If it had been me, I would have wanted to know (and been quite unable to ask, obviously) how on earth he was making such a noise just pulling his pud.
Possibly his parents wanted to know, too, but then how would you ask? Still, so long as he wasn't damaging the paintwork...
In my mind's eye the phrase "cycling through the house" arrived with actual unicycles.
He's jumping up and down with the sheer joy of pleasuring himself.
How do autistics age? I.e., do they typically become, with care, more communicative in their 30s, 40s and on, or is the degree of expressiveness that they achieve in adolescence the limit?
"Pleasuring himself" sounds just a bit squicky, but it's probably the best phrase for the parents to use in the context, unless they want to go for the straightforward "masturbating."
It's generally easier to be loud than to be quiet.
There's always "Using his own body as a playground"
If it had been me, I would have wanted to know (and been quite unable to ask, obviously) how on earth he was making such a noise just pulling his pud.
Some extra vigorous rhythmic rocking into the closet walls?
6: Not to mention "Narfling the garthok."
My daughter isnt afraid of sticking one or both of her hands down her pants for a quick, vigorous rub.
She has gotten better about doing it in public, but it still happens sometimes.
How do autistics age?
One day at a time.
Sexuality is such a touchy subject for autistic people.
Ok, on a more serious note, I want to combined threads somewhat.
My daughter has difficulty managing her emotions. One large part of this is that she does not have good mechanisms for releasing stress, except to scream or get angry. (hey! Just like her mother!)
Two ways that non-autistics release release stress is by physical exertion or sexual release (hopefully not at the office, Apo and Stanley). Sufficient physical exertion is difficult for my daughter because she does not sweat (prob due to medications tht she takes.)
I say this only because it's you, and you're a swim guy, but does she know how to swim? (Obviously, I've got no idea if that's easily within her capacities, or not remotely possible.) Wouldn't that solve the exercise without sweating problem? Although I suppose you can't easily go swim impulsively to burn off some emotional energy.
Swimming is an excellent answer. But, she tends to bounce around more than actually swim enough to burn much energy.
We go for lots of walks, but the heat is an inhibitor.
the heat is an inhibitor
You could go mall walking with the retirees.
Then, she searches the stores for their black Marks-a-Lot brand permanent markers.
"MMAARRRKKKKKKKKKKERRRRRRRRRRRRRS????"
Not only has PK discovered the
morning hardon, he's also starting to get acne. At 8.
So far, though, no hair on palms.
|| Wait, one of my downstairs neighbours just used the word "cock-a-mamie" when shouting to someone else -- this is not acceptable discourse in East London. |>
18: They are growing up fast these days. Hormones in the water.
19: Well, it's not acceptable discourse anywhere else. I'm afraid you're stuck with her
It was a him, he was complaining about a door he couldn't lock from the inside. He sounded posh but so do I. Hackney contains multitudes.
10. Apo wins the thread.
18: BSLABPHDICTIPAOWH.
12: Would something physical and attention-requiring, but not sweating-strenuous, serve? Sometimes I juggle to get office stress off my mind.
Sometimes I juggle to get office stress off my mind.
Oh, is that what the kids are calling it these days?
24: Does one make jelly, jam or marmalade out of low-hanging fruit?
20.2: I reject that notion. What's wrong with cockamamie? Unfogged is full of cockamamie ideas.
26: It's a racist slur against Cockneys. Or maybe penises.
25: Depends on the kind and condition of the fruit, plus how much straining is involved.
BSLABPHDICTIPAOWH
Pronounced "Whump! Whump! Whump!".
Obligatory: Cry, Cry, Whump!³, Cry
28: That's what your mother said last night, Trebek!
31: In the form of a question, please.
Flippanter, I have always wondered: Is your pseudonym supposed to mean "one who flippants" or "more flippant"?
"one who flippants"
Oh, is that what the kids are calling it these days?
33: I have always thought of it as a portmanteu of "flippant" and "instanter."
Portmanteau. I am amazed that I can spell "Flippanter."
Oh, is that what the kids are calling it these days?
Actually, these days, the kids are calling it "masturbation". Very clinical, the kids.
37: I'm okay with them doing it in the clinic. I just hate it when they try to do it on my lawn.
38: "Please curb your kid. It's the law."
I heard that Obama's healthcare plan is mandates that parents bring their children to masturbation clinics weekly.
39: I don't have your e-mail address with me here at work (can't access webmail from this secure facility). Can you remind me what it is, or else can it wait for tonight?
41: True, but it won't let you choose which clinic. That's left up to some Washington bureaucrat.
BSLABPHDICTIPAOWH.
Is this going to get repeated every time Bitch posts?
44: I think so. Someone should probably delete the comments that contain repetitive trolling of that sort as well.
Is this going to get repeated every time Bitch posts?
Captain Queeg is going to find those fucking strawberries, just you watch.
Captain Queeg is going to find those fucking strawberries
Oh, is that what the kids are calling it these days?
(Sorry, I'll stop now)
47: No, it's the only way we'll learn.
I was going to mention this on the other thread, but suddenly it seems apt here. I have decided that the things that cause me the greatest anxiety are those which I really can't change but somehow make myself crazy trying to figure out how to change anyway.
I was looking for good female wrestling pictures to represent B and Jes, but now I think they should be represented by giant fighting robots.
50: No need to be anxious, Di. Just ask and I'll stop saying "Oh, is that what the kids are calling it these days?".
I have no desire whatsoever to engage J, as a robot or otherwise, and I hereby vow to ignore that fucking cunt from here on out.
Or maybe Itchy and Scratchy.
I hereby vow to ignore that fucking cunt
One down, one to go.
I've read this case a ton of times, but I have no recollection of this line:
"In the case Planned Parenthood v Casey, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy explained his difficulty in coming to a decision (he ultimately sided with the Pro-Choice majority ruling) as follows: "Sometimes you don't know if you're Caesar about to cross the Rubicon or Captain Queeg cutting your own tow line." "
True, but it won't let you choose which clinic. That's left up to some Washington bureaucrat.
Oh, but it's not just the clinic! There's gonna be one bureaucrat who chooses the clinic, and another bureaucrat who chooses the porn you kid gets to watch! I ask you, do you want your kid to be forced to watch Anal Examiners 4, or do you want him to have the choice to show him Library Sluts 3, like a good Christian family might?
But I do hear that if your kid doesn't want to masturbate inside a clinic, there will also be a public option.
Not if the Blue Dogs get their way.
57: I know how he feels. Sometimes I can't tell if I'm tiliting at windmills, challenging the devil to a fiddling contest, or Papa Smurf.
THE INVISIBLE HAND PROVIDES THE MOST EFFICIENT MASTURBATION. ALSO, 50% OF HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS HAVE MASTURBATED A BLUE DOG.
Whenever I talk to a libertarian, I feel like I'm being given an invisible hand job.
62: I had this problem once, but you guys totally talked me out of it.
Actually, I think "invisible hand job" should be the name of a specific fallacy. Any time someone assures you, without any evidence, that the market will take care of itself, you should be able to say "stop giving me an invisible hand job!"
Actually I think it's more like being fisted by the invisible hand. Against your will.
"stop giving me an invisible hand job!"
That's called a McArdle.
Metaphor is a harsh mistress, particularly when her hands are dry and chapped.
The invisible hand gives you the fist, and having fisted moves on.
|| What are you all doing for the 40th anniversary of Woodstock? Which I wouldn't care about except that PK and I have already made arrangements to go visit a friend and tie dye a bunch of shit.
Then we're going to weave flowers in our hair and get totally baked together.
70: I bought my father the new Blu-ray box set of the movie. Having been there, I assume he required no additional reminder, but I suppose I could truck some mud into the room where the big television and speakers are.
Let's talk about our experiences masturbating in clinics! For me it a series of visits over a decade ago. The urologist thoughtfully provided a stack of magazines and a TV with a selection of videos, but I couldn't cope with the thought of touching anything in the room (other than the sterile container and, uh, me) and was in a hurry, so I left it all unused. For some reason it amused me that the urologist recognized that gays as well as straights seek fertility diagnoses and/or vasectomy verifications.
Since the doctor was close to my office, I would schedule visits during the work day. "Meeting at 2:00?" "Let's make it 2:15. I have to masturbate at 2:00."
Let's talk about our experiences masturbating in clinics!
It passes the time, but tends to distract others in the waiting room.
I have to masturbate at 2:00
...or I turn back into a pumpkin.
"Let's make it 2:15. I have to masturbate at 2:00."
Who says you have to stop crying masturbating?
Having been there, I assume
You were there?
</nosflow>
70: I belong to the Society for Deliberate Obfuscation. We're going to make giant yellow bird and parade down the street.
We're going to make giant yellow bird and parade down the street.
Sesame Street?
4: I think they do not become more communicative, but that's ex recto, so. One of my friends tutors autistics, I should see if he has any good stories.
Re: invisible hand-jobs and libertarians: The Iron First Behind the Invisible Hand. Hehe.
I never used to understand the hate that libertarians received, but then I realized that the most outspoken (= most well-funded) ones were total dicks and really not radical at all (in their philosophies or lifestyles). I still have a fondness for the basic libertarian suspicion, though, since it was, for me, a sort of entry point to anarchism, feminism, and, in general, consciousness of the manifold systems of repression. Teenage libertarians usually show promise; it's those who are forever stuck in what they figured out when they were 16 who are lame.
I never used to understand the hate that libertarians received
I suspect that part of it is the fact that the hand isn't only invisible, but also myopic and not very bright.
Much moreso though, is the aspect "fuck you, I've got mine" that practically (though not by necessity) seems to go hand in glove with it much of the time.
the most outspoken (= most well-funded) ones were total dicks and really not radical at all (in their philosophies or lifestyles).
I don't understand why you expected them to be. Libertarianism is a philosophy designed to justify the capitalist status quo. Rand, Friedman, and Greenspan formed their basic philosophies as a rejection of Soviet style collectivism, and saw nothing oppressive in the US, except that sometimes the lower classes sometimes dragged the elite down by guilting them into being charitable.
Sesame Street?
Our chapter did the Mr. Snuffleupagus one, but nobody saw it.
As I understand it, Rand in particular came from Russian royalty, and was really distressed at the way the rabble with their communism had brought down the greatness of her family.
||
Another GTMO prisoner ordered freed today. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/afghan-ordered-freed-trial-unsure/ I haven't seen anything about the guy ordered freed yesterday.
By my count, prisoners have won 29 cases that have gone to judgment, and the government has won 5 (including the Taliban cook kitchen assistant). The government has also given in on an undisclosed number -- it's all under seal, but likely more than the total number that have gone to judgment -- asking the courts to stay the cases while they try to arrange a transfer out.
|>
You people have it all wrong. Government is going to regulate how long you can masturbate. You will only be allocated a certain number of monthly masturabation minutes.
Men will receive more minutes than women, of course. Teenage boys will be give extra minutes to protect the virtue of teenage girls.
Fathers will be in charge of the minutes for their unmarried daughters.
How will rollover minutes work, Will?
Further to 85 -- I think one would struggle in vain to learn from the MSM what is happening as a result of real judges looking (or threatening to look) at the real evidence.
That's about par for the course with the MSM, isn't it?
87: If you roll over during your allotted time, that minute doesn't count. Easy-peasy.
From the MSM, I understand that trials of anyone held in a military prison would be impossible because all the evidence would be inadmissible because of all the enhanced interrogation techniques and torture and whatnot, so if we have trials everyone will go free, so we can't have any trials.
Considering that Unfogged already rigorously enforces the "no masturbating to dead people" rule, I think the barn door of public intervention into people masturbation has already been left open.
79: I'm breaking the society's rules, but by Woodstock, I meant Snoopy's bird friend from Peanuts.
Stanley and soup raise a good point. These minutes cannot be any time minutes.
92: After masturbating, it's very important to remember to, as they say, close the barn door.
Ayn Rand came from a Jewish family and was herself pro-Kerensky, so she certainly wasn't royal herself or a royalist: I don't think you can very sensibly be an ultra-capitalist and for Tsarism (not that Rand is a particularly sensible person.
Carp:
You probably want "real evidence" to mean something ridiculously impossible. You probably think real evidence does not include things like triple hearsay.
Why do you not trust American soldiers to testify truthfully about what they read in someone else's report summarizing an interrogator's summary of statements made by a tortured prisoner about what another prisoner told the tortured prisoner?
Commie.
Musicians and people who have caught the gay will also be given extra minutes in order to keep our children safe.
97: Hmm, I thought I might be wrong about that part.
Russian royalty has no use for the invisible hand. They use a horse.
98 -- The judges get all the evidence the government intends to offer before there's even a chance to object to any of it. They know the cases are crap even before hearing me (or someone like me) bloviate about the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh etc.
98 -- Think about this, Will: they're not even using US soldiers as sponsoring witnesses. Just introducing out of context snippets on paper.
101: What, you're going to take a Communist's word for it?
102, 103:
One would hope that anyone trained as a lawyer would understand why the cases are crap or why snippets of paper are problematic.
93: But Woodstock was a very *small* yellow bird.
107: Yes, but that would make for a very crappy parade. Plus we've got a ton of yellow crepe paper and chicken wire.
109: I dunno, I'm just treating that long unexplained acronym as you coughing up a loogie (sp?) now and again. Right, god that must be a pain, and in the meantime the conversation is about something else entirely. But I hope you're okay, and that it passes.
So basically, the only people who don't get extra minutes are heterosexual women who are not musicians?
I'm not sure the plan is fully described. Perhaps there are family minutes.
"Perhaps there are family minutes."
West Virginia jokes are just too common around here.
Does Unfogged have a problem with long, unexplained acronyms now?
No, but I think there may be some distaste for repetitive, out-of-context interjection of an interpersonal personal conflict that has nothing to do with this particular forum or the present conversation. At this point, I think we all get it. Just think it softly in your head, and we will all know you're still thinking it, okay?
Jes? So don't do it, please. I'd like you to continue to be around.
When my friend was regularly masturbating in clinics, he used to text us photos of the cubicle and the porn pile. Kind of pushing the boundaries of intimacy, that one.
In this country, if your child doesn't masturbate at school, the govt want to send someone round to check - without you being present - that your child is masturbating properly.
In this country, if your child doesn't masturbate at school, the govt want to send someone round to check - without you being present - that your child is masturbating properly.
"This country" = Vatican City?
115: Hm. I'll find it extremely interesting if I get banned from Unfogged for posting a comment to BitchPhD that irritates her only because it reminds her that I haven't forgotten about her transphobic comments: while BitchPhD goes unbanned for calling me - on multiple occasions - a fucking cunt.
And by "interesting" I mean: well, sod it. If you're going to ban me for that, you might just as well ban me: as Di Kotimy notes, everyone else thinks that BitchPhD's transphobic bigotry is just my "interpersonal personal conflict".
No, it's really not. BitchPhD's transphobic bigotry is all about the unapologetic destruction of joy. BitchPhD's belief that I'm being a fucking cunt for having not forgotten all about her crappy behavior in May, when it's almost the end of July, and everyone else's belief that this is just me getting personal, while Doctor Bitch is impersonally and politely responding to an acronym reminder of her own crappy behavior with ... well, "fucking cunt".
Fortunately, I like cunts. And I like fucking. And I rather like the action of giving joy to a woman via her cunt, too. That BitchPhD thinks "cunt" is an insult and "fucking cunt" is an even worse insult, just demonstrates that she should never try to be a lesbian... because hey: it's my sexual orientation to take joy in what she sees as insult.
You know, compared to a lot of Unfogged conflicts, Jesurgislac V. BPHD is pretty mild. If she gets banned, it only proves her point.
If she gets banned, it only proves her point.
Nah. Mostly Jes v. B is *boring*, and that's the cardinal sin here.
I'll be happy to fight with bob instead. Because that's entertainment!
Ari v. bob would indeed be entertainment. Particularly if nude and covered in butter and cornflakes.
Where's your respect for tradition, jms? bob and I will duel with broadswords in a pit 10 feet across and 12 feet deep. That is how real mean settle their differences.
real mean
I presume this is meant to represent how it sounds when said through gritted teeth and with a manly clenched jaw.
I would be opposed to banning Jesurgislac. If you don't like what she's saying, you can ignore it, for one thing--she's not exactly the ToS. And for another, either there's some content, however intermingled with cock jokes, involved in Unfogged or we're just all here for idle footling and maintaining the upper middle class consensus. If there is some content--if we actually mean anything we say about how to live (and even though everyone always disguises it as neurotic bibble-babble that's what folks here talk about most of the time--then there's going to be genuine disagreements that last for a while.
Now, a blog isn't a neighborhood; you're mostly just pixels to me, etc etc, but it would seem a shame if we had to resolve disagreements by pushing the person who has the temerity to remind us that they exist off stage.
118: Jes, for what it's worth, I don't think B. should have called you a fucking cunt. Extremely rude and uncalled for. But as they say, it's the internet.
118
... that irritates her only ...
You are mistaken.
125: See above. The problem is that there *isn't* any content; it's just Jes posting the same stuff every time B comments. A bot could do as good a job.
butter and cornflakes.
This is very insensitive to the lactose and gluten intolerant. I will never forget.
I totally love Frowner, by the way, for 125.1, even if she never did close her parenthesis.
TJ, Cornflakes have hardly any gluten. You should feel free to lick away.
...maintaining the upper middle class consensus.
"Who wouldn't want to be in a class so free, secure and amusing?"
133: Clearly your definition of amusement differs substantially from mine. Any class which--even when Fussell was writing--believed that "play at hide the salam' " was an adorable, fun, witty way to refer to sex (see, I made a cock joke! Or at least referred to one.) is no class to amuse me.
133: Clearly your definition of amusement differs substantially from mine.
Any definition of amusement that excludes licking butter off of bob mcmanus is one I want no part of.
135: One uses quotation marks for all sorts of purposes, some of them concurrent.
If you don't like what she's saying, you can ignore it, for one thing--she's not exactly the ToS.
How do we know? The ToS might be one of us, who sometimes posts interesting and amusing content, and sometimes switches to his/her other persona of smug troll.
I don't support banning Jes either. And yeah, B calling Jes a fucking cunt is bad too. But to me the difference is that B doesn't hang around and then every single time Jes posts anything, about anything, B jumps in and calls Jes a fucking cunt. Contrary to Frowner I find such behavior actually destructive of content.
And basically I just find Jes's recurrent acronym display annoying and childish, not to mention counterproductive to Jes's message (unless her only purpose is simply to annoy), which is why I've been making fun of it (and why I think JRKHTSAMA is so apt). I don't particularly think Jes's behavior is banworthy, but then it's not my blog.
140: Are you letting the mask slip, ned?
135: Okay, I know my lower-middle-classitude and general pretty-ham-fisted-with-the-punctuation qualities are showing, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. In Fussell, IIRC, the phrase is hide the salam' with the apostrophe because dropping the i is some additional witty upper middle class thing. Thus the ' and the ".
Alas, 137 came too late.
Better than coming too soon.
143: There are quotation marks in 134, too.
144: Or worse still, never coming at all.
Except actually 143 refers to 138. Now I see why it's best practice to quote and italicize. We can add "no facility with numbers" to the long list of my endearing qualities.
But I'll just carry right on.
141: It seems to me that if there are people posting here who actually care about stuff, we're going to get those don't-let-it-drop moments. It's not so much that the thing itself is the content but that it's the external cost of the content.
145: I suspected as much, but then I thought to myself, "Oh, I've obviously made some punctuation mistake, because I usually do."
148: The punctuation mistake that rouses the rattling serpent of my tongue is putting periods and serial commas outside quotation marks. Go back to the warm drinks and pasty complexions of your junior years abroad, sinners!
