Bitch Please! I can always throw a "fucke" or two in your direction. Will that do?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Aaaaannnd now I'm gonna get pilled on for looking like I defend Benson's positions.
3, 2, 1...... nothing? DAMN!
Pssst: your people are my people....AndrewV69 wrote:Bitch Please! I can always throw a "fucke" or two in your direction. Will that do?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Aaaaannnd now I'm gonna get pilled on for looking like I defend Benson's positions.
3, 2, 1...... nothing? DAMN!
Have your people get back to my people and perhaps they can arrange something.
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Aaaaannnd now I'm gonna get pilled on for looking like I defend Benson's positions.
3, 2, 1...... nothing? DAMN!
http://www.brainlesstales.com/images/20 ... grapes.jpgTigzy wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-565318rorschach
19 February 2013 at 8:09 am (UTC -6)
I had to laugh today at work, reading through the enthused tweets from slymers invited to speak at TAM 2013, Blackford, Sara Mayhew, Miranda Hale, as if Grothe is hellbent to turn TAM into some kind of “Best of Slyme†event. Surely Radford, Kylie Sturgess, Maltseva and Kazez will get a speaking engagement as well? How about ERV? DJ? Come on, you can do it!
For all her furore, she really has no spine, does she?16bitheretic wrote:Catching up so some quick comments:
rocko's latest dramatic reading vid: Awesome! Had me laughing out loud for real.
Rebecca's drive by on Harriet Hall's blog: Note to Rebecca, quit trying to make every fucking thing about YOU. Also LOL that you took the time to post on the blog then bail out, retreat to other venues and say you are avoiding the thread from that point because someone might have the nerve to... *gasp*... criticize your bullshit!? Oh my, how does that internet thingy that made you famous work again? Is your victim meter creeping up to orange today or are you still only on yellow alert? I suppose your grandstanding on permanent shunning of Harriet Hall, who has accomplished far more than you ever will blogging on a site that is the TMZ of "skepticism", will be as effective as your shunning of Richard Dawkins (meaning not very effective).
I think princess is right. Considering her father threatened to punch us in the face should we ever dare to criticize her again. Ah, yes, and preaching for social justice while denigrating a possibly deranged homeless man having a wank while she happened to pass by. That was great. And she didn't even have the decency to give him a tenner. I love me some Jen McCreight activism.katamari Damassi wrote:Or someone was raised as a princess who has been catered to her whole life and can't deal when the rest of the world doesn't fall in line.16bitheretic wrote:Jen McCreight: Um, has she ever considered seeking some help? I'm not joking. She always seems to be in crisis of some sort and seems to think the entire world is dragging her down and that life is nothing but an exercise in oppression. Sounds like someone needs a regimen of antidepressants, sunlight, exercise and a balanced perspective on life in general.
Well here is your "fucke" then.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Pssst: your people are my people....AndrewV69 wrote:Bitch Please! I can always throw a "fucke" or two in your direction. Will that do?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Aaaaannnd now I'm gonna get pilled on for looking like I defend Benson's positions.
3, 2, 1...... nothing? DAMN!
Have your people get back to my people and perhaps they can arrange something.
Dude.Dick Strawkins wrote: Is there a term for a death wish from the FTB horde?
A Twatwa?
Jeez. I'm going to have to quit my job in order to keep up here.Mr Danksworth wrote:You, sir, have won the internet for they day. Congratulations.Dick Strawkins wrote: Is there a term for a death wish from the FTB horde?
A Twatwa?
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7grw ... o1_400.jpgwelch wrote:ReneeHendricks wrote:Wow. Harriet Hall writes this http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... t-critics/ and the *only* thing Spokesgay walks away with is this https://twitter.com/SpokesGay/status/303889827831627776.
Quote mining at its best.
The entire thing is as precious as a kid pulling on a door that says "Push"
Saucer of milk at table two! MEOW MEOWRebecca Watsonon 19 Feb 2013 at 10:46 am
Hi Harriet,
I won’t bother commenting on the sex/gender argument, as Will is more than capable of handling that. I will echo a few other commenters and point out that your “queer†statement doesn’t do you any favors in convincing anyone that your knowledge of these topics is anything close to approaching Will’s.
