I'm all for it.
Is this what they call a bloodless coup?
I figured one of the treacherous commenters would suggest this, but a co-blogger...
The answer's no.
The great big loophole here is that I'll put on anything that a co-blogger asks for, so maybe you should be twisting their arms.
You know, Alameida, Bitch PhD is completely allowed at The Weblog -- in fact, she even has posting powers now, though she has not yet exercised them.
Wow, Ogged's really asserting his primus inter pares rights...
Next it'll be ius primae noctis...
I wish that "laugh out loud" hadn't been so cheapened by the internet vernacular, because I sincerely did.
hm, maybe that's actually what's caused the rift...do Persians do that?
I second Kotsko. I also have to give Ogged a little backup on the whole BPhD question. Maybe not for the same reasons, since I don't know what those are for Ogged, but I find BPhD to be completely over the top. Her views on how men value their families (children especially) have all the emotional sophistication of a third-grader who shuns boys because they're so "gross". It's like she thinks some combination of the "Tim Allen" sitcom caricature and the image of beer-guzzling football fans who barely know their own kids' names applies to all men, or at least the vast majority who don't ostentatiously and publicly embrace the notion that we're nothing but stupid pigs who should yield all decision-making authority to enlightened feminine judgment (and of course that of any thoroughly emasculated metrosexuals who demonstrate an acceptable degree of enlightenment by mouthing the appropriate platitudes about the life-creating Earth-mother Oprah-power or whatever).
I'm not sure I would've banned her even so, but I don't think anything is lost by not having to read her self-righteous one-note anti-male commentary, either. She reminds me of some Republican hack like Reynolds going on about "the left" by selectively pointing out confirmational examples of the behavior and mindset she ascribes to the entire male half of the species (oh wait, sorry - less-than-half).
I realize that by saying this I'm only demonstrating to the BPhD partisans what a chest-beating male chauvinist ape I am, but that's fine, because we emotionally-oblivious males assign no importance whatsoever to other peoples' opinions of us. Which is a big reason why we tend not to post our views in public forums where they can be evaluated and responded to by anyone who chooses to do so. It's a fragile ego / compensation-for-penis-size thing, y'know?
If some of the commenters here do actually have a small penis, then maybe it'd be best if Ogged left the spam here, so that those people would know how to fix that problem.
I'm not sure I would've banned her even so, but I don't think anything is lost by not having to read her self-righteous one-note anti-male commentary, either.
A. She's not banned, if I recall correctly. She stopped commenting here in reaction to having been de-blogrolled. As far as I know the only thing protecting you from her self-righteous one-note anti-male commentary is that she doesn't feel like commenting here.
B. If what Dr. Bitch writes strikes you as monotonically misandristic, you're awfully touchy. Really, I'd call her a poster girl for the viewpoint (among many others)that one of the pleasant things about feminism is that it makes it easier to like men.
(There's something very odd about discussing someone who isn't posting here -- obviously, I can't speak for Dr. Bitch, and don't know her outside of blog comments. To the extent that I'm mischaracterizing her views, my apologies.)
As far as I know the only thing protecting you from her self-righteous one-note anti-male commentary is that she doesn't feel like commenting here.
She may not be IP-banned, but I was under the impression that she and Ogged had come to an agreement under which she would no longer comment. As for my needing to be "protected", your sarcasm is lost on me. My only point was that I don't think I personally find Ogged's decision both understandable and agreeable. That doesn't mean that I think I need Ogged to "protect" me from raging feminist ideologues.
If what Dr. Bitch writes strikes you as monotonically misandristic, you're awfully touchy. Really, I'd call her a poster girl for the viewpoint (among many others)that one of the pleasant things about feminism is that it makes it easier to like men.
The two parts of this statement seem to contradict each other, so I might be missing something. As for the first part by itself, there's no "touchiness" involved; it's more just a matter of my steadily-increasing exasperation with feminist rhetoric. No, BPhD is not "the worst"; but neither is Glenn Reynolds "the worst" Republican. He's just a sanctimonious hack who hides behind link-volume to give himself plausible deniability as a "moderate" - because you see, he never said it. I generally avoid reading him as well, mainly to save my blood pressure. And BPhD is not even that subtle. She's actually much less of a coward that Glenn, because she'll come right out and say what she thinks, rather than a link and "Sigh. I wish he were wrong," but that doesn't make her opinions any less straight-line ideological and dogmatic.
Just as an aside, one major component of my impression of the BPhD personality comes from her demagoguery on the Kevin Drum female bloggers thing. Kevin's crime was more or less being insufficiently radical about the need to enforce link-parity between male and female bloggers, or something along those lines. For that, he was condemned (and not just by her) as [insert typical string of profanity and gender-identity vitriol]. It just grows tiresome is all, so I won't shed a tear because she doesn't comment here, for whatever reason.
"I don't think I personally find" should just be "I personally find"
Walter, I don't think I'm particularly emasculated, but I just don't respond to the good Professor in the way you do. In fact, your portrayal of her behavior strikes me as so far beyond recognizability that it doesn't even count as exaggeration.
This is probably just me trying to compensate for my huge cock size by appearing sympathetic to feminists, though.
It's a little-known alliance: Feminists, and the men with huge cocks who are secure enough to love them.
Works out great for everyone.
(Hey, that was my first actual cock-joke here. When do I get my t-shirt?)
I'm a little leery to respond, becuase, while I've read all of B's comments here, I've read less than half of her own blog. I second Adam; I have absolutly no idea what you're referring to in your first comment, but, maybe you're referring to something I haven't read.
I find this kind of ironic:
She reminds me of some Republican hack like Reynolds going on about "the left" by selectively pointing out confirmational examples of the behavior and mindset she ascribes to the entire male half of the species (oh wait, sorry - less-than-half).
At least they provide examples. I mean, you know you're in a forum where this woman has many (cyberfriends? what's the term?) but you proceeded to verbally tar and feather her without providing any supporting quotations. Perhaps you don't care about being taken seriously, but then, why'd you comment?
I find her congenial and shit.
What an unusual site this is. The only blogger with balls is female.
In fact, your portrayal of her behavior strikes me as so far beyond recognizability that it doesn't even count as exaggeration.
And that's just one example. Try getting into a discussion with her about abortion. After she tells you that you are not allowed to have an opinion on the issue because you're male, perhaps you can get back to me.
Really?
Like I said: Man, you're touchy. Get back to me when you've worked out the difference between (rightly or wrongly) being profanely angry at a man for something he said and being generally anti-male.
Big man, Walter -- drawing on evidence that only you and Bitch could know about, in a forum where you know she doesn't participate anymore. Plus, you've already front-loaded every argument -- for instance, people who defend Bitch are her "partisans" and you are already set up as the poor victim whose voice isn't going to be heard properly.
You're just being a bully, to someone who isn't even here.
Walt, B, I, and some other semi-regular commentator had a lengthy abortion discussion in the Mineshaft (Unfogged chat room). She was quite willing to discuss.
If you're a woman, and you expect the equal respect given to men, then there are a lot of things that will piss you off. Some of them are things guys don't typically notice. Therefore this:
But goddamn, goddamn, how long do we have to stand around and be grateful for men "trying" when they continue to say shit like this?
I think, given the explosion of female liberal bloggers onto the popular scene since this confrontation, you certainly have to admit that B was right; that there were high quality female bloggers the popular male-dominated blogs just weren't linking too, and then offering these baseless excuses for not doing so.
It took me awhile to get it, but the source of B's anger is a sense of powerlessness, and a sense that polite dissension has proven to be ineffective.
Personally, I really dislike cursing. I've even argued with B about it before. But, I do unerstand where she's coming from.
Get back to me when you've worked out the difference between (rightly or wrongly) being profanely angry at a man for something he said and being generally anti-male.
Cripes... I even said that was just one example. It's the first one I thought of off the top of my head. Honestly, I'm a little suprised that the response so far has been to say that my view of her is wrong, rather than that her views are right. I suppose it's possible I've gotten the wrong idea, but Kotsko saying that my portrayal is "unrecognizable" is just plain ridiculous; even if I'm being too harsh, it's only in degree, and I think he knows exactly what I'm talking about. I suppose it's possible she means things like "women care WAY more about kids than men do" (that's a direct quote from a conversation I had with her in the Unfogged chat room) in a nice way. And maybe I'm just tired of hearing things like that (and seeing that image reinforced constantly by Hollywood and sitcomes), and I overreacted and formed an impression that's mistaken. But I really don't think so.
drawing on evidence that only you and Bitch could know about, in a forum where you know she doesn't participate anymore
What the fuck are you talking about? I linked to her fucking blog.
I think, given the explosion of female liberal bloggers onto the popular scene since this confrontation, you certainly have to admit that B was right; that there were high quality female bloggers the popular male-dominated blogs just weren't linking too, and then offering these baseless excuses for not doing so.
Or maybe they just didn't know about this cornucopia of high-quality female bloggers. Or maybe they just didn't agree with them as much as they did with the male bloggers they linked. Or any of a million other explanations besides some friggin male conspiracy to delegitimize female bloggers.
And you strongly implied that she'd told you or another man that you didn't have a right to an opinion on abortion because you're male. In the absence of a link, that's both surprising and not particularly credible.
but Kotsko saying that my portrayal is "unrecognizable" is just plain ridiculous; even if I'm being too harsh, it's only in degree, and I think he knows exactly what I'm talking about.