146: Is that transphobic, at least for one type of switch or the other?
147.3: The thing is, the conflict arose elsewhere, on Bitch's blog. I agreed with Jes over there. But using your neighborhood analogy, this is like following someone to their friends' house and picketing them there for what they did at work. Day after day. After day. M/tch gets it right: JRKHTSAMA. Banning might be a little much, but then, it's not my lawn.
143: general pretty-ham-fisted-with-the-punctuation
My dear woman, if that's a reference to my teasing about the parenthesis, I was teasing! What you're saying about these matters is exactly right, in my view. It may be because you're so right that I feel the need to tease. (Wanna go out?) (Kidding, because I'm straight.)
150: I hope not. It's always been my understanding that not coming is a letdown regardless of race, gender, orientation, religion....
Sorry, I went out to dinner.
Jes, I know you think you're striking a blow for equality and justice, but you're not. You're just being an obsessive pain in the ass to a bunch of people who were never involved in your dispute at any point. All because somebody repeated a joke you didn't approve of and then was not sufficiently contrite for you. Months ago. Somewhere else.
Josh is correct: it's fucking boring and supremely annoying. I'm not taking a poll about who's in favor of bannination or not. I've asked you to drop it several times, as have several other people. If you are just physically unable to stop bringing it up, then go talk to a therapist about it, get on some meds, start your own blog dedicated to shouting from the mountain what a terrible person BitchPhD is, whatever it takes. But stop fucking doing it here.
What is the sound that Christopher Robin makes when he plays with his bear?
147: don't-let-it-drop moments.
This is beyond a moment. This JRKHTSAMA is heading into prolonged "interferes with functioning" territory.
151: It's not my lawn either, but my experience of a couple of years of moderating a highly contentious forum on Compuserve tells me this isn't going to get better if left alone.
||
I'm making cupcakes. I've done this before, but last time the frosting wasn't quite what I wanted so I've learned my lesson about leaving the butter out so it gets to room temperature.
156: Hey, if were *my* lawn I'd go deleting shit randomly all the time, for far less. The groundskeeper has spoken.
157: Did you make enough to share?
Sadly, despite clicking through to the previous thread linked at 141, I have been unable to determine what JRKHTSAMA means. It may be unimportant.
Look at the last nine words of that comment.
Hm. I'll find it extremely interesting if I get banned from Unfogged for posting a comment to BitchPhD COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT that irritates her only because it reminds her that I haven't forgotten about her transphobic comments HALF THE MINESHAFT while BitchPhD goes unbanned for calling me - on multiple occasions - a fucking cunt IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO YOUR CHILDISH BEHAVIOR.
Hope that helps.
157: The Magnolia Bakery in my neighborhood receives large shipments of Jell-O chocolate pudding and Hershey toffee bars, if that helps, though it seems like cheating to me.
But. I'm just one blogger here, and not one that's even around that much. I can't ban you unilaterally, and shouldn't have even said the word without emailing everybody else first (I am not being browbeaten into this statement, just cooling off). Sorry.
But Jesus Christ, stop it already. You look insane. Nobody wants to hear about it.
I liken this not to a dialogue, but to booing. When Paul Wolfowitz makes a speech, people are free to boo him. But, you know, the benighted souls who want to hear what he has to say will not respect him any less because they are now aware that he has a nonzero number of enemies.
159: Yes, but I have to share them at work tomorrow. I've finished the frosting and it came out right. The cupcakes look good, but they are still cooling. (How somebody old enough to have said 'that will never happen' when Reagan said 'tear down this wall' wound-up working in an office with treat-day is another issue.)
164 to all interpersonal conflicts everywhere.
As long as we're making statements, Ham-Love, cut that out. You are being shouty. It's obnoxious. B's behavior in calling Jes a fucking cunt is also extremely childish.
164: I am using the Magnolia Bakery's cookbook (though I'm making vanilla as I want to have that mastered before I start to add stuff). The cupcakes are not as high as I'd like, so I'm worried that they will be a bit dense.
I'm only being shouty because of the blinding rage. Sorry about that.
I would enjoy a cupcake right now, or as we like to call them, "selfish cakes".
You people had salami and didn't save any for me? Bastards.
Because everybody gets their own individual cake or because nobody every gives one away?
We're all having an objectivist pot-luck at which sharing is prohibited. Or as I like to call it, "hoard the salami".
I now want cupcakes. At least I have redfoxtailshrub's plum cake to satisfy me.
Because everybody gets their own individual cake or because nobody every gives one away?
Because everybody gets their own. It started when one friend grumped about the (then newer) cupcake trend, saying there were any number of other pastries he'd rather eat instead, and another friend said, "What! But a cupcake is a personal cake that says 'You are deserving of a private cake!'"
You people had salami and didn't save any for me? Bastards.
There goes BitchPhD, demonstrating extreme insensitivity to people born out of wedlock.
At least I have redfoxtailshrub's plum cake to satisfy me.
Mmmmm. I was hankering for some plum cake myself just this morning. Alas, no plums in the house. Oh! But if I get some at the farmer's market on Saturday, I can share plum cake with friends spending the night on Sunday!
169:YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF US!!!!!!!
I refuse to eat my dessert until I have some salami.
I made brownies from Norway today, and they taste weird, like they have gelatin in them or something.
It's fitting that the topic has turned to cupcakes. Discussing baked goods is the traditional way Unfogged overcomes divisiveness and pain.
I made brownies from Norway today, and they taste weird, like they have gelatin in them or something.
Do they have gelatin in them?
At least I have redfoxtailshrub's plum cake to satisfy me.
Mmmmm. I was hankering for some plum cake myself just this morning.
You seem awfully sanguine, rfts, considering Parenthetical stole your plum cake. The very thing you were craving, and she just up and took it!
Do they have gelatin in them?
It's hard to read Norwegian.
183: That what you get for making brownies out of a Scandinavian country. I just tried my first cupcake and it came out very nice. Next time I'm going to lemon them up.
In Norway, they call brownies gnomes. Or is that trolls?
You seem awfully sanguine, rfts, considering Parenthetical stole your plum cake. The very thing you were craving, and she just up and took it!
I heard that she was really very hungry.
It's the curing of Norwegian brownies that gives them that odd flavor.
I once had a gnome, or should I say he once had me.
190: To the Monster Manual!
191: Are you sure you're not Parenthetical's Jewish mother? "Oh, don't mind me, you enjoy your plum cake. I'll just sit here in the cold and dark, craving it. But really, eat up, I want you to have it."
193: Gives "Norwegian wood" a whole new meaning!
That what you get for making brownies out of a Scandinavian country box.
But seriously, heebie, what are "brownies from Norway"?
196: I still make brownies out of a box when I do make them. But, I'm slowly teaching myself to bake. First I got cookies down, now I'm doing cakes, then I'll do brownies. The pie. Then bread, maybe.
197: They're what the kids are calling it these days.
Wait, I know what will take our minds off these squabbles:
Look a baby editor!
198: I've got an easy, and fucking killer, brownie recipe for you. When you're ready.
My friend in Norway sent me brownie mix is what Norwegian brownies are. Technically they came in a bag, not a box.
196: I still make brownies out of a box when I do make them. But, I'm slowly teaching myself to bake. First I got cookies down, now I'm doing cakes, then I'll do brownies.
I think you'll find brownies pleasantly easy! Do you prefer squadgy type brownies or cakey type brownies? Because if it's the former, I have a recipe we love, which we call "There Might as Well Be Brownies," because it's quick and easy and good, and really, why not?
I've got an easy, and fucking killer, brownie recipe for you.
Unfortunately, it involves killing Brownies. But it's easy!
Or use M/tch's, which I'm sure is also easy excellent. The nice thing about brownies is that lots of them fall happily into the "might as well be" category.
"My" brownie recipe is from the Gourmet cookbook, and uses a ridiculous amount of chocolate, but oh my god are they good.
I ordered this bracelet, and when it arrived today, the Octopus was broken off from the bracelet. I'm sad. I wanted to be wearing it right now.
I find brownies easier than cookies or cakes, but that's probably because I had a kids cookbook with an excellent (but easy!) recipe and have been making them since I was a preteen.
I've been venturing into layer cakes, even though they intimidate me, lately.
Mine's from Tartine and is thanks to Wolfson, of all people.
I think that brownies really are the easiest. Some cookies are awfully easy, too, but they still have the extra work of making all those individual cookies.
203: I'm fairly certain I should have tried brownies before cake, but I've already started on cake. Part of this batch was me trying to see what I could get away with flour-wise. The recipe called for all-purpose flour and self-rising flour. I hate to have two nearly the same things in the cabinets, so I went to Mister Google for a cheat. Google said self-rising flour is flour with 1 and 1/2 tsp of baking powder and 1/2 tsp of salt. But, other links said lots of (mostly southern) self-rising flours are actually cake flour (with salt and baking powder). And last time I wasn't happy with the texture of the cupcakes. So, I did make the trip to the store, but they didn't have those southern brands of self-rising flour. So, I got cake flour which I mixed with all-purpose flour, baking powder and salt. Like I said, it didn't rise as much as before, but the texture was right where you want it to be.
202: My friend in Norway sent me brownie mix
My housemate's father is Dutch and provides us with a holiday package of products from the Netherlands like that: pancake mix, baked things (a little mysterious how they're supposed to come out), and inevitably, gorgeous and amazing sweets.
He also likes to send along chocolate sprinkles. We don't know quite what to make of that; do the Dutch really find a use for chocolate sprinkles? They languish in the cabinet.
He also likes to send along chocolate sprinkles. We don't know quite what to make of that; do the Dutch really find a use for chocolate sprinkles?
Yes! They eat them on top of buttered bread.
RFTS' plum cake is also good with apricots.
In place of the plums, see.
Are you all trying to make me anxious by ignoring my octopus bracelet woes? It won't - snnniiffffffff - work.
That was a sniff of tears, not a line of coke. Just so's you know.
Do not try the buttered bread maneuver with ordinary American sprinkles, because they are made of weird plasticky pseudofood.
ssssnnnnnooooooooorrrrtttt. That was a line of coke.
I think you'll have to pick between glue and waiting for the return.
because they are made of weird plasticky pseudofood.
Rfts hates MagicShell. Hater.
And by glue, I meant to fix the bracelet, not to sniff.
I think you'll have to pick between glue and waiting for the return.
True. But where's my sympathy? No clucks of consternation or exclamations over the snazziness of the bracelet?
I LEARNED IT FROM YOU, MOM! I LEARNED IT FROM YOU!!!!
Sorry to hear about your bracelet problem, heebie.
Let's just hope, for heebie's safety, that "octopus" isn't a slang term for cocaine.
That old thing? So five minutes ago.
231 posted before seeing 229. Thank you for that.
227: Hawaiian Punch, you can do your homework on the boat!
That old thing? So five minutes ago.
That's clearly some good bamm bamm you've got.
Last Sunday night at about midnight, friends and I baked agave-vanilla cupcakes from the actually-sort-of-atrocious Vegan Cupcakes Take Over The World. (Some so-so recipes, some over-complex, some merely twee, some too vegan and not cupcakey enough.) However, these were pretty good. The agave nectar (which is basically an odd-tasting sugar syrup) made the cupcakes a bit....well, they weren't dry per se, but they were so sugary that they made your throat feel weird. However, the texture and height were perfect and under the too-sugary-ness they had a subtle childhood-nostalgia kind of flavor. I'm going to make them again and try to de-sugar them a bit.
I don't actually like cupcakes; they're fussy and twee. But if you get around town by bike and you're a bit careless you'll find it easier to bake your cupcakes and put them in some sort of sturdy container than to bike around with a whole cake in your backpack. Also, you can put the frosting in a tiny adorable tupperware container and frost the cupcakes at the potluck! Or have everyone frost their own.
233: THE LOVE BOAT?????!!??
have everyone frost their own
...in a closet over the stairs.
237: That sounds a bit like a Harry Potter fanfic, doesn't it?
235: I share your opinion of cupcakes. And I like tupperware fine and all, but I'm having a hard time picturing "adorable" tupperware.
Or have everyone frost their own.
Even better, have everyone frost their neighbor's cupcake.
.well, they weren't dry per se, but they were so sugary that they made your throat feel weird
That sounds pretty awful, I must say.
240: That was my first thought as well, and then I thought about "in a van, down by the river",* but then I remembered the OP.
*Viva pastis drinks and warm complexions!
244: Yea, I'm not trying vegan baking until either I get really good or I get bad news from a cardiologist.
M/tch and RFTS will doubtless make their easy and excellent recipes available, shortly. Right?
244: It would, if it were the cupboard under the stairs. Otherwise, you're just reading too much in.
I'll tell you what cupcakes are good for. They're good for preventing kids from fighting over who got the biggest piece of goddamn cake.
You'd think they'd fight over who got the biggest cupcake, but they don't.
I'm not interested in the recipe, but will they make their brownies available for me?
Not tonight, though.
Just as well. I've got a headache.
My mom makes poundcake cupcakes that are fucking awesome. The cupcakeness is just because they freeze better when they've each got that wrapper on, and frosting, to seal them up.
I've got a headache.
I've heard sex helps with that.
253 also to 252.
251: Yeah, I always thought that's why they were invented. The (way overpriced) cupcakes for adults! craze of the last however many years I find annoying in the way that I find a lot of childish nostalgia annoying.
My sister has that vegan cupcake cookbook. She's made some cupcakes from it that have been quite good. Haters.
And to keep us from fighting over who gets the most poundcake.
Just as well. I've got a headache.
A poundcake headache.
The (way overpriced) cupcakes for adults! craze of the last however many years I find annoying in the way that I find a lot of childish nostalgia annoying.
My charmingly behind-the-times mom is convinced that this would be a fantastically novel alternative to wedding cake at our wedding.
259: Shouldn't they have a cute name like "quarterpounder cakes"?
If you a modicum of knife skills, you can cut the cake so that the pieces are all the same size, and then the kids will all be equally satisfied.
261: I did like the donuts stacked into a birthday cake thing at your birthday (or was it your friend's birthday?). I think that would be pretty awesome at your wedding.
262: That would be cute. I'm lovin' it!
Uh, way back at 217: yes, de Ruyter, or Ruiter, is what the chocolate sprinkles are. It's a vast conceptual leap for me to put them on buttered bread. We chiefly offer them to guests who want sugar in their coffee.
Are you just going to make these observations by the by, Parenthetical, or are you going to help out?
263: But with equal amount of icing???
264: You mean with the polaroids? That was no birthday party.
263: You may be able to cut equal pieces, but convincing the kids you did that will be tricky.
267: It's just my stock response to any one who suggests that they can't do something because they have a headache. Don't call my bluff.
My sister has that vegan cupcake cookbook. She's made some cupcakes from it that have been quite good. Haters.
Okay, I'm hoping that everyone can argue about this for a while: my friend who has lived on the east coast (or in one of those states that has some kind of coastline, anyway) alleges as how the vegan cookbooks by that woman are better suited to the east coast than the midwest. I was telling her that I always have to change the recipes substantially to make them work and asking her whether what, do they have special fancy flour in New York or something? She said that yes, "baking in New York is different". She couldn't explain exactly how, though.
I've noticed that most of the recipes are too dry, have too much salt and need extra seasonings. Is this a flaw in the recipe or merely something caused by being in flyover country?
I feel the need to explain that 268 is a joke about a standard math problem to give to undergraduates, to help them try their hand at a research-type question.
If you a modicum of knife skills, you can cut the cake so that the pieces are all the same size, and then the kids will all be equally satisfied.
If you have a modicum of game theory, you can make it so that everyone is equally unsatisfied, which is sort of the same thing.
I'm lovin' it!
Copyright infringement! Try one of the open source alternatives.
If the children attending the birthday party have a modicum of reasonableness of GRATITUDE, they will shut up and eat the cake they have been given.
I'm hurt that you're so uninterested in my health, paren.
276: I was assuming siblings eating a cake at home.
I'd have sex with you if you lived closer, neb.
Maybe I can pay for apo's plane ticket? Because I do care about your health, neb.
278: Well that's even worse! Then you're obligated to start calling into question the quality of your sperm, ova, and parenting skills
I'd have sex with you if you lived closer, neb.
What's it called when the statement is true, with or without the "if" clause appended?
If you have a modicum of game theory, you can make it so that everyone is equally unsatisfied, which is sort of the same thing.
Oh no. This reminds me of a rather tedious lunch discussion about devising an optimal cake-slicing scheme.
Then you're obligated to start calling into question the quality of your sperm, ova, and parenting skills
What the hell kind of cake is this??
Let me tell you about the miracle of life, heebie.
284, please introduce yourself to 268 and 273.
284: I was just thinking of the well known way to get equally unsatisfactory cake-slicing with two people (one person cuts the cake and the other chooses which slice to take) and I know it can be expanded beyond two participants, so.
286: Just don't wake the miracle up. She's finally down.
287: Nice to meet you, 268 and 273!
288: Right, someone brought up how to generalize it to N and... it was tedious.
What the hell kind of cake is this??
You mean buk-kake isn't a cake?
You think it's tedious now, but you'll be glad of it at your next birthday party.
Speaking of tedious, I've got a lot of dishes to do.
You mean buk-kake isn't a cake?
Not the kind you can frost in a closet.
Uh, way back at 217: yes, de Ruyter, or Ruiter, is what the chocolate sprinkles are. It's a vast conceptual leap for me to put them on buttered bread. We chiefly offer them to guests who want sugar in their coffee.
Then when they say they'd like cream, we offer them brie!
I'd have sex with you if you lived closer, neb.
Apo's cock only reaches halfway across the country, you see. At least help him out by getting east of the Rockies.
I might be able to afford to fly him to Reno. Or do I mean Weno?
As in, the largest city in the Federated States of Micronesia?
Really? That's a place?
I had no idea.
1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Butter and flour an 8" square baking pan.
2. Over low heat, melt 1 stick of unsalted butter and 3 ounces of unsweetened chocolate. If it happens to be really excellent chocolate, so much the better. When the chocolate is all but completely melted, remove pan from heat. The residual heat in the mixture will finish melting the chocolate.
3. While the chocolate mixture cools a bit, combine 2/3 cup flour, 1/2 teaspoon baking powder, and 1/4 teaspoon salt. Set aside.
4. Whisk 1 cup sugar into the chocolate mixture.
5. Into this mixture, whisk 2 large eggs and 2 teaspoons of vanilla extract.
6. Stir in the flour mixture and pour the batter into your baking pan.
7. Bake for 20-25 minutes, until the center is gently set and a toothpick emerges moist, but not gloppy.
I don't see the sperm or ova in that recipe.
Then when they say they'd like cream, we offer them brie!
I read this in a very funny, and recognizable, voice. And then I laugh. But finally, I can't think of whose voice it is, leaving me very frustrated. Thanks for nothing, rfts!
I don't see the sperm or ova in that recipe.
A real baker knows when to add them.
302: In what perverse universe does that substitute for actually baking and supplying me with brownies? Only in a perversiverse. No one wants to live there.
Only in a perversiverse. No one wants to live there.
Ahem. You have seen the interwebs, right?
Well, come on over and I'll whip up a batch.
You can cut the cake perfectly, they'll still complian. You can tell them IF YOU DONT LIME THIS PIECE YIU DONT GET ANY and they'll take it and then complain later.
Basically it's a developmental thing. They have the same feelings of envy as we do, being almost human, and don't yet have the self-control and/or training to stfu about it.
I read this in a very funny, and recognizable, voice. And then I laugh. But finally, I can't think of whose voice it is, leaving me very frustrated. Thanks for nothing, rfts!
Is it my voice? I'm pretty awesome.
