inhumanity to mankind.
I can get mean and nasty, but I rarely become(forgive the term) hysterical because then i know they won and I lost.
Buchanan is not descended from a monkey! As a coot, he is descendend from a maniraptoran therapod. Get it straight!
I think the main reason he's upset is that Rachel Maddow is now storing material she uses for her show in the closet in Rockefeller Center that Pat sleeps in.
E.V.,
Our posts crossed, unfortunately. This has nothing to do with expletives. Again, please see the "Sarah Palin: Ignorant and Anti-Science" thread.
Leave Jams. You've gone too far.
SC:
Noted. And BTW, you can do likewise.
SC, have you gone back to that thread within the last couple of days. Some doofus got upset at you for using the word "asshole". I asked him if the word was sexist. He said yes, it was normally aimed at men. Had a good laugh over that one.
"Jams, WTF are you talking about? Where are you claiming SC said Janine must hate men? It seems your reading comprehension is as poor as your ability to put together a coherent argument." - Nick Gotts
They must only hate men if SC's thesis is correct. I think her thesis is incorrect, so I don't think they hate men. Granted, they may very well hate men, but I don't think their use of gendered pejoratives indicates that - as is SC's thesis.
Oops. See, it's sometimes impossible to argue in real time on a thread. I take back my last response above. Peace.
Scott from Oregon, haven't you ever heard of Orange County?
It was the only California big-city area to prefer McCain in this most recent election. All the others preferred Obama: the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, and San Diego.
Let's for a moment say that is true, which i don't think it is because if you look at the senate and house, i'm pretty sure we'll find some "non-hollywood" types.
But let's say its true. Are you saying that makes it right?
That her behavior on national TV is ok, instead of being a disgrace to every woman?
I don't think I've ever been more offended by a woman. She is the reason there is sexism. She promotes it and uses it to her own personal benefit. And when someone acts this way, they are not doing so because they care about people and want to help them and make things better for everyone, they're doing so for their own personal gain.
Palin will sell her soul to get what she wants. She's already started.
"Woman's greatest predator is not other women, it's men." - Patricia
"Leave Jams. You've gone too far." - Patricia
If by "too far" you mean "not a bigot", then yes, I have gone too far.
Jams, your thesis only works if said insults hold equal weight and have equal meaning. Most men who toss off such bon mots like "stupid cunt" and "ugly bitch" on a regular basis tend to be disgusting figures. No so much for those women who say "frat boys".
Done, metaphorically-speaking. :)
Yeah! I didn't know what to make of that. He was responding in the 800s to a comment I had made @ #685, and then he replied to your challenge that he was just starting to read the thread. At first, I was ready to pounce, but then I thought maybe he was admitting his ignorance. Puzzling.
And thanks again. :P
Janine, I've lost track of who's ahead in calling Eric an asshole. Are we keeping track until PZ jails the idiot?
So would it be accurate to say that we are primates, having descended from now-extinct monkeys and apes, and that we are actually a species of ape?
Jams, what are you alleging "SC's thesis" is, and where do you allege she put it forward?
E.V.,
Peace.
Nick - Are you convinced yet that he's (il)logical quicksand?
LOD handing Buchanan his ass, thanks for posting this, it made my day.
Posted by: qedpro | November 8, 2008
Let's for a moment say that is true, which i don't think it is because if you look at the senate and house, i'm pretty sure we'll find some "non-hollywood" types.
I said President. With the modern media, attractive people have an edge.
I don't think I've ever been more offended by a woman. She is the reason there is sexism.
She is the reason there is sexism? You mean not men trying to control their wives and daughters so that they can make sure that all babies born are theirs by relationship? Most attractive people try to use their attractiveness to their advantage. What of it? A person would be dumb not to.
She promotes it and uses it to her own personal benefit.
Yes, I thought thought it was sad that she kept winking at the camera. But it was her beliefs that sickened me. The winks were pathetic. But it gave Rich "Starbursts" Lowry a woody. So it worked for some people.
And when someone acts this way, they are not doing so because they care about people and want to help them and make things better for everyone, they're doing so for their own personal gain.
The same can be said for almost every person who seeks a political office. They may be sincere about making things better for some people but they are also out for themselves. Welcome to humanity.
'Most men who toss off such bon mots like "stupid cunt" and "ugly bitch" on a regular basis tend to be disgusting figures.' - Janine
There's are differences between the two, but I don't think that's a particularly relevant one. It's interesting, but I don't know how fair it is to judge an utterance based on the character of persons I normally hear that utterance from, much less fair to judge the character of one person by the utterances they have in common with another. At the same time you have a point. I have trouble not judging people based on the associations I have with their rhetorical flourishes. However, I generally consider this a personal failure rather than evidence of the speaker's character.
Patricia, you got far ahead of me for a while. Then Asshole became the name.
Funny, I started keeping a count when I call him an asshole twice and he snapped back that he heard it the first dozen times. So decided I would count it up to twelve to that Asshole would not be a liar. It was an act of kindness.
Nick.
Fall
In
A
Fire
And
Suffer
A
Long
Painful
Life.
And take those silly females with you.
Need anyone say more?
I fear we must.
Is qedpro going to try to defend "CSW"? I want to hear that.
And take those silly females with you.
We love you too.
Asshole!
Toadstool.
Eric Atkinson,
Has anyone told you in the last fifteen minutes that you're an asshole? If not, I shall remedy that lack.
Eric, you're an asshole.
Tizzy Himself.
That's what she said.
I see that Janine did her Pharyngulian duty and properly called Eric an asshole just four minutes before I did, thereby making my post #236 repetitiously redundant (but not any less true).
I apologize for my CSW comment. The woman offends me to the core.
I have a feeling the Lone Ranger is just about to ride in.
And take those silly females with you.
We love you too.
We're praying for you!
Off topic (it was getting ugly for a while), but was I the only one not to read about Yma Sumac passing?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/arts/music/04sumac.html?em
Thus spake negentropyeater:
Install Firefox's Greasemonkey extension, then install the killfile script. In both cases, the installations are very straightforward: you just click on the big "install" buttons on the respective pages and restart Firefox.
When you come back here, each comment should have two bits of hot text in the "Posted-by" line: [kill], which hides all of the comments by that user; and [hide comment], which hides only that one comment.
Then all you have to worry about is other people feeding the trolls you've killfiled.
Asshole!
You got this thing that really makes me hot!
What an amazing group of judgmental and arrogant people! If you are so academically sure of yourselves, why don't you just have a laugh at their expense and not be so personal about it. Your intellectual incapacity for absolution is showing and I'm afraid you're not sure about your most recent decisions to deride someone else's intelligence. In other words, you must fear that you may be wrong. Maybe, a venture into a study of Descartes could further disrupt your lack of assurance. Even Socrates said, "All I know is that I know nothing." You must be smarter than him, eh?
He's not needed. We're holding down the fort just fine.
nope
It's a jumble! Try to find the sense in the pattern of the words!
'Jams, what are you alleging "SC's thesis" is, and where do you allege she put it forward?' - Nick Gotts
SC, of course, is free to add or subtract as she sees fit - in fact, I would prefer that.
Her thesis is that some utterances are inherently hateful regardless of context. As examples, she offered phrases like "stupid bitch", "cunt", and so on. Secondly, that commenters who use gendered pejoratives(1) are themselves hateful, or at least, responsible for their speech, and further, that use of gendered pejoratives indicates something about the speaker's character.
Now, where it gets tricky, is that she believes this standard she be held when women are the subject, but are just "silly" when men are the subject, and further, that she only avoids utterances that are, according to her own theory, hateful toward men so that she wont look like a hypocrite.
1: I say pejoratives because she insisted she didn't have an issue with profanity, even though all the examples she presented were profane and subject to the plasticity/ambiguity of profanity.
...this standard should be held ...
Posted by: qedpro | November 8, 2008 6:30 PM
I apologize for my CSW comment. The woman offends me to the core
And you offended many others, remember that anger and fear are what lead you to the Dark Side. Too bad Marc Maron's Liberal Confessional is a thing of the past.
To be fair to you, I had to confront my own use of "cocksucker" as a pejorative in the not-so-distant past when a guy I manage pulled a swift one on me at a most inauspicious time. We're all works in progress, but recognizing our shortcomings is the prerequisite for self-improvement.
SC - Yes, you are. But you gotta agree it get's even more hot and sticky when he shows up. ;o)
Jams, you're being obtuse.
SC@226,
YES!
"Jams, you're being obtuse." - Emmet Caulfield
In what way?
The obtuse way, of course. I mean, duh.
It's quaint that so many of you believe I'm somehow "illogical". It would be nicer if a one of you was coherant enough to articulate the basis for your belief.
Or are claims without basis the new logic?
Even Socrates said, "All I know is that I know nothing." You must be smarter than him, eh? - Stevenator
No, but certainly smarter than you - not much of an achievement, admittedly. If you have an argument to make, rather than drooling all over the place, make it.
By the way:
a) We don't actually know anything Socrates said, since he wrote nothing. All we know are the words Plato put into his mouth.
b) The statement you quote is self-contradictory, hence false.
On the basis that "frat boy" is equal in insult power to "stupid cunt". D'uh.
It's quaint that so many of you believe I'm somehow "illogical". It would be nicer if a one of you was coherant enough to articulate the basis for your belief. - Jams
arguing with you is very difficult, because it's such an effort to make out what you're trying to say.
Are you really claiming to be unable to tell the difference between insults that are systematically used to keep a historically oppressed group down (in this case "stupid cunt", "bitch" etc. used against women), and insults (e.g. "frat boy") that are not, I can only conclude that either:
a) You are extremely stupid, or
b) You're a sexist shit.
I'm past the stage of caring which.
Yma Sumac? You mean she wasn't already dead? Next you'll be claiming Abe Vigoda is still alive.
I'm off to the theater to see the offspring in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.
*****************************************************************************
Stevie:
FAIL.
Descarte? Haaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
DUELISM? Ohhh broooooother!