What would make you think that? Look -- she's a feminist who swears a lot, often at people who disagree with her about issues relating in some way to feminism and gender. That has precisely nothing to do with hating men -- it's not a mild, defensible version of man-hating, it's a completely different thing. You seem to have confused the two.
And Kotsko, you're really pretty much full of shit. No one's being a "bully" to anyone; I'm just explaining why I personally don't like BitchPhD, all of which I've expressed to her in our discussions as well. Your little aside about "a forum in which you know she doesn't participate anymore" was laughable nonsense too - are you saying you never criticize right-wing bloggers (or others) who don't read / comment on your site?
And my "partisans" comment was a fucking joke. Jesus, talk about "touchy".
This blog phenomenon is exactly the kind of thing that fits exactly with feminist critiques of institutional and unconscious sexism! Exactly! And when the existence of all these female bloggers comes to light and they turn out to be every bit as good as -- who? Atrios? Instapundit? High standards must be met! -- then it's clear: there was no real reason that these people weren't getting attention, as a group, other than the fact that they were women. Everything else is a post hoc excuse. That is the simplest explanation, and the right one.
And you strongly implied that she'd told you or another man that you didn't have a right to an opinion on abortion because you're male. In the absence of a link, that's both surprising and not particularly credible.
Well, perhaps Michael can confirm that for me, since I believe that particular view of hers was expressed in the chat room conversation in which he participated. Sorry I don't have a link to that one for you. But why the hell would I make it up anyway?
there was no real reason that these people weren't getting attention, as a group, other than the fact that they were women. Everything else is a post hoc excuse. That is the simplest explanation, and the right one.
Christ, this is the kind of thing that makes me think the wingers aren't just totally making shit up when they call the left dogmatic and inflexible. Take the stick out of your ass and come down off your high horse, man.
"Just explaining" in the most outlandish and ridiculous terms, which are unrecognized by people who have had the same amount of experience with her as you have. I do not have to admit that there's some kind of fucking "kernel of truth" beyond your insulting comments that have more to do with an axe you have to grind about feminism than with the actual person who served as the empirical occasion for your rant.
Don't pretend to back down now, Walter -- you had to know you were being inflammatory. Don't act like you were "just trying to start a reasoned discussion" with the kind of shit you've been throwing around here. You wanted a fight, and you've gotten one -- don't play this game where now, since I've called you on your bullying, I'm the true bully.
But why the hell would I make it up anyway?
Trying to be as polite as possible, you must have noticed that your perceptions of Dr. Bitch differ greatly from those of other commenters on this thread, including myself. Given that fact, I'm not likely to rely on your unsupported memory of a conversation with her: even in the absence of bad faith, you seem likely to have badly misinterpreted her.
No games, and no backing down. I wasn't trying to pick a fight, I was trying to back Ogged, because I keep seeing people questioning his decision to de-blogroll her. But I'm also not bullying anyone. I don't even get your use of the term "bullying", because what difference does my opinion make to her? I certainly won't be so pompous as to say something like "I was just trying to start a reasoned discussion," and I wasn't anyway - what I was trying to do was say, more or less, "I don't think Ogged was wrong to give her the boot, and I personally find that decision agreeable." Which, y'know, I literally said in actual words in my earlier comments. So like I said, chill the fuck out. If you don't agree with my opinion of BPhD, then I'm so sorry I hurt your feelings, but that's the way I see it. And pretending that my view is "unrecognizable" is just silly and annoying.
I'm not likely to rely on your unsupported memory of a conversation with her: even in the absence of bad faith, you seem likely to have badly misinterpreted her.
Well, then why don't you ask her yourself? Ask a direct question, and stress that you want her to be honest: "Do you think men should have any say on whether abortion is legal?" Unless she was speaking some version of English I've never heard of, then what she said to me, in so many words, is that they shouldn't, and that, in fact, my impudence in merely daring to suggest that maybe I should was indicative of my repressed desire to control women's bodies at all times. That is not a reasonable opinion; that is fucking irrationalist dogma. Again, ask her yourself.
And by the way, LB, I'm not some anti-abortion activist; I was just trying to have a discussion with her about the morality of abortion, and she deflected that entirely with the assertion I mentioned before (along with "women care WAY more about kids than men do").
Walter, I'll concede that your views of Bitch PhD are recognizable insofar as other people hold such views of her as well.
When compared with the genuine issue, however, your views seem so far exaggerated that discerning their relationship with reality does not seem to be worth the trouble. That is what I mean when I say "unrecognizable." If I read your comments, stripped of names, it would not occur to me to guess that your comments were a description of Bitch PhD -- or of any other vocal feminist in particular.
Jesus, are you referring to the original comment? That was half-joking, and of course it was exaggerated and ironic. The whole last paragraph didn't maybe clue you in to that? Again, I'm not backing down, because I do think that BitchPhD's views are extreme, but I don't think she literally gets her understanding of men from sitcoms, for Christ's sake.
Jesus Christ.
Ahem.
I was the semi-regular (more accurately, rare) commenter who sat in the chat room with Walter and BitchPhd. Walter's characerization of the conversation is accurate.
Or, that is to say, all the viewpoints he credits to BitchPhd were expressed by her, if recounted here through a lens that seems to have turned the conversation into something more hostile than I thought it was. Which is fair enough, since the conversation was fairly heated.
BitchPhd was aggressive, and angry, and was not, I think, being (loaded word here, but apt) congenial. She was, I thought, fairly patient with you, Walter, in her guiding you through the Abortion 101 debate. And, to be fair, she had a scholarly study in mind that she was referring to when she was discussing the "women care about their kids more than men" issue. (I asked her point blank is she thought I loved my daughter less than my wife does. She danced around it a little bit, but mainly said that it was a statement of generalities, not something that can be directly applied to individuals. In the end, I was very very mildly offended.
Anyway. I read BitchPhd's blog regularly. I've commented there once or twice. I was shocked by Ogged's decision to dissociate the blog from her in the way that he did. But I kinda see his point--she has a tendency to be dismissive of others' points of view, even when they are trying to engage in honest, respectful, and reasoned debate. If that's not the environment Ogged wants to construct, well, it's his house/Mineshaft.
Thanks, Chopper. I remember your name now. As for the "more hostile than you thought it was," that's because I was making a conscious effort to not allow myself to be provoked by her dogma and dismissal. Few things piss me off more than being dismissed offhand because of a group / category I belong to (or to which someone assigns me in knee-jerk fashion), so as far as I'm concerned, I did pretty well. I can definitely say that that conversation formed the basis of my opinion, but as I said before, it's been confirmed by the Drum affair and other things I've read on her blog and here in the comments sections of various posts. I can't find it right now, but I think she may have even said something here in the regular comments along the "men have no right to an opinion on abortion" lines. I don't think it was about abortion, but it was exactly as flatly unequivocal and arrogant. Just in case LB and Kotsko choose to arbitrarily question your honesty as well, I'll keep trying to find it so they don't have to rely on our "unsupported memories".
The very fact that she and I get along so well must mean that the presenting issue is not your maleness as such. If she just dismissed all males no matter what, then it seems like we wouldn't get along no matter how subservient I was. Yet here she is, posting at my blog.
The issue is that you are tarring her with your stereotypes about feminists; this complicates matters because your stereotypes about feminists include "not listening to me just because I'm a man."
ogged goes away and everyone's at each other's throats. Come now. Avocados are healthful. Let us remember the dearly departed in fond ways. Or if not, let us be jokey about it, and make cock references.
Can't it be said that Bphd was sometimes unreasonable, but also a lot of fun a lot of the time?
I was wondering what happened there. Missed something the first time. Thanks for discussing it again, so I could figure it out. I find her interesting, but it's partly because of the ways I disagree with her. But then, as I was just confessing, I often feel like an asshole guy, so I have some sympathy for the unreconstructed.
The issue is that you are tarring her with your stereotypes about feminists; this complicates matters because your stereotypes about feminists include "not listening to me just because I'm a man."
Yeah, for the record, Walter, you did seem a little over the top with this. I don't think she was dismissing you because you were a man. I think she was dismissing you because she chose her online sobriquet well.
The very fact that she and I get along so well must mean that the presenting issue is not your maleness as such. If she just dismissed all males no matter what...
She may not dismiss you because you're male, but she does assert that you are not allowed to have any say in whether a potential child of yours should be aborted - solely because you are male. If the distinction between that and your weak little straw man is not clear, then I'm not sure what else to say. I also acknowledged the fact that some men may be considered "acceptable" as long as they give appropriately sycophantic lip-service to PC feminist doctrines. Maybe you do so; I don't know, because I don't read your weblog.
Yeah, for the record, Walter, you did seem a little over the top with this. I don't think she was dismissing you because you were a man. I think she was dismissing you because she chose her online sobriquet well.
That's very possible, although it's kind of a moot distinction. Either way, I'm not really interested in what she has to say. But I can also concede that maybe I was too harsh and went "over the top" myself. Honestly, though, when I made the initial comment, I figured it would be taken with a grain of salt in the usual Unfogged manner, and that most of the responses would be like Kotsko's first one (which was really funny), rather than his subsequent ones. Law of unintended consequences, I guess.
I would like to offer Ogged backup re: BPhD. The main reason for my support is that he should be able to maintain his blogroll any way he sees fit. There are several outlets available to Unfogged visitors who wish to keep abreast of BPhD's thoughts and writings. The lack of (a) an Unfogged link to her blog and (b) BPhD commentary at Unfogged does not keep people from accessing and engaging with her elsewhere.