They have the same feelings of envy as we do,
One time I got totally irritated at a colleague because we arrived at the dessert table at the same time, and she politely served me first before taking her own dessert, and she served me a totally crappy tiny piece, when I'd been eyeing a really great serving. I made a joke about being totally petty when it came to desserts and then swapped them out. Then later went back for seconds, anyway, so I guess it didn't matter.
I'm pretty awesome.
You are awesome, for sure. But I can't just now think of what your voice sounds like. My loss.
||
Hey, rfts, we just got this book for the babies, and it turns out you're in it! So, uh, redfox, redfox, what do you see?
|>
This is a very obnoxious thing to post, but for those of you who know my real name, go to Amazon.com and search for me! First and last name. If you want in, e-mail me and I'll out myself, assuming I know you as a commenter.
297: Then when they say they'd like cream, we offer them brie!
Don't be silly. We offer the chocolate sprinkles when we're out of the brown paper packets of Sugar in the Raw that we filch from the coffee shop. They can have honey, or brown sugar, if they wish. Those we also have. Not so much with the white sugar.
The chocolate sprinkles are for those who go for the cappuccino option, but you'd be surprised what people will put together if they can't do without the sweetener.
I don't see the sperm or ova in that recipe.
It is a great tragedy when some couples want to bake brownies, but after trying and trying and consulting with specialists, continue to be unable to do so. Some, having the resources and feeling the biological imperative so strongly, have even gone so far as to place ads in college newspapers offering to pay thousands of dollars for the brownie ingredients of the more fortunate.
315 cont'd: Don't forget the silent "e" in my first name.
||
It is like rain on your wedding day when a majority of my facebook statuses are people who originally know me as heebie.
|>
Ok, I think now I have to email heebie and figure out what this surprise is.
my friend who has lived on the east coast (or in one of those states that has some kind of coastline, anyway) alleges as how the vegan cookbooks by that woman are better suited to the east coast than the midwest. I was telling her that I always have to change the recipes substantially to make them work and asking her whether what, do they have special fancy flour in New York or something? She said that yes, "baking in New York is different". She couldn't explain exactly how, though.
Beats me. I know elevation makes a difference in baking, but the elevation difference between New York and Minneapolis is pretty trivial.
Use heebie dot geebie at g-mail.
Thanks!! Did you read the "about the author"?
The "about the author" is great, as is the subtitle.
The "about the author" isn't as good.
Thanks!! Did you read the "about the author"?
I did! Was this the european publisher you mentioned?
Was this the european publisher you mentioned?
It was indeed!
The cover is fantastic! As is, of course, the subtitle. (I have no idea what the main title means, as befits my humanities status).
And geeze, that's not that expensive for an academic book. I'm curious about the used one going for $152, though.
Ben, you poopyhead, the about the author is awesome.
Oh. I didn't notice how long it was. That is expensive!
I think I have an email from them somewhere buried in my mailbox. I should do that for giggles.
Your writeup was good for a small world moment, too.
How delightful! I'm waiting for LB's review before buying, though.
337: You totally should. It's free, and you get a free copy, and it's a totally goofy novelty. And you're allowed to publish up to 80% elsewhere, or something.
So you know one or both of the authors that laid the foundation?
I don't trust soup's opinion of math books, see.
Did you do the cover? It's fun being able to point to amazon or something ... I've got short things in a handful of completely boring looking books, but I think my mom got more of a kick out an amazon link to one where the only think I had to do with it is shooting the photo used for the cover.
339.last: right!
I did do the cover! You get to pick the color and the photograph. They link you to some site with a billion photos, with whom they will pay the copyright fees. You rifle through them until you get completely bored and then just go with one you thought would be amusing.
I'm guessing you know the Canadian? He's a fun guy.
315, 327: Is that the list price or the special ATM price?
Wow, heebie. I think that is a serious contender for best cover ever for a math book. I'm not even sure there's any competition.
333 I have no idea what the main title means, as befits my humanities status
For whatever it's worth, Parenthetical, I have only the fuzziest idea of what it might mean.
I have only the fuzziest idea of what it might mean.
That does make me feel better, essear.
Great cover photo! Who took it? Is it in the Unfogged photo pool?
346: It isn't. You're limited to browsing photos from some fixed professional website that the publishers have a deal with.
302: Thanks. That does look easy and good.
That's not a photo of the author? Oh darn.
Ooh, there are "Active discussions in related topics". That'll help me figure out what the book is about. I'm off to read these threads:
Step up and point out the flaws of evolution/science 3150 5 minutes ago
Mathematics: A Dilemma 191 33 minutes ago
What would constitute enough evidence to convince a denier of intelligent design? 790 39 minutes ago
Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic 9554 46 minutes ago
You're simply wrong! 10 1 hour ago
The Opposite of Science is Religion 131 1 hour ago
A simple question to which ID has no answer. 129 1 hour ago
There are photos of the author in the Unfogged photo pool.
I would adopt that subtitle to use in my own papers, except I prefer the traditional rhythm of "Tum, Tum, and Tumty Tum Tum: the case of dooty-dooty doo".
Also I never get round to writing anything. Including right now.
(Ignore that, grant-awarding committee types.)
Being quoted on the front page of Crooked Timber on academic book titles was one of my online pseudonym's finest moments.
That was one of the finest blog comments I've ever seen, ned.
354: I take exquisite, and exquisitely personal, offense at that, Ned!
Let's try to guess the title of Oudemia's thesis.
"Fishing With A Woman's Knife: Sex, Fashion, and Social Hierarchies in Nineteenth-Century Siberia?"
I almost want to buy it just for the cover alone. And the subtitle. It could be 68 entirely blank pages and I'd still want to.
Sorry, that's totally the wrong field. "Partly That Some Vices Be in Those Tonges Reproved: Masks, Confusion, and the Challenges Faced by Plutarch's Translators"?
I really love the first part of the title in 360. I think I'll steal it.
Moby, bread is much easier to bake than pies, or even cake. The technique basically consists of leaving it alone for hours on end interspersed with short outbursts of concentrated violence.
Ayn Rand came from a Jewish family and was herself pro-Kerensky
Interesting, since if Kerensky were reincarnated in America today, he'd probably support Bernie Sanders.
Hey, Frowner and whoever else has an opinion about the vegan cupcakes book: Which recipes are worth trying?
Heebie, I love the book cover and the 'about the author' - am tempted to buy it just for the hell of it. And I just friended you on facebook but it didn't give me a chance to say it was me. But I'm sure you can do anagrams.
"I take exquisite, and exquisitely personal, offense at that, Ned!": Authorial authority, the public sphere, and the perils of academic titling
||
No more pleasuring himself to Bobby Robson (not that you lot would have done so anyway).
|>
re: 366
Gah. He helped out with a project I did in a previous job. I never met him but my bos said he was a lovely man.
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/blackboard/robson-text.htm
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/blackboard/robson-l.htm
re: 368
The Museum of the History of Science owns a famous historical blackboard -- the one that Einstein used on his visit to Oxford in 1931.
So they had a load of identical blackboards made for this exhibition and various scientists, musicians, and so on filled them in and they were mounted for public display. Some of the blackboards were produced as part of events they held. So, for example, Joanna Macgregor performed the Goldberg Variations and gave a short lecture on Bach.
I took the photographs: I was working for them on a different project but the photographer was away at the time. I also had one of those 'earth swallow me whole' moments at the opening night. My mate Steve and I were discussing, pretty dismissively, Brian Eno's blackboard and then turned round to see that he was standing right beside us and had heard every word.
The full clickable list is here:
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/blackboard/contributors.htm
369. Hmmm. Nice concept, but Robson's is probably the pick of the bunch, apart from Albert.
Interesting to see how Eno and Lisa Jardine come up with parallel ideas in their respective disciplines (and neither of them need have bothered).
I doubt Eno lost much sleep over your remarks. His mum was a dinner lady at my sister's primary school and he's surprisingly grounded.
re: 370
Yeah, he was just an anonymous bloke in an anorak, mingling.
The MacGregor performance of the Goldbergs was pretty amazing, although quite idiosyncratic. We were seated behind her piano stool, close enough that I could have reached out and touched the keys as she played. Absolutely gigantic wave of sound.
Yay, heebie! Indeed, the cover and the about the author are wonderful.
And aw, darnit about Jes v. B, Apo, et al. I don't really think I can improve the situation, but it makes me unhappy.
Yes I'm looking forward to Heebie waking up and hopefully sending me a link so I can see what all the fuss is about.
363: Oh I have many opinions! But also idiosyncratic cupcake tastes! I am partial to the cashew/cardamom ones and the like. CA is more a Boston Creme kinda guy. I will send you an email.
Let me be the first to say that both the cover and "about the author" section of your book are great, heebie.
Why thank you, M/tch! I was beginning to feel slighted by the rest of these oafs.
To follow up on the gelatinous Norwegian brownies:
scene: Jammies arrives home.
Me: There are some brownies, but they taste like gelatin.
Jammies takes a bite.
J: I think the texture is fine. They're a little bland.
Me: Me too. I think the taste is what tastes like gelatin, but the texture is fine.
J: What do you mean?
Me: They taste like gummy bears.
J: Gummy bears don't taste like anything.
Me: Yeah, maybe what it is is that they're just really bland and not chocolately.
You're welcome! They are oafs, aren't they?
Now let's talk brownies: now that I think about it I have made the Gourmet Magazine Cookbook recipe "mine" by tweaking it to make more rational use of chocolate resources. Here's the original ingredient list:
6 ounces fine-quality bittersweet chocolate, chopped
2 ounces unsweetened chocolate, chopped
3/4 cup unsalted butter
1 1/2 cups sugar
2 teaspoons vanilla
4 large eggs
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup all-purpose flour
1 cup semisweet chocolate chips
Most chocolate comes in four ounce bars, so to avoid having to use one-and-a-half bars of bittersweet and a half bar of unsweetened (thus requiring the purchase of three bars, with two half-bars left unused), I just use 4 ounces of each and up the sugar to a scant two cups.
So here's my recipe:
4 ounces bittersweet chocolate, chopped
4 ounces unsweetened chocolate, chopped
3/4 cup unsalted butter
a little less than 2 cups sugar
2 teaspoons vanilla
4 large eggs
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup all-purpose flour
1 cup semisweet chocolate chips
I also usually up the vanilla to a tablespoon, and add about a tablespoon of cinnamon (which I mix with the flour before combining wet and dry ingredients).
I too think it is an outstanding cover (rather David Lynch-esque) and write-up. Got the key piece of info via a mostly harmless bit of locational clue stalking sleuthing and faculty list perusal with silent 'e' confirmation.
Now for directions:
1) Melt the bittersweet chocolate and the unsweetened chocolate with the butter in a heatproof bowl over a pan of barely simmering water. As soon as the mixture becomes smooth, remove the bowl from the heat, and let the mixture cool to lukewarm.
2) While the mixture cools, whisk the flour, sugar, and cinnamon together in a separate bowl. Preheat the oven to 350. Butter and flour a 9 by 13 inch baking pan.
2) Once the chocolate & butter mixture is lukewarm, stir in the sugar and vanilla. Then add the eggs one at a time, stirring well after each addition.
3) Add the salt & flour & cinnamon mixture, stirring until just combined, then stir in the chocolate chips.
4) Pour the batter into the baking pan, smooth the top, and bake on the middle rack for 25 to 30 minutes, or until a tester comes out with crumbs adhering to it.
5) Cool it on a rack until it firms up enough to cut.
6) Share with heebie.
Like I said upthread, they contain an insane amount of chocolate, but they're really really good. My cow-orkers conspire to invent occasions for everyone to bring food so that they can make me bring these brownies. Everytime I suggest bringing something else, like say pie, I get shouted down.
382: I think Cryptic Ned and Nakku were the other commenters where I was like "They know my name? Huh," because they commented without e-mailing me to ask me my name.
383: Step 6 is really what makes them so good.
Oh, I knew what college it was, so then when you said something distinctive about your first name, It was easy to see which faculty member you were.
That is a great about. I like the compression of time.
I'm late, but congrats, Heebie! Your book is sufficiently awesome that it makes me want to have a cataloging job again so I can have the fun of coming up with a record for it. Sadly, I think Mathematics -- Dissertations -- Unusual Covers is not a Library of Congress-approved subject heading.
And they're kind of humorless about making Geebie, Heebie cross-reference back to Name, Real Life, (1978-), too.
Still -- congratulations! I hope you've posted a copy above HP's changing table so she can admire her mama's achievement.
Those sound great, M/tch. I'll try making them next time there might as well be brownies. I'm going to melt the chocolate and butter right in the pan, though, because I live on the edge.
I don't remember the exact steps of my own stalking, a couple years ago, but do remember that the conclusive confirmation was a local TV interview archived on the web. Body language and speech pattern were unmistakable. (This must have been 6 mos. before UFDC2).
Great subtitle.
but do remember that the conclusive confirmation was a local TV interview archived on the web.
Wait, you somehow found a local TV interview with Heebie on the web somewhere, and recognized her body language and speech patterns from the way she comments? Bizarre.
I tried identifying heebie by pictures of faculty members, but those incompetent bastards posed the faculty so that you couldn't see their butts.
You mean the interview about the baseball championship game?
Wait, you somehow found a local TV interview with Heebie on the web somewhere, and recognized her body language and speech patterns from the way she comments?
I had a hard time taking the interview seriously.
But I'm still very impressed that CC recognized me that way.
394 -- Watch it and see.
I was already pretty sure . . .
I actually can't find the interview. Any keyword search hints?
I had a hard time taking the interview seriously = clue 1.
Watch what and see? Should we search all Texas TV stations' websites for "heebie"?
I have to admit I find google stalking people a bit against nature, even when done in good faith. The only person here whose real name I discovered without being told, I encountered entirely by accident - they posted the same circumstantial information on a site elsewhere that they'd posted under their pseud either here or on their own site. But I still feel kind of guilty about knowing that information.
And the odds against my ever meeting any of you must be astronomical, so it's a bit stupid, but there.
402: First name plus baseball turns it up. It is very silly.
403: You name is Orenthal Ferdinand Eddington. We are know that.
405 shows I'm clearly still too tired. Sorry.
IT PUTS THE RECIPES ON THE WIKI OR ELSE IT GETS THE HOSE
403.1 I feel the same way about it, as a matter of principal. And yet, the challenge can be hard to resist, and the reward of finding confirmation in a goofball interview on local TV is better than catnip. I felt bad enough about the whole thing to impose a 30 day suspension on all blog reading. And have more or less refrained from the practice since.
I have to admit I find google stalking people a bit against nature
It's funny; I find it extremely contextual. I Google work acquaintances all the time, mostly to prepare myself for meetings with them. Occasionally I find things I'd really rather not know, but the general benefit of knowing their professional backgrounds usually outweighs it.
Yesterday I found out that nine years ago, someone Googled me. And knew a whole lot more about me at the time than I had any idea. Which was startling, although in this case quite benign and not worrisome.
One very weird thing about blogging is the gigantic asymmetry of information. And having no idea how much of that information someone has been interested to read or not.
If you Google stalk someone and then cleverly forget everything you learned you haven't done anything wrong, right?
Excepting the people who use their real names, I don't know anybody's name. So, I don't think you are that easy to stalk for somebody who doesn't actually know something from real life. Of course, I haven't tried either.
Once at a conference, after the end of a session, someone—a real philosopher!—on whose question I had followed up eyed my nametag and asked if I wrote for this very site. I admitted it and then said something not indicated in the canons of etiquette (as I only later realized) and made a mad dash for the exit.
OOPS!
Naturally, I googled him first chance I got. It's what I do. I'm kind of surprised it's not more common (though I would of course be outraged if a potential employer did it).
then said something not indicated in the canons of etiquette (as I only later realized)
Curiosity piqued.
Excepting the people who use their real names, I don't know anybody's name.
I managed to figure out ttaM and nosflow.
Actually I have a very bad habit of figuring out real names of bloggers, because it's sort of a fun game, but then I feel creepy about it.
418: I'm still working on those. I'm thinking that I need to find a encryption key using some of the higher prime numbers.
One commenter, who no longer shows up here very often, once e-mailed my work e-mail address to ask if I was Heebie. I was beyond furious that he'd taken that particular route to verify his sleuthiness.
If I ever start a store, I'm going to call it Fuss, Fury and Further.
I think Google stalking is completely benign unless it gets obsessive. If you're looking past the first ten or so pages of results it's time to step away from the computer. If you spend more than 15 minutes on it you're beginning to get a little creepy, and if you do it over multiple sessions you're a nut.
The problem with google stalking is that the information is very biased and can give a completely false impression of the person. The kind of stuff that makes it onto the web tends to be the weirder aspects of a person's personality simply due to the fact that those are more interesting than all the boring routine normal-person stuff.
||
Having just googled myself (IYKWIM, AITYD) for the heck of it, I am reminded of the phrase "Slash of Civilizations". As in Bush/Ahmedinejad.
|>
I basically have a very high level of trust for the commenters here, and feel like a non-trustworthy person wouldn't be thrown off, no matter how many precautions I took.
There are three people more prominent than me with the same name (including middle initial), so googling me could get confusing.
425: EgoGoogling myself turns up page after page on some artist, a playwright, and some garrulous kid. There are advantages to having a relatively common name.
cry, cry, egogoogle, cry
I have a chemist, a law professor and a banker.
I really wish the Gates-Wossname thing had gone like this.
I Google work acquaintances all the time, mostly to prepare myself for meetings with them.
Yeah, but they're not pseudonymous (at least I suppose not - I don't know what line of work you're in, but if you're a deep CIA mole you may be having meetings with people called "Number 6" all the time). I think it's different when somebody is trying, however desultorily, to mask their RL identity.
Congratulations on the book, Heebie. I'll try to find that baseball interview this weekend.
403: "against nature" is an interesting choice of phrase. True, it is against nature, but so what? I know what you mean, it can feel weird. (Try Google-stalking a dead teenager because as bad as that is, you'll have to try to talk to her parents next and that will be even worse.) But most people, most of the time, don't have anything that interesting out there, I think. It's one of those "the future ain't what it used to be" things: we do live in a surveillance state, and there's no getting away from the cameras and everyone can find out everything about anyone, but most people aren't interesting enough to be bothered by it.
This made me wonder about people I know. I Google one of my supervisors; he's a colorful guy, a real people person. The first hit is LinkedIn. Classmates.com and Facebook also appear on the first page, as well as several blog comments and one newspaper article in which he is referred to by name but he "did not respond to several e-mail and phone requests for comment". There's a couple links I'm not sure about, but they all definitely or could plausibly refer to the same guy. I'm a little curious about his Twitter account, but can't check it while I'm at work.
I Googled "bob macmanus". This is the first hit.
And the odds against my ever meeting any of you must be astronomical
There are like half a dozen UK commenters, right? Don't you all ever have meetups?
The kind of stuff that makes it onto the web tends to be the weirder aspects of a person's personality
Also, though, it's extremely class-based. I remain amazed at how essentially invisible a lot of people without professional jobs are. Cell phones and the giving up of landlines have now made it even less possible to find online information about people who don't work professional jobs, didn't go to college, and don't have any vocational, athletic, or musical talent that they are advertising under their given name.
It's been particularly difficult in a couple of situations where I urgently needed to track down someone's family. Technology has made a giant leap backwards from the days when you could run your finger down the "Browns" in the phone book and find the right street name and know that you probably had so-and-so's grandmother.
Conversely, if you're trying to track down a college-educated professional, they're going to have an online presence in a hundred different ways.
There are advantages to having a relatively common name.
Somewhere in the archives is a thread of Ogged innocently talking about getting a Gmail account and it becoming clear that commenters had very different experiences of own-name online presence based on whether their names were common or unique. (I'm mostly talking about people at the far ends of the bell curve, here.)