You didn’t mention me as a person included amongst your feminist critics, but I suspect many people reading this will assume I’m in there somewhere, possible because your t-shirt at TAM did directly call out my website and you’ve mentioned that incident specifically in your post. So, I figured I’d respond briefly because I’ve never really discussed it publicly and never talked with you about it at all.
When you made your “I am not a Skepchick†shirt, I did consider writing a blog post about it. Then I changed my mind and I composed an email to you in which I explained my feelings on the subject, since you seemed confused by the reaction you received. I pointed out that no one to my knowledge had ever called you a Skepchick, and I had never asked you to become a contributor to the network. I then used an analogy in which I pointed out that if a physician like Steve Novella went to the effort to create a CafePress shirt that read something like “I am not a SkepDoc. I am a skeptic,†you would be confused, a little hurt, and, when he wore it three days in a row, concerned for his personal hygiene. Your hurt feelings would be completely understandable, especially if he did this following a year in which you received a nonstop avalanche of insults, slurs, rape threats, and death threats from skeptics.
So I wrote the email, tinkered with it for a few days, and eventually I deleted it without sending. The reason was that after reflecting on it for so long, I came to the realization that while a week prior I held an immense amount of respect for you, I suddenly had lost that respect so completely that I had no interest in getting it back. I realized I was stressing out over someone who was so proud of an immature t-shirt she made that she wore it for an entire weekend. I realized that anyone who needs an explanation of why that was silly and hurtful doesn’t actually deserve an explanation, and they certainly don’t deserve real estate in my head. So I let others argue over it while I moved on to more interesting things.
I’m writing all this to you now because I want to be sure that you know that I do not think of you as my enemy. In fact, I don’t really think of you at all. The most one could say is that when you are occasionally brought to my attention, as happened with Will’s recent posts, I simply think of you as ill-informed on social issues.
So, having now spent ten precious minutes on the subject, it’s once again time for me to move on to more interesting things.
Hahahahaha...[gasp for air]...hahahaha...Can't make this stuff up...hahahaha....What can I say? She’s angry and unpleasant and she’s pretending she’s not an enemy while acting exactly like one. I don’t want to talk about her, but she won’t shut up about me.
Watson's post was "calm, lucid, and dead sensible"? LOLOLOL.Tigzy wrote::lol: Spokesgay smokin some good shit there, and glob offers a pretext for a distinct lack of backbone:
Official SpokesGay â€@SpokesGay
Over at SBM @rebeccawatson responded to Hall. It's calm, lucid, and dead sensible. Infuriates me that this will be lied about, too.https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/statu ... 3643142144Rebecca the Undead â€@rebeccawatson
@SpokesGay Thanks. I assume it'll just encourage the bullies to come out the woodwork, so I'm staying away from the thread.
To be pointed, Ophelia's entire list of real world accomplishments for her entire *life* does not begin to approach what Harriet Hall did by the time she retired from the Air Force. In 20 or so years, Dr. Hall did more than Ophelia ever has or will do.mordacious1 wrote:Ophie writes about Dr. Hall:Hahahahaha...[gasp for air]...hahahaha...Can't make this stuff up...hahahaha....What can I say? She’s angry and unpleasant and she’s pretending she’s not an enemy while acting exactly like one. I don’t want to talk about her, but she won’t shut up about me.
That happens in other places also. In my experience it is a test of your mettle. In my case that is how I got a reputation for beating a problem to death.AbsurdWalls wrote:
I've learnt in the past three years that getting a PhD is hard. For most students (myself included) it is the first time in their life that they are being asked to do something that they are not simply expected to be able to do.
You haven't really defended Benson's position though. You've just tacked on another possibility that doesn't really help Benson at all. In that context "I don't believe you" can now mean.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Aaaaannnd now I'm gonna get pilled on for looking like I defend Benson's positions.