Run along you deluded little cat'lic twit.
Uh...what the hell happened?
When I left it was a perfectly reasonable discussion.
Alright, I'll go back and try to read some of these posts, but it looks pretty ugly.
Ugly and reasonable aren't mutually exclusive. :)
In leveling a charge of hypocrisy in the use of "frat boy" in the context of the use of "cock-sucking whore". If Palin had been called, say, a "prom queen", then someone had complained and used "frat boy", you might have a legitimate argument, but "cock-sucking whore" or "stupid cunt" vs. "frat boy"? Come on! You're ignoring a massive difference in "intensity" for rhetorical purposes. That's being obtuse.
Even if the two were comparable in some theoretical sense, history would differentiate them as it does "dick" and "cunt" -- both are gendered epithets based on genitalia, but who would say they're the same? You're simply taking what the words denote and completely throwing all the connotations out the window. That's being obtuse.
You're argument is like saying that "cock-sucking whore" isn't an insult at all because you like fellatio and have no problem with prostitution. It's either disingenuous, if you're doing it for rhetorical purposes, or stupid, if you actually believe it.
s/You're/Your/
Oh! The shame!
"The obtuse way, of course. I mean, duh." - SC
Is this another example of your keen understanding of logic? [insert ironic applause]
'Are you really claiming to be unable to tell the difference between insults that are systematically used to keep a historically oppressed group down (in this case "stupid cunt", "bitch" etc. used against women), and insults (e.g. "frat boy") that are not, I can only conclude that either [...]' - Nick Gotts
Well, that's certainly a tad bit more substantial than SC's basis for the difference. I believe she attributed the difference to some furtive notion of "social convention".
So, let me get this straight, hate speech isn't determined by the context or intent of the speech in question, but by the history of the target of that speech.
Is that your contention?
Why do you think that it is so important that I should grant a pass to sexists whose disdain happens to target men rather than women? It isn't a zero sum game. Hate is hate. Is there a special need to be "particular" about who it's being applied to. Because frankly, I'm not aware of one.
"arguing with you is very difficult, because it's such an effort to make out what you're trying to say." - Nick Gotts
Oh dear, I've necessitated that you make an effort. How awful of me. Please, return to your torpor. [depressing Nick Gotts' snooze button]
What a thoroughly disagreeable little shit you are, sonny boy.
Surely Homo sapiens are apes, not monkeys.
I get some household work done and we get an infestation of cockroachesEricA. Still not funny. Still not pertinent. At the moment, all I see is a Baba impersonation. Can't even be original. Total failure.
What I don't get is why when people sneeringly mock you for believing that men and apes have common ancestry (or in stupid speak: "you evolved from a monkey) they don't get a withering "and I suppose you believe we all came from the union of clay full of gods breath and spare ribs". But more pithy.
Eric Paulsen - Damn, good point!
Therefore, I shall steal it, and use it shamelessly. Thank you!
Eric Paulsen @269, that happens, but it doesn't work.
The goddidit claim can be defended rhetorically and especially theologically, meaning they can come up with any bullshit and think they're being clever and profound (e.g. the smarter ones will say that misrepresents their claim, which of necessity is metaphorical, but [blah blah blah]).
Reasoning just doesn't work with an adult seriously making that claim.
Not that it's not a good bon mot.
Professor,
Your mistake lies in assuming that Buchanan is descended from monkeys. No, tis the monkeys who are advanced Buchanans.
What's so bad about being descended from a monkey? Monkeys are awesome. They don't have wars, or murder, or crime, or religion, or Amway salesmen. Plus, they get laid a LOT.
The world would be a better place if people acted more like monkeys.
Raven #48 and Eric #269. Yes!
I used to vote Republican at the Presidential level primarily because of the "fiscal conservative" myth. The social conservative crap always annoyed me and became unbearable in the last 8 years. The suppression/discounting of science is untenable.
Who the F@#k cares if gay people want to get married. Or if a woman might not want to bear a child because she was raped, mind-tripped by someone she trusted (think incest) or too ignorant to know (think abstinence-only "education").
Anybody who blindly ignores the fact of evolution (as in our bacterial buddies making a comeback) or thinks we don't have a negative impact on our environment (which will be doing a "back-atcha" in the near future) or thinks we can continue to mindlessly multiply is deluded.
I think from now on, given the continuing attention to Joe the Plumber and Sarah-cudda by the Republicans, the Republican party will become the "gift" that keeps on giving.
The real tragedy is that the party of Abe Lincoln (and he was no saint, in 21st century terms, but give the guy a break - neither was Thomas Jefferson) has come to this.
Brian @273, monkeys do murder, and chimps do go to war (best as they can).
For the dominant males, yes. For the dominant females, maybe. For the rest, not so much.
"They don't have... murder..."
I heard a case of a chimp eating a baby that seems to contradict that
:[
unless chimps aren't considered monkeys, idk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7055625.stm
THEY ARE GOING TO OVERTHROW OUR LEADERS AND THROW SHIT AT US
EVERYONE RUN
So here's the taxonomy deal. Modern categories of animal classification are supposed to be "monophyletic," a complete and intact evolutionary lineage that inclues all descendants of a particular (hypothetical) ancestor, and nobody else. Such a group of species is called a "clade." Anc each clade is nested within larger, more inclusive clades (descended from more ancient ancestors). So, extant "humans" is a clade. "Apes" is a clade if and only if it is understood to include humans. "Old-world monkeys" is a clade if it includes apes; "monkeys" is a clade if it includes both New-world and Old-world (including apes) monkeys.
So, yes, we are apes. We are also monkeys. And primates. And eutherian mammals. And synapsids. And amniotes. And tetrapods. And lobe-finned fish. And bony fish. And vertebrates. And craniates. And deuterostomes, bilaterians, eumetazoans, opisthokonts, eukaryotes, Life. Each category nests within the larger ones (and I skipped a bunch), and we are all of it.
See The Ancestor's Tale.
Go ape.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888073
Eric Asshole - please killfile yourself.
Hell no, i didn't come from no monkey. I come from great apes who left those monkeys skittering in the trees long ago.
genesgalore @281, that might've seemed more witty if not for Sven's post @278 :)
Not that I don't appreciate the intent.
What's the matter granny. Go eat some NaOH.
No. thats too harsh.
Go soak your dentures in NaOH
Add water
Much better.
I, for one, welcome our new shit-throwing overlords.
Longtime Lurker.
I'm assuming then you don't object to me calling her a whore in the sense of a person who prostitutes her principles for personal gain. Now we can argue about whether or not she had any principles worth compromising to begin with, but basically Sarah Palin has set woman back 50 years.
She reinforced the stereotype that beautiful woman have no brains. McCain chose her for the same reason that sales people choose woman at car shows, to sit on the hood and look pretty. And they kept her on a lease lest the woman say something stupid, you know "like they always do."
But i guess i was offended most because she allowed herself to be used in this way and thought nothing of it. Because that's all she has. To have to read people defending her tactics makes me want to vomit. She was chosen for her looks - nothing else. If she wasn't pretty there's no way in hell she would be on the ticket.
Not only did she not break any glass ceiling, she has replaced the panels with 2 inch bullet proof lexan. For the next 10 years people are going to judge all woman by her.
Oh what the hell I'll vote for that purty philly anyway. Pretty and stupid, just the way i likes 'em!!!
or
no way am i going to vote for a woman. Look at that last one they put on stage, dumb as a stump.
I don't know what's worse.
There will always be sexism and misogyny as long as woman use their sex and allow themselves to be used. and there will always be sexism because there are people who post here that think that its ok to do that.
Oh goody! The shit throwing overlords. I hope they appear soon. I've got every chamber pot full, and the trebuchet is straining. Let the hurling begin!
Um, Bush & Co. are leaving office.
#287 E.V.
Pricless
Jams, I somewhat agree with you, the intent behind the use of a word is more important than the sounds of the word itself. Words only contain meaning within the context and intent of the users.
However, they also contain the context of their historical use and some words and phrases have become primarily associated with a specific intent. Words and phrases like nigger, whore, holocaust denier and yes even CSW, are more than hollow grunts, clicks and slurs waiting for a user to intentionally fill with meaning.
While most words have to be understood based on context and intent, CSW contains enough baggage that we can make some rather accurate assumptions about the speaker. With most words, we have a responsibility to determine the intended meaning behind the use before coming to a conclusion, but in the case of CSW and other similar sentiments, the responsibility, rightly or wrongly, falls on the user to provide evidence it was not used in the common pejorative way. This admittedly is not really logical, but it is the reality of our culture.
There is another reality that confronts us when a group has been subjugated based on some arbitrary criteria; members of that group become far more sensitive to the use of 'words of baggage' and it becomes necessary for members of the subjugating group, whether active in the group or not, to be aware of that sensitivity. If use of the word continues to be perceived as promoting the process of subjugation then it needs to be removed from use.
On this blog, with the people here, CSW was likely used against a single person, with no intent to disparage an entire group, and I suspect those getting up in arms about it are aware of that. I also suspect that their concern, beyond the initial outburst of anger and frustration, is that any use of such a loaded term can be construed by others as tacitly supporting the misogynist mind set.
Yes, some reactions can be perceived as over-reactions, but pure logic is not capable of changing that. What will change that is the end of unbalanced opportunities.
I agree with you that the term 'frat boys' can be construed as equally offensive as CSW based on the intent of the user, but since it does not carry the baggage CSW does, it becomes necessary for us to determine the intended meaning. If the word was spoken (written) with venomous vitriol then that context makes it as bad as many 'words of baggage'. Otherwise, it is not as damaging as CSW.
However, since men have not been systemically oppressed for centuries as women have been, the phrase is not full of history. Remember, sexual oppression has been used for centuries. Assuming the worst intent behind the phrase makes us justifiably incredibly pissed off and we can even feel personally attacked, but it does not make us feel subjugated (generally speaking, there will be exceptions). We, as males, as a group, have no experience with systemic oppression.