128:The problem is that there *isn't* any content; it's just Jes posting the same stuff every time B comments. A bot could do as good a job.
Yes, but prior to the invention of the acronym, I was told that if I continued to be that "interesting" every time B posted, I'd be banned for that too.
I could think up different acronyms, I suppose.
151: Nope. Hanging around on BitchPhD's blog and posting about her there would be picketing her in her neighborhood. She and I are equal transients here.
235: The cupcake ideas in Vegan Cupcakes Take Over The World are pretty twee. But the basic recipe is just brilliant: it makes a very moist and delicious vegan cake, which you can use for either cupcakes or proper-sized cakes.
Summarised, the basic recipe is:
1 1/4 cup flour, 1 cup soy milk curdled with one tablespoon of cider vinegar, 1 cup sugar, 1/3 cup oil or vegan margarine: if making chocolate or coconut cake, substitute 1/3 of a cup of cocoa or desicated coconut for 1/4 cup of flour. Curdle soy milk, add oil and sugar, sift flour etc into soy/oil/sugar, drop into cases, bake. (Britishly, I use self-raising flour rather than their complicated alchemy with baking soda etc.)
Yet this brief recipe of genius has been expanded into a glossy book with pictures sold for £8 or so, and that's marketing, I guess. But it is the most effective recipe for vegan cake I've ever discovered.
Now that I'm no longer considered noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia entry -- not that I'm bitter or anything -- the lead Google result is a 19th century photographer. And then the author of books on silver.
She and I are equal transients here.
Not hardly. Anyway, 433 would be much improved if the first four lines were not there.
Yes, but prior to the invention of the acronym, I was told that if I continued to be that "interesting" every time B posted, I'd be banned for that too.
You are fantastically clueless, aren't you?
There are like half a dozen UK commenters, right? Don't you all ever have meetups?
I know Britain's only the size of a medium sized state, but people don't travel 150 miles to have a drink the way they do in America. I suppose if I was going to a town where I knew somebody lived (possibly exc. London, which is unmanageably big), I'd see if they wanted to meet. Probably most of us would. But Planned meet ups seem like a lot of work for not much time.
Hanging around on BitchPhD's blog and posting about her there would be picketing her in her neighborhood.
I agree, completely.
432
Technology has made a giant leap backwards from the days when you could run your finger down the "Browns" in the phone book and find the right street name and know that you probably had so-and-so's grandmother.
I don't think that's technology so much as social mobility. (Which are interrelated, obviously, but not the same.)
436
I know Britain's only the size of a medium sized state, but people don't travel 150 miles to have a drink the way they do in America.
Sure, that's not normal here either. (I've done it, actually, but I'm not normal.) I was thinking more of your second scenario, which sounds like the Alameetup? thread. Just wondering.
I could think up different acronyms, I suppose.
Or couldn't you just stop? I'm having trouble seeing a plausible gain out of this, really, and lots of opportunity for losses.
"I'm having trouble seeing a plausible gain out of this, really, and lots of opportunity for losses."
If you could go back in time and say that to some bankers, that would be great.
They wouldn't have listened, Moby.
Besides, if you worked for say, Goldman Sachs, you're in line for a record 800 grand average compensation this year. What's not to like? Perhaps less happy if you worked at AIG, sure. Win some, lose some.
But, if I knew they'd been warned by someone from the future, I'd feel better about egging their cars.
Sadly, I think Mathematics -- Dissertations -- Unusual Covers is not a Library of Congress-approved subject heading.
But if the Ghost Of Heebie-Jeebie wrote a book, then you could subdivide the personal name heading with "Spirit Writings."
435.1: Really? So is BigotPhD more of a transient here, or am I?
440: Sorry, I don't see that I can quit getting mad at a bigot who hurts and insults trans people and then dismisses them as not worth apologizing to, just because it irritates you that I keep bringing it up. BitchPhD made clear what kind of person she is and I quit hanging out on her blog. That's as far as I can go. I decline to quit hanging out anywhere the bigot might show up, and I decline to quit getting mad at her for being a bigot.
441: Awesome.
I'd posted enough personally identifying information here so that I popped up pretty easily on Google for any regular commenter who wanted to find me, but I was a little surprised and every so mildly, um, what's the really mild form of alarmed? when I realized that a bunch of people had. That may have gotten more difficult since I left my last law firm --my current employer doesn't have my name online linked with any personal information, I don't think.
Jes, everybody here now knows that B made a hurtful joke. You are achieving nothing by beating that particular dead horse. I'm always glad to see people stand up for transfolk, not least because I have a good friend who's trans. Thanks for calling B out in the initial incident. At this point, though, it's devolved into harassment.
Sorry, I don't see that I can quit getting mad at a bigot who hurts and insults trans people and then dismisses them as not worth apologizing to, just because it irritates you that I keep bringing it up.
Nobody is suggesting that you stop being mad. But what did the rest of us do that it's okay for you to dismiss our irritation as unimportant? Please, continue to get mad. And, if ever the subject is topical here or elsewhere, unleash holy hell. But PLEASE show a little respect for the rest of us here and quit disrupting unrelated conversations to remind us that you are pissed off about BitchPhD's offensive joke.
And I do miss my maiden name, which was the camoflage of names; since I hyphenated with Buck I think it's unique in the world.
re: meetups
I've met a couple of Unfogged people when they've been in Oxford. But those were all US-based people who were here for work/conferences, etc.
Well if you're ever in Sheffield, let me know. And vice versa. But don't make a special trip.
re: 452
Heh. And I had the hire-car all packed and everything!
435.1: Really? So is BigotPhD more of a transient here, or am I?
You are.
It takes effort to remain pissed off this long.
Well if you're ever in Sheffield, let me know. And vice versa.
If he's ever in you, he should let Sheffield know?
BitchPhD knows how you feel, and everybody here does as well. You are not communicating any information to her, nor are you attempting to. What you are doing is passive-aggressively (with varying degrees of passivity) denouncing everybody else here for not joining in your obsessive jihad. You're alienating nearly everybody who might have been on your side at any point.
I've seen you do this sort of thing before elsewhere, and I'm not interested in playing along, nor in allowing you to shit all over the rug here. You seem to believe you can make this be about BitchPhD, but it isn't and it won't be. It's about you.
Fuck it. On every thread I'm going to remind everyone of that time Ari called me a Nazi and I threatened to stuff him in his locker.
454: That seems like a question of degree to me rather than type (but what do I know; I'm a transient too, I guess.) A regular is a regular. But a big difference in intransience or not, it also seems like a far less important point than Di's 449.
I dunno. I like Jesurgislac for what she brings to Obsidian Wings, but this focus on B. seems stupid.
456. It's a big city, it'd take too long. Where are you anyway? I get the impression you're somewhere in Bernicia, Dal Riata or Pictavia, but not sure which bit.
I decline to quit hanging out anywhere the bigot might show up, and I decline to quit getting mad at her for being a bigot.
Nobody asked you to quit hanging out here, or to not be mad with her.
What I'm asking you is what you are possibly gaining from continually bringing it up with no contextual reason to? You certainly aren't adding any information for anyone here. So I don't get it. Is mere public venting cathartic enough to you? Is repeatedly pulling us all back into your little spat, however superficially, really helping you more then yelling at the screen or whatever would? I'm genuinely curious, since you are behaving in a pretty unambiguously antisocial way that seems to be well past the point of diminishing returns and on to that of accumulating costs...
If he's ever in you, he should let Sheffield know?
That's pretty situational. e.g. how do terms of parole work there?
a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A0RyqvfztY" rel="nofollow">B
damn, 462 seems quite solidly pwned.
Bave is trying to silence me because he's all about the unapologetic destruction of joy.
I think it's different when somebody is trying, however desultorily, to mask their RL identity.
I basically agree, although as noted, there are times when Googling someone's RL name gives you a window that you'd rather not have, because they're more self-disclosing on their real name blog than you'd expect, because others have posted info about them that they might not want to have public, etc.
461: nah, I'm in the Smoke, mate.
It's a big city, it'd take too long.
You don't have to tell everyone all the details. A loud Whump! Whump! Whump! should get the message across.
I don't think that's technology so much as social mobility. (Which are interrelated, obviously, but not the same.)
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Back in the day, nearly everyone had a landline. Listings for those numbers were published in telephone books. Everyone had a local telephone book at home, and libraries had copies of non-local telephone books. It was sometimes hard to find married women if you didn't know their husband's first name, because phones were generally under the husband's name, but it was still very possible to know that your friend Jane Brown lived in Medium Town, and to get out the phone book for Medium Town and figure out pretty easily how to contact her by phone and mail.
When the web came along, Switchboard.com and similar sites took the information from those telephone listings and published it online, leading to a brief period where you could get contact phone numbers nationwide for residential listings quite easily.
Now, an increasing number of people do not have landlines. Their names are not listed in any directory, much less linked to an address. This is a direct result of technology, not of moving around the country. Americans have always been mobile (I think we move every 7-1/2 years on average, or something), and that hasn't particularly changed in recent years, I don't think.
467 is priceless. I have no idea how I have missed seeing it all these years.
The Onion article, that is. It's from 2002.
I so wish you meant the sexual tension.
382, 385: Yes, sorry for the "stalk", thought it less bother for you than an e-mail, but also thought I owed an explanation on how I knew what to search under.
Man, I thought I had a somewhat unusual name but I don't show up for three pages, and then it's someone else's Amazon profile. Not sure when I show up after that because I lost interest. I guess you have to know my university to dig up anything interesting.
And don't make me proposition neb again just to get the conversation away from Jes vs. B.
For those of you following the issue, my cupcakes were well-received at lunch. But nobody asked for 2nds, so I get to take some home.
474: I thought and I thought and I thought and I thought.
476: Can you next day air ship them? I'd like one.
478: I would, except that then I'd have to spring for Saturday delivery.
Oh, drat, hadn't thought of that. I should make cupcakes!
You should send them to Heebie. She's breastfeeding.
True. And apparently the only dessert she has are sub-standard foreign brownies.
How many gnomes would a Norwegian wood if a Norwegian could wood gnomes?
(482 giving me the flimsy excuse to pluck some day old fruit.)
||
475.2 How about a completely separate annoying trope? Like, say, every time UNG and I disagree about anything, he has to say, "Well obviously we just can't communicate. But then, I guess if we could we would never have had any reason to get divorced."
1. Uh, actually, there were lots of good reasons....
2. Give it a fucking break already! It's been years since I filed. Get over it.
|>
sorry to hear that Di, that sounds pretty annoying.
"Over a dollar a page!"
What fine does a congressman get for sexual harassment?
485: It's easier to blame it on poor communication than it is to look in the mirror and see that you are ugly and naked. And a guy.
Thanks.
Also, I ate all of the leftover cupcakes since I don't know Heebie's address or name.
Mitch, I made a batch of your brownies. They are cooling now.
485: And then you say, "Thanks! I forgot about that one, I'll add it to the list."
Oh no, I forgot to slash! Alack.
See, it all comes back to slash.
475: And don't make me proposition neb again just to get the conversation away from Jes vs. B.
You could always proposition someone else.
495: A girl has a reputation to keep up.
Heebie, your book roolz.
How non-picky do you suppose the publisher is? I want my subtitle to be in lolcat.
496: a girl
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!!
462
What I'm asking you is what you are possibly gaining from continually bringing it up with no contextual reason to? You certainly aren't adding any information for anyone here. So I don't get it. Is mere public venting cathartic enough to you? Is repeatedly pulling us all back into your little spat, however superficially, really helping you more then yelling at the screen or whatever would? I'm genuinely curious, since you are behaving in a pretty unambiguously antisocial way that seems to be well past the point of diminishing returns and on to that of accumulating costs...
It is standard PC intimidation tactics, limit discourse by abusing anybody who differs from the party line. Of course it works better when you have a critical mass of supporters. Like the people here who abuse McArdle whenever her name comes up.
Speaking of which I thought Yglesias's response to McArdle's posts on obesity was pretty weak.
What you're missing, James, is that McMegan really is a jackass.
It is standard PC intimidation tactics, limit discourse by abusing anybody who differs from the party line.
454: Oh well, that's me told. No wonder I'd get banned over BigotPhD.
462: "Flyting through an army, sire, in all countries in the world is called charging."
500 502
So if B really was a jackass what Jes is doing would be ok?
504: If B's comment were the actual subject of conversation here, then it'd be a hell of a lot closer to OK. You'll note that when we actually talked about B's joke, more people came down on Jes's side than B's. It's just Jes's special ability to piss off even people who'd normally agree with her that's the problem here.
very generous of JBS to defend BphD, i remember she was imploring the same tactics against you
and she really should apologize to Jes is my opinion
should have apologized,
i gathered she never did that which causes J's continued grievance
but let it go, J, remember the shrub eaten etc
Why, good afternoon read. I trust you are well.
It is standard PC intimidation tactics, limit discourse by abusing anybody who differs from the party line.
James, I don't think this is at all accurate (and also wonder what "PC" means in this context). The connection to (some) people pointing out each time they perceive a new idiocy by McArdle doesn't seem at all relevant, either, as those are at the least new issues.
read!
It's just Jes's special ability to piss off even people who'd normally agree with her that's the problem here.
I think the goal is to annoy everyone to the point where we say "Please, Bphd, just apologize or whatever, so our internet forum is no longer being held hostage."
hi, everybody
i'm just to say i understand J and can't stand her being treated as if like expendable
BphD i understand has a long history here and a valuable friend for all of you
but the nature of BphD's jokes are that i for example remain to be convinced that she's a racist
well i don't read her blog so don't know her true stances, my bad
i'm just to say i understand J and can't stand her being treated as if like expendable
Fwiw, I don't think anyone was doing that.
Hi read
Congrats on the book h-g
I have never google-stalked anybody, well except for Yggles and hilzoy and alameida, researching their interesting families.
There are at least 50 thousand McManuses in these United States, and many Roberts. It is a small comfort to the paranoid. I like to tell people I am the Bishop, doing a schismatic exile thing here in Dallas.
If B was constantly churning out shallow and thoughtless propaganda for some callow political viewpoint, Jes would be justified in expressing annoyance, sure.
510
James, I don't think this is at all accurate (and also wonder what "PC" means in this context). The connection to (some) people pointing out each time they perceive a new idiocy by McArdle doesn't seem at all relevant, either, as those are at the least new issues.
PC means politically correct as in what jokes if any about trans people are allowed.
And if I recall correctly much of the abuse McArdle got on this blog had nothing to do with the ostensible topic. And some people (not necessarily here) are always bringing up some ill chosen remarks she made long ago involving 2x4s.
Read! Welcome back, missed you.
Mult-pwned.
I would like a brownie. And a cupcake.
506
very generous of JBS to defend BphD, i remember she was imploring the same tactics against you
She insulted me a few times but she didn't relentlessly chase me all over the internet over some minor grievance.
employing perhaps
my impressions are fallible i know
just it seems to me J being vulnerable, what is minor grievance for others is the matter of life or death like for her maybe
and B perhaps does not need this much vigorous defence as it is in this thread, she's strong as i don't know stone or something
505: You'll note that when we actually talked about B's joke, more people came down on Jes's side than B's.
No. Turned out, practically nobody was.
Briefly agreeing that it's not nice to tell bigoted jokes and then dismiss the people you hurt as not worth apologizing to, but then dismissing the whole issue as just a personal difference between myself and BitchPhD: you're not on my side.
The personal difference is between me and everyone else who thinks BitchPhD is right: BitchPhD thinks it's perfectly OK to tell bigoted jokes about trans people and refuse to apologize because trans people aren't worth it, because in a couple of months, pretty much no one will care any more, except the people who were hurt by the joke, and - apparently - caring about those people is just my personal issue. Just me being "PC".
Whereas BitchPhD calling me what she evidently thinks is a terrible insult, "fucking cunt", is just her being reasonable and nice and not in the least banworthy. Who could blame her for being provoked that a transient in her neighborhood is unwilling to forget she's a bigot?
read is back!
Hey, read, on the thread where you left us, I said something stupid and mean, and I don't know if you stuck around long enough to see my apology, so in case you didn't: I'm sorry.
read! Hope you're doing well these days.
read, Jes doesn't want an apology; she wants a villain to denounce so she can feel self-righteous about defending the voiceless downtrodden and show off her moral superiority hat.
B perhaps does not need this much vigorous defence
I think a closer reading would show that nobody's defending B. It isn't about her.
i too was too provoking, i apologize for that
very rude of the guest like me to behave like i behaved, i know
i'm sorry, all
522: what is minor grievance for others is the matter of life or death like for her maybe
Not life or death for me: but life and death for many people all over the world, some of whom I know and care about - some of whom I know and dislike, to be honest - and most of whom I'll never know.
People get killed because of the attitude BitchPhD expressed in her bigoted joke, her non-apology, and in her private e-mails to me.
People who don't get killed live in fear. Do you know I hardly know a trans person who hasn't at some point had their windows broken? Sure, BitchPhD would never throw the stones: but she'll tell the jokes that make people think that kind of hate is amusing and sort of trivial?
JBS, the relevant difference between doing what Jes is doing and what we do to McArdle is where it takes place (i.e. on whose blog). Whenever any of us bothers to comment on McArdle's blog we do (I imagine) engage her seriously and at least somewhat respectfully.
I occasionally comment on McArdle's blog; I engage her seriously but also politely make it clear I don't respect her. She doesn't deserve respect, really.
Jes doesn't want an apology; she wants a villain to denounce so she can feel self-righteous about defending the voiceless downtrodden and show off her moral superiority hat.
I got an apology. I don't know why BitchPhD thought she should apologize to me. I don't want BitchPhD to apologize to me: she didn't tell a homophobic joke on her blog, she told a transphobic joke.
I want BitchPhD to apologize on her blog to the people she hurt and offended: I want her to acknowledge that what she did was wrong, and she understands why it was wrong and hurtful.
Of course I want that. I want BitchPhD to try to be the person I thought she was: until I discovered she was just another transphobic middle-class creep who twenty years ago would have been telling homophobic jokes and getting offended at lesbians who told her they were bigoted, not funny.
Don't tell me what I goddamn want. I want far too fucking much, and I know damned well it's going to take a generation to get it. Because it always does.
But yeah: if I can make another goddamn bigot uncomfortable about being a bigot, I'll embrace every fucking cunt out of BigotPhD's mouth.
Sounds sweeter than embracing BitchPhd...
Don't tell me what I goddamn want.
Would that you would do the same for others...
Jes, what it comes down to is that yet more people will leave this blog if you don't drop it.
Look, this blog is sexist, too, okay? We have 30-year-old women referring to themselves as girls.
It really surprises me that you haven't figured out by now that this is not a free territory. There are protected people, and topics. That's just the way it is.
Speaking even more pseudonymously than usual (and to be fair, I haven't regularly commented here in a long while), Jes, your appropriation of this issue to play some kind of dominance/vengeance game with B is extremely gross, and it does not make me sympathize with you in the least. At least, as far as I can tell you are not trans, nor are you particularly closely involved with any trans people; if you are, I apologize. But if you're not? Seriously, back off already.
Look, this blog is sexist, too, okay? We have 30-year-old women referring to themselves as girls.
Good lord, are we not allowed to be ironic any more?
well, sounds too complicated for me, if you got an apology
i recalled avva's blog name ot vselenskoi lyubvi tol'ko mordu v krovi means from the love for the whole universe only bloody faces
bad translation, it's something like about the road to hell
i mean BphD should be closer to you then hypothetical hurt people, no?
Hey, read! You're back! You've been missed.