I originally discovered BPhD's blog via another blog, although I cannot remember which blog. I checked out her blog several times a week for, perhaps, a few months. Basically, I tried out her blog for a while. I decided to stop reading her blog at about the same time as the delinking. And yes, part of the reason was that I also did not find her tone to be congenial, but that's just a part of the reason. Now, BPhD has no obligation to be congenial on her blog (or elsewhere), so I just stopped reading her blog.
I am unaware of exactly why and how BPhD no longer comments at Unfogged. As a commenter at Unfogged, her profile was much lower than as owner of her own blog, of course, so reading her commentary wasn't the same as reading her full-strength on her own blog. But I also did not care for her commentary and will say that, for whatever reason she no longer comments at BPhD, I personally prefer her absence.
I've just now revisited her main blog, read the current posts and remain with the same opinion. And it is just that, my opinion. I do not understand the attraction of anger, negativity and obscenity as applied to issues that deserve serious consideration. I suppose one might say that this is what's needed to get these issues the serious consideration they deserve, because, otherwise, they're being overlooked. I can only speak for myself and I do not find myself at all inclined to discuss anything – abortion, childcare, employment issues, ob/byns, family, mental health, tv, music, shoes, anything at all – with someone who comes from what I consider a less-than-discussion-friendly perspective.
Obviously, BPhD has many fans, and quite a few are Unfogged fans as well. I do not at all wish to express a personal dislike of BPhD the person. Of course, I don't know her beyond reading her blog for a couple of months. I do, however, wish to express my support of Ogged's position. Apparently, it's not a popular position among Unfogged readers, and especially unpopular in this thread. Perhaps in light of the lopsided feel of this thread, I felt I should speak up in support of Ogged's decision.
Walter, Well, I don't intend to ever get her pregnant, so I doubt it will be an issue.
Are you claiming that Kotsko was an accident?
Or maybe they just didn't know about this cornucopia of high-quality female bloggers. Or maybe they just didn't agree with them as much as they did with the male bloggers they linked. Or any of a million other explanations besides some friggin male conspiracy to delegitimize female bloggers.
Err...walt, the popular male bloggers offered a list of reasons. But the thing is, all of them were silly, and none of them actually made a reasonable explanation. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's simply the only explanation that fits. G'head a try and find another, if you like. (the ones you've already offered won't work, I'm afraid; they're insufficient)
By the by, I remember now, I was at the conversation. (That was my big-ass margarita night.) B did make the statement Walter asserts, but, Walter did fail to note that it was part of a rather long discussion in which she engaged the argument. It's fair to say that's B's position. As a man, I would want to have a say if I got a woman pregnant. However, I also recognize that were I the one who got pregnant and had to bear the child, I would surely demand ultimate and supreme control over that decision.
But the questions remain: if you were impregnated by an avocado, and it was an accident, but you gave birth to the baby avocado anyway (not because you think all people should be forced in like circumstances, mind you), and that avocado grew up to dislike strident knee-jerk feminism, even when it is also funny and profane:
(a) would the avocado be healthful?
(b) would it have a large or small penis?
textualist, Exactly! Why did we get so side-tracked?
it's ogged's fault for abandoning us. also I think it has something to do with solipsism.
I think B had a point about women & blogging, and that's a case where I understand where she's coming from completely - because the thing about bias is that it's so pervasive and so ordinary and so under-the-radar that unless you make a fuss about it, there is a tendency to dismiss it. And actually the frustrating thing is that it's NOT a conspiracy, that it's just something men have a hard time even noticing they're doing, it's so automatic.
It's like, hello, I'm talking to you, I'm not invisible am I? I could have sworn I wasn't invisible...
the fact that I assumed the avocado would have a penis and not another sort of genetalia is a prime example of the sexism indemic to blogdom (though I have no blog, sadly); also it does not militate favorably as to my own, um, heft.
But no, not that -- it could have been a girl-avocado! It could have!
the fact that spelled "endemic," "indemic," says other awful things about me.
and I left out a pronoun for myself. dear god, what next?
dear god, what next?
Kancho, if you don't pull your shit together, tex.
Kotsko:
Walter, Well, I don't intend to ever get her pregnant, so I doubt it will be an issue.
Whew... that's more like it. Now if you can manage to somehow expand that into a more direct cock joke, we can all go home happy.
Textualist, that was just fucking hilarious.
Michael:
B did make the statement Walter asserts, but, Walter did fail to note that it was part of a rather long discussion in which she engaged the argument
That was my whole point, though: she didn't engage the argument; she turned into an argument about whether I, as a male, should be involved in the argument at all. That is entirely not the same thing as engaging the root of the argument, which is the basic morality of abortion, or at least how to define that morality, which is what I started out with. If I were being uncharitable, I'd even go so far as to say it was a calculated red herring, but I imagine her beliefs are probably quite sincere on the subject. Which is exactly why I hold the opinions expressed above.
Michael Jackson should move to Japan. Seriously.
That Kancho thing is freakishly odd. Japanese schoolchildren are surely aware of sex, and it's a society fairly famous for it's taboos. So, what is it that makes this behavior acceptable for them? Is the black American so de-sexualized, that his penis (diku) is completely disassociated from all sexual taboos? Maybe some of the commentators from Japan can help me out here.
B did make the statement Walter asserts, but, Walter did fail to note that it was part of a rather long discussion in which she engaged the argument
Back from dinner:
Walter -- my apologies for having wrongly questioned your memory of the chat-room conversation. I wouldn't normally have done that, but having seen another conversation (in her own blog comments) where she didn't take the position you attributed to her (that men aren't entitled to have an opinion on abortion), but the commenter she was talking to tendentiously misattributed it to her, I figured the same thing was happening. Still, it was uncalled of for me to doubt your accuracy.
That said, your global perceptions of Dr. Bitch still seem way, way out there to me.
Hey, now that I'm the only person who ever posts on this blog, d'you think I can reinstate BitchPhD? I find her congenial and shit.
Dear Alameida,
I wuvvvvvvvvvvvvv you! I totally think you, the BitchMaster and Aquaria of Rampaging PMS should form a blog (maybe 'Rampaging Bitches from Alameida'? No assignation of individual importance should be derived from that word order)! I think that would totally fuckin' rock. It would be seriously fall-mouthed. Over the top even. Cooooool.
With Profoundest Sincerity,
ash
['Nub! Next response!']
Maybe not for the same reasons, since I don't know what those are for Ogged, but I find BPhD to be completely over the top.
Now, to get myself in serious hot water:
I am in favor of legal abortion, even though I am entirely ambivalent about abortion itself. And in that context, it is de facto entirely the woman's choice. And I would have no say in the matter. And I am totally fine with that. I don't think that should that should be extended to excluding men from voting on it for reasons that have to do with the construction of democracies/republics with more or less unlimited franchises. But I can the position as perfectly defensible given the assumptions underlying it.
Similarly, I personally think the anti-Drum rally was overblown, in the sense that much of the anger and argumentation was excessive in terms of what was occurring, replete with Party Line Thinking. I can just as easily argue that the 'A-list' guys, while not politically sexist, were still engaged in a 'old boy network' circle jerk. And be correct that there aren't as many good female bloggers because there aren't as many female bloggers period, and the ladies could still be absolutely correct that women have to work twice as hard to achieve recognition as some dweeby personality-free men from good schools who just regurgitate whatever talking points they're handed and then add some Really Big Words. Aka OxBlog.
Now, on to the Drama!
ash
['I hear a delete key, somewhere.']
getting here late (and perhaps I shouldn't interject since the room has chilled out a bit), but I too was in the chat room with Chopper that night, it was he and I on the sidelines kinda watching this go down...and I have to agree with Chopper on the tone.
Sure, B is provacative, but I didn't find her comments over the top or ad hominem...but that may be because I was sympathetic to her line of reasoning.
as for the whole blogroll or not to blogroll question, you all have browsers and can go to whatever fucking blog you want to. vote with your feet.
besides, being on or off a single blogroll isn't going to make or break any blog that's worth a shit and has good content.
[One clarification on previous: People yelled. Some people yelled back. After awhile some stuff changed. Maybe not enough. Squeeky wheel gets the grease.]
Oh, before we get the dramatic bits, let me pull out the old fart voice and mention how much this reminds me of the BBS days of yore (ya know, like 1992), when I could be called Hitler by 15-year-old girl for disallowing sigs longer than four lines. Ah, the drama! Ah, the pissed-off-ness! Of course, in those days we had real men and real women (albeit, in both cases, frequently very hefty) and you connected with a morse code switch! At 180 baud! Instead of this namby-pamby PHP webby idiot-proof stuff! And we liked it that way! It built fucking character! A squirrelly, slightly mental, probably paranoid character, but character nonetheless! And we were proud to annoy fuckheads cuz it was fun and childish! AND our cock jokes were longer, thicker AND harder. Ah, those were the days. Boy, they sucked!
But I can also concede that maybe I was too harsh and went "over the top" myself. Honestly, though, when I made the initial comment
I would like to point out, that if I read it correctly, A Night At the Unfogged Chatroom was seriously drunken. Drunks are not the best debaters.
Anyways, you got read as uncharitably as you have been evidently reading the BitchMaster. And you don't like it much. Oh, well.
I was backing ogged
Ogged can run his blog any way he goddamn well please. He can have a cogenial, quiet, intellectual discussion of some sort. He can publically post long peans to his personal detestation of Ms. Bitch. And she can not like it right back! Free to be you and me, baby!