3, 2, 1...... nothing? DAMN!
http://www.alstefanelli.com/whine.jpgTigzy wrote:WHOO-EEEEE - the blue-haired glob herself chimes in on Harriet Hall's latest blog post. The substance? Basically, sheer bitchiness:
Did you get that? 'you would be confused, a little hurt, and, when he wore it three days in a row, concerned for his personal hygiene.' & 'I realized I was stressing out over someone who was so proud of an immature t-shirt she made that she wore it for an entire weekend.'Rebecca Watsonon 19 Feb 2013 at 10:46 am
Hi Harriet,
I won’t bother commenting on the sex/gender argument, as Will is more than capable of handling that. I will echo a few other commenters and point out that your “queer†statement doesn’t do you any favors in convincing anyone that your knowledge of these topics is anything close to approaching Will’s.
You didn’t mention me as a person included amongst your feminist critics, but I suspect many people reading this will assume I’m in there somewhere, possible because your t-shirt at TAM did directly call out my website and you’ve mentioned that incident specifically in your post. So, I figured I’d respond briefly because I’ve never really discussed it publicly and never talked with you about it at all.
When you made your “I am not a Skepchick†shirt, I did consider writing a blog post about it. Then I changed my mind and I composed an email to you in which I explained my feelings on the subject, since you seemed confused by the reaction you received. I pointed out that no one to my knowledge had ever called you a Skepchick, and I had never asked you to become a contributor to the network. I then used an analogy in which I pointed out that if a physician like Steve Novella went to the effort to create a CafePress shirt that read something like “I am not a SkepDoc. I am a skeptic,†you would be confused, a little hurt, and, when he wore it three days in a row, concerned for his personal hygiene. Your hurt feelings would be completely understandable, especially if he did this following a year in which you received a nonstop avalanche of insults, slurs, rape threats, and death threats from skeptics.
So I wrote the email, tinkered with it for a few days, and eventually I deleted it without sending. The reason was that after reflecting on it for so long, I came to the realization that while a week prior I held an immense amount of respect for you, I suddenly had lost that respect so completely that I had no interest in getting it back. I realized I was stressing out over someone who was so proud of an immature t-shirt she made that she wore it for an entire weekend. I realized that anyone who needs an explanation of why that was silly and hurtful doesn’t actually deserve an explanation, and they certainly don’t deserve real estate in my head. So I let others argue over it while I moved on to more interesting things.
I’m writing all this to you now because I want to be sure that you know that I do not think of you as my enemy. In fact, I don’t really think of you at all. The most one could say is that when you are occasionally brought to my attention, as happened with Will’s recent posts, I simply think of you as ill-informed on social issues.
So, having now spent ten precious minutes on the subject, it’s once again time for me to move on to more interesting things.
In other words: 'Meh - I don't think about you much cos you don't get the harassmentz I get and you smell. Oh, and being 'not a skepchick' is dependent upon you receiving and invite to contribute to my site, smelly.'
Linky for anyone who has not yet invested in the popcorn: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... t-critics/
:lol:mordacious1 wrote:Ophie writes about Dr. Hall:Hahahahaha...[gasp for air]...hahahaha...Can't make this stuff up...hahahaha....What can I say? She’s angry and unpleasant and she’s pretending she’s not an enemy while acting exactly like one. I don’t want to talk about her, but she won’t shut up about me.
How the fuck can anyone construe Harriet Hall's words, which are ever measured and calm, to be "angry and unpleasant"? How can her words, always written with a bent for finding common ground, be construed as her being an "enemy"?mordacious1 wrote:Ophie writes about Dr. Hall:Hahahahaha...[gasp for air]...hahahaha...Can't make this stuff up...hahahaha....What can I say? She’s angry and unpleasant and she’s pretending she’s not an enemy while acting exactly like one. I don’t want to talk about her, but she won’t shut up about me.
Gumby wrote:Tigzy wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-565318rorschach
19 February 2013 at 8:09 am (UTC -6)
I had to laugh today at work, reading through the enthused tweets from slymers invited to speak at TAM 2013, Blackford, Sara Mayhew, Miranda Hale, as if Grothe is hellbent to turn TAM into some kind of “Best of Slyme†event. Surely Radford, Kylie Sturgess, Maltseva and Kazez will get a speaking engagement as well? How about ERV? DJ? Come on, you can do it!
