Look, I get it. Y’all are skeptics, whatever the fuck that means. You think that when someone like rebecca watson starts talking stupid on the internet, there’s some logical, respectful way to rebut them. The problem is, you’re playing the wrong game. You’re playing by rules they don’t give a fuck about, and you’re going to lose over and over. Like today. Fucking watson says on her twitter feed:
If you have sex w/ someone who is drunk, they are unable to consent & that is rape.
Okay, so now, if you’re me, you see that this is basically a “when did you stop beating your wife”-level troll. Because it’s so fucking vague, there’s no sane way to respond. She doesn’t define “drunk”. It’s an awesome trick, because it means later, after the well-meaning schmendricks on the internet have all gone “WELL, THAT, THAT’S NOT CORRECT”, she can come back with:
O, you know, just a bunch of people SO MAD bc they’re not allowed to have sex w/ someone who’s blotto.
Did you hear that sound? It was a fucking trap closing around your feet. Again. Look, I get what y’all are trying to do, but given that she, and others, keep manipulating the fuck out of you, maybe you should stop beating your heads against a fucking wall? Because you’re going to permanently damage yourselves, and I like some of you, so that would be a shame.
First, stop taking her and the rest of the FTBwats seriously. They are New Media Douchebags. I’ve been dealing with these fuckers long before Watson even started Skepchick. She is not new, she is not particularly original, but she is very good at leading you down the garden path. When she starts trolling you, don’t actually ignore it. We don’t want her to own the conversation, but for fuck’s sake, stop acting like she’s going to debate you at all much less in good faith.
So when she comes up with some stupid fucking statement like that first one, don’t play into her hands. Honestly, if I took the stupid bint more seriously than the tick I pulled off my dog this morning, I’d have responded with:
Hey, way to make a vague statement with no definite meaning as to “drunk”. I see what you did there.
I don’t give a fuck about the rape part, that’s not the important bit. The important bit is “drunk”. Or conversely:
Well, given how every talk you’ve given since 2005 requires us to know just how drunk you were last night, I acknowledge your expertise in the field.
Of course it’s mean. It’s ridiculing her on a number of levels, because that’s how you handle NMDs. Look, here’s the deal: if she can’t draw attention to herself, she isn’t valuable as a speaker. If she’s not valuable as a speaker, she has to go back to the work her communications degree will get her: copywriting for an ad agency. Becky don’t wanna go back to working for the man, so her primary, primary agenda is to create attention for herself, and then monetize that attention.
Y’all were so shocked her evo psych talk was vague and pointless, and that when Ed Clint took it apart, even MORE surprised that her defenders created some new talk that no one had actually seen, but that was the one she totes gave.
WHY???
Did you seriously think she wanted to spend the time to make a serious point about anything other than DIG ME, I’M REBECCA FUCKING WATSON??? Shake your damned heads. It’s not just her. Myers, Benson, Greta Christina, they all do the same fucking thing. Get you riled up by saying shit that is just vague enough that after you’ve committed, they can use an entirely plausible specific aspect of that initial vague statement and hang you up to fucking dry with it. They do it over. and over. and over again. It sucks, it’s infuriating, it is astoundingly cynical, and the only differences between it and what I deal with in my world are:
- They are some thin-skinned motherfuckers. Well, an assload of skeptics are. Seriously, how the fuck do some of you leave the house?
- They are driving a Kenworth with a double trailer through the skeptic communities biggest blind spot: the idea that you fuckers are actually smarter than anyone else. You may want to start dealing with real con men at some point. Talk to Penn Jillette some, he’s smart about such things.
Stop.
Taking Them.
Seriously.
If you’re going to take them down, and I think you should, don’t get sucked into endless gish gallops that you are going to lose. You’re going to lose because you think the horse will eventually stop, except it’s a goat, you’re on mars, and martian goats can run for years.
