HughMcB wrote:

Regina wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I'm not understanding why his apology isn't good enough? I mean, if that's not an adequate apology than what would be?

Free ice cream for atheists ?

Steady on, he's already giving us 10% off. I'll take that whatever I can get.

Yes, but Myers won't even give him 10% forgiveness!

Reading through the comments on PZ's blog I'm not surprised he's fucked off and left them to it, it's a shambles. High profile atheists like PZ must get a fair bit of traffic, people just checking out what the "atheist movement" is all about, they may even assume we are all arseholes like that. I'm truly embarrassed, it's cringe worthy.

The link between attitudes and behaviour has never really been shown to be particularly strong IIRC.

That asides in an ideal world rape, gender based and ethnicity based "humour" should be something everyone can laugh at. That there are historic power imbalances that tend to mean people can't yet possibly means making these sorts of jokes requires more careful thought and consideration than is often given.

In my humble opinion the best comedians who use offensive humour are those who do so, not simply to offend, to make a point.

Chris Morris pedophilia brass eye special comes to mind. The outrage spawned spectacularly missing the point that pedophilia wasn't the joke rather the medias reaction to it and reporting of it was.

endless psych wrote:The link between attitudes and behaviour has never really been shown to be particularly strong IIRC.

That asides in an ideal world rape, gender based and ethnicity based "humour" should be something everyone can laugh at. That there are historic power imbalances that tend to mean people can't yet possibly means making these sorts of jokes requires more careful thought and consideration than is often given.

In my humble opinion the best comedians who use offensive humour are those who do so, not simply to offend, to make a point.

Chris Morris pedophilia brass eye special comes to mind. The outrage spawned spectacularly missing the point that pedophilia wasn't the joke rather the medias reaction to it and reporting of it was.

I agree with your last example, but Chris Morris's colleagues on the programme did not then go about trying to intimidate his critics with abuse jokes about them. If they had, his defence would have gone from strong to weak.

campermon wrote:I'm not going to comment because I will probably get into trouble by calling a 'member' something I shouldn't.

There are instances where you can call a member a dick and get away with it.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Paula wrote:

Evolving wrote:I agree, Puppy (about post no. 668).

Gelato man will be thinking, well, I suppose that's what atheists are like. No concept of forgiveness.

I hope not

I hope not too.

From what I’m reading...

Christians 1
Atheists 0 (A big fucking fat zero!)

If I was still a Christian this would be enough fodder for my righteous canon to sink a 1,000 atheist ships.

Yup. Seriously, what the fuck is PZ's problem? He makes it sound like the guy saw what was going on and got all his Christian buddies together with shotguns and broke up the gathering. The dude put up a sign, and a little while later regretted it and took it down. Get off the high horse and chill the fuck out.

Wow. I'm a week late to the party, but I suppose that even as a harmless lurker I get to be a rapist sympathizer (or whatever the term is) in the eyes of PZ. A week on the job that I didn't even know I had.

I'm a bit concerned that PZ is going to get himself into quite a lot of trouble- if there is nothing like a FUA for the now completely un-moderated comments, isn't he responsible for any damages that are caused by people posting things like personal info, phone numbers, what-have you? Possible legal repercussions aside, I should think he would have the presence of mind to prevent such abuses entirely by just disabling comments.

Glorified Lobefin wrote:Wow. I'm a week late to the party, but I suppose that even as a harmless lurker I get to be a rapist sympathizer (or whatever the term is) in the eyes of PZ. A week on the job that I didn't even know I had.

I'm a bit concerned that PZ is going to get himself into quite a lot of trouble- if there is nothing like a FUA for the now completely un-moderated comments, isn't he responsible for any damages that are caused by people posting things like personal info, phone numbers, what-have you? Possible legal repercussions aside, I should think he would have the presence of mind to prevent such abuses entirely by just disabling comments.

Well, under the web hosting T&Cs at "Register.com" with whom his domain is registered (and presumably hosted) is the following:

"Utilize the Services in connection with any tortious or actionable activity. Without limiting the general application of this rule, Users may not: (i) utilize the Services to publish or disseminate information that (1) constitutes slander, libel or defamation, (2) publicizes the personal information or likeness of a person without that person's consent or (3) otherwise violates the privacy rights of any person; or (ii) utilize the Services to threaten persons with bodily harm, to make harassing or abusive statements or messages, or to solicit the performance of acts or services that are illegal under applicable law."

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Paula wrote:

Evolving wrote:I agree, Puppy (about post no. 668).