I would like to point out that it seems excessive to apparently think that Ogged is in such a weak position that the BitchMaster is going to sneak in one night and defenstrate him via IP. Sounds like somebody, somewhere, has penis issues.
I've just now revisited her main blog, read the current posts and remain with the same opinion. And it is just that, my opinion. I do not understand the attraction of anger, negativity and obscenity as applied to issues that deserve serious consideration.
Well, I am a big, obnoxious, irritating, lunatic (not literally, thank you), un-pc (in ANY context) gun-owning, truck-driving Texan. I think you completely allowed to find Dr. B. not to your taste and me as well. It doesn't bother. I wuvvv Dr. B. and I ALSO think Kevin Drum is pretty cool, and I frequently disagree with both of them. But then I read and like Vox Day, in spite of frequently disagreeing with him, his masculine supremacist position and his annoying braggadicio. And Steve Sailer. And Red Ken Thompson. And Aquaria, and so on. Obviously, I am a bad and evil racist, sexist, female supremacist, male supremacist, communist, libertarian, conservative, liberal right-winger pinko who will shortly be taken out and shot.
How sad!
*I* don't go for what is known as Rational, Civil Discussion. The (social custom) of Rational Civil Discussion, is often cover for 'you are allowed to disagree with me, as long as you keep quiet about it and don't change anything', in MY goddamned opinion.
I prefer my opinions delivered with a metaphorical aluminum bat containing as much profanity as can be gratuitously managed. How lower-class of me.
Metaphorically speaking, I don't have much use for women without balls, and men without big honking ass-kicking ovaries, to bend the gender a lot. People not like that seem nebbishy to me. ('If you won't fight, what good are you?') I like vicious, friendly argumentation.
But then, a great deal of most 'rational' argumentation seems to me to be the rationalization of irrational emotional reactions. And the 'de-blog-rolling' of Prof. B. seemed right up that alley. And the (natural) reaction to that, the same. I can't say I was thrilled to have someone say they wanted to wring my neck - but it was mostly puzzlement ('Seems like an awful complicated way to commit suicide').
If you don't care for Ms. B., feel free, and you can even dress it up in rationality, but I personally expect it has a lot more to do with 'cogeniality', also known as 'personality conflict' in the happy face trade.
Alas, in the blog world, much like the BBS world, everybody has to make it into a big drama, cuz it adds excitement to a sometimes boring pasttime.
Well, that's just fucking big hairless monkeys for ya.
ash
['Have a nice day!']
The thing is, Walter, is that that discussion you were having is not at all original. (Like Lizardbreath said "abortion 101"). Someone like Bphd, who is opinionated and not willing to back down or compromise on her beliefs, has had this argument, I'm guessing, hundreds of times. By entering into that discussion, it's not just you and her, but you and the hundreds of other people she's personally had that conversation with and the millions of other people who've also had that conversation.
Similarly, with the Drum affair, I was initially surprised also at the hostility of the reaction until I realized that this was entering into a very old and very tired conversation: people bringing out the same repetitive arguments that were rooted, even if we're not aware of it, in a fairly virulent sexism. It doesn't mean that you're sexist, just that your arguments are rooted in a sexism that you're unaware of (hopefully).
It's not Bphd's or anyone else's job to handhold you through that history. It's out there, go find it.
I used to work in tobacco control and so I'd get into these sort of historical conversations all the time. They'd say something like "everything's bad for you, like apples or sugar" or "what about all the pollution, what are you doing about that?" sincerely believing that they were the first people to think of these examples and not realizing that they were written by a marketing executive back in 1958. PZ Myers spoke on his frustration about this kind of thing re: evolution recently.
Nobody's quite as original as they think. If you really want to engage in an issue, it's your responsiblity to look at the history of the debate.
just that your arguments are rooted in a sexism that you're unaware of (hopefully). It's not Bphd's or anyone else's job to handhold you through that history. It's out there, go find it.
Oh come off it. Save the head-patting and pseudo-sage advice for your fucking grandkids. "Rooted in sexism"? And you want to talk to me about unoriginality? Let me ask you this: is the tone of your comment rooted in a desire to sound like a pompous pant-load of self-important sanctimony? Because if so, you certainly achieved your goal.
Of course it's unoriginal. That's the point.
Well, then why don't you ask her yourself? Ask a direct question, and stress that you want her to be honest: "Do you think men should have any say on whether abortion is legal?" Unless she was speaking some version of English I've never heard of, then what she said to me, in so many words, is that they shouldn't, and that, in fact, my impudence in merely daring to suggest that maybe I should was indicative of my repressed desire to control women's bodies at all times. That is not a reasonable opinion; that is fucking irrationalist dogma. Again, ask her yourself.
Done. My apology at 63, above is withdrawn -- turns out my initial skepticism was justified, and either your understanding or your subsequent report of Professor B.'s position was distinctly in error.
Christ, what a waste of electrons this discussion is.
This all started because Ogged got his back up when Bitch called him on his sexist bullshit. Apparently unable to deal with the situation directly, he responded with a passive-aggressive move of publicly insulting her. And it worked; she no longer comments here. Not that I believe for a microsecond that she just left in a snit. I am sure Mr. Passive Aggressive at least "invited her not to return" privately and then tried to play it off in public. Gee, I wonder why the ex dumped his ass.
Then weeks after the junior-high delinking diss, the woman blogger who was brought on board explicitly because, you know, the place is a fucking locker room, posts about it in a way that shows very clearly that Ogged acts like a controlling daddy figure to his putative co-bloggers. And he pops up long enough to smack her down and then lets some dickhead with a 75-point IQ savage Bitch in absentia. Way to prove the fucking point, asshole.
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
My apology at 63, above is withdrawn -- turns out my initial skepticism was justified, and either your understanding or your subsequent report of Professor B.'s position was distinctly in error.
And apparently, then, so were those of Chopper and Michael. I guess we males really are just dumb, even the ones who apparently agree with Bitch.
Mithras:
I'll have you know that I'm proud of my 75-point IQ, and quite frankly, I find your implication that those with 75-point IQs are "dickheads" to be both sexist and anti-75ite. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a 75-point IQ. Those of us with 75-point IQs are people too, and we do not deserve to be pigeonholed by intellectual elitists such as yourself. There is nothing I can do to change my 75-point IQ, and I should not have to feel ashamed because you subconsciously promote the social constructs that ensure continued dominance of me by your 85-point IQ set. Your comments are clearly rooted in an intelligism that you're unaware of (hopefully).
But let me offer you one small bit of advice that might possibly allow you to shed your bigotry. Whenever you're thinking of making an anti-75ite remark, just try to keep in mind: it was more than good enough for Mrs. Mithras. Asshole.
I am sure Mr. Passive Aggressive at least "invited her not to return" privately and then tried to play it off in public.
Accusations of bad faith aside, Mithras isn't too far off here. I told b that while I would prefer that she not comment here, she obviously has a lot of fans and I didn't want to "ban" her outright. That seems like a meaningful distinction to me, but it also seems non-crazy to say that it's bogus.
Since then, I've come to feel even more strongly that I prefer the blog without b commenting on it, and there are several important senses in which this is "my" blog, so I have no compunction about insisting on my strong preferences.
Finally, it's fine to insult me--that's what I'm here for--but as for the discussion in general, let's keep it reasonably civil, motherfuckers.
That's what I like about Unfogged -- even when we are yelling at each other and are tempted to descend to the depths of earnestness, the distinctive "Unfogged tone," the je ne sait quoi of an Unfogged thread, prevails. Walter alone has pulled off this turn three or four times in this thread.
Finally, it's fine to insult me
Hey ogged, do you find Walter's tone congenial? And why is it okay to insult people who aren't allowed to come here to defend themselves?
Kotsko, I have to give credit where credit is due: you undoubtedly rescued the Unfogged Tone with your comment #47, and of course w-lfs-n and washerdreyer then immediately went back-to-back, for an overall back-to-back-to-back Unfoggedism. That was just beautiful.
let's keep it reasonably civil
That was addressed to everyone.
Apparently, there is no distinction between "not allowed" and "encouraged not to." If one think there is such a distinction, they're probably being uncongenial. Actually, I suppose that if I had been "encouraged not to" comment on a site, I would be quite likely not to view it either, since I wouldn't want the person who did the encouraging to see my IP show up in the referrer logs. So that really might make the not allowed/encouraged not to distinction fade out.
I have no idea what you just said, wd, but you said it very congenially. Whatever it was.
WD, it sounds like Ogged is making the distinction between counsels and commands-- as in between the imperatives of prudence and the imperatives of skill.
What's really chilling is that this popped into my head of its own accord. Thank god that tomorrow's the last day of Kant.
I should probably disengage here, having a shortish history on this site and finding that I'm getting angry enough that sustaining that all-important Unfogged Tone of congeniality has become difficult. Nonetheless, this:
Accusations of bad faith aside, Mithras isn't too far off here. I told b that while I would prefer that she not comment here, she obviously has a lot of fans and I didn't want to "ban" her outright. That seems like a meaningful distinction to me, but it also seems non-crazy to say that it's bogus.
Since then, I've come to feel even more strongly that I prefer the blog without b commenting on it, and there are several important senses in which this is "my" blog, so I have no compunction about insisting on my strong preferences.
seems entirely bizarre to me. Of course, your blog, your decision, and that's why I didn't express an opinion on the original thread. Still, I get what Walter objects to -- he has a problem with feminists ("my steadily-increasing exasperation with feminist rhetoric"), Professor B. is an outspoken feminist, he's going to dislike her. Without that kind of ideological clash, however, the idea that she's personally unpleasant enough that you asked her not to post here anymore is simply incomprehensible. Have you ever asked another regular to leave?