MOCK THEM
Don’t get sucked into what you think their point is. Assume they’re always trolling you, and go from there. Hold them up for ridicule by ridiculing them. Don’t yell at them on their twitter accounts, that just gives them OMG BULLIES ammo. Don’t even @-message them. Trust me, all them fuckers have a wide array of Google ego searches running. ANY mention of them by name will get their attention. Just mock the fuck out of what they say. Here, a free sample:
“TWITTER USERS SAD TO HEAR THEY MAY BE RAPISTS”
SKEPCHICKS SAD TO HEAR THEY MAY BE FULL OF SHIT. STORY AT 11
Trigger warning for talk of rape! Obviously.
Has rebecca ever talked about something NOT blindingly obvious? Since I’m currently quite glad I can touch-type, the answer is “no”
Well, I’m back from several weeks of travel in Australia and New Zealand, which followed months of weekly conference travel all over the US.
“The executive bonuses at 17 separate distilleries will be awesome thanks to my ability to drink canada and ANZUS dry”
Normally I’d take a break after something like that: relax, pet the cats, catch up on Walking Dead.
“Get another liver transplant, buy more hair dye at the Wal-mart bargain bin, cry that Warby Parker hasn’t released the 2013 line yet…”
But instead I decided to Tweet something super controversial to satisfy my feminazi need to make men cry:
“My hitcounts were down, and the speaking money can’t possibly keep ME in booze…”
Minds were blown! Up is down! Left is right! Cats and dogs, sleeping together! These two Tweets only raised more questions, and clearly I was the only person on the Internet who could answer them. I was flooded with responses like:
“I am the queen of all internet trolls”
“What if you are also drunk? Did they rape you as well?”
“Silly man. When am I NOT drunk. You think high-quality slurring like this comes from occasional sobriety?”
“@rebeccawatson That’s a very binary statement for an undefined condition. At what BAC% is consent impossible? Should we breathalyse before?”
“I feel like a cat with a freshly crippled canary!”
I’m a crazy lunatic who has been raped hundreds, or maybe BILLIONS of times depending upon whether you’re going with the “Rebecca is a sad virgin” or “Rebecca is a filthy slut” line of argument.
How about “Rebecca is a blatant troll with delusions of adequacy and color sense”? I haven’t seen that one yet, I do hope it’s new!
I just blocked most, if not all, of these people because as one follower noted, if you have to debate this fact with your followers, it’s time to get better followers.
“But if I actually had better followers, I’d have no followers. Luckily, the really stupid ones are my fans…but perhaps I’ve said too much.”
But I wanted to post about this because I think the psychology of this reaction is very interesting. I think for most of us (Skepchick writers/readers/commenters), this concept is not in any way astonishing. I’m guessing that like me, many of you have had sex. And like me, many of you have had sex while drinking and/or while your partners have been drinking, and it’s not a big deal because you value communication and enthusiastic consent and participation. There’s no stigma against questions like “Would you like it if we . . . ?” and “Is this what you want?” and “Was that okay?”, even (especially!) when those questions are asked in the cold, sober light of day.
I bet you elebenty samolians that Rebecca Watson cannot go a day without saying something about the last time she was drunk. Which, evidently, is constantly.
And I’m also guessing that like me, if you meet a sexy stranger who is drunk (and I’m going by thecommon definition here, of someone whose faculties are impaired, e.g., slurred speech, stumbling, etc.), you will not have sex with them, even if they say they’d like to. This isn’t because it’s the law (even though it is, as @simonknowz aptly points out: “Whoever . . . knowingly . . . engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is . . . (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct . . .”), but because it is the right thing to do. Because you are not so hard up for sex that you need to have sex with someone who may feel regret or revulsion or worse in the morning. Because you don’t assume your partner (yes, even one you’re married to) is in a constant state of consent. Because you don’t get off on the power you can have over someone who doesn’t have full control of their own faculties (or if you do get off on that, you have long, sober conversations with your partner before exploring that as a fantasy).
“See how I redefined a term that covers everything from a single drink (legally drunk in many states) to comatose to mean only what I want it to? I bet all you fuckers who yelled at me before I did this are feeling pretty fucking assraped right now. But when I do it, it’s called “fighting for social justice”. Ohhhhh, i’m the biggest serpent in the sea, sea, sea…”
But not all people are like us, and so, there are the Tweeters who flooded me with their concerns, none of which were for people who have been raped while they were drunk. No, their concerns are for themselves, that they might one day be accused of being rapists because they didn’t give someone a breathalyzer before having sex with them. Here’s a thought: if you’re about to have sex with someone and you feel like they might have drunk too much to consent but you don’t have a breathalyzer handy, then why not err on the side of not being a rapist and not have sex with them?