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Aaaaannnd now I'm gonna get pilled on for looking like I defend Benson's positions.
3, 2, 1...... nothing? DAMN!
What a hateful, snarky comment she wrote above. Makes me want to chastise Rebecca for vomiting so much, after nights of drinking, in her shared cabin on that cruise that her roomie had to help clean both the room and Rebecca, and paid the cabin attendant extra tips out of her own pocket for his trouble. Because, you know, that would be MEAN and spiteful. And belittling people because you disagree with them isn’t intelligent, or respectful, or professional.
Lulz! (nothing else matters...)mordacious1 wrote:Ophie writes about Dr. Hall:Hahahahaha...[gasp for air]...hahahaha...Can't make this stuff up...hahahaha....What can I say? She’s angry and unpleasant and she’s pretending she’s not an enemy while acting exactly like one. I don’t want to talk about her, but she won’t shut up about me.
I think someone is terribly, terribly confused. :rimshot:Michael J wrote:Gumby wrote:Tigzy wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-565318rorschach
19 February 2013 at 8:09 am (UTC -6)
I had to laugh today at work, reading through the enthused tweets from slymers invited to speak at TAM 2013, Blackford, Sara Mayhew, Miranda Hale, as if Grothe is hellbent to turn TAM into some kind of “Best of Slyme†event. Surely Radford, Kylie Sturgess, Maltseva and Kazez will get a speaking engagement as well? How about ERV? DJ? Come on, you can do it!
Kylie Sturgess? I thought that she was a FTBer (although one of the better ones).
A very poor attempt at misdirection there. Mentions the irrelevance in the post itself, bit of name-calling, lazy, repetitive inclusion of the victim narrative. Quite obviously only included so she can later say she "addressed" the point Hall had by linking it, while doing the opposite. 2/10 Watsons.Ah yes, the names of two participants were indeed redacted – while mine was not. Why? No reason. Absolutely no reason on earth except that those two participants are Friends and I’m Enemy. Yet Hall is either dense enough or malicious enough to treat that as self-evidently fair and reasonable. At this rate she’ll soon be posting on the mildew pit – which is where that exchange was first posted as a screenshot of Hall’s Facebook page, and where the names of the two Good participants were “redacted†to protect their “privacy†while mine was not.
Don't worry.Pitchguest wrote:I think someone is terribly, terribly confused. :rimshot:Michael J wrote:Gumby wrote:Tigzy wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-565318rorschach
19 February 2013 at 8:09 am (UTC -6)
I had to laugh today at work, reading through the enthused tweets from slymers invited to speak at TAM 2013, Blackford, Sara Mayhew, Miranda Hale, as if Grothe is hellbent to turn TAM into some kind of “Best of Slyme†event. Surely Radford, Kylie Sturgess, Maltseva and Kazez will get a speaking engagement as well? How about ERV? DJ? Come on, you can do it!
Kylie Sturgess? I thought that she was a FTBer (although one of the better ones).
Here's the entire comment from Geek Goddess:masakari2012 wrote:Part of a comment over at Harriet's blog...
What a hateful, snarky comment she wrote above. Makes me want to chastise Rebecca for vomiting so much, after nights of drinking, in her shared cabin on that cruise that her roomie had to help clean both the room and Rebecca, and paid the cabin attendant extra tips out of her own pocket for his trouble. Because, you know, that would be MEAN and spiteful. And belittling people because you disagree with them isn’t intelligent, or respectful, or professional.
# Geek Goddesson 19 Feb 2013 at 4:31 pm
I really liked your post, Dr. Hall. I have read your book and am well aware of what you went through in your career to get to where you are today. And I’m heartily sick of the squabbling that’s going on in the community, along with the pettiness and the two-year-old sandbox “you can’t be my friend if you’re friends with her†mentality.
At first I was amused at the finer and finer mesh that people use to strain your posts through, looking for tiny and tiny bits to use as ammo. And then I was disgusted. And then really angry. It takes a lot to make me angry enough to want to rant at someone.