If this is about ideology, and the intended message is 'no feminists wanted', say the word and I'm gone. I hadn't realized I was intruding.
I get what Walter objects to -- he has a problem with feminists
And of course, you know perfectly well that that statement is an out-of-context mischaracterization of what I've said so far. I don't have a problem with feminists per se; I have a problem with feminists like BitchPhD. Don't pretend you don't understand that distinction, because unlike Mithras, I can tell the difference between someone who's stupid, and someone who just disagrees with me. I'm sure, for example, that you understand the difference between disliking religious extremists, and disliking all religious people. If there were a regular poster here whose comments followed a predictable theme of condemnations of heathens and unbelievers, etc, then no matter what a nice person said fanatic might be, you'd probably eventually get sick of hearing what he or she had to say. Or pick some other type of extremist. But don't continue to try to paint me as some knuckle-dragging ape because radical feminists annoy me.
Look, I quoted what you said that led me to the conclusion that you had a problem with feminists.
Don't pretend you don't understand that distinction, because unlike Mithras, I can tell the difference between someone who's stupid, and someone who just disagrees with me.
I don't understand that distinction. That is, given that you have a problem with Professor B. in that regard, you have a problem with me: while I'm obviously not going to endorse everything ever said by someone I don't know well, what I've seen her write on gender issues is all stuff that I either agree with, or disagree with only in details of emphasis. I can't tell what the difference is, in your eyes between "feminists like BitchPhD" and feminists that you don't have a problem with.
Your opinion doesn't matter particularly to me -- I got into this with you because I thought taking a gratuitious slam at someone who wasn't posting here any longer was uncalled for and unpleasant, but it's a free country, and you can think what you like. To the extent the guy who runs the place agrees with you, and doesn't want me ("feminists like BitchPhD") around, I'd like to know that so I can take the hint.
LB, aside from extreme (not even moderate!) racism, and calls for genocide, there aren't many views that I object to airing on the blog. Your feminism is not only welcome here, I, personally, am flattered that you comment here. Seriously.
But you do seem to have a bit of a blind spot about something: I, and at least a few others who have emailed me privately (unimpeachably liberal, feminist folks), find b intensely irritating. The last two paragraphs of rufus' comment here are right on.
If someone actually condemned heathens and unbelievers on this blog, I think I'd like that a lot. Wouldn't it add a bit of spice?
What would such a person think about kanjo?
Then maybe, LB, the only distinction is that you don't haughtily try to push your views, because I would never have guessed that you agreed with BitchPhD up and down the line. So maybe it is more of a personal-style thing, because while I can sometimes understand where BitchPhD is coming from on various issues, her monotonous pedantry, inflexibility, and preachiness just grate on me. I know my opinion doesn't matter to you, but I don't find you to be like that at all. Can you really not see a difference between the tone of your usual comments and those of BPhD?
Uhh, yeah, what Ogged said. And Michael's comment immediately after hits the mark, too ("It seems to me that you merely want to intimidate him with as many cusswords as you can think of, in the hopes of......what, exactly?").
And then, B's comment a little further down absolutely epitomizes the difference between her and LB:
And yes, I think that well-meaning lefty men who trip over their own dicks all the time w/r/t feminist issues are being idiots, and that pandering to that just enables them. An occasional slap might just wake things up--if said men actually do care about this stuff.
In fact, you know what, LB? Just read all of B's comments in that thread. Wow.
Your feminism is not only welcome here, I, personally, am flattered that you comment here. Seriously.
Thanks. I like your blog, and your writing, a great deal, and for that reason am consciously putting off the decision of whether I can keep hanging out here until some later time when I am not so angry.
Ogged: I, and at least a few others who have emailed me privately (unimpeachably liberal, feminist folks), find b intensely irritating.
WS: Then maybe, LB, the only distinction is that you don't haughtily try to push your views, because I would never have guessed that you agreed with BitchPhD up and down the line.
Doesn't it strike you as even a little problematic that the conduct you find annoying enough to tell a longtime commenter she's not welcome for is expressing feminist ideas with too much vehemence? This isn't a no-profanity, no-rudeness zone as far as I can tell. (I can see wanting to ban someone for posting endless screeds of gender theory, or 'humorlessly' shutting down conversations as oppressive to women -- I just can't see Prof. B.'s comments as anything like that.)
I get the impression that you think I'm a fairly reasonable person. To the extent that my opinion of your conduct has any weight, it's that you've just demonstrated that feminists are fine with you so long as they aren't overly aggressive about it. In the absence of any evidence that you apply a similar restriction to people of any political opinion -- that you would have shunned someone for being overly outraged about the vote-count in Ohio -- I think that's crap.
To quote:
And yes, I think that well-meaning lefty men who trip over their own dicks all the time w/r/t feminist issues are being idiots, and that pandering to that just enables them. An occasional slap might just wake things up--if said men actually do care about this stuff.
re: 81
I changed my mind while typing my comment. It would have been surprising if it did make sense.
It's no secret that B's use profanity seriously irked me. But that comment thread Walt links to was the worst of it, and, I do have a real sense that B's commenting on Unfogged improved from there on out. Which is rather what puzzled me about the de-linkage. To be honest, I was puzzled when Ogged linked to her in the first place. But, when it finally seemed to me that her tone was becoming a little more congenial, she was de-linked. I suppose Ogged doesn't share my perceptions. They apparantly did had a lot more exchanges than I was aware of, however.
But in B's favor, even in her most pissed off, you could talk to her. I never saw her close off discussion. (Walt's quoting her from the Minshaft chat is in the wrong, spirit, I think. While I think she did say it, it was in a context that wasn't mean-spirited or haughty, at least to my perception. And the conversation was, as I've said repeatedly, lengthy.)
Also, B did change the nature of commenting here. Comments grew more chatty. I've a feeling Ogged didn't like this so much. Check out comment lengths before and after B.
And, though she could seem beligerent, she also introduced a point of view here (feminist) which was lacking before.
But I don't think it's worth discussion re-linking her. I wouldn't come back to a place where I'd been dissed like that. (And, apparantly, the dissing continued on B's blog.)
One thing I forgot to say. Just as Drum's comments were unintentionally sexist, I like Drum, and I've gotten over them. And even when B's use of profanity irked me, I got over it. I was over the profanity thing by the end of that thread. I won't let a little uncongenialness get in the way of my overall good opinion of her.
Doesn't it strike you as even a little problematic that the conduct you find annoying enough to tell a longtime commenter she's not welcome for is expressing feminist ideas with too much vehemence?
Sigh. If you'll read my original comment, you'll see that I clearly state that I'm not sure I would've banned her even so, and that my only reason for posting was to say that I'm not sad to see her go. However,
In the absence of any evidence that you apply a similar restriction to people of any political opinion
Sorry, I don't have a blog for you to check up on, but if someone came in here with a tone like B's but advocating hardcore Marxism, sneering with disdain at anyone who endorsed any aspect of free market economics, and Ogged requested that he or she no longer comment, then I would feel exactly the same way: maybe not the same thing I would do, but not something I'm going to cry over.
I get the impression that you think I'm a fairly reasonable person.
Your impression is correct, and is one reason why I was extremely surprised at some of your responses. Even so, however, as angry as you say you've gotten in this thread, I haven't seen anything from you that so much as reaches the same ballpark of scornful condescension and sheer dogmatism evidenced by B in that post about the Drum affair. I read your comments in that thread as well, and I'm sorry but you have to see the difference between this:
You know what really irritated me there? Drum's reaction/non-reaction to Avedon Carol. He's linked to her, she's got a great blog, she's not on his blogroll. She pointed this out, and said how about it, and mentioned that she'd pointed it out in the past. Unless I missed it, he didn't respond at all.If he's going to stand up and say "Hey, where are all the women, huh?" then goddamn it acknowledge the specific things he's failing to do that perpetuate the problem.
and this:
Oh god, once again the burden is on the ladies to prove that something is sexist? Jesus. Ok. Just in the passage you cite (there's more bullshit in the rest of the post, but it would take all damn day to cite every instance of it):1. The utter cluelessness of it. "What's up?"
2. The fact that he says a little above these passages that gosh, it certainly can't be sexism in journalistic circles that keeps women off the political op-ed page.
3. Define "political blogger." Oh, right, that means, "just like me." Not to get all personal on you, ogged, but in what sense is your blog more "political" than mine? But I betcha you're blogrolled on more (men's) political blogs than I am.
3. "men are more comfortable with the food fight nature of opinion writing."
4. "I don't wish to suffer the fate of Larry Summers." Yeah, poor fucking Larry Summers. Drum doesn't want the women who are uncomfortable with "viciousness and self-aggrandizement" to yell at him. Can you spell D-U-H?
Now, as long as I'm at it, I'm also offended by a couple of things over here at one of my favorite blogs.
1. Why do you point to the link if you think Drum's being "wholly inoffensive"? Just to go "look at all the hysterical women making a mountain out of a molehill"? Ha ha ha. It's funny to laugh at the righteously indignant when they get pissed off, yet again, at being rendered invisible.
2. "Kevin is definitely one of the good guys." Right. I'll just swallow my fucking bile and keep my goddamn mouth shut to preserve some abstract "lefty tent." Let's all follow the leaders, ladies, and bake the cookies for the next lefty fundraiser.