Logic is necessary during debate, and in helping us develop a personal value system, but interacting with others also requires taking our humanness into consideration.
Sorry about the length, I have to learn to be more concise.
If Bushco does actually leave office, I say let us hurl every chamber pot of troll shit we have at them, and every libertarian we can tamp into the trebuchet basket of festering shit we can set afire.
I won't be taunting them as they roll out from the White House. They don't deserve my taunting.
I disagree. She was chosen because the Neocons wouldn't tolerate Lieberman and Christ was too obviously a risk (Ted Haggard, anyone?)
She was chosen because she was a woman, yes, since the Dems jetisoned Hillary caused an outcry from the Hillary supporters. Kay Bailey Hutchison would have been a much stronger choice for conservatives but she has her eye on the Texas Governor's Office.
Palin was a default choice because no one outside Alaska knew her and she seemed to represent conservative ideals. With piss-poor vetting, she was announced before her daughter's pregnacy was revealed.
Due to her pageant training she seemed to have poise and was a decent, if uninformed, speaker. The folksiness just added to the anti-elitest agenda. Remember that Dubya was deemed the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with (even though he no longer drank). The conservative machine surmised the gun rights people would love her (Obama and Biden are gonna make us git rid of 'r GUNS), the insecure dimwits would love her plainspokenness and golly, that she was easy on the eyes wasn't a bad thing, you betcha; but no one in the Republican Party knew she couldn't pass a grade school civics test or would claim she could look out her back door and see the Kremlin.
She didn't seem any less intellectual (hah hah) than any other ultra-conservative hack. She bluffed her way through the half assed background interview but was exposed as a clueless equivicator by Matt Lauer and Katie Couric for all the world to see (and still the idiot ideologues loved her.)
McCain made the choice he was pushed to make in order to retain support from the rightwingers and no, she wasn't just a car show model - she was expected to perform and more frighteningly, many ultraconservatives still don't understand how incompetent she is since they live in the same wackaloon magical parallel world as her.
FYI
everyone should watch PBS Frontline on Tuesday.
If you are interested in how the GOP because the mud slinging dirty tricks party it is today, well you can thank Lee Atwater for a good portion of it.
His story is on Frontline tuesday.
because = became
Eric @283, that was the last straw. Have I said you're despicable?
Just in case: you're a despicable, contemptible, obnoxious wannabe. I only wish you had enough wit to understand just what a low-life you are.
As Gary has just written, "the intent behind the use of a word is more important than the [...] the word itself" - and that you use "granny" as a pejorative is indicative of a loathsome nature whose expression is only mitigated by a lack of imagination.
Best as I can tell, you contribute about as much to this forum as a hemorrhoid does to a call-centre operator.
Well, I'd go on, but what's the point on wasting further vitriol on such as you? Either you get it, or you don't.
I'll finish with the honest truth, as I see it: even in your malevolence you're piteous. A loser.
EV
McCain made the choice he was pushed to make in order to retain support from the rightwingers????
oh so what you're saying is that the right wingers were going to vote for the black man? that those ultra conservative evangelical fascists were going to vote for Obama - "the muslim terrorist" and the only way McCain could keep their support was to select Palin?
I did not know that.
I hope Palin run's in 2012. If she actually became
the nominee - her defeat would set the republican party
back 50 years - even if Obama's presidency was
unsucessful.
I am altogether unconvinced that this will happen.
But it will be hilarious to watch people like Romney or
Gingrich (more likely winners) tripping over their
tongues avoiding seeming sexist and pointing
out the obvious - she ain't ever going to be ready
for prime time - even if she goes to 6 more colleges
to learn about basic geography or to be able to
discern a fake accent from a real one.
I do wonder though hypothetically, if McCain had chosen Hillary, what the outcome would have been.
Thank You John. As Eric devoted that granny remark to me, I take it with as little credence as you did.
A granny is a wise and useful women. One cunning in the ways of the world and steeped in knowledge, lore and helpful experience. I have no children, so I cannot be a granny - but I love young people, and I have my hopes in them.
you might as well wonder if he had chosen Marlyn Manson as his VP.
Just as likely and serves exactly zero purpose thinking about it.
I sure wish Eric would have a run-in with Granny Weatherwax.
Blockquote fail. I meant Granny Weatherwax".
You're welcome, Patricia. Not that I said what I did on your behalf, I know you're above the yapping of dogs - I did it out of exasperation. That attempt to pervert what should be a beautiful word into an insult just drove me over the edge.
Oh for the love of criminy. I can't even blame it on drunkenness.
Granny bloody Weatherwax!
She wouldn't be having with him.
But then, I'm not sure if she would be having with any of us.
yes i guess i shouldn't bother thinking about anything or speculating or using my brain at all. I should just wait until you post your little turds of wisdom and then think that.
Oh great reverend please tell me what i should think about.
What the advocates of creation and other "culture war" issues have in their favor is an objective. They want to maintain the way things were in their memory. If I were to bet my money on one side or the other, based on what I regularly read in the posts here, I would have to go for the bet in favor of the "culture warriors". The arguments of the Marquis de Sade against god is a million light years above and beyond the silliness of many of the arguments of many (not all) posters here.
The question still has to be answered, what is an atheist program? Is it more than laughing at perceived the ignorance of believers?
If not, you stand no chance against Sarah Palin. If you can not move beyond ejaculating on God, which was done about 300 years ago, forget about trying to debate Patrick Buchanan.
Are facts enough and if not what is? Answering this question should be first and foremost on an American atheist's mind in today's political spectrum. If you can't, then go ahead and throw in the towel because Sarah Palin and her kind will wipe us out.
ken,
what do you suggest when many atheists, even the ones that post here, take pride in NOT having a community.
Shorter Ken: "give up".
As if.
Wow QEDPRO:
Never said or implied that.
Logic isn't your strong suit evidently. Straw man, huh?
EV ,
you said he was trying to shore up his base.
what does that mean then?
I don't know about the atheist program, but program of scientists is to point out why their belief is wrong, show that it is indeed ignorance, and explain what is in fact known and why.
It's a slow slog, but it's the only game in town.
*raises eyebrow*
The theist agenda is in point of fact to assert that scientifically demonstrated facts are not true and that falsehoods of their religion are facts.
excuse me you didn't say that exactly.
you said
McCain made the choice he was pushed to make in order to retain support from the rightwingers
I took that to mean that he was losing support of right wingers.
so what does that mean, that they are going to vote for someone else? or just not vote at all.
qedpro,
It's not that I have all or any of the answers. What I suggest is a serious discussion on the ways that we can formulate the questions that should be discussed. As I pointed out in another post last night is that the right wing is changing their arguments in a substantial way that they can have a broader appeal. We gain nothing by declaring that Sarah Palin is stupid or that P. Buchanan is a right wing populists. We have to present argument that can appeal to the largest number of people including the believers. When Pat Buchanan asks "who would be easier to assimilate" Africans or Europeans, we must be able to counter his fear mongering. He and his ilk put forward their questions with a negative spin. We should try to see if we can ask and answer them with a positive spin. Is there any reason to believe our country's basic principles so weak as to not be able to incorporate an x number of Africans as Europeans? Is our country's principle's so weak as to see science as a hindrance of good living?
In other words, we need to stop patting each other on the back for thinkg the same people stupid and irrational. We need to put questions forth that, by answering them, helps people see that our logic is right and acceptable even when personal beliefs differ because our program thinks of our country and the world as a whole.
I did not know Drama Queen elections were today. Don't confuse atheism or non-theism with political ideology. It just so happens that many who understand that gods do not exist tend to have a more liberal social outlook - a live and let live mentality, but that doesn't mean we can't vent our frustrations on a blog thread. There are atheists who are very conservative politically. What unites us is the realization that the supernatural doesn't exist and that religion is a human construct, any other commonalities are incidental.
To answer your Palin hysteria: Moderate Republicans didn't buy her bullshit either. Neocons and Theocons are Palin's crowd.
Man, talk about a false dichotomy...
No.
You inform your candidate that if he doesn't play ball you'll make sure he's hamstrung on passing his pet policies. You use every Machiavelian tactic you can to let him know his term as President might be a sentence.
Did you not listen to all the Fox pundits scream about McCain being a Dem in Rep clothing?
EV,
I did not present any hysteria at all. Vent all you want here, other social sites even your pillow. When your done come back and have a discussion with the rest of us - like I said the ejaculation on god already happened 300 + years ago, what do you have to add to the discussion. My whole argument leaves room for even believers to participate because I think what we defend in terms of rational thought, discussion and perspective is what will move us forward as a nation and as a world participant. We can all have our individual political preferences, but we should be able to formulate questions in such a way that they appeal to the largest number of people possible so that even the minority positions can feel involved and responsible for them.
Hmm interesting.
I took "right winger" as regular people who voted, not as senators or congressmen, etc. my mistake.
I never got the impression that McCain would care about that. He came across to me as a person who just wanted the prize, the title, the little checkmark on his resume. He seemed to want it too much, so much that he apparently sold his soul.
and no i don't watch Fox News.
EV,
plus what is really strange about that, is that by choosing Palin it certainly didn't speak to people who would have voted for McCain - simply because they thought he might have more experience. There was a large group of moderate people who wanted a reason to vote for McCain over Obama simply because of the perceived inexperience issue.
It seems like the rational that he won't get anything done after he gets elected, is putting the cart before the horse, especially when he was down already in the polls when he chose Palin.
Ken:
A bit slow, eh?
First, you are having a discussion.
Second, I for one am not included in your "us". I doubt many regulars would be, for that matter.
Third, pointing out the failures of the god concept goes back much, much further than 300 years. Epicurus, for one, did it more than 2000 years ago, and I also doubt he was the first.
Fourth, inasmuch as you have a point, you're actually echoing PZ's post. It's kind of amusing you do not perceive this.