You are obviously just not young, hip, thin, cute, clever, or hard-drinking enough to be popular, and your experiences aren’t worthy. You aren’t even very smart (regardless of that medical degree you seem so proud of). I’m in the same boat. My advanced age means that my STEM degree, my years of working in a industry that is less than 5% female, and managing to rise to the top and earn a 6-figure salary, a company car, availability of a private jet, and bonuses more than most people’s salaries, means I also do not know a damn thing about what women have to struggle with to succeed in any business, must less a good-old-boy one. Having professors tell me that I was taking a slot away from a man, who MIGHT HAVE TO SUPPORT A FAMILY, wasn’t harassment or life-changing. (I spend all my salary on trivial things, apparently.) And since I’m no longer young, hip, thin, cute, clever, or hard-driking enough to be hit on in bars, I don’t understand the harassment that women face. Sometimes, when some of us state that we do not feel unsafe, or haven’t been harassed at a conference, not only are we accusing women of making it it, or exaggerating, etc., I hear the unspoken words “Of course YOU haven’t been harassed or attacked. Because you are not young, hip, thing, cute, etc.†Yep, I was told this. The ugly unspoken little secret among some women.
I’ve had it. Who am I? In the skeptical community, I’m nobody. I don’t speak, I don’t write. I’m busy running a business. A real one, that makes money, employs people, pays (a lot) of taxes. The only thing I do is write checks to support others in the skeptical community. I quit doing that last year. No one gives a crap what I think, and that’s just fine with me.
A couple years ago, via Twitter, I responded to someone about a group not being inclusive, and used as example something along the lines of “Such as the Skepchicks not representing older women.†That’s a paraphrase. I didn’t think anything of it, until that evening, my fellow Houston Skeptics founder and part-time writer for the skepchick.org blog, Sam, called my cell phone and asked me “what the hell did you do to piss off the Skephicks?†I had no idea, but apparently I was being shredded for my remarks that were being taken as criticism. WTF When I got home, I tried to look up what was going on, and saw comments like “People hate us because we’re so accomplishedâ€. Okaaaaay. Whatever.
I took one of the two pictures that were widely circulated of you, Dr. Hall. I am distressed that it caused you so much grief, but I still think it was a great shirt. The first use of skepchick is NOT from the blogger site Skepchick.org. I found one here – 1999.
http://www.magicdave.com/sccal/skepchicks.htm. Like it or not, the term is not copyrighted or original to Rebecca, so when she assumes that it was an attack on her, or on the various other come-and-go bloggers on that site, she is wrong. But, apparently, one is free to ascribe motives on other people, the proven inability of mind-reading to actually work be damned. What a hateful, snarky comment she wrote above. Makes me want to chastise Rebecca for vomiting so much, after nights of drinking, in her shared cabin on that cruise that her roomie had to help clean both the room and Rebecca, and paid the cabin attendant extra tips out of her own pocket for his trouble. Because, you know, that would be MEAN and spiteful. And belittling people because you disagree with them isn’t intelligent, or respectful, or professional.
Wow! It seems like ancient history now and I can't link to the blog posts that Miranda did because she has since made them private (people are still complaining years after the fact). What Miranda did, if I remember correctly, is to call RW out for taking something Stef McGraw posted on the internet and making it a big part of a presentation (where Stef, a college student) was in the audience with her peers. Since RW was the keynote speaker (I think), this was seen to many to be unfair and bullying, since Stef could not defend herself under those conditions. Women who complained about this (Kirby, Hale, ERV, et al) were called "gender traitors" and "chill girls". Then Elevatorgate went full blown and here we are today. Anyone who criticized Watson about the McGraw incident (Blackford, Coyne, etc.) were immediately labeled enemies of the state. The rest is history.by cunt » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:25 pm • [Post 1048]
Why do they hate this Miranda Hale person? Did she not buy a ramic or something?