“If you nit-wits were any easier to manipulate, you’d have strings.”
And they’re comparing drunk sex to drunk driving as though drunk driving is something that is done to the drunk driver. Here’s the non-fallacious analogy: insisting on getting in a car and driving while drunk and no one can stop you is equivalent to insisting on having sex while drunk with a person who is unable to stop you. And yes, in both of those cases you, drunky, are liable.
I’m smart, see how I used “non-fallacious” there?
And elsewhere on the Internet, people like Ed Clint are crowing about how they’re rapists (update: it appears that Ed Clint has removed that post now, so here’s a screenshot of the entire thing just before it disappeared):
“Bet that fucker never DARES to criticize a fucking thing I ever say again. Also, facebook privacy, HAH!”
And still elsewhere, people are slamming Franchesca Ramsey for being brave enough to speak out about the rape of drunk people and others who are blamed for their rape. In particular, she discusses how she was shamed when she was raped:
“EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH ME IS A RAPIST! See how easy you make it for me? I don’t even have to try anymore. Now where’s that fucking sterno? Goddamned Sunday liquor store closings…”
Obviously, there were also plenty of amazing responses to Franchesca, and to me as well. But we have a long way to go in combating the psychological effects of living in a rape culture.
“Compared to me, Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon were AMATEURS!!!! Wait, they had to work to be heard. I don’t. YAY INTERNET!”
That is how you respond to manipulative fucksticks like Watson. You don’t take them seriously, you don’t try to debate them in a serious manner, because they are never, ever, going to even try to not demonize and manipulate their opponents into giving them quote fodder. Just show, with as much sarcasm as you can muster, how astoundingly cynical, manipulative, and well, stupid, the shit she and the FTBwats says is. Trust me, a continued response of mockery is the only response non-serious nincompoops like this understand. Don’t hassle them directly, again, that plays into their hands. Just mock the fuck out of them on your own sites, and make sure you let folks know when you do. Over time, it works, and well.
Beautiful!
That was exceedingly well done.
thanks! but i’ve had years of practice thanks to people like Scoble, Seigler, et al. I’ve been doing this a long time.
Reblogged this on elevatorgate and commented:
Welch :
Excellent post, John. Required reading for anyone dealing with modern ‘Social Justice Warriors.’ There really is no point in trying to reason with these types of people. They are ideologues, who will, without fail, argue in bad faith.
The Slyme Pit figured this out a long time ago: http://rationalugandan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/letter-to-the-slime-pit/
You’ve just described exactly what i’ve been doing without even realising it. It’s good to know i’m naturally bright.(._. )
Man, thank you for all the loopholes for sticking my dick into drunk chicks, I needed this validation.
Oh bless your heart.
Look everyone, a twat with internet service provided by AT&T in Dallas is trying to derail things to turn this into the same stupid argument their hero did. They’re so fucking cute when they do that. Kind of like a little clubfooted, severely addled chicken trying to mate with a bull. Fun to watch, but it won’t end well for them.
Here honey, have a cookie and some fruit punch, then go play in the yard. The grownups are having a discussion.
I tell people I’ve been doing this longer than Skepchicks has existed, and THIS is how they try to distract me? By sending the most preciously stupid motherfucker on the planet? Look, I know people talk about being so shocked by stupid that you lose the ability to think right, but pro tip: that doesn’t really happen. Go back to skepchicks or FTB or A+ or whatever specific idiot collective you hail from and tell them to stop throwing kittens into the shark tank.
Please, women aren’t people. They’re meat bags for my dick.
YOU’RE SO PRECIOUS!
I could just eat you up.
Now, now Amon. There is no need to use racist language.
I, and many other indigenous members of Turtle Island, find the term “loopholes” incredibly offensive. Please check your privilege before commenting here again cupcake.