I thought Yglesias's response to McArdle's posts on obesity was pretty weak.
You mean pound cake isn't healthier than lettuce? There goes that diet plan.
Look, this blog is sexist, too, okay? We have 30-year-old women referring to themselves as girls.
What does it mean if I'm a thirty-one year-old who refers to his male friends as "the boys"?
542: It ups the odds of a DUI by about 33%.
Good to hear from read again.
What does it mean if CB is a thirty-one year-old who refers to his genitals as "his male friends"?
What does it mean if I'm a thirty-one year-old who refers to his male friends as "the boys"?
That we're all a bunch of Peter Pans?
The Peter Pan guy got married, by the way.
Criminally, you should know, if you don't already, that your comment is an instance of a rhetorical move called but-what-about-the-men?, and it is not advised.
I think it's hilarious that the prime evidence for this blog's purported sexism is women referring to their own damn selves as "girls."
547: Personally, I think my bait and switch comment in the other thread about the meaning of a bachelor diving into a pile of coins was far more sexist than the choice to refer to myself as a girl.
548: What about asking for pictures of various asses?
Would you like a picture of my ass, Moby?
549: Heh. Certainly there's been all kinds of sexism here from time to time, but it is still cracking me up that it is being blamed on the women. Unfogged would be way less sexist but for them! Especially that Parenthetical!
550: Send me yours. Then it won't be sexist.
i mean i get offended on behalf of others too,
very often, so i understand J's impulse and maybe it's kinda strange to rethink that
and one should love others, the greater good no matter what, perhaps, just it's difficult
550: That's just humanist. Like hiding the contents of the British Museum in the Tube.
hiding the contents of the British Museum in the Tube
...if you know what I mean.
you're not on my side
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TROLL THE INTERNET DEMANDING THAT PEOPLE TAKE SIDES. THAT'S THE WHOLE DAMN POINT.
Argh argh argh argh. You know, as much as I like arguing, I really don't like the kind of conflict with hurt feelings.
First, I disagree with Ben that there's a meaningful sense in which this is Bitch's turf but not Jes's. Bitch is closer friends with more of the posters than Jes, and has been around here much longer, but I don't like thinking of commenters as having rank. You're all commenters, and you're all banned.
Second, I disagree with Apo that banning Jes is appropriate. I don't like banning people, because it leaves me feeling as if we've endorsed everything said by everyone we haven't banned, and lord knows there's some of you I'd hate for that to apply to.
Third, I thought Bitch's joke was gross, and her apology not in the best of grace, but it was an apology. Jes, I can see why you were unsatisfied by the apology. To the extent that your project is to make Bitch uncomfortable about it forever, well, that's a project. I wish it wasn't happening here, but I'm not going to do anything to stop you. It'd be nice if you had some conditions on which you'd make peace, but I can't imagine what those would be either that you'd be interested in or that Bitch would go along with after the amount of hostility that's been invested in this.
Parsimon -- the blog's not sexist. Blogs are software. People are sexist. Being elliptical like that is annoying -- if you want to call someone sexist, use your words. Furthermore, saying irrelevantly hostile things in the middle of a different argument is also annoying. I'm not going to ban you for it. Barring the Troll of Sorrow, I'm not in favor of banning anyone for anything, mostly. But it's still annoying.
But it brought read back, so there's that.
Parsimon -- the blog's not sexist. Blogs are software. People are sexist.
Oh, come on. That's like saying that a blog isn't good (supposing one doesn't mean that the blogging software is good qua blogging software), because only people are good. But we know that it's more than the individual people that make up a blog.
I'm just trying to extend this until Paren propositions me again, and means it.
Soylent blogs are people!
Fine, Mr. Persnickety, blogs are software and cock jokes. Happy now?
556, 557 -- A request for production of documents and things would reach to the Tube, I suppose, so long as the custodian was within the court's jurisdiction.
And with that last bit of lame lawyer humor, I bid you all adieu.
Guns don't blog people; people blog people.
563: But could you stand to be propositioned by a sexist? I think not!
Wow, that really doesn't work as a noun.
Bloggers, bloggers who need bloggers, are the bloggiest bloggers in the world.
I could only stand being propositioned by a sexist.
I can't stand the propositional logic of a sexist.
Their axioms are wack, yo.
Ben wants to be the head noun of a propositional phrase.
Their axioms are wack, yo.
Moreover, their conjunction introduction rules are too lenient.
It's like, whenever you have a p, if there's a q around, all of a sudden, they're conjoined.
Ben wants to be the head noun of a propositional phrase.
Or so I say in public. Secretly, I desire to be a subordinate clause.
553: That's the first time anybody on the internet has ever asked for a picture of my ass. I'm trying to figure out the timer on the camera.
578: All my dreams are coming true.
I don't like thinking of commenters as having rank
This is the kind of thing only a high-rank commenter would say.
(Me, I *know* commenters have rank.)
Five demerits for letting the cat out of the bag, Josh.
581: I'll have you know I just self-censored a very sexist joke in response to this.
Why would you have done a thing like that?
582: I guess for the time being, Otto gets Josh's parking space, then.
Why would you have done a thing like that?
I'm feeling suddenly self-conscious.
585: Seat on the train, please. This is a progressive blog.
586: Yeah, girls are timid like that.
Maybe a glass of wine would help you relax.
Indeed. And with that in mind, off to happy hour. Well, as soon as my damn friends show up.
Goes to show what good comes of deleting comments.
You deleted it? But why! I'm heartbroken.
I was feeling suddenly self-conscious.
Oh. If you wish, you may delete all the relevant comments.
Ten to one, the thread dies now.
Why is apo like a train seat?
A. They both smell like ass.
B. Neb's joke was to good not to try to ruin by belaboring the point.
C. Parenthetical is wrong!
D. I do not have sufficient standing to make this comment.
E. All of the Above.
My rank is probably private, third class.
Hi read!
Did anybody make a "I am very rank" joke yet?
I have other blogs to troll, you know, I can't keep track.
The other image that comes to mind is that big sweaty guy swinging the velvet hammer, but I don't how many kids here would remember, and I can't make a joke of it anyway.
I think it's time JM got a battlefield commission. I'd say she's done at least 1st Lieutenant-level commenting.
601.1: I believe I considered it, but passed. I was trying to come up with a nonparametric statistics joke. Something about a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, perhaps.
I want BitchPhD to try to be the person I thought she was: until I discovered she was just another transphobic middle-class creep
Jes, inconsiderate and stubborn (forgive me, B) is not the same as transphobic and hateful.
Your insistence that they are the same thing is irritating.
LizardBreath: It'd be nice if you had some conditions on which you'd make peace, but I can't imagine what those would be either that you'd be interested in
That BitchPhD would post an apology on her blog. You know, an actual apology not a rambling explanation of how the joke wasn't that bad or hurtful followed by an non-apology acknowledgement that she's sorry she caused so much trouble for herself. Just a simple, straightforward, apology for wrongdoing.
I admit that it's pretty unimaginable that BitchPhD would do that. But it's not an "unimaginable condition": it's just one that it's unlikely will ever be fulfilled.
561: But it brought read back, so there's that.
Yeah. Do I get some rank points for that? Or are all concerned convinced I'm already pretty rank?
Harriet Lane: At least, as far as I can tell you are not trans, nor are you particularly closely involved with any trans people; if you are, I apologize.
How closely involved do I have to be to care, btw? I started trying to list all the trans people I know and care about and like and dislike (but not dislike on the level of wanting their windows broken) and realised that this was kind of like a man trying to list all the women he knew and cared about and liked and disliked to explain why he hates men who tell misogynistic jokes.
I am cisgendered, yes.
Briefly agreeing that it's not nice to tell bigoted jokes and then dismiss the people you hurt as not worth apologizing to, but then dismissing the whole issue as just a personal difference between myself and BitchPhD: you're not on my side.
The personal difference is between me and everyone else who thinks BitchPhD is right: BitchPhD thinks it's perfectly OK to tell bigoted jokes about trans people and refuse to apologize because trans people aren't worth it, because in a couple of months, pretty much no one will care any more, except the people who were hurt by the joke, and - apparently - caring about those people is just my personal issue. Just me being "PC".
Whereas BitchPhD calling me what she evidently thinks is a terrible insult, "fucking cunt", is just her being reasonable and nice and not in the least banworthy. Who could blame her for being provoked that a transient in her neighborhood is unwilling to forget she's a bigot?
1. In re: the "joke," Jes, I am completely on your side. I said so at the time.
2. In re: "the apology," again, I agreed, it wasn't great.
3. In re: her calling you a "fucking cunt," well, I'm not sure if it was that comment, but somewhere in this exchange I suggested that her response was pretty shitty and got shit for it myself.
BUT.
4. To pretend this is not "personal" is the height of disingenuous. If the issue is simply advancing the interests of the transphobic community, you can't possibly think your acronym thing is winning any hearts or minds. You are pissed at BPhD individually, personally.
5. And you know what, personal is fine. "It's all personal. Every piece of shit every man has to eat every day of his life. They call it business. Fine. But it's personal as hell." You give a shit about his; of course you take it personally.
6. Your approach is entirely counterproductive. If you wanted Bitch to publicly acknowledge fucking up, maybe not completely annihilating her character would have been a productive approach. I put up a post not long ago on apologies and, frankly, I had you and B in mind (in part). The more you make this about what a rotten to the core human being you think she is, the more impossible you make it for her to meet you halfway. You thought she was a good person, an interesting blogger, someone who wrote about things you care about. Maybe try to approach the issue with some semblance of recognition of who you once thought she was. One shit post doesn't completely erase an entire history.
7. Honey, I have been there on the obsessive mission to wrest an apology from someone who has inflicted incredible pain and yet utterly refuses to acknowledge the harm. It's fucking futile. (We're having coffee Tuesday on the subject of "Holy fucking Christ, just acknowledge that you fucking hurt me and that fucking me over wasn't some sort of favor that "made [me] stronger in the end." But I digress.) You are just torturing yourself and the more urgently you push for retribution, the less likely you are ever going to get it. The fact that you are pursuing this as a public display only makes it the more futile and irritating to the rest of us who really don't have any influence over whether you and B reconcile.
Okay. I'm done now. I had a bad week and a couple of drinks, so I just know you will all forgive me for my dissertation on this subject that really should be allowed to die a quiet death.
How closely involved do I have to be to care, btw?
It's not a matter of what you have to do in order to care; it's of whether I find your confusing grudge-bearing for activism an unfortunate but understandable case of getting heated because of personal sympathies, or whether it's a matter of appropriating an issue that doesn't affect you personally in order to score points against B, which is obviously completely gross and obviously objectionable in and of itself. I don't agree with your behavior either way.
JM is hereby a three-star general.
W00T!
I should bookmark that, probably.
610: Of course this means you have to send the posters pictures of your ass.
Man, I couldn't drop rhymes more slowly if I were using a mic submerged in molasses. But:
Their axioms are wack, yo
And their syllogisms slack, so
If you want to get down you'd best be fucking sound
On the question of who's equal to whom.
'Cause no way do you get into my room
If you don't understand how the q-ness of the p-ness is germane to the matter at hand.
Begging the question won't make me beg.
And if you think 'cause I'm a girl that you oughta take me down a peg,
Shit. The patriarchy's got your head.
I got no room for that kind of error in my bed.
You try a cum hoc fallacy? Well I lose interest in your phallus, see?
What I demand is rigor, y'all,
Full peer review of points of logic big or small;
If your thought engenders errors, then I must doubt your consistency.
605: not at all. I'll totally cop to inconsiderate and stubborn.
613: I don't believe that actually belongs to you.
It's part of the commons, man; ownership is such a bourgeois concept.
I just lost all of my street cred with that semi-colon, didn't I.
It's part of the commons, man
The hive-ass.
There's a racist joke in there somewhere. Where the fuck is ogged when you need him!
608: To pretend this is not "personal" is the height of disingenuous. If the issue is simply advancing the interests of the transphobic community, you can't possibly think your acronym thing is winning any hearts or minds. You are pissed at BPhD individually, personally.
Yeah, you're right, I am.
If you wanted Bitch to publicly acknowledge fucking up, maybe not completely annihilating her character would have been a productive approach.
That's what I thought, too. I tried discussing it by e-mail. I figured a nice quiet calm polite approach suggesting that it was really a bad move and I thought she was a better person than this and maybe a proper apology would be better. Unfortunately her emails merely annihilated her character in more detail than had been possible via her blogposts. I really wished I hadn't e-mailed, in the end: I would have preferred to remain ignorant that she would say that in defense of her actions. And I probably would have felt differently if I hadn't e-mailed: the blog posts would just have been a painful query about how, if BitchPhD were that transphobic, she was trustworthy at all.
But look: I was OK with just posting lengthy acronymic reminders. This discussion blew up because BitchPhD was not OK with getting reminded, and because multiple other people were not OK with it either, and because I got told this is BitchPhD's playground more than mine.
609: Harriet Lane: It's not a matter of what you have to do in order to care; it's of whether I find your confusing grudge-bearing for activism an unfortunate but understandable case of getting heated because of personal sympathies
I didn't ask what I had to do. Or maybe I did. I meant... No, I don't have a close blood relative, or a partner, who's transgender. There is a bunch of friends and co-workers and a former manager and a range of acquaintances, some of whom I like, some I dislike, most I'm pretty indifferent to, you know, the same way I feel about most of the cisgendered people I know well enough to say hello to in the pub. It's been about twenty-five years since anyone threw stones at my windows: where I live, sexual orientation is not a matter for stone-throwing any more.
Your insistence that they are the same thing is irritating.
I don't insist they are the same thing. I'm fine with inconsiderate and stubborn: it's transphobic and hateful I'm allergic to. BitchPhD is transphobic and hateful.
For what it's worth, I don't think you need to know a single transphobic person for your concerns to be justified. What, I need a black friend before I get to give a shit about civil rights?
622: No. She isn't. I think that's why everyone's so pissed off at you, too. It's clear - not because she's high ranked, or anything, or friends with anyone, but simply because IT'S CLEAR to everyone, except you, who has been watching this unfold, and reading her vibes - that Bitch is absolutely NOT on the "transphobic and hateful" side here. And it seems that it is indeed an obsession with you that she is on that side. So try and imagine she isn't, and see how you take it from there, ok?
Sorry about the caps. And indeed for getting involved in any way, as a mere assistant to sub-sub-private.
IT'S THE ALLCAPS THAT UPSET ME MOST, U-AWL.
Look, to use Jes's "man trying to list women he knows and cares about" analogy, it's like watching a man who claims to be an ally use some misogynist remarks as a bludgeon to go after another man in a really over the top personal matter, in a way that hardly appears to be related to genuine activism or concern at all. It feels alienating and dismissive; I'm all for cis people without personal stakes serving as allies, but "this cause that affects you deeply and personally in a very real way is fodder for my disinterested psychotic campaign" is not being an ally.
We know you have issues with this, Di.
And 614 is amazing and had me rolling here.
614 is dope!
Especially this line:
You try a cum hoc fallacy? Well I lose interest in your phallus, see?
629: Heh. I'm working out a CLE seminar involving logical fallacies -- can i steal that line?
Aw man. Despite the timestamps, I was totally all into 614 way before OvB.
This blog would be a lot funnier without timestamps.
I think that's why everyone's so pissed off at you, too.
It may be why you're pissed, but not why everyone (who is pissed) is pissed. Lots of people have said that their problem isn't whether or not J. is misrepresenting B., but that it's aggravating to be relentlessly subjected to J's campaign about it in the middle of unrelated conversations.
IT'S CLEAR to everyone, except you, who has been watching this unfold, and reading her vibes - that Bitch is absolutely NOT on the "transphobic and hateful" side here.
What's clear to me, at least, is that Jes's refusal to drop it has given B. more opportunities to insist she's done nothing wrong.
So, thanks to teevee, Rory asked me tonight, "What's an orgasm?"
630: I have no problems with you stealing it, but you might want to ask Gabardine.
Aw, thanks, Otto and M/tch, in whichever order. The line's all yours, Di.
634: Give her a copy of Forever and tell her it's what they mean when they say "come."
637: It's easier to demonstrate than it is to describe.
637: And what apo is really asking is "what are you wearing?"
I told her it's something that happens when you have sex, if it's any good.
I'm still glad I learned about sex from Victorian porn, the Kama Sutra, and the Joy of Sex.
640: Stripey shorts and a Harry Potter t-shirt. Aw yeah.
It supposedly gives you tons of pleasure by rubbing or messaging your vagina. And, yes, a liquid does come out, and you feel this very pleasurable sensation that's called your climax, the liquid ***. I hope I could help...I had to search some stuff up, but I got it for you.
----
ur vaginia starts pumpin in a weird way for like 3 minutes, and u start breathin unsteadly, and u start shaking?shiverin! and if feels rrrlllyyy good!!
Source(s):
experiance
Yes, now you know what "sexting" is all about!
I totally need to upgrade my cell phone plan.
See, Victorian porn is more educational than that.
If ur vagina starts pumpin in a weird way for more than four hours, see your doctor.
650: Should that ever happen, I will continue seeing whoever I am seeing, whether he's a doctor or not.
See a doctor, nonsense! We need to harness the power of the vagina pump for American civilization!
634: Do you really think that she hasn't had one yet? B/c if she knows what masturbation is, you could say "it's that really good "bam!" feeling you get from masturbating? Know what I mean?"
At least, that's what I told PK, and he seemed to understand....
634, 655: Aaaaaaaand the thread comes full-circle.
The lurkers emailed me and said that they dont want to discuss Rory's orgasims.
I was in my 20s before I had one... I don't think she's there yet. I don't think she knows what masturbation is, either. Pretty much by the time I would get to "Well, when you have sex... " she would move on to "lalalalalalaicanthearyoulalalalala".
656: Sorry it took so long, but B masturbated a lot as a kid.
657: Yeah, true enough. Though, if the lurkers have sensible insight on answering such questions without permanently scarring your kid with unbearable embarrassment...
For what it is worth, I am with Bitch on the theory of being open and blunt with your kid. Rory is a smart and insightful kid. She's probably got a pretty good idea already.
I was in my 20s before I had one... I don't think she's there yet.
Doesnt every parent want their child to do better than they did
BitchPhD is transphobic and hateful
And I am Marie of Roumania.
662: Let's be honest, it would be hard for her not to.
Though, if the lurkers have sensible insight on answering such questions without permanently scarring your kid with unbearable embarrassment...
and a pony, plus then you found three dollars!
I am all for vigorous debates on issues or even two people thrown into a pit to fight it out.
But, for the love of pete, just do it once and stop the childish insults. Plus, it would be different if Jes was correct. But, she wont give it a rest.
It is like her idol turned out to not be perfect so now she is the devil bc she isnt perfect.
Let's be honest, it would be hard for her not to.
Well, mostly because we all know the "20's" means mid-thirties.....
613: That's a really cute ass you have there, JM.
two people thrown into a pit to fight it out
Jes and B in a pit with cavalry broadswords of the largest size. Let's make this happen.
Belatedly: Hi, read!
And: Anyone who thinks this blog is sexist now should have seen it four years ago.
667: Okay fine. Yes. I was faithful to UNG. There are consequences to all our decisions.
In fact, the trivialization of our comments follows directly from the disappearance of Ogged's feminist-baiting posts.
669: Not enough money in the world, my friend.
Seriously, DK, re. Rory's question. Just tell her the truth. "Orgasm is a feeling of intense pleasure brought about by muscle contractions during sex."
I can't believe your kid hasn't masturbated yet. *Toddlers* masturbate.
Anyone who thinks this blog is sexist now should have seen it four years ago.
Hey, where are all the women bloggers, anyway?