Cheers welch, that was really interesting.welch wrote:Oh, here, my time on Reap's podcast: http://angryatheist.info/?p=1037
Ah. It comes flooding back.Anyone who criticized Watson about the McGraw incident (Blackford, Coyne, etc.) were immediately labeled enemies of the state. The rest is history.
Never heard of her, but the glasses are similar.Lapsang Souchong wrote:I was thinking Bernadine Dohrn when I saw the picture.Scented Nectar wrote: I have no idea. I don't follow fashion at all. I just wear what I like from what's available. Those glasses were probably only a few years old at the most, so all I know is that the glasses store must have considered them in fashion when they offered them for sale. I don't even know what "weatherwoman specs" are.
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/ne ... cached.jpg
Do you have a link to QED?Joe wrote:Regarding the Skeptics conference circuit, not one of the pseudo-skeptics has been listed (so far) for speaking at the European Skeptics Congress this year.
PZ Myers has expressed interest (scroll down):
but has yet made it to the speaker list.
Likewise, none of them are listed for the QED event in the UK this year. Instead there are Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. There is even a sex positive ex-sex worker.
TAM is the big conference of course, but it looks like some other skeptics conferences are returning to skepticism.
Dan Fincke â€@CamelsHammers
My response to attacks from Pharyngula on my civility pledge http://fb.me/EENoHv4t
Thanks – and to all those offered similar support, in one form or another, as well as earlier feedback – which allows a segue into a word from my sponsors …. :-)Cunning Punt wrote:Over at:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... poem/P100/
Steersman, you hit it out of the park at comment #101.
Amphigorey said (#98):
Lastly, though, I would really like to see Ben Radford acknowledge that his line about being “over†feminists who say that “All men are rapists†was an incredibly stupid thing to say. No feminist says that. That one line is why you’re getting so much pushback from people. Really, Ben, you should know better.
Riiight. And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Perchance you have a membership list for “Feminists International†so you can corroborate that claim?
<snip>
No true feminists? Or the tip of some “virulent feminism� Poisoning the well, indeed ….
I don’t think that is entirely true, although maybe this is what you mean by “ideologicallyâ€. Seems that he is, quite reasonably, supportive of the principles, but skeptical about some of the details:decius wrote:Pigliucci is distinctly anti-EP, but not ideologically so, as far as I can tell. It would be nice if they organised a debate.Metalogic42 wrote: I really hope that includes the social sciences too, and a few of the speakers blast feminism and anti-evo psych.
The issue that we will explore in the podcast is not whether it makes sense to apply evolutionary principles to the study of human behavior. Of course it does, human beings are no exception to evolution. But the devil is in the details, and the details deal with the complexities and nuances of how exactly evolutionary biologists test adaptive hypotheses, as well as with the nature of historical science itself.
But I agree that an organized debate might be quite useful and certainly quite interesting.Which brings me to evolutionary psychology, a discipline of which I’m about as fond as psychoanalysis, and for similar reasons. Like in the case of psychoanalysis, the problem is not that the basic ideas aren’t sound: sex surely is a fundamental drive of human urges and emotions, and therefore must play an explanatory role in a variety of human behaviors, just like psychoanalysts would have it. Likewise, evolutionary psychologists are certainly correct that natural selection must have played a role in shaping human behaviors and cognitive abilities, as general evolutionary theory would predict. The trouble starts when we get to detailed scenarios aiming at accounting for individual instances.
Incredible:Gumby wrote:http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7grw ... o1_400.jpgwelch wrote:The entire thing is as precious as a kid pulling on a door that says "Push"ReneeHendricks wrote:Wow. Harriet Hall writes this http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... t-critics/ and the *only* thing Spokesgay walks away with is this https://twitter.com/SpokesGay/status/303889827831627776.
Quote mining at its best.
That boy has a chip on his shoulder the size of Texas.Official SpokesGay wrote: â€@SpokesGay 7 hrs Harriet Hall: "Do we need a conference devoted to elderly transsexual black Hispanic scientists?" Fuck you.