The whole planet is hanging on validation. Desperately. Just not your kind.
http://i.imgur.com/X3s4d.jpg
For normal people these drunk chick loopholes wouldn’t be all that useful. However, as a hanger-on of the Skepchicks, your dick is going to be all sorts of laid and disgusted with you.
I really love it when they try to push away all drunk and incoherent. Really gets me going. It’s not rape if they don’t clearly say no, it’s their fault for getting drunk. They shouldn’t be drinking if they don’t want the dick.
Oh this is just too cute, can you do the whole “But I’m sick of the cutlery draw rattling, because I never let them out of the kitchen” bit? It would round off this performance piece with style and aplomb.
OR you could just stop being a cock…just saying…no, ok, then women in kitchen it is.
Nice views there Amon. You seem to have a lot of first hand experience at abusing drunken women. Please tell us more.
no, no, really, you’re making a mistake here. Widdle Amon is just trying to twoll us. Just mock him, don’t even come close to taking him seriously.
Someone should start monty pythoning him. ‘twould be awesome.
Well, Amon, that’s the fat midget bird with the arse like a shelf off my Christmas card list, then – damn her and all her kind for taking advantage of my beer goggles to come on looking all like Kelly Brook in order to use my cock as nothing more than a hairy fun-douche.
No wonder she stuck to the bitter lemons all night long. I reckon the lady-rapist even planned it!
Awww, aren’t you sweet. I feel so privileged. Someone got their “My First Trolling” kit early this year.
such a cutie, I want to pinch those chubby cheeks!
The out of context nature of this comment is hilarious. Reminds me of a parrot trying to impress its master; “Rargh! Rape Culture! Patriarchy, Rarch!”
The inadvertantly parodical quality of their discourse is in some ways quite endearing. Like a 13 year old wheezing pug with massive overbite, that drools all over the furniture and eats its own feces, you can’t help but look at them with adoring eyes and utter the phrase “bless their sweet little hearts”.
Anon, that’s kind of lame. At this rate you are never going to turn this comment intern gig into a full paid position writing bogus rape and death threats for Rebecca Watson.
I know. He’s really going to have to up his game if he wants to go full time.
Ah, bless your cotton socks, Amon.
It’s so cute when they first learn how to babble, isn’t it?
it really is. First they’re crawling, then walking, gurgling, cooing, then trolling.
I’ll be so sad when they grow up. Sniff.
A very good analysis of the cunts’ tactics, thanks!
Hey John, Felch recommended I read your post, and I figured I should make my reply (to Felch) more public, so as to be up-front and more accessible for anyone interested in a bit of a different take. I’ve posted it here, for lack of a better place to put it: http://gnuatheism.wikispaces.com/Reply+to+John+C.+Welsh+re+NMDs
I’ll subscribe to comment notifications, in case you happen to decide to respond.
Cheers!
Thaumas
Sigh.
Really? That many pages to ensure I knew this post didn’t describe you perfectly or at all?
THAT is you major reaction. To make sure I’m aware of that.
This is why Watson et al run rings around y’all. You’re all wrapped up in twee debates about angels on pins, and she’s using that blindness to make y’all look stupid.
Who the fuck is getting all the mainstream media coverage? Her and her bullshit.
Who is effectively, and I’ll add, COMPLETELY controlling public opinion about this?
She is. And every time you get pedantic about intellectual shit like straw manning and epistemy or however the fuck you spell it, people tune you out, and she wins again. At the rate you’re going, just hang a “I might rape you” sign around your neck before she does it for you. At least that way, you get to chose the font.
Point. Completely. Missed.
“THAT is you major reaction. To make sure I’m aware of that.”
No, actually, John, as I stated in the very beginning of the article, my ‘major reaction’ was a reply to Felch. I only brought your attention to it because it is after all your original article he pointed me too, and I had actually interacted with you in the past on the Ask an Atheist site, and so I thought I should let you know about this discussion, in case you might be interested. And, in fact, I even apologized up front if you weren’t intending to direct it to me (I was (and still am) uncertain of what/whom your post is in response to): “If John wasn’t intending to address my position at all, and instead was addressing the similar-but-with-important-differences position that he lays out, then apologies in advance to John: I’m replying to this because someone (Felch) recommended I read it, so it’s likely at least some people feel this article addresses my actual position.”