Poor Di. So "Rory" wanted to know what an orgasim is?
Maybe "Rory" should do an Ask the Mineshaft question so she finds out. We wouldnt want her to languish in post-divorce life without certain important information.
Poor Di. So "Rory" wanted to know what an orgasim is?
Maybe "Rory" should do an Ask the Mineshaft question so she finds out. We wouldnt want her to languish in post-divorce life without certain important information.
Di, just have her send the question to one of us and we'll put up an Ask the Mineshaft thread. While it seems to be a very common topic at Yahoo Answers, I'm beginning to doubt many of the answerers' research credentials.
Resolved Question
Is it possible to have an orgasm from purley being felt up?
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
yes this i spossible since ur skin receptors on ur body are tellng ur body to send pleasure hormones to your brain and this can result in an orgasim feeling or a orgasim itself
Source(s):
Science
676: You know, that hurt the first time, Will. Repeating yourself was just cruel.
*Toddlers* masturbate.
Not to orgasm, however.
Source(s):
Science
You questioning science, Apo?
Are you one of those global warming denying young earth creationist snake handlers?
Science, man. You can't argue with science.
679:
They say it takes practice before it works.
680: No, but by 8 or 10 or 12 or so, kids can orgasm. I'm sure PK does, judging by the sounds he makes. Which is really kind of annoying, actually.
ur skin receptors on ur body are telling ur body to send comment answerin hormones to your brain, togolosh.
683: He wouldn't happen to go "whump! whump! whump!", would he?
Over 50% of high school girls have masturbated PK to orgasm.
663 oh she knows and not hateful, then how she's able to tell terribly offensive jokes powerful enough to offend a LGBT person
sarcastic jokes are only reinforcing the ugly side against which it supposedly should work, they are harmful and hurtful
and people telling J to stop maybe should stop reprimanding her if they want her to stop that's not how humans work, greater force - greater resistance, excuse me my intrusion though
judging by the sounds he makes
"Whump! Whump! Whump! There it is!"
683: Can =/= do, of course. It's a tricky balance. She'll ask the occasional question, but should I dare to venture beyond a single sentence answer she absolutely DIES of embarrassment. Just suck it up and accept that it is my job to mortify her?
people telling J to stop maybe should stop reprimanding her
I didnt comment on it the first bunch of times it happened on the hopes that it would resolve itself.
But, it has just gotten to a very childish stage. I generally like Jes. But, the continuation of it in such a childish fashion made me want to comment.
I had myself a good orgasm laughing at 686.
Di:
I try to explain that these are natural things and not things to be embarassed by. Just like with tampons, or pads, or any other biological issue.
687: Of all people, read, I would think you'd be the last to advocate for the eternal condemnation of a person for making a thoughtless and hurtful remark.
687.---Oh, I agree that she knows better, but she'll never back down now; she never has in the past, and I can't see that a campaign against her will do anything positive.
Sorry, crap. Feel free to delete 696, Apo, please.
judging by the sounds he makes
Yoooooigh... yooooooigh... yooooooooigh...
Oh damn, the vortex begins again. Sorry for my part in it!
698: Heavy panting. We had the "if you close your door, I promise I won't walk in without knocking, okay?" talk.
"Heavy panting" s/b "Tarzan yell"
Not yet, thank god.
Well, how long has it been? Give him another hour or so.
It isn't a real orgasm without one.
My daughter has certainly practiced at it enough, but I dont know if she has been successful.
I have a vague feeling that it is a topic I should contemplate and investigate how and whether someone can educate her about sexuality, but I just have gotten enough gumption to even attempt to read about it. I feel vaguely neglectful that I havent.
I am a proponent of kids learning about these kinds of things early before they get trained to be embarassed by them, but with her, I just dont know what to do.
i just can't reconcile her post linked in 663 and the offensive joke
i think if this is her true self it should be so much easy for BphD to apologize to J's satisfaction and end the fight
Apo, you are old. Tarzan yells are for old people.
"Spongebob squarepants!" is more likely.
i just can't reconcile
People are complicated like that.
Just suck it up and accept that it is my job to mortify her?
Being willing to mortify your kid a little early on will pay dividends down the line, IMO. I could have used a little more mortification when questions like that came up for me. Would have saved me considerable hassle, not to mention *much* *worse* mortification, down the line.
707: it should be so much easy for BphD to apologize to J's satisfaction
Can B apologize J to orgasm? Tune in for tomorrow's episode of As the World Unfogs.
Can B apologize J to orgasm?
Is this what Catholics mean when they say they have to rub the Rosary beads?
it should be so much easy for BphD to apologize to J's satisfaction
Even with good will and good intentions all around, this isn't always possible. And it's never "easy."
712 would have made penance a whole lot more meaningful.
And it's never "easy."
I can win your forgiveness from across a crowded room, baby.
Then how she's able to tell terribly offensive jokes powerful enough to offend a LGBT person
LGBT persons, like all persons, are quite varied in terms of what offends them. The mere fact that one person gets offended at something is not necessarily an indication of anything.
And I'm just curious, read, but have you read the post with the joke over at B's site, or are you basing your opinion primarily on Jes's reaction?
The Kingdom of God is at hand, indeed.
712: Of course, Tom Lehrer got there first:
First you get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman;
Ave Maria,
Gee, it's good to see ya.
Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican Rag
Jes is not the only person who found the joke offensive. I mean, I stop a bit short of concluding that Bitch is the antiChrist, but I found the joke offensive. I don't think that's the issue here. The issue here is whether this is an appropriate forum for venting rage about it.
721 gets it exactly right. In 716 I just meant to point out that "LGBT person" is not a fungible commodity, at least in terms of offense-taking.
I stop a bit short of concluding that Bitch is the antiChrist,
Right, 'cuz this bitch be the antiChrist, bitch!
if she's not giving up her like ideals it should be easy to apologize as J wants her maybe, another post like that in 663 if it was a heartfelt post
otherwise it's just a contest in stubborness, then let them be as stubborn as they are
i recalled an article about Sotomayor, the article sounded as if the author supported her nomination and all, but ended it with a wise latina sure will take her nomination or salary was it, i forgot, home
stupid i think to repeat the racial slur there and it reveals that the writer is just racist
it's just a contest in stubborness
Indeed.
if she's not giving up her like ideals it should be easy to apologize
I suppose you've never said or done anything hurtful that you've found it difficult to apologize for?
726: Maybe Obama could have them over for a beer.
I should contemplate and investigate how and whether someone can educate her about sexuality
Years ago I knew a terrific psychologist who had done a lot of work with people with developmental disabilities around sexuality. Of course the only way you can get that stuff funded is to have it be about Avoiding Danger, so the rather depressing focus of the group was preventing abuse, which certainly for people in group homes is a huge risk.
Anyway, at one point we were talking and she said she wanted more than anything to someday do a "Happy Sex Group." I figured right then that if I ever got rich, one of the things I would do would be to set up a dedicated, non-divertable funding stream for it.
Since I don't play the lottery, I may never have the cash to do it, but it's been almost a decade and I still think it's as important as the day I first heard about it.
Now if only Emerson would show back up.
Also, 673.2 is exactly the right thing to say, at least for kids who have no history of trauma.
We could talk about how cold it is in Winnipeg compared to Ulan Bator.
Bah. "Around sexuality" should be "about sexuality", and "divertable" should be "divertible." Obviously I'm too tired to type coherently.
Didn't I already explain how a sensitive person can nonetheless be so offensive?
And 614 is amazing and had me rolling here.
Seconded.
727: There is only one reason to demand a public apology and it's to demonstrate that one has the power to extract that apology.
That's not going to happen here. TBH, I've rarely seen a more annoying and counter-productive campaign of self-proclaimed virtuous outrage.
737: To a certain sector of the electorate, yes.
And: Anyone who thinks this blog is sexist now should have seen it four years ago.
When it was still worth reading.
When it was still worth reading
But it is still worth reading. Maybe I just think that cause I'm drunk, though.
Not to orgasm, however.
Non productive members of society, after all.
"LGBT person" is not a fungible commodity
What's the mouse-orgasm to LGBT-orgasm exchange rate again?
Is that a pegged exchange, H-L ?
744 really? think of the lost arbitrage opportunities. Let's put the fun back in fungible.
"LGBT person" is not a fungible commodity
Exactly, try chewing an LGBT person next time you're carsick.
Well, okay, but I'll probably get slapped.
522
just it seems to me J being vulnerable, what is minor grievance for others is the matter of life or death like for her maybe
I doubt it. Anyway I don't think it matters. The standard should be that of a reasonable person. Anything else just encourages phoney outrage for moral advantage.
read!
Who would have thought that we'd be pining for Emerson? (I do like Emerson, myself. I like Jes, too, and B. Please stick around, pretend people living in my computer. Each of you is a special snowflake.)
The standard should be that of a reasonable person.
Where are we going to find one of those?
Looking at portraits by R. Avedon today, Bave, it struck me that you could look like Allen Ginsberg, if you wanted to, maybe.
529
JBS, the relevant difference between doing what Jes is doing and what we do to McArdle is where it takes place (i.e. on whose blog). Whenever any of us bothers to comment on McArdle's blog we do (I imagine) engage her seriously and at least somewhat respectfully.
Is this B's blog?
It's the lower lip and the penis that do it.
I've read much (though not all) of the archives. I admit that I miss ogged (I was a major lurker before he left, I don't believe I commented until after he was gone). But shucks, I like this place.
Ok, no more beer until the earnestness dissipates.
755: you can drink through the earnestness, Paren. Shots might help.
Nooo! No shots after beer. I have learned my lesson.
That's very sweet of you, neb, as I adore Avedon and Ginsberg. But I'm not balding, and Ginsberg's penis isn't visible in that shot. I've seen Ginsberg's penis in a film of him and Orlovsky fucking, but the cuts were quick and I have no idea whether it resembles my own very much. Lower lip, maybe.
I tend to drink through the earnestness straight to the superearnestnessest.
Oh, maybe I mean Orlovsky, then. The guy on the left. I assumed it went Ginsberg-Orlovsky because of the title.
I tend to drink through the earnestness straight to the superearnestnessest.
Me too. I follow this up with incoherence.
Who would have thought that we'd be pining for Emerson?
All reasonable persons, that's who.
I'm pretty sure Ginsberg is on the right, from my knowledge of pictures of him from a similar time.
Whatever happened to Emerson, anyway? Does anyone know?
Oh, I'll take Orlovsky. Although I'm circumcised, so my penis probably won't resemble his very closely without various weird surgeries.
Ginsberg once wrote, "Why can't I buy bread with my good looks?" -- and he wasn't being ironic, he really was quite good looking when he was younger.
I think neb has a point regarding Bave filling in for Orlovsky. You know, like for the stunt work and stuff.
Whatever happened to Emerson, anyway? Does anyone know?
Gone to the Devil, ho ho ho.
I'm sick of your insane demands.
When can I go into the supermarket and buy what I need with my good looks?
766: Good looking, maybe. But breadworthy?
I have revealed my ignorance.
It's a revealing photograph.
687
and people telling J to stop maybe should stop reprimanding her if they want her to stop that's not how humans work, greater force - greater resistance, ...
I don't see it this way, when someone is being abused I feel some obligation to come to their defense. And it's not how humans work anyway men don't beat their wives so much now because there is more social pressure against it.
I dunno. I'd give nosflow some bread. Why not Ginsberg?
Orlovsky is rather gorgeous.
And I suppose we're back into that facial hair being in fashion again.
736
There is only one reason to demand a public apology and it's to demonstrate that one has the power to extract that apology.
Yes, ritual humiliation is a favorite tool of the PC police.
You're unapologetic about the destruction of joy, M/tch, aren't you?
765: He's in Portland, eating pie and writing and hanging out with his family and doing other mysterious stuff. Or so I've heard. His loss around here is deeply felt, if you ask me.
the PC police
The real police, too, if recent events are any guide. Wow, I wonder if the PC police can get tasers. That would totally rock!
Today someone in Australia wound up at my blog searching for information about, or perhaps the text of, a famous Larkin poem, and ended up staying for fifty minutes reading every post linked in the "jokes" post in my sidebar.
Victory!
You're unapologetic about the destruction of joy, M/tch, aren't you?
Perhaps M/tch just has a gluten allergy.
I bet M/tch's brownies look and smell good, but taste foul. Just to destroy joy.
783: They contain wasteful amounts of joy, such that much of it is destroyed in the baking, to my delight.
You are history's greatest monster.
Also, 778.last is absolutely right.
Goodnight all.
Today someone in Australia wound up at my blog searching for information about, or perhaps the text of, a famous Larkin poem, and ended up staying for fifty minutes reading every post linked in the "jokes" post in my sidebar.
Oddly, I, (somewhere near Australia) did exactly that just a few days ago. If this kindred spirit ever finds their way here, they should identify themselves.
When I did it I was specifically looking for what I already knew you'd written, though, so it's less special.
That's fifty minutes of my life that I'll never get back, that could have been spent masturbating mice.
Yes, ritual humiliation is a favorite tool of the PC police.
Like the ritual humiliation of the Australian Gov't by the indigenous peoples of Australia...
(Hint: public apologies aren't just power relations, & it is v. naive to assume so.)
Also, the hacker mentality involves quite a lot of alcohol in its local variation.
727, 772 you've never said or done anything hurtful that you've found it difficult to apologize for?
i can't recall anything contradicting my moral convictions, sure i did some mistakes in my life which can't be unfortunately undone and that's my karma i'll bear until the end and that's why perhaps i say apologies should be easy, coz sometimes it's too late to realize that
those "showing moral superiority, PCness" are the concepts harmful to any progressive ideas/ movements imo, they are enabling cynicism
a person who truly believes in something wrongful is a better person imo, honest at least than someone who knows true values of the moral stance but chooses to ignore it or contradict it out of i don't know trying to be cool, complicated or something
i don't know what they gain from that, what kind of peace of mind
regarding J v B i hope J reads B's post linked upthread and accepts it as an apology, that would be great
anyway, i just think too many people shame J and that's like counterproductive, i don't know what husbands beating their wives have to do with that
those husbands should be fought against with the equal and a greater force coz they are wrong morally however you look at them and until they stop being harmful to others
by the wives themselves too, enduring the beatings is enabling their husbands to beat them, there lack of resistance unleashes the morally wrong
very different situations to compare and think about force and resistance imo
regarding J v B i hope J reads B's post linked upthread and accepts it as an apology, that would be great
Jes has read that post.
by the wives themselves too, enduring the beatings is enabling their husbands to beat them, there lack of resistance unleashes the morally wrong
That's a really repulsive way to look at it.
M/tch, do you think you could explain why that's morally repulsive?
Read isn't an American feminist; she doesn't know the cultural context as to why that's morally repulsive (as opposed to empowering), and you know, nullius in verba.
(There's quite a lot of cultural baggage as to why that's morally repulsive (you have to understand the subordinate status of wives, inability to leave, conditioned submission/false consciousness, etc.), and while, OK, you don't have to explain it to read, and sure, not your job to explain Feminism 101 (my god that line annoys btw), but it might be a good thing to try and explain why x, rather than just assert that x.)
That's a really repulsive way to look at
maybe, but i really think the wives should resist and fight with the sticks abuse, otherwise nothing will change, social pressure won't work as effectively as just ability to fight/stand up for self
if one does not realize that it will continue, the abuse, no matter how much community support etc
794: Finding "The person being beaten is to blame because they don't stand up to the beater" morally repulsive doesn't have anything in particular to do with Western feminism, Keir.
794: Finding "The person being beaten is to blame because they don't stand up to the beater" morally repulsive doesn't have anything in particular to do with Western feminism, Keir.
Er, yes, in this case it does It relies on a bunch of knowledge about the position of woman in a relationship that isn't at all obvious. (Because apart from anything else, read never fucking said that, don't set up strawmen so obviously false.)
There's a reason that `women should fight back against abusive husbands' is seen as repulsive, and it isn't actually blatantly obvious, and it is in fact rather counter-intuitive; instead of just going `ooh ick morally repulsive*', why not try explain why a facially innocuous statement is wrong?
(Further, there's a difference between `wrong' and `morally repulsive'; I think it's very harsh to leap to `morally repulsive' so quickly.)
*To someone who is far more fucking likely to have been the abused one than you are, for heaven's sake.
To someone who is far more fucking likely to have been the abused one than you are
no worries i'm absolutely sure that particular kind of misfortune would never happen to me, coz i'm too picky to choose/ stand an abusive husband
and if i'll say again one's deed one's karma that would sound even more repulsive to MM perhaps
but really what one does brings the whatever results, so if you don't want abuse stand up against it, if you are willing to endure it, it's your choice
the abuser of course will die of cancer
no worries i'm absolutely sure that particular kind of misfortune would never happen to me, coz i'm too picky to choose/ stand an abusive husband
But it isn't a matter of choosing/standing an abusive husband. Lots of women are in situations where they have no ability to be picky.
It isn't a matter of choice, because the woman is denied choice: by society, by physical inability to go against male violence, by mental violence, etc.
no worries i'm absolutely sure that particular kind of misfortune would never happen to me, coz i'm too picky to choose/ stand an abusive husband
I hope you are right, read, that it never happens to you. But it is not something victims choose and your suggestion that standing up/resisting it is simple is flat out wrong. Some would say "twisted and degenerate."
But you know, it is precisely this sort of patently offensive, utterly off-topic remark that lead to earlier trollitude accusations.
But you know, it is precisely this sort of patently offensive, utterly off-topic remark that lead to earlier trollitude accusations.
Argh, not read that brought it up, it was Shearer. Bitch at Shearer, would you?
You're right. JBS brought up wife beating. 800.2 withdrawn.
apo, you like cheeseburgers, right? Let's discuss.
there is always some choice, on the personal level and regarding one's particular situation just one should be willing
if you let the first slap of your husband happen and forgive him, it would likely to bring further violence
and one chooses every action one makes, chain reaction like, so it's possible to avoid violence and abuse on the smallest scale, conversation, everyday life etc i believe
otherwise non-resistance is provoking abuse, it's matter of discipline for the abuser, if he knows his limits until what far he can go, the abuser won't go further than that, so its important to set the limits, the same thing is true with spoiled children
when society and other too broad generalizations are brought into the discussion then it would look like no choice
802: 498 to everything that has happened since. It's the thread of responding dangerously.
But I'm going to bed; please let me wake up to find not-horrible mess all around, please?
Don't let the bedbugs abuse you.
It is, of course, a huge and obvious mistake to wade into this, but it seems to me that one can reasonably distinguish between "no choice" and "only hard choices" and that in mainstream US culture at least, "choice" -- hard though it may be -- has very significantly advanced in the last several decades.
Individual circumstances vary, of course.
I don't believe in karma. Rather, I think that because justice is not going to be imposed by the Universe (or whatever) it falls to us to do it. Nor do I think that one can find karmic causation for injustice. (I also don't believe in the cousin of karma, that bad things happen for a reason that some Supreme Being knows and has put in motion for some purpose). This is a particular view of modern Western culture, quite possibly a minority view in the world West today, very definitely a minority view in the West over the sweep of recorded history.
One could take M/lls' 'that's morally repulsive' -- a view I share (and I think M/lls and I probably agree on most broad questions of morality) -- and say instead 'that view doesn't fit my particular moral framework, which is true and correct though unique in the history of the world, and quite rare even today." And it wouldn't seem quite the stinging rebuke.
No, I don't have a point. Maybe I should try for another rules of civil procedure joke.