John McCain was not going to serve the (Neo)Conservative agenda. But the Republicans as a united party were not going to relinquish power to the dems no matter that the republican party is a conglomeration of many ideologies (as are dems). Cheney and Rove and the other members of Bush's political machine aren't going to ride off into the sunset after January, they'll still be pulling strings behind the scenes to keep Haliburton, Blackwater and every other republican backroom deal going as long as possible, not to mention possible retribution in the form of indictmants from the dems, should they become the dominant party (God forbid).
You don't like the front man? Force him to pick the people YOU want, because EVERYTHING is at stake. If the evangelicals don't like you, they have the power to make your life a living hell if you don't appease them. It's reciprocity with a common goal -win at any cost, even if you can't stand each other.
I mean he was losing in the polls and was fighting to win this election and yet he chose a running mate based on whats going to happen after he wins.
@myself #319: I made an error, posting this whilst thinking I was in the What is an "atheist community"? thread.
That was a mistake, I was wrong, and thus that fourth point is inapplicable and is hereby retracted.
Yes i agree that they weren't going to run off into the sunset. But it seemed at that point in the election, the idea was to win the election that they were losing and then deal with the "maverick".
Yet instead what they did was shoot themselves in the face.
I can understand win at any cost, but this was more of if we're going to lose then he's going down too.
John,
I have no problem standing on the shoulders of giants, I came here looking for discussion and for that I really appreciate PZ's blog. But the question remains to be answered, what do you (or we) have to add to the perspective that a Palin or a Buchanan represents? Is there not a set of questions we can ask that would help guide the discussion to a positive forward place? Or are we left to the negative spin of the Buchanans of now and the future?
Okay, but you are not a core Republican. It was down to Romny, Giuliani, McCain and whosit (i'm tired).
All problematic to Theocrats. No way the Catholics and Evangelical protestants are electing a Mormon. Giuliani's life was an embarassment from a Catholic point of view and protestants are still wary of Catholics (Kennedy was a fluke).
They settled on McCain because he was a War Hero&trade: and he palled around with Hagee and Co. but was not overly or underly religious.
Your assuming that only Palin would have boosted his numbers; not so. There were a few Conservative choices, but they (the Rep Machine) assumed that if he were a she, then they'd get the "Hillary Factor". It worked for the most part; many women were willing to vote for her just because she was a woman )and they hoped McCain would drop in office, therefore ushering in their real candidate.
Now getting a person of color for VP was inconceivable for that party. Condi Rice wasn't viable for 3 reasons: she is a person of color, she was tied directly to the incumbent Bush catastrophe and she's rumored to be a lesbian (very closeted). KBHutchison didn't want the job... yet and took her name out of the hat.
Blah,blah, blah. I'm going to bed.
It seems that threads are becoming longer and longer - and the little vomit over words does nothing to enhance it.
btw Eric - ur an arsehole.
SC - I was on your side until the post where you started slanging off at men in general (except gay men seem to be OK by u, as are straight women (but only the beautiful ones got an invite to the party). Men, according to your blanket pigeon-holing are slavering, child abusing, wife beating thugs. My own personal experience of being serially assaulted by my mother, ex-wife and then long-term partner speaks differently. Whilst I know that women are frequently the victims of the most heinous assaults, the statistics show men as the largest victim group of violence. Typically by men, but increasingly by women. A good friend was knifed by his wife last year then arrested at hospital - and he never raised a hand against her (and the wounds to his arms were all defensive). But I've got over it, for whatever darkness exists in your past I am truly sorry, but deal with it or seek professional help. Hate knows no gender. 99% (in reality probably less) of men don't feel that everything can be settled with fists. I always assume someone is friendly until proven otherwise and I don't regard gender, gender preference, gender identity or physical beauty as indicators of their opinions or contribution to society.
Then you lumped Gandhi in with dubya and your credibility hit zero. My own efforts to represent my local community have cost me considerably with little hope of financial reward (20hrs per week for about $7k per annum) and less prospect of kudos. I live in a largely (apathetic) religious rural area and am trying to introduce Enlightenment 2.0 with no support (other than when I offer to buy the next round). Could I suggest that possibly SC is judging the level of selfishness in others by her own standards? Good start, but FAIL (not epic).
The very word "misogynist" is misandric - it seems that the concept that women would hate men was impossible when "misanthrope" refers to someone that hates humanity.
I feel that the comments by Ken are pertinent. Atheists need their own "Wedge Document" like the fundies. There need to be atheists on both sides of any political debate to cancel out the crazies (just like running 2 female candidates against each other defuses any gender issues). Religion should not be political. Eric is an atheist but on the (arsehole) neocon side. Republicans would love his views, just not his atheisim (yet). Why shouldn't the choice be between the opposing policies of 2 atheists running for office?
Ken @324,
1. Oookaaaay... I appreciate it too.
2. Not much, as you've already intimated they're tired old claims which have been addressed ad-nauseam. Buchanan and Palin merely stand on the hips of dwarves.
If you agree with posters' comments, what's to discuss? If you don't, then address those claims you dispute and thus enter a conversation.
In short, there's no need for any new perspectives or arguments until (and if) new contentions are put forth.
It is easy to see the foulness in others, hard to see the foulness in ourselves.
Was that some kind of asinine pun, or are you really so uneducated as to not know how to spell recent?
What on earth are you talking about? What post was that?
Read it again. Can't make heads or tails of it. Wouldn't even know where to start with that batch of confused utterances. WTF was that rant about?
Hi SC,
my sincerest apologies. I am finding the lengthy threads very difficult to follow and keep coherent. Catchup can take me hours. The fight with Jam threw me (I thought he was a troll at first, and eric remains an arsehole). I promise I will keep a notebook with comment numbers for reference (and this promise I make to the whole group) before I make further posts. Apologies also for my tardiness in retracting the comments I directed at you, but I have been scanning back to try to correct my errors.
The reference to one of your posts (#207) I screwed up. Sounds like a fun party :)
I am prepared to accept disciple and public humiliation if u deem it necessary.
Unpicking the mashup I presented:
1. It was Janines comment at #228 regarding politicians I found offensive. Whilst it may be true for the vast majority at state and federal levels, it is far less so for local government (in Australia at least). In local government representatives from small businesses however do display the selfish interests Janine (and I) deplore.
2. It was Patricia that made the accurate statement that women are the victims of men (Comment #183). I just pointed out that this is only part of the backdrop of violence that haunts society. Men too are victims, frequently at the hands of women. I interjected my own personal experiences to indicate that violence of women against men is rarely reported and when it is discovered (as with my friend), the man is immediately considered the attacker, or more frighteningly, as having deserved it. It is hate that is the problem regardless of the gender of the perp or victim.
I used to vote Republican at the Presidential level primarily because of the "fiscal conservative" myth. The social conservative crap always annoyed me and became unbearable in the last 8 years. The suppression/discounting of science is untenable.
Ah, someone sensible. Yes, I completely agree. I'm a small-government fiscal conservative. But the Republican party seems to have near-totally abandoned those principles (Bush has drastically increased federal spending and the amount of federal bureaucracy), in favour of "social conservatism" (i.e. the imposition of sectarian moral views by force of law), which I find pointless and stupid. And creationism is, to be honest, a pile of crap.
What would be ideal - though it could never happen - is for libertarian Republicans, moderate Democrats and moderate Libertarians to split and form a new centrist party. This would then marginalise both the Democrat left and the loony religious right.
I used to vote Republican at the Presidential level primarily because of the "fiscal conservative" myth. The social conservative crap always annoyed me and became unbearable in the last 8 years. The suppression/discounting of science is untenable.
Ah, someone sensible. Yes, I completely agree. I'm a small-government fiscal conservative. But the Republican party seems to have near-totally abandoned those principles (Bush has drastically increased federal spending and the amount of federal bureaucracy), in favour of "social conservatism" (i.e. the imposition of sectarian moral views by force of law), which I find pointless and stupid. And creationism is, to be honest, a pile of crap.
What would be ideal - though it could never happen - is for libertarian Republicans, moderate Democrats and moderate Libertarians to split and form a new centrist party. This would then marginalise both the Democrat left and the loony religious right.
Sorry for double post.
qedpro,
I don't think I agree with E.V. that the pressure to pick Palin concerned what would happen if McCain won, or at least, not primarily. A very large part of winning any election is mobilising your potential support. McCain needed those who would usually vote Republican to vote for him - rather than stay at home, or vote Libertarian. He needed volunteers to call voters, to get them to the polls or persuade them to vote early. He needed to get people talking about his campaign. Picking Palin undoubtedly helped with all this. However, the risk in picking someone who appeals to your party's core supporters is precisely that they put off the swing voters. The risk of picking someone as abysmally ignorant as Palin is that they will get found out, and that will put some potential voters off. Probably the choice of Palin did more harm than good, but in any case, the breaking of the financial crisis made it quite hard for Obama to lose: it foregrounded the economy, on which the Dems are more trusted than the Reps (party preferences on particular issues are far more stable than voting intention among swing voters, so the salience of particular issues is a crucial variable in determining who will win). If you look at the polls over time, it's clear that Obama established a lead very shortly after September 7, when the crisis became big news, and never lost it. Of course, Obama's personal qualities, and ability to raise money and energise Democratic voters, were also important, but probably only offset the racists who would have voted for a white Democratic candidate.
libertarian Republicans, moderate Democrats and moderate Libertarians to split and form a new centrist party.
This is about as likely as a Martian landing in Central Park. The election has demonstrated conclusively just how completely uninterested in your "libertarian" fantasies the vast majority of Americans are. And why on Earth would "moderate Democrats" abandon a party that has just won its biggest victory in nearly half a century, for the political wilderness?
Another thread hijacked by the libertarians, I see.
Sigh.
Posted by: ChrisKG
I'll bet that Ms. Frizzle wasn't driving it either...
Once a dizbo, always a dizbo.
Yeah sure Palin bounced the Republicans back into the race but as I've said before it was a tactical success but a strategic failure (Pearl Harbour again.)
Oooh oooh can I play too ?