Guess you missed that part. Sigh. ;-)
“This is why Watson et al run rings around y’all. You’re all wrapped up in twee debates about angels on pins, and she’s using that blindness to make y’all look stupid.”
She runs rings around me? Please enlighten me. Where has this happened? As far as I’m aware, she’s completely oblivious to my existence and probably couldn’t give a shit if anyone brought it to her attention. I’m quite satisfied with that result, actually, though that admission may sound strange to you at first. Who? Little ol’ me? Who doesn’t get caught up in back and forth drama shitstorms? Who tends to be so ‘boring’ to the ears of drama-obsessed folks that they *give up their drama* when I refuse to get sucked into it? Who nevertheless has been busy building bridges and mutual support with like-minded folks who are also fed up with the harmful antics going on? Oh, wait. Right.
Watson is incapable of making me look stupid, because I don’t do anything stupid like fall for the kinds of traps you rightly pointed out in your article. I also don’t escalate drama, so you won’t find me at the centre of major controversies. But who the fuck wants to be at the centre of major controversy? Not the fuck me, that’s for sure, and not the fuck many people, I guarantee you. That’s why the techniques I’m advocating are far more friendly to mainstream folks who really want as little to do with pointless drama as possible.
And that’s the point. The solution to this drama problem is *not* more drama, which unfortunately is an unintentional side-effect of the methods you proposed in your article as a recommended *response* to the real problems you accurately diagnosed. The solution to drama is *cessation* of drama. Refusal to get caught up in it. Yet, refusal to back down from it at the same time. Stone-walling it. Surrounding flames with sand. Starving the fire of fuel and oxygen, suffocating it, asphyxiating it.
It’s boring-sounding, I fully admit. But it works. And I can demonstrate it. (Have done so several times, actually, and willing to continue to do so to help build more support.)
“Who the fuck is getting all the mainstream media coverage? Her and her bullshit.”
When I used the term ‘mainstream’ in my reply, I was not referring to ‘mainstream media’, I was referring to ‘mainstream’ in the atheist/skeptical/rational/whatever ‘movement’. Mainstream like the John Loftuses, the Jerry Coynes, and the thousands of other lesser-known but no less relevant people who are involved in the ‘community’ on a day to day basis. These are the people we need the support of. And, frankly, the ‘MOCK THEM’ tactics you’re relying on (too heavily, IMO), are not very effective at winning this mainstream audience over.
“Who is effectively, and I’ll add, COMPLETELY controlling public opinion about this?”
What ‘public’ are you referring to? The general public outside of atheist/skeptic/whatever activism? I’m not really concerned with that public at this point. I’m more concerned with the mainstream ‘public’ of the atheist/skeptic/whatever activism itself.
Who is controlling the opinion(s) of that segment of the population? Actually, as several people (I believe Felch may have been one of them; I can’t recall for sure) have rightfully pointed out, the Watson et al camp aren’t really that well known outside the internet atheosphere (and even within that domain are less well-known than many people assume). The Watson et al camp is not ‘in control’ yet, *thankfully*. The mainstream folks I’m referring to are largely only peripherally aware of the issues. But yes, their first exposure to the issues is likely to be contaminated by the story told from the Watson et al perspective.
But my main response to your question is this: Who currently dominating the debate on the mainstream side of things? Yes, Watson. But note well: Not you, nor Felch, nor any of the more “mock them”-style critics. I’d say the critics (of which I’d include myself) are playing a game of catch-up. Sure. Fine. Acknowledged. Never said otherwise. My argument is that “mock them”-heavy strategies and tactics are not going to succeed at making up that lost ground. Other techniques, ones deliberately and consciously chosen to exhaust drama/smearing/flaming/etc. tactics, will be more effective.
“And every time you get pedantic about intellectual shit like straw manning and epistemy or however the fuck you spell it, people tune you out, and she wins again.”
