How do we attract Skepchicks to sign up here?

[Ayaan]

PZ has requested to be taken off the membership list.

We do not delete accounts here, but we do de-activate them. The next available admin will do that.

He won't be an active member, but as far as I know, we still won't tolerate personal attacks. I'm fine with that.

If that's what he wants, consider it done.

Now done.

[Woodbutcher]

PZ has requested to be taken off the membership list.

We do not delete accounts here, but we do de-activate them. The next available admin will do that.

He won't be an active member, but as far as I know, we still won't tolerate personal attacks. I'm fine with that.

If that's what he wants, consider it done.

Now they all take off in a snit without cleaning up their shit....Sort of like a pack of dogs shitting in your yard, or the dreaded Canadian Squat Team....

[Ayaan]

PZ has requested to be taken off the membership list.

We do not delete accounts here, but we do de-activate them. The next available admin will do that.

He won't be an active member, but as far as I know, we still won't tolerate personal attacks. I'm fine with that.

If that's what he wants, consider it done.

Now they all take off in a snit without cleaning up their shit....Sort of like a pack of dogs shitting in your yard, or the dreaded Canadian Squat Team....

No point in forcing him to remain a member here if he doesn't want to be.

[Robert_S]

Imagine how much it would make Pappa squirm!

The rules provide protection from personal attacks and I think Skepchicks are a small and narrowly definable enough group that attacking the Skepchicks as a group would also be considered a personal attack.

Would you please leave the "group insult" rule to the Rational Skepticism forum? It's a can of worms we're better off leaving firmly sealed.

...any attack on the Skepchicks shall be an attack on myself and therefore be against the rules.

Would you please cite the rule you are referring to?


As for attracting Skepchicks, I'll go with Thinking Aloud.

I believe the precedent is that if the group is small and narrowly definable and includes a member, then you cannot insult the members of that group. It would still be a personal attack.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Who would want to associate with a bunch of cockroaches anyway.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I believe the precedent is that if the group is small and narrowly definable and includes a member, then you cannot insult the members of that group. It would still be a personal attack.

Seth does this all the time.

[Robert_S]

Maybe that should stop.

We need to keep our side of the street clean before we go and criticize "them".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maybe that should stop.

We need to keep our side of the street clean before we go and criticize "them".

I suggested Seth not be allowed to do that for the last time shortly before I resigned from the staff.

[Ian]

Ah well. With some of the posts tonight I got the feeling he would have been welcomed for real conversation, and that the negativity on this side at least could be got past.

He's missing out on getting to know some great people, that's all I can say.

Indeed. It might've been good if more Pharyngula folks tried learning about this place before throwing blanket condemnations against everyone here. But quite a few did that, and a great many more did not call them on it.

Mai said that PZ and many of the crowd at Pharyngula can't really be held responsible for the shitstorm that ensued and all the acrimony thrown towards people here. I thoroughly disagree. Pappa made a highly offensive joke (and apologized), but as much blame as he deserves for throwing out a provocation, the actions of people who act like they're part of an angry mob are still their own actions, even when they're caught up in herd psychology. There is no question at all that we've seen a case of exactly that.

How you react to an insult says as much about you as the insult says about the person giving it. In this case, one side came out of all this far worse than the other. And I'm proud to be on this side to not be on the worse side.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

PZ is in charge of his blog. He decides if it is getting out of hand. He evidently approved of the attacks on every member in this forum as a result of what one member said.

[Jason]

Frankly I'm not interested in getting to know Skepchicks. I'm not interested in having a discussion with Skepchicks. I'd be happy if they and PZ fucked off back from whence they came.

I'm here because this is Ratz. If I wanted Skepchicks, I'd be a member over there.

[A Hermit]

Michael Nugent has some excellent advice for all of us...http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/07/26 ... upportive/

[Badger3k]

How about a true battle of the sexes. I'll bring the hammers and ski-masks.

Hey, I thought you said battle, not orgy!

That's not an orgy - no ballgags, cable ties or tarpaulins.

Hammers and Ski-masks are the diet coke of orgies.

I need the hungry hungry hippo for the boob tennis (starts somewhere around 6:00)

[surreptitious57]

The picture of them we've been getting from some of our regular posters is a bit one-sided. I think we'd benefit from a wider range of viewpoints on gender issues.

Also, there has to be more to them than just their stance on feminism. For me, this site is actually more of a fun community than a serious debate place. There is the occasional drama and very occasional gross stupidity, but overall we are a very accepting and welcoming bunch.

Just invite them to read this thread. Yeah, sure, you're a welcoming bunch. After the OP, it's just more sneering.

Or you could try a provocative and inviting question, like Would it be immoral to rape you?

Robert is not the only one to question Pappa's wisdom on the rape joke PZ. I myself have stated that he should not have posted the OP, and that the natural default position would be a self imposed life time ban on him making any derogatory references to, or about, Skepchicks ever again. And I stand by that. So we do not all think alike here, far from it. Robert was the very first poster on that thread to question Pappa's judgement on this matter and his attempt at reconciliation is a genuine one.

I am a memberof this site and shall continue to be. I am responsible for my words and my words only. If I had to be a member of a site where everyone's opinions had to reflect mine, then I might be wanting quite a while to find such a place. Over at Pharyngula, you have diasgreement, just like on any other site, sometimes even vociferously so. I did enjoy reading the Dungeon page. You certainly don't hold back when laying into your critics. I actually found it quite humorous.

But back to the matter in hand. Robert is trying to engage positively and so should be encouraged. He is not Pappa. Just because they are both members of this site does not mean they think alike. Certainly not when it comes the Skepchicks. I myself have visited their site and some of what they say I agree with and some I don't. I maintain an open mind on issues I have yet to form an opinion on, and femimism is no exception, though I agree with it as a general principle.

Just for the record, I believe in absolute free speech. But I also believe that with rights come responsibilities. I myself would never make a joke about rape for example, because that would be unacceptable to me. But I defend the right of anyone else to do so if they wish. They should not of course, but I am only responsible for my words and not anyone elses's. I am truly moved by the number of Skepchicks who have been raped, but even if I did not know that, I still would not make jokes about it. Also, the amount of abuse Rrebecca gets on a regular basis is just unbelievable. There is no excuse for it at all. Disagree with her as much as you want, but do not tell her she needs to be raped to loosen her up.

I hope you can see therefore that we are not all clones of Pappa who are rape enablers or apologists. Not saying he is now. Just making a point for the sake of argument. Members here are irreverent as opposed to malicious. Not that that excuses bad jokes. I however do not judge. I have a self imposed life time ban which prevents me from doing so. I respect individuals. I do not respect ideas. But I never conflate the two. I have nothing against you or Skepchicks or Pharyngula or anyone else for that matter. I engage positively with all who wish to. No tribalism for me. No sir. Although I am a member of this site, I see myself more as a private individual. I am under no moral or legal obligation to pander to groupthink, intentional or otherwise, here or anywhere else.

Indeed my views on this issue on this site are in the minority, but it bothers me not. All I am doing is exercising my democratic right to self expression. I am open to reason and have no problem in modifying my views as such. I can engage perfectly rationally with others, even though they may not agree with me, or I with them. Anyway, I suggest you accept Robert. He is genuine and open. He is not Pappa and does not think it right to make jokes about rape. Which is why he called him out on it in the first place.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jesus, Wumb, that avatar is the worst yet. Fantastic.

It makes me think of an oiled-up Peter Criss on a Bloody Mary Sunday brunch hungover to hell and gone.