Like I said, bending over is getting awfully fucking old.
You express anger and frustration without sounding like Jerry Falwell blaming gays and the ACLU for 9/11. You also suggest a reasonable course of action to make an effort at remedying a problem you see, rather than just pissing and moaning about how "marginalized" your views are; nobody likes a whiner, and if anything, that's even more true for men than for women.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'll acknowledge one more point: up until about six months ago, I was pretty radical myself (though admittedly for a rather short period of time), and some of my irritation comes from the realization I've come to that the BitchPhD mindset / style of debate is so monstrously counter-productive that it's almost as good as giving money to the other side. A lot of money. Someone made the point in that thread that the right-wing legions of lying bullshitters are going to misrepresent leftist academics no matter what they do, and that's very true. But average Americans - at least those not totally in the right's thrall, who are the ones we need to be concerned with - are not so stupid as to fail to see the difference between Ward Churchill and Hillary Clinton when it comes down to brass tacks. Clinton may hold some "quasi-socialist" beliefs, as most liberals (myself included) do, but there's a HUGE difference between that and calling the WTC victims "little Eichmanns", and reasonable people understand this no matter what Sean "Cocksucker" Hannity tells them to think.
So is releasing pent-up frustration and anger an end in and of itself, even if it means alienating natural allies whose beliefs may not correspond perfectly but whose fundamental belief structures are compatible with our own? Or is it to actually work on convincing more people that our side is right more than we're wrong, or at least more than the other side? What I'm saying is, yes, a lot of my dislike of BitchPhD comes from personal experience with being on the receiving end of her style of argumentation - I'm only human, after all - but another big part of it is that I see people like her as doing more to undermine progressivism than to help it. I could be wrong about that, but I wanted to put it out there so maybe you can get a clearer idea of where I'm coming from, and understand that it's not some kind of "problem I have with feminists" of all stripes.
Michael, just to make myself perfectly goddam clear, I have no fucking problem with B's use of profanity.
Walter, is it clear that LB was talking to you and not to Ogged?
I think she was talking to both of us, since we're both quoted.
Hey Ogged, I just noticed that the "remember info" checkbox actually works now. That's some powerful shit, man.
Adam-- While you're right that my post was addressed pretty much exclusively to ogged, it was a reasonable mistake -- I quoted some of Walter's post and then forgot to respond to it.
Walter -- What I had intended to say is that if feminists are only okay so long as we don't 'haughtily' try to push our views, I have a huge problem with that.
Certainly I agree that my posting tone is generally lower-key than Prof. B.'s. What I hadn't realized (and what has shocked me a great deal) is that my permission to comment here is contingent on keeping it low key. I thought I was just making a stylistic choice, not that I had to keep it throttled down or be asked to leave.
Clinton may hold some "quasi-socialist" beliefs, as most liberals (myself included) do, but there's a HUGE difference between that and calling the WTC victims "little Eichmanns", and reasonable people understand this no matter what Sean "Cocksucker" Hannity tells them to think.
This is one of those things where we just aren't looking at the same world. I read Prof. B. and I think "Not my writing style, but you could certainly put it like that." Unless you're holding women to a standard of civility that you don't apply in any other political context (anyone still wondering where all the women who are aggressive about defending their viewpoints, you know, the kind you need to write a sucessful weblog, are? Right. Shunned.) she simply isn't anywhere near over the line in the way that Ward Churchill is. If you think they're comparable, then I don't know if we've got much hope of convincing each other of much.
Shorter low-IQ dickhead: That fucking cunt better be polite or no one will listen to her.
LB -- Not to sound too trite, but isn't how one presents his or her views often part of whether one gets taken seriously in the discussion? There are a lot of views I would prefer not to listen to if laced with profanity and obscenity; surely having some standard (whatever it is) of congeniality or politeness isn't akin to demanding that someone be silenced?
That said, I kind of like BPhD. I construed most of her posts/writings (esp. the Kevin Drum debacle) as emerging from frustration and as a way to blow off steam, and not as personal attacks. Whatever standard there was/is, I don't think she was past it. (At least from comment threads.) And she was a nice antidote sometimes to the twisted, snapping towels in the Unfogged locker room. But it *is* ogged's blog, not mine; and she's got more than enough link traffic.
Geez. High school.
And once again, I'm totally lost because I don't have a clue which clique I'm supposed to belong in.
she simply isn't anywhere near over the line in the way that Ward Churchill is. If you think they're comparable, then I don't know if we've got much hope of convincing each other of much.
Jesus. No. That's not what I think.
all the women who are aggressive about defending their viewpoints
Are you being deliberately obtuse? There's a big difference between being "aggressive about defending your viewpoints" and being a pompous, hardheaded demagogue. You can recognize this distinction between people on the right, can you not? And let me try again to clear something up: it's not just the angry tone (OR presence of profanity - considering the way I talk, it would be astoundingly hypocritical of me to judge the quality of anyone else's arguments by that standard) by itself; it's the way one structures one's comments so as to leave absolutely no room for either reasonable divergence or even just plain good faith on the part of one's opponents. That combined with the angry tone, the condescension, the haughtiness, and so forth, yield a result of "this person is not someone I want to have a debate with". I'm sorry, but if I had taken B's typical approach, I don't think I would've gotten anywhere with anyone in this thread. I'd've long since written everyone, including those like Chopper who backed by account of the conversation with B while disagreeing with me in a reasonable way, as "idiots".
Does this make any sense at all? If not, then I guess you're right- we probably don't have much to say to each other, which is really too bad.
And Mithras, your continued insensitivity and failure to recognize the social plight of Americans with 75 IQs is causing me no end of grief and despair. I hope you will someday soon recognize the terrible effects of your wanton disregard for the feelings of ASFIQs, and make a concerted effort to reform your discriminatory and elitist ways.
PZ,
Join my clique. We get ignored by everyone until we do something clever, and then they forget about us again 5 minutes later.
I'm in that clique too, sans the clever
Can I join your clique? PZ Myers can join as long as he continues to provide us links to pictures of tiptoeing octopuses (octopi?). They were... bitchin'.
now that we have a clique, when do we start insulting each other unreasonably and reduntantly? Or do we find another clique and insult them?
Everyone is welcome. I believe that back in high school, we were called the geeks and freaks or someshit like that.
It was supposed to stop after high school?
The direction of our clique's aggression should, of course, be determined democratically. Perhaps we should practice on each other first, and then gang upon the Mineshaft crowd?
Here goes: Cala, thou wreched harpy! You only make that suggestion because you are so unreasonable, profane, and foul-smelling. I'll bet your IQ is very low!
Oh yeah Textualist? You're ugly.
how could you know that, fabricator?! You either lie through your teeth, or you are stalking me, and know every little dirty secret of mine. If that be so, you are a dirty stalker. Either way, incapable of reasonable discussion.
Thou cross-gartered, yellow-girdled knave! Express thy views politely, or be cast, yea verily, into the ETHER.
(This is tricky. I see why they resort to cock jokes.)
but more importantly, where is the cock joke crowd?
Isn't the real problem here that you are both latently sexist/racist? Otherwise you would not mistreat me so. Thine mind is filled with disgusting bits of rotten cheese and unyeilding pimples; you hate me for unreasonable reasons, and for that reason, call me unreasonable.
and your cock is puny in comparison to my cock. This be proven by your insulting words.
Our clique's first cock joke! We're so proud!
You lie, however. We could prove that your cock is smaller, but alas; I have no microscope.
Profgrrrl! Sister scholar and creator of those fabulous recipes! Join our clique. Ogged eats hedgehogs.
nay, only if you inverted the lenses, in effect, creating a telescope, could the entirety of my abundance be view'd.
Ka-ching!
Just to clear one thing up, it's not the presence of profanity which irks me, it's certain uses which do. Namely, hostile, aggressive uses of profanity might irk me. Other than that, cuss all you fucking want and it won't bother me.
Michael, join our clique. Relax and have a fucking cocktail. ;)
Michael is already party of the Michael clique. It is the most powerful and successful of cliques, dispite the fact that it's sole occupant is a bum. That just further proves how powerful the clique is. The Michael clique makes the Skulls and Bones fag for us. My clique and my clique's PHATCOCK4U!!1! is through talking to your clique. All your peni are pimply.
fucking cock jokes! yeah!
But, ummm, keep the pimply peni away from me.
not sure we can promise that, it being a frathaus and all, and Camilla Paglia being in the news this week.
This is ridiculous. You guys are all being deliberately obtuse.
This is definitely better. Can I defect from the Mineshaft clique, or have I already too firmly established my Shaftian credentials in this thread?
I don't know about obtuse, but I am very deliberately oblong. Or at least my cock is.
obtuse is the new acute. We will accept defections for the next 24 hours; after that, annihilation.
Walter, if you can tell us the secrets of Mineshaft (whether Ogged has one, or two syllables), we'll consider your application.
In our last Mineshaft Supreme Council meeting, 'Ogged' usually had one syllable, while 'cock' had two. I'm not sure if that answers your question.
Wheras the phrase, "Ogged's cock" inexplicably has 7 syllables. Pondering over this has caused more than one linguist to go mad.
you know what they say about the number of syllables ...
namely: the bigger the number, the longer it takes you to say whatever it is you want to say.
It probably is better that I've started just joking around, since I'm tired of getting three screenfuls of rationalization every time I point out that you've been doing nothing but picking on someone who isn't here, then complaining about the uncongenial atmosphere.