You may tune me out, perhaps. That’s up to you. Felch may or may not tune me out, perhaps. That’s up to him. If you think that reaction is universal, or even representative, however, I’m afraid you’ll have a hard time making that case, especially when it comes to the mainstream audience I’m suggesting we need to gain the support of. In fact, I’d say it’s rather obvious that on the mainstream side of things, it’s unfortunately many of the sharp minds of the slymepit that have been tuned out. I hope that can change, but let’s face reality straight on, and not kid ourselves.
“Point. Completely. Missed.”
If I were to rely on making a snarky/snipey comeback to this, it would probably be: Ditto.
But seriously, how *effective* would that be with you, or with the many people who will be reading this exchange? From past experience, I’d say it would be pretty damn ineffective. Instead, I propose we actually discuss this topic without getting tangled up in sniping and counter-sniping. It is utterly ineffective on me. I’ve spent years and years and years using it, having it used on me, and I basically have a skin about a mile thick (to use a bit of hyperbole — and this hyperbole intentionally chosen to illustrate in this parenthetical how hollow and shallow it probably sounds to your ears; to show you directly that I know that these tactics are equally ineffective against you). These tactics *serve no good purpose* in this context, between two individuals who are deeply versed in their usage and counter-usage. All they would do is escalate conflict and drama. And what the fuck is the point of that?
So, let’s actually have a discussion rather than a mutual bash-party. I know this is probably infuriating to read. I probably sound incredibly pedantic and arrogant to you. I get that. But I’m still right about this point: Responding to me with snark, sarcasm, dismissal, sniping, ad hom, yadda yadda yadda, whatever whatever, is *not* going to be effective. Not at influencing me, nor at convincing the many people who will be reading this exchange, that your recommended tactics can survive my criticism of them. You cannot ‘mock me’ out of this conversation. And I have a point. And the only reasonable way to address it is to deal with the argument itself. Preferably with evidence. I’m willing to back up anything I claim with evidence also, of course. (Or, failing that, withdraw the claim, should that be the case, of course.)
And *that* is the sound of the trap closing around your feet. Gently, though. It’s an easy trap to get out of, too. But you can’t *fight* your way out of it, you can only *reason* your way out of it. That’s the nature of this particular trap. That’s why it works.
Looking forward to continuing the conversation, if you’re so inclined. Cheers!
I have a new post up just for you Thomas. It addresses the pages of response you’ve given me in a complete and fulfilling manner.
Ironically, John, the only reason I’m continuing to reply is because you continue to make a big deal out of this, and that gives me an opportunity to respond, so I do. Had you simply not responded to my very short notice comment, I wouldn’t have responded at length here in the first place.
The original lengthy post I made was in response to *Felch*, and I explicitly said so right at the beginning. I’ve made several attempts to basically say: “If this has nothing to do with you, John, apologies up front,” But you keep dragging yourself back into it, ironically claiming *I’m* the one trying to drag you into stuff. If you don’t want to have a discussion, why do you keep replying to me? Especially when you use the exact tactics I’m arguing against, and which I explicitly tell you won’t work on me? Do you think I’m not going to reply to that?
Didn’t I just say that you can’t ‘mock me’ out of this conversation? Do you think mocking me is going to really somehow magically make me shut up? If you want to stop me responding to you, just stop responding to me. That easy. That simple. Of course, that would be implicitly conceding my point. But that’s the nature of the trap. See it yet? You really really can’t fight your way out of it. The only way to really win is reason.
Entirely up to you. Ball’s in your court. At the end of every comment, I’ll give you an easy out: Just don’t reply to me or about me; ignore me. But if you reply, especially if you try to ‘mock me’ out of the conversation, I’m of course going to reply back. You’re feeding your own flame war, and you’re the only one doing the flaming. Eventually, you’ll either blow up (in front of the audience) or run out of fuel. Or you could actually try to defend your argument with reason. Or you could just stop replying. Entirely up to you.