"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters, and coldly it tells lies, and this lie drones on from its mouth: 'I, the State, am the people'." - Nietzsche,
"Dissent is the mark of freedom, as originality is the mark of independence of mind. And as originality and independence are private needs for the existence of science, so dissent and freedom are its public needs."-Jacob Bronowski
And just für Eric :
Democracy is a form of religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses - HL Mencken
"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed." - Bertrand Russell
And lest we forget :
"Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all."-Robespierre
E.V.@342,
I'm looking at Real Clear Politics. Just before the Couric interview on 25 September, Obama was 3.5% ahead, although his lead increased after that. However, there was a stream of bad economic news, so the sustained increase can't be attributed unequivocally to the interview.
Exit polls showed that the economy was the most important issue for around 60% of voters; although Palin was considered "unfit to be President" by a majority, among those who named her as a factor there was only a slight preponderance for Obama:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/exit.polls/index.html?iref=2…
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8BsExhV2UVbZa62nYpKgwyqkm5gD948EQ8O0
Damn SC, you were catching hell when I went to bed, and now I get up and see you're getting it again. WTF?
Don't know. Now I even seem to be catching hell meant for other people! This was just strange; the thing with tm, though, was painful. :(
Yes, he's finally disgraced himself beyond redemption in my point of view. Not that he gives a damn what I think of his deplorable behavior.
He once gave me a good dicing up for teasing him and saying, Tsk, tsk.
Well, maybe I gave him some indication (not here - elsewhere) that it was OK if he acted like that to some extent. On the other hand, I've expressed pretty clearly on here that it wasn't. Mixed signals? I don't know. But I still can't believe the things he wrote last night, even if they were said in anger.
No, that's not necessary.
Correct, the monkeys only form a clade when the apes are included.
They were going to stay at home and not vote at all -- that has a lot of tradition in America --, so Obama would win by default.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka
"O Rama, be wise, there is no world except for this one, that is certain!"
-- from the Mahabharata
JAIL
TO THE
THIEF
What Democratic left? Kucinich and Gravel?
Such a party might form, though. If -- if! -- things continue the way they are going, Obama will be reelected like Saint Ronnie and the Republicans will die out in 2012, and then the unopposed Democrats will inevitably split to restore the inevitable two-party system, which will then look almost European, with a "centrist" (conservative) and a vaguely Social Democratic party. Palin, Huckabee and/or Bachmann for Reptilian nominees in 2012!
Nietzsche did not live in a democracy. It shows.
How ironic.
? Really? So apes are the sister-group to all extant OW monkeys? I hadn't known that.
Ah, yes, I see. Cool.
Exactly. Nice representation that only lacks the name Haplorhini (...and any fossils, <sigh>).
Re the whole Jams/SC thing:
You know, if you kick me as hard as you can, and I slap you back, we both used violence. The degree of violence does not negate the fact of violence. If I use gender specific insults against women, and you respond with gender specific insults against men, we are both wrong. Using a gender based attack while complaining about gender based attacks is being a hypocrite. The degree of the insult does not come into play when both are obviously insults. Women having been oppressed does not give them the right to use oppressive behavior. This is not righting a wrong, it is merely shifting the balance of power. Yes, CSW is horribly offensive (even though I did not know what it was until explained in the thread), but replying with comments about frat-boys only lowers you to their level. Hope this does not come off as an attack, because I do not mean it to be. I just think that Jams does have a point.
Wareyin, this issue has been smouldering for a number of threads, so what you see here is only the latest kerfuffle.
As for "frat boys", to me this connotes a juvenile male mindset - this is qualitatively different to the connotations evinced by the terms SC objects to.
Jams might, but overall, seen in context, I find it sophist.
Here's the thread where SC first took umbrage regarding this issue.
John Morales, I do not read every thread here. I am a long time lurker to Pharyngula, but a first time poster. Not having read that thread, THIS is the context. If SC uses a term that connotes a juvenile MALE mindset, that is a sexist term. To me, this is the same as saying an African-American can't be a racist because of past injustices. Bunk. Racism, sexism, etc. are not made excusable by something my ancestor did to your ancestor. Past sexism does NOT give you license to be retaliatorily sexist. If you want to be sexist or racist, there is not much I can do about that. But to complain about someone else using sexist or racist terms, while using sexist or racist terms yourself, is hypocritical. Again, degree is a meaningless distinction. Sexist or racist is as sexist or racist does.
Wareyin,
It's gendered, but not sexist when taken in context. The language SC employs is English, and any sexism is embedded in it - she can refer either to a sorority or a fraternity when using US idiom to invoke the concept of adolescent puerility, but must choose one or the other to be pithy and avoid circumlocution (which would lose the flavour). It was derogaroty, but to see it as sexist is, I think, over-reaching.
Once again, this depends on context. Ever come across the expression "Quantity has a quality all its own."?
Yes, and this was actually part of SC's point, should you care to review her previous comments on this issue.
It was Janine, not SC, who introduced "frat boy".
Perhaps there is the germ of a point in there, but equating "frat boy" with "cock sucking whore" is obtuse.
Patent nonsense. Shooting someone in the head and pulling their hair are both "violence", but the difference in degree of violence in not meaningless.
John Morales, please explain to me how a gendered insult is not a sexist insult. An insult aimed at only one sex is not sexist? Then what is sexism? I am sorry, but I did not think she had a sorority or a member in any sorority in mind with that term and usage.
I have never heard the phrase "Quantity has a quality all its own", but I agree it does depend on context. You know, I was once violently attacked for being the wrong skin color in an area that people different than me were the majority. Was that ok if others of my ethnicity did worse things to others of their ethnicity? Or is mindless violence bad?
Emmett Caulfield, I did say that the CSW term was "horribly offensive", did I not? I meant that. But for all it's offensiveness, it is not death. That is why I equated it with kicking someone as hard as you can. You cannot equate a verbal insult with murder.
For all, if you think that you can do as much damage to me with a slap as I can to you with a kick, then I guess I need a better metaphor. That is why I equated "frat boy" with a slap, and "CSW" with a kick. If you want to over-react and equate "CSW" with a death-blow, well, all I can say is I wish I lived in a world where that was the worst thing you could experience.
I did no such thing. You introduced the analogy with violence, not me. I merely compared two acts that are both strictly violence as a direct counterexample to your false assertion that "degree is a meaningless distinction". No more. No less.
Emmet Caulfiel,
If I was smart enough to use block quotes, this would look better, but...how many people do you know that were shot in the head that were not murdered?
Mea Culpa: Emmet Caulfield
May the gods of good beer curse my fingers for the misspelling!!
Wareyin, you're becoming needlessly defensive - I know you mean well, and I'm not imputing any maliciousness to you.
Well, I thought I had, but I'll try to clarify via an example: "you ugly woman!" vs. "you ugly man!".
Both are gendered, but is either sexist, outside of context?
Sigh. I've noticed the subjunctive mood seems to be falling into desuetude, which I find melancholic.
The tag for that is as follows:
<blockquote>quoted text here</blockquote>
Oops, I failed to put the link in... My only excuse is that I was distracted.
subjunctive
John Morales, thank you for not taking my questions as malicious. Sincerely.
Ok, both "ugly woman" and "ugly man" are gendered. I do not see either being sexist. But to call Sarah Palin a CSW is sexist how? We both know that there are male prostitutes, correct? Am I wrong in thinking that whore is prostitute? As a slang term, I never thought that it was solely female prostitutes that are whores.
Maybe had I read the previous thread, and Jams had insulted Janine (again I apologize...I thought it was SC) with the same term, or something similar, then that retaliation is more justified. But there are only so many 300+ threads I have the time to read here, and all I saw was what was here.
I have been through enough bashing of my gender and race because of history that I get a little defensive. If we all judged each others based on actions rather than historical perspective, this would be a better world.
John Morales, lol, you got me. I dropped out of college in my first semester, but my advanced placement english classes (to the best of my memory, this was more than a decade ago) did not cover grammar as well as some here on the intertubes would have liked. If I WERE proficient in blockquotes...etc.
And I must say, I got my excuse of beer in first!
Wareyin,
Good question, and not one I feel I can adequately answer. Sorry.
This is a very subjective issue, but you might wish to review this gaffe of mine and its consequences, when I tried a similar exercise to that which you now attempt, in one of the threads this topic has tainted.
How is that germane to the point at issue? You said that "degree is a meaningless distinction". I provided a counterexample which shows that degree is not a meaningless distinction. You can either concede this point or argue it, but please don't split hairs over the particular example. Either degree is a meaningful distinctions or it is not. Which is it?
John Morales, I clicked on your link, but I did not have the patience to read the whole thread. I must say, I wish that jumping back to a page would bring you to the link you left said page from.
I did see your statement giving "douchebag" historical context. I do not see what your gaffe was. In my experience, douchebag is an insult to a male. I have never heard it used towards a female.
If you cannot answer why a term that can be used to insult either a man or woman is horribly sexist when used towards a woman, perhaps the term is not as sexist as some make it out to be? Perhaps some just want to claim insult because of historical context, without taking into account that perhaps some people just really dislike Sarah Palin? Really, have you seen this person? She is not someone I would identify with, much less take offence by proxy for.
Emmet Caulfield, if an action resulting in death is only a degree different from an action resulting in a slight warmth and stinging to your cheek, you have a point. Is this the case where you live?
Emmet Caulfield, let me elaborate. In your example, one results in death the vast majority of the time, and one stastically never does. Do you really conflate calling someone a CSW with shooting them in the head, whereas calling them a frat-boy is mere hair-pulling?
Exaggerate much?
My technique is to open a new tab (middle mouse button or Ctrl-click in IE) and thus leave the existing page untouched, for easy return.
It was, as I was persuaded, that I was arguing from ignorance upon an emotive issue, and because of that that I drew hasty and invalid conclusions. That I accepted my correction so quickly at the time was due to the fact that I was familiar with (and have a high respect for) the knowledge and honesty of those with whom I was arguing the issue, disputatious though I am.
As I said, this is a highly subjective issue, and not one that is amenable to a philological analysis.