Well one for elderly transsexual black Hispanic scientists has to be a lot better than one for elderly transsexual black Hispanic professional bloggersSteersman wrote:Incredible:Gumby wrote:http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7grw ... o1_400.jpgwelch wrote:The entire thing is as precious as a kid pulling on a door that says "Push"ReneeHendricks wrote:Wow. Harriet Hall writes this http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... t-critics/ and the *only* thing Spokesgay walks away with is this https://twitter.com/SpokesGay/status/303889827831627776.
Quote mining at its best.
That boy has a chip on his shoulder the size of Texas.Official SpokesGay wrote: â€@SpokesGay 7 hrs Harriet Hall: "Do we need a conference devoted to elderly transsexual black Hispanic scientists?" Fuck you.
I've just begun to explore his position, so I can only offer superficial impressions so far. It seems to me that he pays lip service to the principles, only to dismiss the enterprise almost in toto. However, he does so on epistemological and methodological grounds, not from a feminist perspective of a priori denialism.Steersman wrote: I don’t think that is entirely true, although maybe this is what you mean by “ideologicallyâ€. Seems that he is, quite reasonably, supportive of the principles, but skeptical about some of the details:
Women tend to get judged more harshly than men, even by other women, because of internalized misogyny. It's like the classic example: a man is "assertive", a woman is "a bitch" (or "angry and unpleasant"). HTHGumby wrote:How the fuck can anyone construe Harriet Hall's words, which are ever measured and calm, to be "angry and unpleasant"? How can her words, always written with a bent for finding common ground, be construed as her being an "enemy"?mordacious1 wrote:Ophie writes about Dr. Hall:Hahahahaha...[gasp for air]...hahahaha...Can't make this stuff up...hahahaha....What can I say? She’s angry and unpleasant and she’s pretending she’s not an enemy while acting exactly like one. I don’t want to talk about her, but she won’t shut up about me.
I think you're right. My understanding of it forked a bit when I tried to think of other areas it would apply to.AndrewV69 wrote:That happens in other places also. In my experience it is a test of your mettle. In my case that is how I got a reputation for beating a problem to death.AbsurdWalls wrote:
I've learnt in the past three years that getting a PhD is hard. For most students (myself included) it is the first time in their life that they are being asked to do something that they are not simply expected to be able to do.
I survived my experience, it identified me as "not a quitter" and the fact that I solved the problem was, while it was a bonus, was not expected in the least.
I have done it to new people also. Throw them at a problem that they have absolutely no background, training or any sort of prior experience and see how they do.
Anyway, possibly (also probably) not similar to what you are talking about.
She was a leader of the Weatherman faction that split from SDS (Students for a Democratic Society). Weatherman became the Weather Underground after a couple of their members, Diana Oughton for one, blew themselves up in a Greenwich Village townhouse whilst preparing a bomb for an army dance. After that they blew up shit here and there but for the most part avoided killing anybody (there's one cop who got killed in a bombing that the authorities would like to pin on Bernadine Dohrn but they've never been able to). When Dohrn and her husband, Bill Ayers, came out of hiding in the Eighties they got little more than a slap on the wrist, owing to the fact that the government's evidence was collected illegally over the years through such programs as Cointelpro.Scented Nectar wrote:Never heard of her, but the glasses are similar.Lapsang Souchong wrote:I was thinking Bernadine Dohrn when I saw the picture.Scented Nectar wrote: I have no idea. I don't follow fashion at all. I just wear what I like from what's available. Those glasses were probably only a few years old at the most, so all I know is that the glasses store must have considered them in fashion when they offered them for sale. I don't even know what "weatherwoman specs" are.
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/ne ... cached.jpg
.by CommanderTuvok » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:53 pm • [Post 1053]
Anyone who criticized Watson about the McGraw incident (Blackford, Coyne, etc.) were immediately labeled enemies of the state. The rest is history.
Ah. It comes flooding back.
BTW, when PZ accused Blackford of being a "bold-faced liar", what was the "lie"?
Did you try on Blackford's old blog? There, he called Peezus to task for that.mordacious1 wrote: The specific wording of the accusation of lying was important. It was either on Miranda's site (which means it's gone) or on OB's (I don't go there anymore). I know Russell discussed it on the original ERV threads, but I can't find it in SN's archives. In short, since I don't know the exact wording, I won't paraphrase it, maybe someone else has it.