Unless you like that.*
*Assuming that your "like" is not**:
a) due to any unequal power relationships that you might be in,
b) the product of pernicious and destructive influences on you as a child including but not limited to malicious parents, or received narratives from the patriarchal military death state,
c) a self-indulgent retreat into pleasure in minor irritation to avoid confronting the manifest realities of life,
d) an indirect mockery of any existing or potentially existing group which suffers from discrimination,
e) a pleasure shared primarily with educated elites in the coastal areas of the United States,
f) a dilettantish and voyeuristic attempt at authenticity by subjecting oneself in a very mild way to the troubles of the disadvantaged.
**However, it can be OK to "like" bedbug abuse even for any of the above reasons if you have certification*** that you are sufficiently ironically aware of the role that are playing with your filthy and degenerate bedbugphilia.
***Certificates available from any ISO-standard Reasonable Person who is a Level III Board Certified Bedbug Abuse Decontructionist.
Maybe I should try for another rules of civil procedure joke.
Or a lame drawn-out joke about who knows exactly what.
but it seems to me that one can reasonably distinguish between "no choice" and "only hard choices" and that in mainstream US culture at least, "choice" -- hard though it may be -- has very significantly advanced in the last several decades.
Choice has significantly advanced, perhaps. But for plenty of women there often still is no real choice.
say instead 'that view doesn't fit my particular moral framework, which is true and correct though unique in the history of the world, and quite rare even today." And it wouldn't seem quite the stinging rebuke.
The assertion that a battered woman is responsible for her battering was itself rather "stinging." M/tch's "stinging" response was quite appropriate.
How non-picky do you suppose the publisher is? I want my subtitle to be in lolcat.
I really, really do not think they look at any of this. I think it's all automated. Have at it!
816 -- What does you mean by 'real'? And how is it different from 'only hard choices'?
(Actual imprisonment I'll grant you.)
There's an excellent essay by Hilzoy here that addresses how "real" the imprisonment that battered women face is.
I'm probably pwned - I can't imagine someone hasn't linked this if we're discussing the amount of responsibility the battered woman bears.
On the subject of changing standards, my ambition for the day is to hike up a mountain formerly known as Squaw Peak. It has been decided, I'm not sure how recently, that this is an inappropriate name for a natural feature. I agree with this decision. The mountain is now formally named Cha paa qn. You can guess, though, that it's nearly universally known -- it's quite prominent in the area, and a popular hike -- as Squaw Peak. I'd say that's 90% ignorance, 8% habit, and 2% inability to decide how to pronounce the new name.
This is not designed to respond to 815.
819 -- I would never say that making a hard choice one way or the other is stupid or lazy.
to be imposed by the Universe
i was using karma as materialistically as possibly, just one's own deed causing its outcomes
814 is too overthought, and i'm tempted to say degenerate or something, half of that thoughts would never occur to me naturally
and i said the battered women should stand up for themselves, what is wrong in saying that? someone hits you, hit him back, don't be meek and defenceless tempting the other's violent nature
and why abusive husbands are possible in the first place, they are not born monsters from the beginning what brings out their transformation? i think it's unopposed power which is corrupting to anyone
society, friends, family could be as supportive as much as it's possible, but it depends on the person herself to defend self in the end, so people should not just pity the women but try to give them that, impulse to action
820: And changing standards upon changing standards. In a search for Squaw Peak (not stalking, honest, just geographically curious ...) one finds the following description in a Federal Writer's Project Guide from 1939: In the distance conical SQUAW PEAK (7,978 alt.) points its impudent mammilla at the sky. Known locally as Squaw Teat Peak, it is the most symmetrical of the mountains visible in this area. (Not sure if it is the same Squaw Peak, this one was described in the entry for Desmet near Missoula.)
SQUAW PEAK (7,978 alt.) points its impudent mammilla at the sky
823 -- The very one (my location is not a secret). It's now thought to be 7,995 elevation. Not sure if this is padding or impudence.
824: Conveniently located right off the main road for maximum ogling. Stopped and hiked around it a bit years ago when the kids revolted on a drive home from Myrtle Beach (which IMHO is a pretty miserable, fucking place; never been back).
And here's book that's apparently quite germane to CC's original comment: From Squaw Tit to Whorehouse Meadow: How Maps Name, Claim, and Inflame . Also see, disputed etymology for the Grand Tetons.
http://www.summitpost.org/images/original/393992.jpg
Snatched from the aether.
792
those husbands should be fought against with the equal and a greater force coz they are wrong morally however you look at them and until they stop being harmful to others
I think what J is doing is morally wrong.
... there lack of resistance unleashes the morally wrong
It is easier to resist when you have the support of the community. As opposed to suggestions that a sufficiently groveling apology will stop the abuse.
two different situations, B was the first one to offend and owes J an apology, J resists b/c she is morally right to demand that apology in the end
abusive husbands should be fought whatever it takes even until their like totally justified killing by their battered wives, all other social shaming included
b/c they are morally wrong
830
two different situations, B was the first one to offend and owes J an apology, J resists b/c she is morally right to demand that apology in the end
In my view B's offense, if any, was not nearly sufficient to justify J's actions. Just as if the wife carelessly burns the husband's toast he is not entitled to abuse her forever because he thinks she is insufficiently contrite.
B was the first one to offend and owes J an apology, J resists b/c she is morally right to demand that apology in the end
I believe B did apologize, but with insufficient contrition to meet J's conditions.
Why am I participating in this again? I'm sure that's been pointed out umpteen times upthread.
B's offense, if any
i don't know, in my image B's more like the abusive husband and J fights according to morality
and comparing toast and transphobic or any other hateful joke, those examples are not equal in strength
the husband's toast, the phrase itself makes me angry, make your toasts yourself if you will, husband
All in favor of Shearer and read in a pit with cavalry broadswoards?
826: I really, really, really can't believe that so much of Mark Monmonier's work has been kindleized. That's just weird, if you ask me. Does he know someone? Are kindle owners cartography nerds? Is Jeff Bezos actually Mark Monmonier? These are the kinds of questions that demand answers -- now. (Even though questions 1 and 3 are similar.)
716
And I'm just curious, read, but have you read the post with the joke over at B's site, or are you basing your opinion primarily on Jes's reaction?
I am also curious. Here is the link .
835
the husband's toast, the phrase itself makes me angry ...
Lots of things seem to make you angry.
833: Why am I participating in this again?
Because you were mean to a puppy once and now God is making you comment.
i found something different form that post, i mean the cited letter, Ornamental girls! that's something like wise latina
well, the thread there it seems said everything that could be told in its response
You people are fucking killing me. Killing me.
I shudder to think of the karmic payback that will come from killing Walt Someguy.
the husband's toast, the phrase itself makes me angry, make your toasts yourself if you will, husband
BUT THEN YOU COMPLAIN WHEN I BURN IT AND SET OFF THE SMOKE ALARM.
Killing me is free, karma-wise. It's like a "free spin" square on the board-game of life.
Because apart from anything else, read never fucking said that, don't set up strawmen so obviously false
Huh? read said:
enduring the beatings is enabling their husbands to beat them, there lack of resistance unleashes the morally wrong
I paraphrased this as "The person being beaten is to blame because they don't stand up to the beater". I'm not seeing how that's a strawman, unless you're objecting to the fact that read only mentioned abused wives and my paraphrase talks about abused persons? Or perhaps you think I meant solely to blame? I'm not trying to snark, I just don't understand your reaction.
Read isn't an American feminist; she doesn't know the cultural context as to why that's morally repulsive (as opposed to empowering), and you know, nullius in verba.
Read is an adult and has been living in the States for quite some time. I think it would be rather patronizing of me to assume, as you seem to be doing, that she has no clue about the cultural context. Do you really think that I (and other commenters) should start out any conversation with her by assuming she's naive and therefore needs a long discourse on [Topic] 101? And why are you not asking read to "explain why x, rather than just assert that x"?
why not try explain why a facially innocuous statement is wrong?
I just am not seeing how what read said is facially innocuous. Can you explain?
*To someone who is far more fucking likely to have been the abused one than you are, for heaven's sake.
I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. You don't know me or read and you have no idea what either of our experiences with domestic violence are. And seriously, what are you actually asserting? That I can't object to read's statements about battered wives based solely on the fact that women are vastly more likely to be subject to domestic abuse than men? That doesn't make any sense, but I can't come up with any other reading that does.
I paraphrased this as "The person being beaten is to blame because they don't stand up to the beater". I'm not seeing how that's a strawman, unless you're objecting to the fact that read only mentioned abused wives and my paraphrase talks about abused persons? Or perhaps you think I meant solely to blame? I'm not trying to snark, I just don't understand your reaction.
Read never used the concept of blame. You introduced that idea.
The jump from x enables y, to x is to blame for y, is quite big, and not at all trivially obvious, especially to someone who is clearly using an entirely different model of how stuff happens than the traditional Enlightenment western one.
I just am not seeing how what read said is facially innocuous. Can you explain?
Because on the face of it it looks like empowering pablum, you know, rise up, abused women of the world, you have nothing to lose etc. Of course, it isn't, but we know that because of some rather complicated bits of intellectual apparatus. (& most people don't know that cultural context because it's actually a very very rare one that really only exists in consciously feminist and aware communities. And for all I know, the French feminists disagree with the Americans on this one, so assuming that it is obvious is kind of dumb.)
Even just saying, `don't you think that's victim blaming?' is a better thing to say than (essentially) `ooh ick'. `ooh ick' doesn't advance the conversation; it is uninteresting. I'm not asking you to assume read knows nothing; I'm asking you to try and engage by offering some point of purchase, some way to discuss the issue.
(Not, of course, that you have any reason to listen as I ask or anything.)
Read never used the concept of blame. You introduced that idea.
Okay. I sort of see that. Blame is indeed a fraught concept, and perhaps I was just assuming that blame was part of read's view (probably based on past discussions, for example the one about how prostitutes must actually like their work because otherwise they wouldn't do it). How about if I had paraphrased it as "The person being beaten is responsible because they don't stand up to the beater"?
Because on the face of it it looks like empowering pablum
I'm just not seeing this. I read it as basically "You are responsible for whether you get abused or not." That's a message that those abused get a whole shitload of, and I fail to see how it is actually empowering.
How about if I had paraphrased it as "The person being beaten is responsible because they don't stand up to the beater"?
See, I'm not sure read intended any statement of responsibility. (And in general, people don't actually mean the consequences of their statements, and going from one to the other is slightly fraught.) But of course, that what she said is a lot like a statement of responsibility, and is victim blaming etc. But I think explaining why would be a better way to get anywhere.
Because on the face of it it looks like empowering pablum
Cf. workers of the world etc. Like, is `women should leave abusive husbands' implying that women who don't are to blame? Well, I don't think so exactly, but. I think that the idea of victim-blaming isn't entirely obvious.
See, I'm not sure read intended any statement of responsibility.
I'm pretty confident she did. Eg. "no worries i'm absolutely sure that particular kind of misfortune would never happen to me, coz i'm too picky to choose/ stand an abusive husband' -- i.e., the women to whom it does happen just aren't picky enough and don't stand up to abusive husbands. Or "non-resistance is provoking abuse" -- i.e., battered women cause the problem by failing to resist it.
How about, "if you are willing to endure it, it's your choice"? Or maybe just the fact that, when M/tch paraphrased her statement as one of blame, read did not say, "Oh, gosh, you misunderstood! That's not what I meant at all!"
make your toasts yourself if you will, husband
this is poignant and deep. mouseover.
i wake up at the midnight to a headache and accusations, what a life
i've tried to explain myself in 822, what is repulsive is passive pitying imo, so come on what's the right attitude to the problem
educate and enlighten me then, though i doubt the western feminists could add something new to my understanding of the problem, fwiw we'd in our socialist past experienced equal rights genderwise
and all that patriarchal conditions not abling the poor battered women to be free etc are kinda sound strange to me
See, I'm not sure read intended any statement of responsibility. (And in general, people don't actually mean the consequences of their statements, and going from one to the other is slightly fraught.)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I really do get the feeling that you're advocating maximum (and to me to the point of beyond reason) charity for anything read says while advocating that I parse and explain everything I say incredibly strictly. I'm very curious as to why.
what is repulsive is passive pitying imo, so come on what's the right attitude to the problem
Has anyone on this thread advocated passive pitying of abused wives?
do not ask a question on the question, just explain yourself straightforwardly, what do you think one should do witnessing domestic abuse?
i'm impatient for all your disguised bedbug jokes, if i'm wrong i want to understand where i'm wrong, say anything about community support etc and it fail on the deaf ears perhaps, coz that should be for granted
856: It depends greatly on the particulars of the situation, but telling the abused person that she/he just needs to stand up for her/himself, and that the failure to do so is what is unleashing the abuse? That's repulsive.
860: It depends greatly on the particulars of the situation. But regardless, put responsibility squarely on the person who is actually committing the abusive acts, and make clear to those abused that the responsiblity for the abuse is squarely on the abuser, and not due to something wrong or lacking in those who are abused.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I really do get the feeling that you're advocating maximum (and to me to the point of beyond reason) charity for anything read says while advocating that I parse and explain everything I say incredibly strictly. I'm very curious as to why.
Actually, I think I was arguing that instead of just saying `that's repusive', you should say why that's repulsive, (and having said that, I pretty much endorse everything you've said so far,) and if I have said more than that, I was wrong.
so the abuser has the square responsibility for the abuse, okay, good, then what, he's bad, you are not wrong you are the victim, poor you
if you stop there - pitying, and i doubt it's that much empowering for the woman
then what comes next? you gave the victim all the possible community support and all the possible shaming of the abusive husband, still it doesn't work
there, shouldn't the victim now make a decision for herself to change her situation - divorce, fight herself with all her might whatever it takes, kill him even
if she won't do something herself at some point i doubt the husband will change anything about the situation
so how it works imo
regardless of the particulars of the situation
and she can't be able to make that decision ot of the trap if she won't be able to see and take a partial responsibilty in her situation, why, one day the lightning will strike and she'll make a decision?
no, one have to think and take responsibilty for about every action which leads to another action
won't, what's
well, all are asleep it seems, good night
857: Like, "Send this dame the bedbug letter"?
Having just come from an unpleasant 45 minutes in Uptown Minneapolis, all I have to say is:
Legalize yuppiecide.
then what comes next? you gave the victim all the possible community support and all the possible shaming of the abusive husband, still it doesn't work
there, shouldn't the victim now make a decision for herself to change her situation - divorce, fight herself with all her might whatever it takes, kill him even
Oh, I understand now. You're criticizing hypothetical women in a hypothetical world. Yes, let's come back to this question when abused women have all possible community support. And all the assumptions listed in 814 are in effect. In the meantime, read, you are expressing precisely the same message a typical abuser presents -- "you deserve the abuse because you failed to do anything to prevent it." Which, you know, is sort of standing in the way of that maximum possible community support we agree is needed.
precisely the same message a typical abuser presents
o mysterious twisted western mind, i refuse to understand you and let me have my opinions true to myself b/c after this all the conversation is meaningless to me at least
and if you think a woman is a sheep stript of all her responsibility for her life so let it be too, perhaps all the pitying will help her to improve somehow her life though something makes me think what if she falls a victim to another abuser if she won't change her mind about responsibility
a person is not a woman first, a person is a person with all the equal rights as a man first and should have the full response for her own life if you help to install that message in the woman somehow perhaps that would help better the problem overall, this all is thinking hypothetically of course
I do, quite reluctantly, somewhat agree with read here. Ultimately, the woman has to get herself out of the abusive situation. Some switch has to flip deep inside herself, such that she wants to leave. All the rest of us can do is set the stage as much as possible to facilitate that decision.
Read has said that everyone else must provide as much support as possible, and that the bulk of the blame/responsiblity/etc for the horrible situation lies on the abuser. But there is no getting around that the abused person must use their volition to leave.
and if you think a woman is a sheep stript of all her responsibility for her life so let it be too
Yes, this is precisely what I said.
i refuse to understand you
Okay, that helps explain things.
But there is no getting around that the abused person must use their volition to leave.
Absolutely. But so long as the abused remains convinced that she is herself responsible for the abuse -- and that the community around her is going to judge *her* harshly for having been abused -- developing the volition to leave is all but impossible for all but the strongest of women.
As someone who did find the volition to leave an (emotionally) abusive marriage, I find the rhetoric here pretty damaging. "Well why don't you just leave?" fails to truly recognize the psychological injuries the abused is burdened with. It's a little like asking someone with a broken ankle why they don't just get up and walk away.
And I can't believe it, but for the first time in recorded history, I believe heebie is in fact wrong.
Some switch has to flip deep inside herself, such that she wants to leave.
This, by the way, is where I think you are wrong, h-g. I don't think the majority of women in abusive relationships stay because they don't want to leave. Wanting to leave and feeling like you can do so safely are two separate things. I'm quite lucky that UNG's threats were all purely psychological. But every year women face threats that they or their children will be killed if they try to leave. It's not a matter of flipping some switch in the victims' heads -- it's a matter of flipping the switch in our collective conscious so that we make it safe for people to flee.
That state does not even remotely exist, and having a conversation about women who fail to leave despite broad community support is pointless unless such a situation actually exists. We just wind up trying to reassure ourselves that we've done everything we possibly can for these women, when we obviously haven't, and that it really up to them now and there's nothing else we can do. The function of victim blaming, I think, is to psychologically absolve ourselves of the responsibility to do better and to reassure ourselves that we are immune.
Okay, I'll stop now. Happy Sunday, folks....
"you deserve the abuse because you failed to do anything to prevent it."
Deserve's got nothing to do with it. read is talking about what one particular woman can or has to do, not what women as a political class can or have to do. Trying to turn her lack of political awareness into a moral issue and browbeating her for it is not morally kind of shitty.
blaming the abuser 100% is not that different from blaming god for all the misfortunes one experiences in life, one has to be able to take partial responsibility in all what happens to the person's life, if that attitude from the very beginning perhaps there is a lesser chance of being abused too
well, i take this too personally perhaps b/c that was the message our parents tried to tell us, perhaps they were anxious about our well-being b/c we are all girls
perhaps they overdone with that too that i'm unable to make toasts for my hypothetical husbands even like hypothetically
I don't think the majority of women in abusive relationships stay because they don't want to leave. Wanting to leave and feeling like you can do so safely are two separate things ... But every year women face threats that they or their children will be killed if they try to leave.
Actually, I'm not sure this is quite true. I've known several people in physically abusive relationships* and their feelings about whether they wanted to leave were often quite ambivalent. It's not always a matter of the abused person having a clear idea of what they want but being scared to get it; in many cases there may be issues/feelings involved that make what they want/need unclear. They may genuinely love the person inflicting the violence, may be aware of the root cause of the violent individual's behaviour (perhaps the 'abuser' was a victim of violence themselves?) and see the abuser as someone needing 'help', perhaps the violent individual is, at other times, a loving and supporting partner and so on. People sometimes make difficult but conscious choices to stay with an abusive partner. It's this complex web that's part of why domestic violence is so insidious.
None of that is to _blame_ the person upon whom violence is being inflicted for the violence inflicted upon them, of course, but it's important not over-simplify and end up obscuring the real situation for a lot of people.
* someone I'm very very close to had to move hundreds of miles into a refuge, change their name, and so on, and I was quite involved during this process, so I'm not talking ex-recto ...
Which "one particular woman" do you think we are discussing, wm? If there is a specific, individual woman who has had absolute community support along with ample financial and psychological resources who nevertheless continues to allow someone to abuse her, then, okay, I'll agree with read that it seems inexplicable that this particular woman doesn't leave. If I knew her, I suppose I'd want to talk to her about it and figure out what it was that was standing in her way. This one particular woman.
879: Very good point, na. Very good point.