As an aside, I don't wish to intrude on Emmet's discourse with you, but I consider you're being obdurate therein.
Well, I wish I could edit my posts here as well. My point to Emmet Caulfield was that a slap and a kick are both degrees of violence, while killing someone versus pulling their hair are not. Murder (i.e. shooting someone in the head) is obviously not just a degree of violence. Does this count as arguing the point?
Wareyin,
You're the one who said "degree is a meaningless distinction". I'm arguing the contrary position. Staying with the example of violence, which you introduced, the law recognises different degrees of assault. In the legal system I'm most familiar with, there's (at least) assault, assault and battery (A&B), A&B occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), and A&B occasioning grievous bodily harm (GBH), but the principle that there are different degrees of violent crime is universal. If you particularly want to talk about murder, there are different degrees of that too.
So either you still maintain that "degree is a meaningless distinction" or you concede the point. Which is it?
John Morales, should I take obdurate as a backhanded compliment, or a real one? I do not cede an argument on pity or tender feelings, as per the first definition dictionary.reference.com gives. I stress, I agree that the use of CSW is in bad form. It is highly offensive. It is wrong. Can I be more plain?
But to claim that "Oh noes, he said bad things about someone (not me) on the interwebs" is the same as "he killed me"...well
Emmet Caulfield, do you still maintain that a simple assault charge is the same as murder? I do agree that there are varying degrees of murder, but a gun shot to the head (if I understand you correctly) is not assault, nor battery, but murder. You aspire to a legal claim with this last definition. Again, please tell me how "bad words about someone on the interwebs" is equal to "I shot him in the head". This is not a matter of degree, but a comparison of apples to handgrenades. If you wish to argue degree, please find two terms that could apply to the same court term. Thank you
<cough> Um, it depends on context. As I intended it, it was not a compliment.
This is probably a foolish endeavour, but I shall attempt to conciliate, inasmuch as I think you're genuine but Emmet is correct regarding the single point he's arguing. I hope I'm not misrepresenting either of you in what follows.
Wareyin seems to be arguing that, regardless of its extent, violence is violence as an analogy to an insult being an insult, or sexism being sexism; thus for the purposes of his contention, any two violent acts belong in the category of "violence" and to distinguish betwen those on the basis of degree is outside the scope of his claim.
Emmet seems to be disputing that such a distinction is irrelevant to Wareyin's claim, but in fact is the operative relevant criterion in determining transgression of decency and thus whether SC was being hypocritical.
Again, I never did anything of the kind. You introduced the analogy to physical violence, not me. The only point that I'm arguing is that in the context of violence, degree is a meaningful distinction.
In particular, I am not arguing, nor have I at any time argued, the validity or otherwise of your analogy. You seem intent on disingenuously conflating your analogy with your claim that "degree is a meaningless distinction", while I'm trying clarify the issue by disentangling them.
So, again, do you 1) still maintain that "degree is a meaningless distinction", 2) concede that degree is a meaningful distinction, or 3) continue to insist on conflating two distinct issues in a vain attempt to ascribe to me an argument that I am not making?
So, I was wrong. Emmet's point was even more limited than I considered (and thus even more inarguable).
Emmet Caulfield, yes, I did introduce physical violence as an analogy. You then conflated two actions of physical violence with one action of murder and one action of pillow fighting. Do you not see this as disingenuous?
My point is that for SC or Janine or even me to cry sexism while using sexist comments is hypocritical. Is there any way that I can explain this better? My apologies, but the deliberate obtuseness of people like this does invite maliciousness. All men are not good. All men are not bad. All women are not good. All women are not bad. If I insult woman "A" with a term that can be used for a woman OR A MAN, that is not sexist. If woman "B" takes umbrage at my insult of woman "A", and in return uses a term that is solely an insult to men, well...sorry to those of faint sensibilities, but that, my friends, is the very definition of sexism.
For both John Morales and Emmett Caulfield, I maintain that Mr. Caulfield's point is quite arguable. A kick and a slap are both violence...i.e. assault and battery, but to vastly varying degrees. Murder (a shot to the head) and hair pulling (something no self respecting law enforcement officer would procecute) are NOT simply two different degrees.
Words on the internet are...well, simply words on the internet. If Mrs. Palin were to come here and complain about those nasty terms used to insult her, I would have never written a post on here. If someone who IS NOT Mrs. Palin chooses to take offense on behalf of all women about a specific insult to Mrs. Palin...and then the dog pile, well, piles on, I will take a different position.
Wareyin,
So, that'll be 3) then, more obfuscation. I've been explicit and patient and I've explained clearly and exactly the claim that I am actually making; I have been scrupulous to disentangle that claim from your analogy.
If you can't argue your case with the tiniest modicum of intellectual honestly, I'm done with you, but I'll try one last time. The point I'm making, the only point I'm making, is that in the context of physical violence, degree is a meaningful distinction.
It's either true or false. More obscurantist verbiage is not an answer.
Wayerin,
My #383 crossed with your #384.
You say:
That's exactly what I've been arguing: that degree is a meaningful distinction in the context of physical violence! Now you're drawing the distinction without acknowledging that it's meaningful. That seems like an odd position.
Emmet, I as well will try one more time. I still say violence is bad. If I kick you and you slap me, you will come off far worse, but we both committed violence on each other. If I shoot you in the head, you will die. Period. That is not just violence, but murder. Do you not see the distinction?
My original point may be arguable, but you are not arguing it. I still say that cries of sexism that used sexist insults are hypocritical. I still say that any act of violence I perform upon your person (short of murder, which by any reasonable definition is not mere violence) is wrong (Murder is wrong, too, in case I have to spell it out for you), but if you respond to me by using violence back (whether hair pulling, slapping, or any other non-lethal (or for the deliberately slow non killing)) act, YOU ARE STILL WRONG. To make it simpler...two wrongs do not make a right.
Emmet Caulfield, yes, to the recipient, a kick and a slap are different degrees of violence. Now tell me which one is ok? Tell me which one the court deems a waste of it's time? Exactly. Both are inherently wrong.
Now tell me which is ok between shooting someone in the head and pulling their hair?
And lastly, tell me what court would prosecute a person as a sexist who insulted someone who is in the public domain with a term that not only could apply to either sex, but also had to be explained to most casual readers?
Of course I see the distinction. I don't know why you think repeating this canard will work this time, when you've persistently failed in your attempt to use this red-herring to shift the focus of the argument onto a broader issue than the atomic point that I'm actually making: that in the context of physical violence, degree is a meaningful distinction.
No, I'm contradicting the atomic point that you made that "degree is a meaningless distinction". As I've said several times before, this is all I'm arguing. I am not taking issue with your analogy or any other elements of your broader argument. I am not arguing the broad strokes of your argument. I am arguing that single point.
No, you're still attributing to me arguments that I am not making. The only point I'm making is that in the context of physical violence, degree is a meaningful distinction.
Good night sweethearts.
Patricia #389,
Goodnight. Sleep tight.
And lastly, to John Morales and Emmet Caulfield, thank you. I enjoy a good debate. Especially when I have had a few beers. I do not mean to be malicious, or obtuse, but I am certainly obdurate (thank you Mr. Morales for teaching me a new word). You will not win an argument because of pity or sentiment. I can be persuaded, but hyperbole and insults are not persuasion. We all know that murder is not just a different degree of violence than hair pulling. That is hyperbole.
One last time...I despise Sarah Palin. But insulting Sarah Palin is not insulting all womankind. No more than insulting "W" is insulting all mankind. Take a chill pill. This is just words on the screen. If this the the worst you ever experience, count your lucky stars!!one!
AAARGH! Emmett, why is it a canard? I claim that both a kick and a slap are bad, that violence is violence. You claimed that shooting someone in the head versus pulling their hair is also just violence versus violence. Do you dispute this? If so, please explain where I misunderstood you. If you do no dispute this, how can you argue that murder is just one degree of violence? Do you not understand that a slap leaves no lasting mark? Do you not understand that even broken bones heal? Do you not know that death is not something that we heal from?
Do you not see that even though I claim all sexist insults are wrong, I compare calling someone a frat-boy to slapping them (nothing more than a stinging face) and calling someone a CSW to a kick as hard as you can(broken bones, possible organ damage, etc)?
And you still build a straw man of murder vs. hair pulling but call my argument a red herring? If you have a point, other than this, please explain it to this poor addled drunken fool!
Obduracy is but a whisker away from recalcitrance.
The dishonest insertion of the word "just" turns that into an argument I never once made.
So do I, but I prefer the kind where I'm not misrepresented.
You've overthinking the issue; Emmet has made it abundantly clear that "I'm contradicting the atomic point that you made that "degree is a meaningless distinction". As I've said several times before, this is all I'm arguing. I am not taking issue with your analogy or any other elements of your broader argument. I am not arguing the broad strokes of your argument. I am arguing that single point."
In short, Emmet is saying "degree is a meaningless distinction", and nothing else whatsoever. You're disputing this.
Eeek. saying denying that in my previous comment.
I should preview even simple posts.
I said no such thing. I said that pulling hair vs. shooting in the head were different degrees of violence, which they are, I did not say "just" at any time, "just different degrees of violence" is a gross mischaracterisation.
The fact that we recognise two things -- be they hair-pulling vs. shooting, slapping vs. kicking, or ABH vs. GBH -- as different degrees of violence means that the notion of degree of violence is meaningful and, therefore, that the statement "degree is a meaningless distinction" is false.
That is all. I argued no other point whatsoever.
Lol...well, if most posters here here do not fit the first definition of recalcitrant, then...well, I'm a monkey's uncle!
I still claim that murder is more than just a degree of violence. Murder (shooting someone in the head...the claim that Emmett Caulfield made) is both different in cases of criminal court, but also civil court. It is not a case of degree of violence, but a case of intent, and result. I am sorry, but this particular argument is the straw man here. If you want to talk about Michael Jackson slapping someone versus Mike Tyson hitting someone full force, you may have a point. Some wiseguy capping someone in the head versus my niece pulling her sisters hair in an argument? No. My "atomic point" still stands...wrong is wrong. Any act of violence (to use Mr. Caulfield's court point, any act of violence not subjuct to murder laws) is still violent, and WRONG.