I do think my own knowledge of who the wheat and the chaff are in the online atheist and skeptical scenes has been greatly increased in the last year, so the cesspools of Skepchick, A+ and FTB have actually been a good thing for me personally.DeepInsideYourMind wrote:I have a new theory ... Skepchick, A+ and FTB drama is *good* for scepticism
Due to all the ridiculous drama, character attacks, hyperbole and victimhood ...
So thank you Rebecca, Ophelia, PZ, Zvan and your herds of devotees ... you have increased my knowledge
- A large number of very literate and well though out sceptics have emerged and fought back, people who previously had very low profiles or were just generally unheard of
I have found a large number of great new (to me) bloggers, youtubers and forum dwellers who I will continue to listen to well after the drama has gone
I have learned at least a few hundred more ways to abuse logical fallacies, and a large number of ways to rips those arguments to shreds - even more so than watching people destroy creationist dogma, watch them destroy RadFem dogma has been truly enlightening
I look forward to the continued swell of logical and right minded thinkers, as eventually the drama will be swamped by common sense and real sceptical thinking and return to being a few crazy nutcases still shouting thatthe world is flateveryone but them is a sexist misogynist illiterate uncaring unfeeling privilegedcuntman/traitor
That's brilliant, rocko2466! I wonder if Eowyn Entwife is in the US?rocko2466 wrote:I now will do a shameless repost of my video to cater for time differences.
<dramatic reading>
In other news, I have a Chris Clarke one in preparation. It's slightly musical.
James has the relevant bits here:mordacious1 wrote:.by CommanderTuvok
BTW, when PZ accused Blackford of being a "bold-faced liar", what was the "lie"?
The specific wording of the accusation of lying was important. It was either on Miranda's site (which means it's gone) or on OB's (I don't go there anymore). I know Russell discussed it on the original ERV threads, but I can't find it in SN's archives. In short, since I don't know the exact wording, I won't paraphrase it, maybe someone else has it.
If PZ, Watkins, OB could give a sincere apology when one is required instead of shuffling the cards, we wouldn't be here now.by CommanderTuvok » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:15 pm • [Post 1071]
I bet PZ has never apologised. Well done Blackford for standing up to the cretin.
rocko2466 wrote:I now will do a shameless repost of my video to cater for time differences.
[youtube]CLNR_TMQU6A[/youtube]
In other news, I have a Chris Clarke one in preparation. It's slightly musical.
16bitheretic wrote:I do think my own knowledge of who the wheat and the chaff are in the online atheist and skeptical scenes has been greatly increased in the last year, so the cesspools of Skepchick, A+ and FTB have actually been a good thing for me personally.DeepInsideYourMind wrote:I have a new theory ... Skepchick, A+ and FTB drama is *good* for scepticism
Due to all the ridiculous drama, character attacks, hyperbole and victimhood ...
So thank you Rebecca, Ophelia, PZ, Zvan and your herds of devotees ... you have increased my knowledge
- A large number of very literate and well though out sceptics have emerged and fought back, people who previously had very low profiles or were just generally unheard of
I have found a large number of great new (to me) bloggers, youtubers and forum dwellers who I will continue to listen to well after the drama has gone
I have learned at least a few hundred more ways to abuse logical fallacies, and a large number of ways to rips those arguments to shreds - even more so than watching people destroy creationist dogma, watch them destroy RadFem dogma has been truly enlightening
I look forward to the continued swell of logical and right minded thinkers, as eventually the drama will be swamped by common sense and real sceptical thinking and return to being a few crazy nutcases still shouting thatthe world is flateveryone but them is a sexist misogynist illiterate uncaring unfeeling privilegedcuntman/traitor
And an update: my Twitter account is now removed from suspension, but no word from Twitter whether I was suspended in the first place due to other people's blocking habits or a surge of people I started following prior to suspension. I would be interested to know the reason why, especially if people who I had no intention of ever talking to blocking me as a group was responsible.