Textualist, whats all this letting in any one who wants to be in crap? I leave for an hour, and all of the sudden our clique is no longer a clique, but the IT that everyone will grow to hate. Good god!
By the way, I'm six feet tall, but those short urinals? I'm the reason they're in every bathroom.
But I do like that now we're trying to cultivate a mock non-congenial atmosphere.
Adam, and 'mock' is the word of the day.
Cocktail?
'Ogged' usually had one syllable, while 'cock' had two.
That's the Farsi pronunciation: kha'ack.
tweedle -- we must get sufficiently large before we can turn on each other. It's too difficult now. Cocksucker.
BTW, I am the reason that the urinals are as wide as they are.
I know a family of men with exceedingly short, fat cocks.
How do I know this? It's a religious thing.
My cock is sufficiently large enough for me to turn on... Oh nevermind.
I once knew a family of men with extremely long, wire-thin peni that were really quite fragile. But it had nothing to do with religion.
Kotsko, ferchrissakes, make up your own mind about whether you want to be congenial or not. One minute you're in a full Unfogged groove, and the next you come back with some shit about "rationalization" when all I was trying to do was explain my position? Would you rather I took the Mithras route and just called you a sackless little nancy-boy with the IQ of a vegetative hedgehog? That wouldn't be very congenial, now would it?
If LB is still reading - my impression is that the guys like you here so much precisely because you are opinionated. I said before I find Dr. B interesting, but I totally see what they're talking about. I had an email exchange with her once, over the women & blogging thing, and she nearly bit MY head off, when I agreed with her.
You mean, if they converted.... would it change length?
Just so it is not mischaracterized...what I remember B saying to WS was that men are indeed entitled to an opinion on abortion, but that the problem for men is that, to men, these types of situations are an abstract issue in a way that it isn't for women. Ergo, their opinion really only matters if women grant them a say: women should be the ultimate choicemakers because they are the ones who have to carry the pregnancy to term.
I don't find that objectionable, in fact I rather find it makes sense...
If they convert to Catholocism, does that mean their peni feel guilty and shrivel up and die?
The "religious thing" is that in the denominational university which I and these two brothers attended, there were community showers in the male dorms, such that, for example, one guy who kept to himself was commonly referred to as "the uncircumcized guy." So over time, I came to see that both of these brothers had short, fat cocks, which I also came to see, over time, as a relatively rare thing.
I can't remember the exact situation in which I saw the dad's cock, too, but no one who went to that school would find it implausible that I had.
One of my friends, who is now in the air force, once complained, "Man, the guys on this floor have got ugly cocks. I have never seen so many ugly cocks."
Oh, the dad was an intramural director and was probably in there taking a shower with the volleyball team or something, for team spirit purposes.
And Walter: yeah, I know. It's weird that I would do that.
And here I was thinking you were going to say he was a priest at the school.
Great. You all are being congenial and telling cock jokes - or at least memories - and here I come, being all rational and whatnot. Well, I would very much like to comment on ash's response at #67 to my earlier comment, so:
Spoiler: Serious comment (i.e., thoroughly lacking in cock jokes) ahead.
"I've just now revisited her main blog, read the current posts and remain with the same opinion. And it is just that, my opinion. I do not understand the attraction of anger, negativity and obscenity as applied to issues that deserve serious consideration.
"Well, I am a big, obnoxious, irritating, lunatic (not literally, thank you), un-pc (in ANY context) gun-owning, truck-driving Texan. I think you completely allowed to find Dr. B. not to your taste and me as well. It doesn't bother. I wuvvv Dr. B. and I ALSO think Kevin Drum is pretty cool, and I frequently disagree with both of them. But then I read and like Vox Day, in spite of frequently disagreeing with him, his masculine supremacist position and his annoying braggadicio. And Steve Sailer. And Red Ken Thompson. And Aquaria, and so on. Obviously, I am a bad and evil racist, sexist, female supremacist, male supremacist, communist, libertarian, conservative, liberal right-winger pinko who will shortly be taken out and shot."
(Note: The first paragraph is from my original post; the second is part of ash's response.) Of course, we are in agreement on the "I think you completely allowed to find Dr. B. not to your taste and me as well." As for the rest of the above, I'm unsure as to how it responds to what I said. Sounds like you read a wide variety of writers, but you are not what you read.
If you're suggesting that I think a person is what she reads/watches/listens to, that is not the case. I neither advocate nor practice reading/watching/listening to only nice people.
"*I* don't go for what is known as Rational, Civil Discussion. The (social custom) of Rational Civil Discussion, is often cover for 'you are allowed to disagree with me, as long as you keep quiet about it and don't change anything', in MY goddamned opinion."
What you refer to as "Rational Civil Discussion" may well be a cover for maintaining the status quo, but this isn't necessarily always the case. I'll guess we've all been party to a civil, rational discussion in which ideas were successfully and respectfully aired and debated. Maybe participants changed their minds and/or left the discussion better informed about the topic. It happens every day, everywhere…in classrooms, homes, workplaces, diners, bars, on the phone, etc. Should it happen more often? Yes. And should more people be included in the debate? Yes. Are discussions always so rational, civil and productive? Of course not. But is it always a cover? No, not at all.
"I prefer my opinions delivered with a metaphorical aluminum bat containing as much profanity as can be gratuitously managed. How lower-class of me."
Sounds like you know what you like, yet I'm afraid I don't follow why you would conclude that your preferences render you lower class.
"Metaphorically speaking, I don't have much use for women without balls, and men without big honking ass-kicking ovaries, to bend the gender a lot. People not like that seem nebbishy to me. ('If you won't fight, what good are you?') I like vicious, friendly argumentation.
"But then, a great deal of most 'rational' argumentation seems to me to be the rationalization of irrational emotional reactions. And the 'de-blog-rolling' of Prof. B. seemed right up that alley. And the (natural) reaction to that, the same. I can't say I was thrilled to have someone say they wanted to wring my neck - but it was mostly puzzlement ('Seems like an awful complicated way to commit suicide')."
Again, you know what you like; I have nothing to say re: your preferences. I will say that I'm not sure what "vicious" yet "friendly" argumentation would be, but if you like it and can find it, more power to you.
I'm not sure I follow the second paragraph here. Are you saying that rational discussion serves to mask our irrational and emotional yet valid reactions?
Because I am unaware of the neck wringing reference, I'm afraid I can't comment on that.
"If you don't care for Ms. B., feel free, and you can even dress it up in rationality, but I personally expect it has a lot more to do with 'cogeniality', also known as 'personality conflict' in the happy face trade."
I've already said my dislike of BPhD's writing (again, not BPhD herself; I am in no position to have formed such an opinion) is due, in part, to what I perceive as a lack of congeniality. I'm also unconvinced that her choice of self-expression is in the best interest of advancing the issues important to her.
"Alas, in the blog world, much like the BBS world, everybody has to make it into a big drama, cuz it adds excitement to a sometimes boring pasttime.
"Well, that's just fucking big hairless monkeys for ya."
I'm unsure as to what exactly you mean to say in the first paragaraph. And, although I've seen references here and there to hairless monkeys, I don't understand the reference and so can't comment on that.
There are several points of your response that are unclear to me. Clarification is welcome, if you are so inclined.
Could someone please tell me how to do stuff in comments like italicize, bold, etc.? Or point me to someplace that explains it? I think my most recent comment would have been easier to read if I'd known how to do this stuff. Thanks.
<i>text</i> makes italics
<b>text</b> makes bold
I'm upset that hedgehogs are being used as part of an insult back in 149.
But they are vegetable hedgehogs! I bet they are made with radishes, just like the vegetable flowers that they put on salads!
Between vegetable hedgehogs and the plush ones that dogs chew on and stories of people baking them in clay and eating them ... I just don't get it. Why does everyone want to somehow eat hedgehogs?
A quill in the tongue for all who suggest it, I say!
re: 159, it's really not true. Bold and italicized formatted text is generally more annoying to read.
Jeezie Creezie. I'll never spend another weekend away from my computer, I swear.
I know you've all been waiting for my $.02 on this, so here it is, at long last:
(a) I like B a lot.
(b) Ogged has the right to blogroll what he chooses.
(c) Notwithstanding (b), Ogged shouldn't have done what he did publicly. Aside from being rather poor form, it obviously caused a lot of disharmony in his own house that's still lurking beneath the surface. So, sort of self-defeating, from where I'm sitting. But like I said, this is his house, so he can run it the way he wishes.
(d) Avacados suck avacado cocks.
(e) Hedgehogs.
Avacados suck avacado cocks
Once again with the acrimony and unnecessary lack of congeniality. What the hell did avocados ever do to you?
Let's just say that I'd have to describe it in language unfit for the likes of Michael.
Why does everyone want to somehow eat hedgehogs
Because they have the word "hog" attached to the end of their name. If you called scorpions "sand lobsters," you could probably sell them as delicacies.
And therefore, I refuse to even spell them properly.
Re 164, it's not really true. In this particular case, different formatting to indicate different levels of quotation would have been helpful. You wouldn't have to emphasize the entire quoted passage--the first few words would do--but it would be a more obvious sign than just wrapping the quotations in ' or ".
Let me wholeheartedly endorse Joe D.'s comment at 165, (apart from the bit about avocados, which, while it may be true, I have no special knowledge of), and be moderately shamefaced about the exent to which this kerfuffle became about me.
Much cooler now.
People want to eat hedgehogs because they're cute ... and dangerous.