Murder is above and beyond violence, not merely a degree of violence.
Tony @ #156: Thanks for the ID.
raven @ #158: Reality check redux: My point was that there was no "mob of blinkered Republicans" in the video to which PZ's original comments refer. Two =/= a mob. And please show a bit more respect to your evolutionary elders by not comparing the likes of Pat Buchanan to them.
As offensive as the CSW remark was (and was meant to be), I never fail to be amused by the deep sexual conflict implicit in a presumably heterosexual male, especially a non-religious one, using this term as a pejorative. Thousands of letters to Penthouse Forum and a zillion pornos, not to mention loose talk around frat houses and locker rooms, suggest that an undiscriminating fellatrix is a much valued (though obviously not respected) member of society. The flip side is the virgin/PT conflict. Why is it that women are damned if they do and damned if they don't?
Curse you, beer, you joyous beverage! I meant to extend the parenthesis until WRONG.
And then I meant to return to my original atomic point, that you can't call Jams or Eric A or anyone else a sexist while using sexist terms yourself. That is the analogy to using violence. If my wife slapped me, and I punched her back, who would face jail time? But who is wrong?
We both would be.
Hm, I shall recapitulate:
W@353: The degree of violence does not negate the fact of violence. [...] The degree of the insult does not come into play when both are obviously insults.
J@354: As for "frat boys", to me this connotes a juvenile male mindset - this is qualitatively different to the connotations evinced by the terms SC objects to.
W@355: But to complain about someone else using sexist or racist terms, while using sexist or racist terms yourself, is hypocritical. Again, degree is a meaningless distinction.
E@357: Shooting someone in the head and pulling their hair are both "violence", but the difference in degree of violence in not meaningless.
[recalcitrant obtuseness elided]
W@398: I still claim that murder is more than just a degree of violence.
It's clear the claim @355 ≠ the claim @398, not least because @355 no mention of murder was made.
Therefore, it is also clear that "still claim" is either mistaken or disingenous. I'd like to think that the beers have dulled your intellect, Wareyin, so as to be charitable.
1. Probably neither for a single incident, but you, if anyone.
2. Yes, but if one wrong leads to gaol, and the other doesn't, then there clearly is, under your very own hypothetical, a qualitative "difference in degree".
Congratulations, you've just shot down your own case.
Dang. After silly straw men such as murder is some number of degrees different than hair pulling (notice no words such as just, merely, or any other quantifiable terms were used), I feel I have to say that I would never punch my wife. If someone of my general strength and physical prowess (such as it is) slapped, punched, or kicked me, I would still be wrong to reply to this with violence. Of any type. Degree not withstanding. That means whether I pulled their hair or killed them, I'd be wrong. Even though to everyone, if I shot them in the head, the trial and possible results of the trial would be OBVIOUSLY far different than if I pulled their hair. You know, kind of an Assualt charge versus Murder.
That kind of different.
A straw-man. I never said otherwise. Again, you insert "just" in an attempt to transform what I have said into an indefensible position that I never once implied. Nobody is fooled by this tactic, it merely makes you look dishonest: you shouldn't need to misrepresent me to argue with me.
I've argued exactly one point, that degree, in the context of violence, is a meaningful distinction, and that, therefore, your statement that "degree is a meaningless distinction" is simply false. In fact, your scattershot and haphazard rambling has comprehensively undermined your own position that "degree is a meaningless distinction" by repeatedly presenting different degrees of violence as examples.
I don't know why you continue to misrepresent my position, conflate it with things I never argued, and obfuscate the point I'm arguing. I've reiterated it and made it crystal clear several times. Poor John must be getting very bored with this tedious back-and-forth of me stating my argument and you distorting it so that you can attack it. You've all but conceded the actual point I'm making, but persist in arguing with a burlesque of your own imagining.
Yup, and did a pretty good job too.
John Morales, are you serious? Maybe the beer has dulled my intellect, but not only have I seen women punished for cases of domestic abuse, you still have not made the point that one case of violence is somehow better or different than another. Yes, in general, a man would face battery charges in cases of spousal violence. Degree of punishment = degree of "wrongness"? Um, no.
Sorry, but wrong is wrong. I assume you are male. If you are 250 lbs of Kung Fu Muscle, and I am 125 lbs of paper pusher, guess who goes to jail 9 times out of 10? Does that make it right? Does it matter who starts the fight?
My core (0r atomic) point is that sexism = wrong. If you use sexist remarks (NO MATTER HOW BAD) to reply to a sexist remark I used, are you somehow NOT sexist? No.
Either that, or you're a 6HD troll.
Damn!
No. Ironically, you have. Several times.
You've repeatedly distinguished between different degrees of violence, all the while maintaining the contradictory and untenable position that degree of violence is not meaningful, implicitly acknowledging a position you explicitly deny.
Sorry guys, but I still do not buy it. I say violence is wrong no matter the degree. You have not refuted this. You have thrown a straw man argument that murder is worse than hair pulling. Not my point. Murder is not violence. What part of this 3 word sentence do you not get?
And my scattershot argument (which kind of always goes back to my original point that you can't use a sexist remark while decrying sexism without being a hypocrite) just seems to me to be repeating my core premise. Do I need to repeat my core premise again? Do I need to explain that the degree of violence does not pertain to violence being wrong? Do I need to explain yet AGAIN that murder is not violence, but is treated, tried, and punished as a different animal altogether?
Ok, I have made several typos, so I can't point the finger, but what the hell is a 6hd troll?
*(typos...see 3 word sentence when I meant 4 word sentence)
Oh? The context is defined by your personal ignorance? You come to this fucking thread and accuse me of hypocrisy and using gender-specific insults without properly reading even this thread and without knowing anything about the broader context of the discussion. When you are corrected - I was not the one who used the term "frat boys" - you apologize, and then continue to speak as though I had. You also decline to familiarize yourself with the larger debate or my previous arguments on the subject. Well, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
All insults are not the same, dipshit. Janine's reference to frat boys was not a gender-specific insult against men, as has been pointed out repeatedly and should be obvious to anyone reasonably intelligent and not entirely intellectually dishonest. It was a characterization of a specific type of misogynistic behavior and manner of speech that we've seen on recent threads. It was no more sexist than it would be racist for a black person who had been hearing racist slurs here to refer to that behavior as that of "good ol' boys" because that only applies to white men. And in fact, Janine did say that she's not fond of sororities, either; but that had zero to do with the subject under discussion.
Are you really arguing that "frat boys" as used here was comparable to "stupid bitch," "dumb cunt," or "cock-sucking whore" as used here? Really? If so, you're frankly nuts.
Oh, give it a fucking rest. Saying bad things about people is not oppressive behavior. Using terms that have long been employed to denigrate and disparage entire categories of people is offensive and wrong. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that the people making some of the statements alleging sexism against men here really believe a word they're saying. I think it's more that they're feeling defensive about their own attitudes or speech and trying to find ways to justify them even when they're not convinced themselves and know they're grasping unreasonably at any straw. This whole "men are oppressed victims, too" routine is tiresome and ridiculous, and an insult to women who have been and are oppressed in our world. How dare you talk about sexism or misogyny as though these were things of the past, and didn't profoundly affect the lives of billions of women today?
If you don't see the misogyny in CSW, I woud love to know what you do recognize as misogynistic. Or not.
Oh, yeah, you hear male prostitutes called whores all the fucking time, and it's so often used as a slur against men as part of their oppression.
You should go back. You have much to learn.
Jack Straw from Wichita...
I invite you to explain what in her behavior specifically was being referenced by CSW.
Worse things? So now referring to men who use misogynistic language as frat boys is worse than outrageously misogynistic slurs?
You've acknowledged that CSW is "horribly offensive" and the individual who used it has apologized, so I don't see what your point is in trying to minimize it.
What a ridiculous question. Courts don't prosecute people as sexists or misogynists (in a case related to sexism in the workplace, however, the use of "cock-sucking whore" by a male boss to refer to a woman in an office setting would certainly be taken very seriously in court). In the public domain? Could apply to either sex? And the reason it had to be explained is that the person who used it shortened it to initials. To me, this was evidence that he recognized at some level how offensive it was when spelled out (though he did spell it out the first time he used it). That people didn't know what these initials stood for has no bearing whatsoever on the misogyny inherent in the phrase.
Hope it's greater than your intellectual prowess. I'll note that you later switch to a domestic violence scenario in which the two parties are not evenly matched, and the weaker (unlike the case here, in the sense of social power) is the aggressor.
First, you haven't established that Janine's use of frat boys here was in any way comparable to someone's calling Palin a cock-sucking whore, and you can't because it's a ludicrous assertion. Second, your moral claim here is entirely debatable.
And sorry, but differentiating between punishment is not the same as saying one is more "right" than another. Another fail in logic, guys.
If you can explain how using a sexist remark (no matter how mild you feel it is) to call someone else a sexist is not being hypocritical, you may have a point. Explain it, or explain why I am wrong. See, I am listening to you, responding to you, and reading your points (not that I agree with them. If you can tell me how violence is not inherently wrong, I am all ears). This is a troll how?
SC, Again, I apologize that I used your name when talking about the argument involving Jams. After being corrected, now twice, I did not do it again. I am sorry you felt singled out, or attacked, or just didn't like what I wrote.
Now as for my opinion, fuck you. You want me to read the whole blog to see where someone insulted you? I ain't got the time or the interest. If you can't take an insult on the net, you need some help.
Now I repeatedly said that the CSW comment was wrong. It is wrong. I did not agree with it or like it. Can I be clearer? But for someone else to jump in with a male specific insult makes it right HOW? I don't give a rats ass that CSW is way worse than frat boy. I repeatedly made it clear that I felt CSW was worse.
Let me repeat that:
I
Repeatedly
Said
CSW
was
a
worse
insult
than
frat-boy.