They may genuinely love the person inflicting the violence, may be aware of the root cause of the violent individual's behaviour (perhaps the 'abuser' was a victim of violence themselves?) and see the abuser as someone needing 'help', perhaps the violent individual is, at other times, a loving and supporting partner and so on. People sometimes make difficult but conscious choices to stay with an abusive partner. It's this complex web that's part of why domestic violence is so insidious.
i think there the woman's role to prevent abuse could play a role, don't be just submissive, being submissive provokes the violence, set some limits for the other which you won't tolerate, if you want to stay, if the other abusing person is not a 100% evil that you won't flee, then what brings the violence, what one can do without leaving etc
it would involve actual thinking and trying to solve the situation for oneself, not relying on the community or some miracle to happen that the abuse will stop
I'm going to regret this, but anyway...
What I understood Read to be suggesting way upthread was that if the typical response of a woman to being battered was fighting back then there would be much less violence against women, not because the particular victim is thus better able to escape the abuse, but because other potential abusers see an increased chance of getting hurt. That's viewing the problem in community terms rather than individual terms. On an individual basis, a woman who fights back against her abuser risks turning a beating into murder.
If battered women usually fought back I think we'd see a major shift in the patterns of violence against women, an overall reduction in the total number of battered women due to raising the stakes for potential abusers, but also a significant increase in the number of murders.
There's another significant fact relevant to this discussion that I haven't seen mentioned yet: The most likely time for an abuser to commit murder is right at the point where his victim leaves his control. That's what it's all about: control. Both leaving and fighting back are attempts to escape the his control, and both increase the chances of murder, escalation of violence, and expansion of the violence to include children.
My personal take is that the victim should do whatever it takes to look out for herself, and that's highly situation-specific. Looking from the outside in on a relationship will never give a complete picture of what's going on, even if it's a perfectly healthy relationship. The person best placed to judge the situation is the victim herself, and all anyone on the outside can do is offer help and support for the decisions she thinks are best, even if we don't necessarily agree with them based on the limited information available to us.
it would involve actual thinking and trying to solve the situation for oneself, not relying on the community or some miracle to happen that the abuse will stop
So let me get this straight. When my alcoholic friend threatened to kill herself, it was my fault for having failed to provide her with good enough support. When somebody else's abused friend fails to get out, however, the issue is her choices rather than community support?
I don't understand why this conversation is happening at all.
884 there you are the community which is obliged to provide the full support, which you advocate too
besides, the alcoholic person is an addict she is like devoid of her full functioning capacity
and in the case of the battered woman community support is the must, but the person herself is more responsible for herself her own life
Both leaving and fighting back are attempts to escape the his control, and both increase the chances of murder, escalation of violence, and expansion of the violence
i think fighting back should reduce escalating violence
sorry, i'll be offline for some time so will check the thread later
885: Because you propositioned paranthetical, of course. And she's a wrathful god.
i think fighting back should reduce escalating violence
I agree.
Arguably, Ariel, your situation is disanalogous.
I don't see why I should have incurred Paren's wrath.
So here are the problems I see with this argument:
1. "Abused women (or others) should have full community support"
Doubtless this is valid, but it's never going to be true, given the current structure of our society. Because, check it out: we live in a patriarchy. It serves some very concrete and powerful interests to have women and children terrorized by domestic violence.
2. "Abused women can leave anytime they want, as long as they are willing to do whatever is necessary."
But here again, while we might like this to be the case, it simply is not. Poison your abusive husband so that you can ensure that he doesn't track you down and kill you, and it's you who'll spend a long time in jail, or perhaps even be executed. Once again, the patriarchy has ways of making you stay.
3. "Everyone would see these things were true if they weren't decadent Westerners."
Here we come to the heart of many of these conflicts, to wit: read's status as the ur-native informant of this blog. The "simple, uncomplicated Other" who can be relied upon to simply pass information along to the reader (as it were). Paradoxically, given the specifics of this argument, this is a role that read has often insisted upon taking up for herself. Obviously, there's a power dyanmic involved. The rest of us are unlikely to go to Mongolia and make our own investigations any time soon, and we can't claim a lot of world-traveling, multi-lingual female Mongolian doctors in the rest of our social milieux. So read gets to be the star of the show whenever she assumes the native informant mantle. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose, but it doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis.
Hmm, screwed up my own name. I am a little hungover.
I don't understand why this conversation is happening at all.
Well, sometimes a person recognizes that she needs to just walk away, but nevertheless continues to believe that maybe, if I try just this one more time... It's tragic, actually.
I cannot stick around to help this thread get to 1000, but let me throw out some thoughts:
1.Abuse is typically alleged to get a better deal in divorce.
2. Di is Totally to blame for her divorce because she did not try hard enough.
3. The Gitmo prisoner need to be kept locked up there for our safety.
4. Grammer is silly.
5. I blame m/tch.
6. The cops have our best interests at heart.
7. Karl Rove - Nobel Peace prize?
8. Who wants to sex Mutumbo?
9. Obama's left-wing agenda is starting to show.
i think fighting back should reduce escalating violence
Unfortunately this isn't usually the case in abusive relationships. The man is nearly always sufficiently strong to overpower the woman, so if she hits him back all that happens is he gets angrier and more violent.
In the case of people of completely equal physical ability as far as fighting goes, you may be right, but my experience is that once people are hitting each other it tends to go all the way until either they are stopped by outside intervention or there is a clear winner, which means the loser is sufficiently badly hurt that they stop fighting.
10: Sausagely occupies unattainable twin pinnacles of writing excellence and sophisticated music analysis.
Catching up: this discussion of domestic violence that started when, in response to Jesurgislac snotting about BitchPhd, Shearer employed an analogy to wife-beating, and read picked up the analogy and ran with it?
Remember this day. You have witnessed the birth of the Harlem Globetrollers.
Trolls, like Kobe, have nine lives.
You have witnessed the birth of the Harlem Globetrollers.
Quick, somebody say that women wouldn't get abused if they would just date nice guys.
Women wouldn't get abused if they would just date me. Ladies....
Men wouldn't get abused as abusers if they would just marry stronger women.
Women wouldn't get abused if they would just stop calling themselves girls.
Arrgggh!
I self-banned myself for a while for that foolish comment I made upthread about sexism, and I apologize unreservedly to everyone for having made it. I hope the apology can be accepted. I'm hoping we won't have a fight about the topic now, but I wanted to register the apology, in all good faith.
899: I was going to ask if anyone else was picking up an odor of sock, but I didn't want to get accused of anti-puppetism.
apologize, apologize, self-ban, apologize
904: I don't think that I have any real power to say it's all water under the bridge, but inasmuch as I'm the person that called herself a girl, which prompted the comment: No worries.
905 -- Are you suggesting that Jes was impersonating read in order to reduce Di to demanding an apology by acronym?
907: You didn't prompt the comment except insofar as you'd recently said something that caused someone else to say, "Danger, Will Robinson!!"
This isn't an excuse for my stupid comment, just an explanation: there's a generational difference over use of the term "girl." We've talked about it before here. I was taught/trained with second-wave feminism to see calling women girls, whether it's done by men or women, as infantilizing, diminishing. When this was last discussed, it was stressed that younger generations don't necessarily view it that way -- the word has to some extent been taken back. I just have to unhook my own reaction to it from all the baggage I was taught to associate with it.
I'm hoping that makes sense.
overdid
Women wouldn't get abused if they would just stop calling themselves girls.
exactly
so people saying i'm wrong, what would you suggest then, don't leave don't fight back, do suffer in your abusive marriage with the full support of the community and understanding that you are a powerless victim, poor you how we understand you you a have our full support and understanding
it's very helpful i guess
910: It does.
Since it was supposed to be a joke referencing a mid-century pressure on women to ensure that their reputations were pristine - and when women were routinely referred to as girls - I was attempting to play on all of that.
905: 899: I was going to ask if anyone else was picking up an odor of sock
Dude! I was gonna ask, 'Gee, are ya'll still whacking off in here? Aren't you sore yet?', but no, nevermind. Anyways, I broke out the mothballs and the Scholl's many many many moons ago.
max
['But you know, everyone's so solicitous. Who wants to spoil a good time, eh?']
913: I think we're cool (honestly, mine stupid comment wasn't directed to yours specifically).
I'm glad that every time I refresh this thread, I see the phrase "pulling his pud," which is funny.
910: that caused someone else to say, "Danger, Will Robinson!!"
Since it was supposed to be a joke referencing a line from a mid-century TV show that was used by a robot to warn a young boy of unseen threats—and when robots were routinely portrayed with flashing lights and weird mechanized voices—I was attempting to play on all of that.
917: Are you implying that my explanation of my joke is ridiculous?
I challenge you to a duel! With robots!
Isn't the frog-dissection supposed to happen on Standpipe's blog?
919: No. I think you are a carbon-based chauvinist. Sure let the poor robots battle it out. Why not. A futuristic Michael Vick in drag.
I really should stay out of this . . .
so people saying i'm wrong, what would you suggest then, don't leave don't fight back, do suffer in your abusive marriage with the full support of the community and understanding that you are a powerless victim, poor you how we understand you you a have our full support and understanding
I don't think the disagreements reduce to "suffer in your abusive marriage" in any fair reading.
This first is to think about who one might be addressing with you're comments, and what message is most appropriate.
I think everyone agrees that the message to send to the abuser is that they are doing wrong and should stop, and be willing (or not surprised) if they suffer for their wrongdoing. I don't think anyone on this thread would argue with that.
I also think that everyone would agree that, generally speaking, the resolution that we would hope for from an abusive relationship would be that the abuse stops and that the relationship most likely ends, but that if it continues that the abused partner stays with no threat of future abuse (which is, in practice, so unlikely that we're left hoping that the relationship ends in the vast majority of cases). Again, I don't think there's disagreement there.
I think the areas of disagreement are what would you say to someone who is (a) in an abusive relationship and isn't leaving or fighting back or (b) a friend of someone who is in an abusive relationship, and won't leave or
I think what people are arguing is that they think you would say, in case (a) "you have to fight back; until you do that I can't help you." and, in case (b) say, "tell the friend that they have to fight back."
The argument with that is that it is more appropriate to say, "I know it's a tough situation, I want you to know that I'm here for you, I will support you when you are ready to do something." (Note, I am not actually very familiar with DV situations, and my phrasing is very approximate).
There are various arguments for why that alternate response is better and different in an important way, but I think that is the dispute, not that anyone would hope to abandon someone who is in an abusive situation.
(a) "you have to fight back; until you do that I can't help you."
can't it be
(a) "you have to fight back; i'll help you and am here for you, but you have to fight back
not necessarily physically, an abuser's nature is if one meets resistance one would stop, b/c it's basically a coward who exerts his power on the powerless, if he was not that, there wouldn't be the problem with abuse in the first place
all other nice and correct words irl would mean just that, do suffer in your abusive marriage with our full support, through the telephone i guess
1. Let me suggest the possibility that while some things are biological fixities, some things vary by culture. Given that, is it not possible that the dynamics of abusive relationships has a cultural component?
2. Like in war, the internet has no winners, only losers.
3. With your reputation, Parenthetical, nobody would mistake you for a girl.
924.3: If only the reputation were true.
I, too, should stay out of this.
This isn't going to explain all the disagreements, but is it possible that some of this is provoked by different meanings of 'responsible', 'responsibility', etc.?
Based on read's sarcastic rejoinders ("Oh, well, who's going to get the abused out of the abusive situation, then? Is it just going to happen magically?"), I think her central point is that the abused typically will have to play an active role in getting abuse to stop. There's a sense of "taking responsibility for" that primarily, at least, means "playing an active role in".
Most other people are seeing the responsibility talk and inferring that read thinks "If someone doesn't leave, then she is responsible for the continuing abuse"--that is, she is culpable, to blame, or whatever.
But saying that the abused typically needs to play an active role in order for the abuse to stop does not imply that the abused is culpable or to blame for continued abuse.
thank you, Merganser, that's exactly what i wanted to say, yes, i don't exactly understand people always bringing up blaming
okay you blamed someone whoever the abuser, the abused, god, community, then what?
who is to blame is not the central thing i think, the important thing is how to stop the abuse, how to avoid it
if the abuser won't change his temper one day which won't happen really like magically, the abused should act fleeing, fighting back, if staying still then finding other ways complying/poisoning, the full range of possibilities and it's all up to you, isn't this realization empowering for the woman?
So, anyone else have any good brownie recipes?
I do. But they come out a bit too much like fudge for me to actually recommend them without knowing individual people's tastes.
I think we should have a vote. Further domestic abuse vs. fudgy brownies. Register your preferences below.
an abuser's nature is if one meets resistance one would stop, b/c it's basically a coward who exerts his power on the powerless, if he was not that, there wouldn't be the problem with abuse in the first place
Sorry read, but this is simply not true, at least not in any of the research and case literature I've read. What are you basing your assertion on?
Only 70 more comments people!
Parenthetical cant cook her way out of a paper bag as far as I know. If she cared about me, she would have sent me food.
Actually, I rather like domestic abuse.
Consensual spanking doesnt count as abuse, B.
But is it *really* consensual, or are the parties involved just brainwashed by the patriarchy? Discuss.
If I could afford to pay next-day shipping costs, I would suggest that there be an Unfogged brownie exchange. I'd want to get M/tch's brownies, though.
so people saying i'm wrong, what would you suggest then, don't leave don't fight back, do suffer in your abusive marriage with the full support of the community and understanding that you are a powerless victim, poor you how we understand you you a have our full support and understanding
It would be nice, read, if you could express your opinions in something other than strict binaries. Is the only alternative to your way of thinking about this issue the way of thinking you describe above?
Bitch, you need to stop spanking Mr. B. He's just been brainwashed by the patriarchy into believing that he enjoys it.
What are you basing your assertion on?
meditation and my rich life experience obviously
what literature on the nature of abusers would you need if it is not this like obvious? would any self-respecting man abuse women, children if he wasn't that, a coward?
You can make it true, Parenthetical. I can help.
dissect any situation on the smallest possible level and there is perhaps a solution of only that, binary choices, if there are many still, then it means have to dissect further
if it is not this like obvious
The fact that people are disagreeing with your assumptions, and that people are claiming to know from personal experience and from reading studies that your assumptions are not true, indicates that it is not "obvious".
You could probably find some literature by using the internet or a library or something.
what literature on the nature of abusers would you need if it is not this like obvious?
Research into actual cases of abuse and the efficacy of different intervention methods as actually tried in the real world. You know, real evidence, as opposed to stuff you've just decided must be true because you think it's obvious.
What the hell are they teaching people in medical schools these days?
dissect any situation on the smallest possible level and there is perhaps a solution of only that, binary choices, if there are many still, then it means have to dissect further
You say you are in medical science, but you sound like you are in particle physics or artificial intelligence.
Awesome brownies, if you like not-overly-sweet chocolate thingies. Copied verbatim from the Tartine cookbook.
3/4 cup unsalted butter
1 lb (!) bittersweet chocolate, chopped
Melt butter over low heat, stir in chocolate to melt, set aside.
Whisk together in your bourgie stand mixer for a good five minutes:
5 large eggs
2 c brown sugar
1/2 tsp salt
1 tsp vanilla
Fold the chocolate mixture into the egg mixture.
Fold in carefully:
3/4 c + 2 Tbsp sifted flour
Bake at 350 in a 9x13 buttered glass baking dish for about 25 minutes.
oh your brave and respectful men beat women and children, well, no suprise i can't get your mysterious mind
what literature on the nature of abusers would you need if it is not this like obvious? would any self-respecting man abuse women, children if he wasn't that, a coward?
It's one thing to call such a person a coward; depending on what you mean by coward, this might always be true. It's quite another to think this means that when confronted with resistance they will stop being violent. That's demonstrably false.
Okay, not "verbatim." Summarized for space.
You say you are in medical science, but you sound like you are in particle physics
Hey!
942: So if someone doesn't agree with you 100%, they must disagree with you 100%? That's the only possibility you can think of?
We're getting close, people. 49 46 more comments to go.
Which is worse: beating women, or beating dead horses?
oh your brave and respectful men beat women and children, well, no suprise i can't get your mysterious mind
Awesome, read.
you know we do experiments and try to eliminate any possible interfering factors, so in the end we have to compare only the control and the stimulation
if it's true for the cell biology, human life is not different from that, the matter of just different levels
955: Hey, that horse was asking for it.
you know we do experiments and try to eliminate any possible interfering factors, so in the end we have to compare only the control and the stimulation
Wait, you mean medical knowledge isn't based on meditation and rich life experiences?
958: It's a good thing that, as a man, you have such superior upper body strength. I usually just end up swearing at the dead horse by the side of the road.
947: Those ones sound very good. I like a variation on these ones. I tinker with the spices and had to change around some of the steps because it didn't seem to ever want to gel in my particular oven, but, yum.
953 i didn't say repulsive first and if you disagree with me after all i said, yes, you support your patriarchy and wife beating, but very sophisticatedly and the guilt free
Yeah, but you swear like a girl.
Swearing, by the side of the road, at the dead horse.
Wait, you mean medical knowledge isn't based on meditation and rich life experiences?
That is entirely contrary to your experience as a physicist, isn't it?
960: I keep reading this as "sweating at it" which I think, in the name of scientific inquiry, should be explored as a new way of dealing with both dead horses and men in general. You never know what won't work until you try it!
969: I demand an apology on behalf of liars everywhere.
Come on, people. You can't let the horse die now. We're almost there.
I wish this thread had been about unicycles.
Flying Parthenthetical east and M/tch north east might be a cheaper way to have a brownie exchange.
OT: Apo,did you listen to th Avett Brothers concert on NPR?
932: Parenthetical cant cook her way out of a paper bag as far as I know.
I think the mademoiselle in question should change her handle to '(cant)'.
max
['Where's neb?']
974 to 2. Yes I have read every other post.
Also, B totally tried to spank me at Unfogged DConII. That is how I remember it.
973: Come on, people. You can't let the horse die now.
You're spanking the equine, aren't you?
max
['Then you're going to beat it, I know you are.']
979: Did she sweat at you, though? And how did you react?
I just got all caught up with this thread. Whee.
Did she sweat at you, though? And how did you react?
She was on top on me at one point. I reacted by getting someone to take a picture of it.
I don't like unicycles. Invariably, when ridden in public, it is always by a large man who seems to have uncertain control over the vehicle while going around a corner and thus scares me as I envision him toppling over on me. This is especially true for those who ride the very large unicycles.
The thought of a neighbourhood so full of large men on very large unicycles that the word "invariably" comes into play fills me with dreamy joy.
We just have a few unicycle devotees, but I think our schedules must overlap or something, because I see them everywhere.
Me: You gotta read this thread.
Mr. B.: I am not gonna read a thousand-comment unfogged thread. I have enough time-wasters, thank you.
Me: Which would you rather do, read a thousand-comment unfogged thread, or watch a terrible sci-fi movie while listening to puppets commenting about it?
Mr. B.: . . . .
Me: Oh right, same thing.
Kobe comes early today every day.
974: I saw the Harlem Globetrotters play once. I don't remember them using a unicycle at any point, but I can imagine it quite easily.
This thread will peter out at 999, thus serving as a testament to man's hubris.
I met a commenter from an antique blog...
997, which was by me, was directed at 995.
I put in a sexist comment to help it reach 1000. Because I'm all about the lay-deez.
That's funny. There are probably 30 people hovering out there trying to get the 1000! post.
I see I overestimated your dedication.
I move that the thread be closed.
Anyone prepared to second the motion?
Geez, Sifu, rob beat you to that on Thursday.
the lurkers emailed me and asked that the thread be closed.
I'm thinking of the lone and level sands just stiff with with huge men on even larger unicycles. Shelley can suck a bag of dicks.
I'd like the last word, and that word is: crampon.