Cute foods taste better than uncute foods: lamb is better than cow, rabbit is better than chicken, etc.
Dangerous foods are more sexxy than safe plain foods.
Plus I bet a not insignificant proportion of people eyeing hedgepigs as a food source are hoping that some kind of transference of spine-stiffness will occur.
Why do I like hedgehogs? Because after you are done with them, you have plenty of toothpicks to get rid of whatever is between your teeth.
People want to eat hedgehogs because they're yummy. For some reason, the practice has fallen out of favour:
"Traditionally a favourite dish has been roast hedgehog....It is said that the hedgehog is rick with a flavour similar to that of pork. Traditioanlly, the hedgehog is flavoured with garlic and then placed over burning hot coals or stones (skin and all)."
(The poor writing makes it a good source, right?)
And what does everyone have against avocado dick sucking. Why deny them pleasure just because they are green and nonfattening?
What about avocado semen, is that fattening?
What about avocado semen
It's the pits.
Surely you concede it's an important thing to know.
Surely you concede it's an important thing to know.
When you curse the following response, w-lfs-n, just remember how substantially you lowered the bar with your avocado semen reference in the first place.
Ahem:
It's not important, and don't call me Shirley.
There's a concede/succeed/suck seed pun waiting to happen here, but I'm a little busy at the moment.
Anglo-Saxon cock joke -- with, if you click on the solution, a bonus guacamole reference.
Dude, this was when cock jokes were being invented, making them funny was centuries in the future.
Geez, here I am again, late to the party.
Not that anyone asked for or cares about my vote, but I liked Bphd and her comments. She seemed to have enough time and interest to talk about them in depth, and she holds her convictions firmly. Some say she is extremely irritating? It would be worthwhile to consider why one takes her that way.
But, remember when I said I liked the energy of youth? I do, but sometimes the earnestness can get to be too much.
Like someone else says, this is just so high school that it is actually funny as a parody!
Clearly some of this stuff matters very much to some people and that is very interesting.
LizardBreath,
Dude, this was when cock jokes were being invented, making them funny was centuries in the future.
I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that the first cock joke is attributed to Adam:
Adam: Stand back, we don't know how big this thing will get.
Tripp: Old and Busted
Me: New Hotness
QED.
Walter,
Tripp: Old and Busted
Heh heh guilty as charged. In my defense I would like to point out that I have survived long enough to reproduce four times.
When you've found something that you like and are good at being right all the time doesn't seem as important anymore.
I'm talking about being a father of course.
What exactly was demonstrated by 186?
That which was to be demonstrated.
I knew you were going to say that.
washerdreyer,
What exactly was demonstrated by 186?
If I'm reading the guycode (tm) correctly Walter called me pussy-whipped in 186 but I trumped that in 187 with "at least I'm getting laid," which wins all arguments between guys.
Walter could come back with something about his pride or integrity or something like that but, geez, at least I'm getting laid.
w-lfs-n is a dick.
QE fucking D.
w-lfs-n is a dick.
But of what sort: a really short erect one, or really long or rubbery flaccid one?
I lack the epistemic priors to answer that.
Actually, Tripp, it was just a line from Men in Black. The focus was on the "old" part, since you were complaining about this thread being like high school.
That which was to be demonstrated was that my "high school" style of argument is far superior to Tripp's simply by virtue of my "New Hotness"-hood.
SNAP!
You know, when I was at high school it was sort of different: John Lennon's shooting, Hawkwind being the coolest music since the creation, how hot the new maths teacheress was etc.
Universal peace (specially to the girls) and, err no haytin
'course we played Rugby too...so I guess that made up for it all
Men In Black foul on the old and busted. Five yards!
Hawkwind being the coolest music since the creation
They did give the world Lemmy, after all.
And created only the second word in the English language with a w-k-w run in it.
Lemmy? I recall that Motorhead possesed a creature who used the sobriquet...
On long evening, when the wind is high and the rain hammers against the windows, I still put a Jethro Tull Schallplatten on the gramophone and reminiss....
Old and Busted can be fun Tripp!
Austro, I'll let you off light this time since you're from For'nerland, but it's "reminisce". Get it right next time, you avocado.
Who would win in a fight? Lemmy, or God?
Yessir, nossir.
Have you been taking lessons from Mr w-lfs-n? Or did you know that all along?
The real reason for my illiteracy is not nationality. I was a scientist and was therefore excused from spelling bees at school.
Chopper: That question puts me in fear of mah eeternal soul...
Walter,
Actually, Tripp, it was just a line from Men in Black.
Uh huh.
...far superior to Tripp's . . .
Sure.
At least I'm getting laid.
Austro, trick question: Lemmy is God.
None of this solves my problem: Who's God?
Hello God. I was wondering why you haven't given us world peace yet. I was hoping you didn't misunderstand. We already had whirled peas.
Thanks,
Tweedle
Hey tweedz,
Actually, you live in the best of all possible worlds. Hard to believe, isn't it? Took me by surprise but it's the truth.
Hi God--
Could you, once and for all, straighten out the distinction between "who's" and "whose?"
Actually, you live in the best of all possible worlds
Oh my God, are you telling me we live in... the Matrix?
P.S. Sorry to take Your name in vain there. My bad.
Previous evidence to the contrary: I meant what I wrote. But I 'll admit it was weak, taken on both fronts.
So Mr w-lfs-n thinks he's Pangloss and God, does he? Would Leibniz approve?
Leibniz can suck my turkey andouille sausage till the spices leach out.
But Ben, 221 contradicts 216. Even if it would be worth Blogging.
Leibniz can suck my turkey andouille sausage till the spices leach out.
This makes me think: we should try to find (or create) the nerdiest cock joke of all time. w-lfs-n's 221 has to be on the -ahem- short list.
Apostropher, thanks for the info re: formatting. I wish I'd thought to ask about that first, so the post would have been easier to read.
Here's another question - totally OT (i.e., again, wholly lacking in cock references) - that I'm quite certain someone here can answer: How do I write the possessive forms of the words "process" and "processes"? Besides an apostrophe, do I add an "s" in either case? TIA.
Singular "of the process"; plural "of the processes". When in doubt, avoid.
What would it look like if I didn't use "of the"? I'd like to be able to use that option. Would it be:
process' or process's?
and
processes' or processes's?
I'll guess it's the former in both cases, but I really don't know.
This makes me think: we should try to find (or create) the nerdiest cock joke of all time. w-lfs-n's 221 has to be on the -ahem- short list.
I think he already has that one beat. See here.
Wow, eb, I think you're right. Although Apostropher's response a few lines down should not be ignored:
Speak for yourself. My cock produces realities, not phantoms.
By the way, I'm starting to get the impression that an even higher percentage than I had thought of the commenters here are professors. For example, I had missed that whole thing about LB's sister being set up with KC Johnson. Can anyone confirm this impression?
And eb, two more excellently high-nerd-factor cock jokes from that thread:
From Kotsko:
does the "meta" apply to the whole phrase "cock jokes," or just to "cock"?
(One could say that the Freudian phallus is a kind of "meta-cock." Then we could tell jokes about that.)
And w-lfs-n again:
Fontana Labs never meta cock he didn't like.
I'm on the fucking floor here.
annie, I'd say process's and processes'. (Quotes omitted for clarity.)
I remember a professor tell me that it didn't really matter when you had an s at the end. You'll see it get messed around with a lot with names (i.e. Chris' and Chris's). You can really do the normal rules. Nobody is going to challenge you, I think, if you have an extra s in there.
For example, I had missed that whole thing about LB's sister being set up with KC Johnson.
Doesn't involve any actual professors other than Johnson. I'm a lawyer, she's a doctor. (Well, the mutual acquaintance is a professor, but as far as I know doesn't comment here.)
Doesn't involve any actual professors other than Johnson. I'm a lawyer, she's a doctor.
Oh... I just kinda thought, you know, that whole social circle thing, and, well, never mind.
(Note: I was going to write "I have no idea what I'm talking about" after that last sentence, but then I stopped and thought about it, and, calculating the odds that Kotsko would check back in one last time just long enough to say "Walter, that's the smartest thing you've said in this thread," I managed to come up with a probability greater than one. So I decided not to even go there, so to speak.)
That Kancho thing is freakishly odd. Japanese schoolchildren are surely aware of sex, and it's a society fairly famous for it's taboos. So, what is it that makes this behavior acceptable for them? Is the black American so de-sexualized, that his penis (diku) is completely disassociated from all sexual taboos? Maybe some of the commentators from Japan can help me out here.
I do live in Japan, but have never heard of Kancho, so can't comment explicitly. However, I can say that sex is not hidden here -- or, at least, porn is not, which is readily available at any store, in the open, and manga comics can be quite graphic. The only taboo in this regard is that it pubic hair cannot be shown. Go figure. Also, it is very common for people to stop and take a leak in broad daylight, without bothering to turn toward a building or anything, which may account for some of this Kancho game.
Have you ever asked another regular to leave?
I don't believe that this question has been answered yet. Yes
. abc123.
The best cock joke I've read on here is the one where someone said that "w-lfs-n's penis" "never misuses a colon." I tried to find the thread but couldn't, and I don't remember who should get the credit for it. Someone'll link to it, I'm sure.
Here you go, Clancy. My God, that was gobsmackingly hilarious.
The "meta cock" thing is pretty classic.
Thanks, Matt and LB, for the 's' help.
Next, youll want to make sure that the table you have selected is actually for blackjack, build craps table for the day with Mr Arky.