I compared frat-boy to a slap and CSW to a kick.
CSW was worse.
But that don't make attacking men ok!
And if you think all there is to know about life can only be learned in college, you have a lot of learning to do.
Where someone insulted me? You haven't the faintest idea what you're even talking about. You sound like a drunken fool (or just a fool, but who really cares at this point?).
They do not differ by degree. They are qualitatively different, you immensely stupid jerk.
Like many of the other idiots who have posted on this subject, this one appears to be incapable of reading and understanding an English sentence. (As you, Emmet and John, noted long ago.)
Me too. At least, I hope they don't. It requires an extraordinarily obtuse argument. We've seen that a few times. I hope they're doing it just to wind people up and push buttons, rather than actually believing it.
Misandry may exist, but it simply doesn't budge the needle on a meter calibrated to misogyny.
No, SC, they are not qualitatively different. They are both insults. They are both wrong. You seem to be claiming that because women have been historically (and currently, to forestall that claim) the victim, it is ok for them to be the perpetrator, as long as they aren't too bad. If I am wrong, explain where I got it wrong. If all you can do is insult MY reading comprehension while ignoring the substance of my claim, you have no point. I am not minimizing the fact that calling someone a CSW is wrong. But that does not make sexist name calling in retaliation right.
In fact, in my original post, my actual words were "the degree of violence does not negate the fact of violence". I did NOT claim that degree made no difference, as some claim. My claim, as should be immediately obvious to people of your exalted reading comprehension, is that violence does not disappear because it is a lesser act.
Likewise, a sexist comment does not become somehow not a sexist comment because it wasn't as offensive as another comment.
Was that clear enough?
And yes, misandry certainly does exist. The fact that misogyny exists to a greater degree does not make misandry acceptable. This seems to be the point you otherwise intelligent people are ignoring.
At least conservatives are honest about their opposition to evolution. The Left oppose just about everything evolution says about humans, then claim to be pro-science and pro-evolution. If I have to choose (and unfortunately, it seems at times that I do), I would rather choose their honest ignorance over the Left's hypocrisy. Coincidentally, I was guided here by someone directing me to your incredibly unfair treatment of Fred Turner. Of course, as an atheist fundamentalist yourself, you won't understand his points. You even manage to miss the fact that he's pro-evolution. Turner's argument are against precisely those atheists who are, like yourself, fundamentalist and proselytizing, and which includes many postmodern atheists, who do tend toward nihilism.
So was my calling you an immensely stupid jerk. There was nothing sexist about it, just as there was nothing sexist in Janine's reference to frat-boy behavior by some men here. You're really unfathomably dense.
Your claim has no substance, bonehead, and you are a complete waste of time and pixels.
huh what?
I guess he's referring to the postmodernists stand. Many argue, mostly within feminist studies, that the infinite plasticity of human behavior forbids any explanation of actual human behavior using an evolutionary framework.
I think the problem is context. There was no evidence that sarah palin is, in fact, a CSW while the behaviour of some of the commenters here SC interpreted as "frat boy behavior". The word whore does have a long history of use in sexist insults and attitudes which makes its use stand out like a warning light. To many here, I think, "frat boy" is a gendered insult in the same way that "bitch" or "dick" are, without any underlying sexist meaning beyond denoting that the person talked about is in fact a male or female.
In the context I think the two terms frat boy and CSW are sufficiently different to be considered "qualitatively not the same". But I do wonder if the problem Wareyin has is with a perceived double standard between the reaction to two different gendered insults, focusing only on the insults themselves and not the circumstances in which they were thrown.
However, if the circumstances were different and some one were to condescendingly refer to a random male who wasn't acting immature as "little boy" (I seem to recall a thread in which Brenda von dumbass or someone else did this) or "rapist" and make other comments directed towards males in general, I would think no one would have a problem saying that they were qualitatively the same.
I hope I'm not being presumptuous in assuming this.
while the behaviour of some of the commenters here SC interpreted as "frat boy behavior"
Please! I was not the one who fucking used that phrase! I agreed with Janine, but that was not my statement. Make it stop!
I'm sorry! he said it so much it burned into my mind!
D:
exactly
huh
What?
"The Left oppose just about everything evolution says about humans" - Troy Camplin
Well of course evolution doesn't say anything about anything - it's a natural process that has been continuing for around 4 billion years, and has produced the current diverse biota. Presumably you mean what researchers into evolution say - so perhaps you'd like to come up with some actual examples? Then we might have a useful discussion, if that's something you're interested in.
I'm sorry! he said it so much it burned into my mind!
That's just what I was afraid would happen! :) (Again, I completely agreed with and support Janine, but all of these statements and ideas have been misattributed to me here and on the earlier thread, and this seems to build on itself. Argh!)
so perhaps you'd like to come up with some actual examples?
The biological inequality of the natural races, female vervets who cook with pots and pans and male vervets who are master hunters - that sort of thing.
Just guessing.
SC, I see that my plan worked. I said a couple of the most controversial things I could think of; "frat boys" and even sincere politician out for some people's good are still out for themselves. I knew it would cause a firestorm, people would get confused and blame you. But there is just one thing, I have no idea why I wanted to pin this on you.
My but there are a bunch of wankers here. Oops, yet an other gendered insult meant to disparage all men. Let the shit storm commence.
Uh, because you secretly hate straight women, even when we screa-, uh, seem to be friendly?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/mormon_meddlers.php#comment-…
;)
My but there are a bunch of wankers here. Oops, yet an other gendered insult meant to disparage all men. - Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
Now here's a vital question for discussion on Pharyngula: is "wank" specific to males? Some online dictionaries say so, others don't. Not that it's clear why "wanker" is an insult. As Woody Allen said:
"Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love!"
Nanu Nanu #422, thank you. That is my point. And thank you for a rebuttal that was both germane to my point, and was not a gross distortion of my stance.
If you guys have men against slurs that you feel are of the same quality, then I stand corrected.
Logic soup.
correction:
If you guys have DEFENDED men against slurs that you feel are of the same quality, then I stand corrected.
I want some logic soup, it sounds delicious!
Extra fore-brain please!
Fortunately, Wareyin's already puréed us some. He's got the Cuisinart logical blender-strainer. I'm a professor - can't afford one.
BTW, every pun in my last post was entirely intended. In case anyone's wondering.
The Left oppose just about everything evolution says about humans, then claim to be pro-science and pro-evolution.
What is this supposed to mean? Troy! TROY! Come back, Troy-Boy, don't make this just a drive-by! We want new trolls, Troy, because the old ones are so tedious!
Hey, has Eric Hussein Atkinson been thrown in the dungeon, or did he realize he finally stepped over the line with that truly odious comment to Patricia? The latter seems unlikely.
My guess is Troy is a racist. He likes the "white men" are superior idea... pretends that's what science says.
Troy @418:
1. Huh? Since the literal meaning of that is nonsensical, I can but interpret that to mean Troy considers conservative=creationist. A patently false claim, and silly to boot.
2. Huh? "The Left" do what? (I take it "the Left" refers to non-conservatives). I suspect Troy refers to populist social/behavioural explanations justified by appealing to evolutionary psychology, rather than to evolutionary physiology or evolutionary theory in general - but who can tell from what Troy writes?
3. Sigh. "The Left" and "conservatives" apparently are hive minds, with but one shared opinion on all matters scientific and evolutionary. (!)
Heh. So, conservatives oppose evolution[ary theory], and non-conservatives oppose just about everything evolution says about humans.
Even on its own merits, the claim is particularly odd, since Troy appears to be saying he'd choose ignoramuses who oppose all evolution[ary theory] to hypocrites who only oppose "just about everything evolution says about humans".
What a "coincidence", since until this comment, the only mention of Turner was Troy's own.
Heck, I don't even know who Fred Turner is.
I guess Troy is one of these people whose opinions are formed by osmosis from their local social milieu, rather than from cogitation.
SC, sorry that I above went along with the conceit that you were the one to employ the term "frat boy". I knew better, but rushed to the detriment of accuracy.
Wareyin, sorry I thought you were a troll. I think it's clear that you're merely obtuse (regarding this topic, anyway).
Good grief, citizens! What a disgraceful display of incivility. I'm all for freedom of speech, but, what a mess you made of this thread, and you know who you are. Thank goodness others spoke up near the end to try to rein in your profanity-laced vitriol over undefined terms (CSW = ?!), unsubstantiated charges, perceived slights, misdirected posts, OT posts, bad grammar, misused apostrophes -- oh, such noise, noise, noise! Good word, people: don't you realize the world is watching this blog for rational leadership?!
Eric A, you are a numbskull, and Walton, sorry to be patronizing, but you are young and dumb (but you'll ripen). To both of you, I really do appreciate that you write the Queen's English and attempt rational argument. Just that your premises about H. economicus are faulty. Go go read John Rawls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#A_Theory_of_Justice
That would be fun, but odds are we are just going to get some Derbyshire type nonsense again. If anything.
Yet not nearly as bitter as the banned troll who just won't go away.
Troy: "I would rather choose their honest ignorance over the Left's hypocrisy."
Wow. Are you really that stupid? Or are you merely another innocent victim of decades of right-wing brainwashing?
Why don't you choose what is rational and supportable, and ignore the whole artificial left-right division that the religious right has erected around what is essentially an undisputed scientific theory?
Because you just can't bring yourself to do it. Am I right?
hmm, since rascism was brought up lol... i think white poeple are far more susceptible to be weeded out than any other. What makes us superior? There is no justifiable reason to think whites are better. After all, most of the other stareotypes are positive (Mexicans are industrious, Blacks are athletic, Asians are intellectual) while white's have no such attributes. We're nuetral as it were. Having an African-American President may very well be the turn of a new era of excellence in minorities; that is staggeringly optimistic, but so what? white guys have had enough fun controling the world. Time for someone else to take over for a bit. I prefer it that way. Maybe it evens it out. Maybe i'm complitely insane, rascist, and incorrigible. i don't mean to be though.