No surprise the tactics are the same as Morning Radio shock jocks…they pull these “stunts” during the rating season. Normally works due to the media storm surrounding the stunt guaranteeing a short rise in listeners. The trick relies on others relaying the shock…
a good read..thanks welch
Cheers John, but I thought this was Slyme-policy anyway? Troll, distort and lie for the win!
Maybe you shouldn’t have made it quite so public… Next time PZ hair-trigger bans a pitter he can point them here and say look the policy is to troll and not argue in good faith. But then I suppose given the troll-lie policy outlined here you won’t let that stop you whining about it as FREEZE PEACH, but its just a bit more open about how much you really believe that bull :-)
Must bookmark this one, pretty good for dismissing pitters as trolls!
LOOOK EVERYONE! OOLON’S HERE! NOW THE PARTY CAN START!!!!!
you just won me so many bets.
Kinda figured the smarmy bastard would show up. I see his name and tune out. Something about being two-faced and buried up FTBer’s asses starts to go off in my head.
Oh, I’m glad he did. Let’s see here. Oolie shows up at 1033 local on the 20th.
I don’t have a time for it, just a date, but guess whose post crying about this one showed up THIS MORNING.
Why, its steffy zvain.
isn’t.
that.
interesting.
I think we have a partial answer as to how the FTBwats et al are so quick to respond to a non-sucking-up post, regardless of where and when. Oolon’s a busy little boy on his BT account. I hope he’s got the large bandwidth option, that many google search agents running can’t be a small amount of data.
ZOMG!! Oolon reads FTBs!!! Wot a gooN!11!!
Breaking news in the pit, someone follows a link from a blog post. Finds the post amusing. Writes a comment… It is only a day away from the end of the world after all :-)
Oh bless your stupid spineless heart Oolon.
Please, there is no way it’s a coincidence that *ever* article I’ve read speaking out against FTB or A+ in the last year has had a comment from you defending them. This isn’t about links, this is about google search agents. Don’t try to lie about how the internet works to someone who actually knows. You just look more stupid than normal, and that, my fine little twatwaffle, is very stupid already.
Maybe you should go back to not blogging about SQL performance tuning.
*zzzzzzzzzzzzzz* (pulls blanket over head…wake me up when he’s done).
Holy fuck, Oolon is stupid. What he’s doing isn’t even trolling 101, he hasn’t climbed nearly that high yet. He’s trying to do chin-ups on the bottom rung of the trolling ladder with the least educated of creationists.
Laughable fool.
I come here from the Almost Diamonds post. The whole FTB/Skepchick deal appears to become more and more deranged, and whatever the thesaurus says is an approbiate non-anatomic/gendered term for ‘hysterial’. It has reached a stage were I don’t even bother anymore if people like Zwan, Myers oder the commentariat are trolling, if they are genuine fuckstick assholes or have serious problems somewhere up in their dusty attics. They need to be put into a containment field of mockery, to warn others from this minefield of (faux) obtuse stupidity.
I’m super offended at this and I can’t believe it. Penn’s last name begins with a j.
Other than that this is a great article.
(And yes I wasn’t serious about being offended).
FUUUUU….i’ll fix that, and thanks!
Good post, though at times I had trouble reading the difference between quotes of Watson, your commentary or satirical renditions of said quotes. I don’t know if that only applies to mobile devices.
Yeah, we’ll, don’t expect my help. I was raising the red flags about PZ (and others) before he molested a holy cracker, or whatever the fuck that middle school mess was, and was dismissed as a concern troll. I predicted this shit, but everyone said I was crying wolf. Now I’m just sitting back and enjoying the carnage. Bring on the Kenworths.
You nailed in on the blind spot comment. I tried to get into organized skepticism, but the religious (yeah, RELIGIOUS) adherence by many to certain political ideologies was a deal breaker. The skepticism was too selective and rarely applied universally. Too many lazy skeptics picking easy targets.
Whoa, what do you mean by molesting a holy cracker?
At least this time they didn’t specify that it’s only rape when a man has sex with a drunk woman. Sexists.
This is so goddam beautiful. Oh, thank you.
Well done.
This is a good read.
Whatever, I’m for burning her at the stake. Or locking her in a room until she thinks about what she’s done… for a long time.