Gelato man will be thinking, well, I suppose that's what atheists are like. No concept of forgiveness.

I hope not

I hope not too.

From what I’m reading...

Christians 1
Atheists 0 (A big fucking fat zero!)

If I was still a Christian this would be enough fodder for my righteous canon to sink a 1,000 atheist ships.

It isn't a zero for atheists, though. The gelato man wrote:

For what it’s worth, an Atheist reached out to me to help me work through all of this and contact your community directly. I graciously accepted his offer.

I think he meant to say "gratefully" rather than "graciously," though, or miswrote and meant "his gracious offer." Considering the context, it doesn't sound like Andy would be praising himself.

amok wrote:I think he meant to say "gratefully" rather than "graciously," though, or miswrote and meant "his gracious offer." Considering the context, it doesn't sound like Andy would be praising himself.

That was my reading of it too. I've heard many people confuse those two words.

DaveD wrote:

amok wrote:I think he meant to say "gratefully" rather than "graciously," though, or miswrote and meant "his gracious offer." Considering the context, it doesn't sound like Andy would be praising himself.

That was my reading of it too. I've heard many people confuse those two words.

Me too. Besides which most people never even use "graciously" anymore.
Well, I forgive Mio Gelato guy. It was a dumb move, but I've done dumb and even cruel things before.

What did the sign say? I missed that bit.

Onyx8 wrote:What did the sign say? I missed that bit.

Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Christian business. He put it up after he saw this guy http://www.samsingleton.com/

Paula wrote:Reading through the comments on PZ's blog I'm not surprised he's fucked off and left them to it, it's a shambles. High profile atheists like PZ must get a fair bit of traffic, people just checking out what the "atheist movement" is all about, they may even assume we are all arseholes like that. I'm truly embarrassed, it's cringe worthy.

There’s a major problem that I see.

If that site stuck with science and science alone there’d never be (or shouldn’t be) any problems.

The cause of many of the “problems” is the almost non-stop interference in other peoples’ business, and at times, highly controversial business. If you stick your finger into an oven then expect it to get burnt, it’s as simple as that.

Moralizing is fine, but be prepared for many who don’t share your views about right and wrong to hammer back and to hammer back hard.

There’s an old saying, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” and that applies here. If one intentionally goes out of their way to pass judgements on others, current events, etc. then they should expect a backlash. If they’re not willing to accept that fact, then they’re best to stick with science or non-controversial subjects.

Basically.... you reap what you sow.

'bout time PZ divorced himself from the comment section. That place is a cesspit full of cockroaches. On behalf of this whole forum we hereby "jump on the bandwagon" congratulating him on his decision to abandon it to fire and chaos.


Seriously, I wouldn't even want to be part of the mod team here. PZ has effectively been doing the job solo for a long time. For what's left of his sanity he had to either abandon it to the wolves or disable commenting altogether. A mod team just doesn't work on a blog format. I don't blame him a bit.

HughMcB wrote:I'm not understanding why his apology isn't good enough? I mean, if that's not an adequate apology than what would be?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIy97_rlo[/youtube]

virphen wrote:

byofrcs wrote:Did PZM ever explain his logic ? I mean we know that given the prevalence of rape in US (and other) societies then the argument goes that rape jokes repeat the attack on this segment of society and condones rapes but are there studies to support what we should agree to do or not do ?

Romero-Sánchez et al in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (Exposure to sexist humor and rape proclivity: the moderator effect) http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/25/12/2339 is one and it says in the abstract "Earlier studies have
shown that exposure to this type of humor increases rape proclivity and that funniness responses to jokes are a key element to consider."...and that their own study also supported this but that "However, exposure to sexist humor affects rape proclivity only when aversiveness shown to this type of humor is low. "

That should be enough to suggest that rape jokes are a very complex type of joke beyond others and so should be avoided but I'm disappointed that PZM did not explain it in that way. I suspect that if he did then others would be less inclined to complain about his stance and I seriously doubt Pappa would have posted.

That might be a genuine criticism if it was a generalised rape joke.

But this was one that targeted a specific and small group of women, some if not all of which are personally known to Myers and they might consider each other to be friends. Does anyone really need to be told why that is bad? If someone even hinted at threatening friends of mine with rape I'd be a hell of a lot harsher than he was.

This makes sense, just as I'd be a hell of a lot harsher if someone joked about assaulting a friend of mine, or joked about them in a mean way, or joked about them being adopted, etc. But the focus of my response would be: "Don't be a cunt to my friends", not "Jokes about assault, being mean, or adoption, are always wrong". As Byofrcs says in his reply to your post, the initial reaction can come about through wanting to defend a friend, but to make the latter claim it requires evidence or reasoning.

divagreen wrote:I have been trying to respond to this post for days on end and the thread keeps getting locked. will everyone stop it already.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Not your fault, it's all mine!

I suppose such an example wouldn't be a 'joke' exactly as it's more of an argument, and wouldn't be a case of 'normalising rape' and adding to rape culture, would it? As such, feminists should argue that it would be okay, but whether they would or not is another matter. I imagine that in joke form, such an example would be something like satire? I personally like using satire to highlight the ridiculousness of somebody's position, and that could include a kind of rape joke I guess, but I'd probably feel it was justified and did more good than bad.. I think a lot of feminists disagree though.

maybe I am a terrible feminist but I agree with a lot of what you have said.

I know you're probably joking about being a 'terrible feminist', but obviously disagreeing with other feminists doesn't make someone a terrible feminist - it just means that striving for equality is a complex issue and not everyone agrees on the same course of action. Some believe that porn is anti-woman, whilst others argue that it's a demonstration of the empowerment of woman; basically you're fucked either way. I think as long as people have good intentions, and make informed decisions before acting, then they are good feminists.

divagreen wrote:I wasn't offended at all by what papa said, I just don't find his posts funny.

I did laugh at this one though:

Would it be immoral to rape divagreen?

Not for sexual gratification or power or anything like that, just because she's so annoying.

I’m really torn on this one.

I suppose I am a little desensitised with rape jokes in general, since on that site rape is pretty much mentioned in just about every third post. a year ago, aomeone said that prostitutes and some slutty women ought to be raped with a broken bottle filled with battery acid (he was being serious) and he was ridiculed to the point where he left the site eventually, so now it is kind of a meme that some people use when someone is being blatantly idiotic about something.

I don't see it as enabling rape culture in any way, more like the opposite. if somebody makes a rape, racist or a pedophile apologist argument then it is open season and only a matter of time before they meltdown and leave the site. I think "enabling" rape culture happens when the apologist arguments are seriously entertained and when points are conceded when they really shouldn't be all under the guise of "rational discussion".

am I making sense here?

anyways I know the discussion has evolved a bit since you made this post but I would still like to hear your thoughts.

or anybody else's if they feel so inclined.

Yeah I definitely agree with you, and I see where Pappa and the other Ratz are coming from with those comments and jokes. I think this is the kind of situation where people highlight the distinction between making jokes between friends, where everyone involved clearly understand the references, intentions, and context of the joke, from situations where people who are unaware of those details could overhear (or oversee) those jokes. I think Ratz is great because it's like a big community of good mates, but I suppose the downside is that in-jokes like that can be read by the public and horribly misconstrued - as demonstrated by this debacle, and the outrage of the skepchicks at the fact that Papper was "planning on sueing PZ for libel" (based on their understanding of how serious Ratz threads are). In other words, there's probably an important difference with me making dead baby jokes with a friend of mine, and making dead baby jokes in public where it's entirely possible that someone in earshot has dealt with that sort of situation in real life.

Pulsar wrote:

Regina wrote:Do you know things we don't?

I do...

PZ decided not to moderate any comments anymore. The poor pharyngulites are on their own now, and they don't like it...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/27/episode-cccliv-but-some-of-us-still-arent-cool

...Does anyone else get the impression that PZ is maybe having some personal troubles or having a breakdown of some sort, given his recent insane and irrational behavior? I've never really liked reading his blog too much but he always seemed reasonably intelligent and rational, but lately he seems to be acting very strangely - calling entire forums cockroaches and rape supporters, making jokes about rape himself,

Mr.Samsa wrote:...Does anyone else get the impression that PZ is maybe having some personal troubles or having a breakdown of some sort, given his recent insane and irrational behavior? I've never really liked reading his blog too much but he always seemed reasonably intelligent and rational, but lately he seems to be acting very strangely - calling entire forums cockroaches and rape supporters, making jokes about rape himself,

That's the impression I'm getting. Either that or he's finally just had enough of his mindless followers never questioning anything he writes or does. Perhaps his rape jokes on twitter were a test after all.

Although it wouldn't be an excuse for his behaviour lately, I hope that if there is something wrong in his personal life that it isn't too serious.

Talk about fundamentalism! He can't accept an apology because his atheism was offended? Very rational.

Made of Stars wrote:Brilliant blog about bullying on FtB and Skepchick: http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... bully.html

From the comments: "...the American Girlyban..."

On the head.