Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[franc]

Just briefly, because this is just too fucking funny -

https://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2013 ... web-sxswi/

http://oi47.tinypic.com/12646s9.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoD_Netwo ... ion_Center

[Zenspace]

I accidentally pasted a full FTB comment section as a quote. It might still be on SN's archives.

Ouch! Yeah, that would have left a mark! :lol:

[AnonymousCowherd]

I have a proposal with respect to online harassment. I want to meet, and maybe train Rhetorical Assassins and organize ethical counter strikes in online forums where speech is being suppressed.

Ethical Counterstrikes
I would define this as specifically responding to instances of harassment as fast as we can. Once there the object is not abuse, but will be perceived as an attack because of unavoidable human nature. Like it or not criticism is felt as abuse to a bully. I work in a middle school in a southern state and I see it every day. A harasser hates their behavior pointed out like nothing else so I assert that the perception of criticism be is a fact of reality in a combat situation, which is what the harasser is transforming place of communication into, a combat zone.

So I propose that volunteer squads of individuals with excellent critical and logical skills be organized into teams. The object of these teams is moral support, and rescue of the victims message. We do this with hyper-criticism shaped to direct the harassers comments back to the topic. Relentlessly, neutrally, and specifically. No insult is to be used that is not based on a real observation of behavior that is related to the suppression of the victims message.

Reality is to be respected, used, and deception is to be shunned as we do not mix ourselves with what they are.

How would I define the most acceptable deliberate harm? You want to create a catharsis in your target.

Sounds like the 'Pit should be prepared for an influx of Brony-trained "Rhetorical Assassins," though I'm unsure how this place would qualify as a place where "speech is being suppressed." Somehow I doubt he and his gang will invade A+, even though that's one online a/s forum where there is a blatantly obvious speech suppression problem.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-576993
http://www.freezepage.com/1363043806VSMARNJSOS

What, they're going to come in here and say "NO" again?

Rhetorical assassins (has there been a recent release of a certain computer game?), I guess they are like rhetorical questions i.e. not really questions?

I take it this is "rhetoric" meaning "Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content" (Google it if you really need a link). Always contrasted with logic. Sure you want to go with "rhetoric" pony boy?

Go ahead. Send in the trainee rhetoricians to the "combat zone".

[youtube]fhWlAKdlQp4[/youtube]

[Gumby unplugged]

I accidentally pasted a full FTB comment section as a quote. It might still be on SN's archives.

Holy fuck, Phil! That's almost three full Steersmans!

[AnonymousCowherd]

Huh...
A few interesting points about how the attention the A+ crowd gets from forums like this actually helps their attention-whoring.
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2 ... -solution/

Yadda, yadda you can't fool me etc etc. That kind of post can only happen because of places like the 'pit.If everyone ignored the hyposcrisy and bullshit from the FTB/A+ cabal, they'd slowly take over their targetted organisations. At least "neutrals" know that there are two sides to this and that they don't have to agree with the cabal to be "reasonable".

[Patrick]

I'm reminded of something Terry Pratchett wrote:

No enemies had ever taken Ankh-Morpork. Well, technically they had, quite often; the city welcomed free-spending barbarian invaders, but somehow the puzzled raiders always found, after a few days, that they didn't own the own horses anymore, and within a couple of months they were just another minority group with its own graffiti and food shops.

That made me smile: which book?

"Eric"

[EdwardGemmer]

However, by refusing to address reasonable limits on what ought to be said

From PZ. Is there really any argument that he is a liberal anymore? He is just another tired authoritarian who wants to impose his morality on everyone else without doing the work to make it happen. I keep saying this, but if you want people to take you seriously, you have to do the work. Everyone takes him seriously on evolution, because he has devoted his life to researching it, learning it, and teaching it. No one except his little comment tribe takes him seriously on anything else, because he always takes the laziest route possible to spreading his own version on The Way Things Ought to Be.

http://dailystupid.net/wp-content/uploa ... berals.jpg

Can anyone photoshop PZ's name and face onto that book cover?

[AnonymousCowherd]

Yeah, and whatever you do, don't quote an entire Steersman post...sometimes they take up pages.

:lol:
Actually I am a mere neophyte in comparison with those masters of DDoS attacks – Andrew, Welch, and Natalie Reed, “whose merest operational parameters I am not worthy to calculate” – so to speak

I once pasted the whole internet over at Abbie's ERV.

Andrew: my paternal grand-parents (Italian) moved to Nice just before WWII. My maternal grand-parent (Belgian and Polish) moved to France in 1978. Not to mention Nice wasn't French until 1860. So no worries, you're probably more French than I am :lol:

Stop being so Nice.

Could have been worse. I could have been born and raised in Montcuq...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montcuq
(read the trivia)

Only the echt French could pronounce cuq as "cool". Of course the echt French are actually all Germans, or Franks at least. Unless they are from Paris, in which case they are really from somewhere else. Europe, how does it work?

[codelette]

Now, just because I do not see it does not mean it is not so, but my argument is that unless you compel women to never have children, and force them to do STEM, it is not going to happen. They may have the capability but the majority are simply not interested...

...In the end, I believe most women have no interest in working in STEM fields over having children. The good thing is as far as I can see, there are a lot less barriers preventing those who are interested from doing so.

I definitely don't think that's true, but obviously I can't predict the future!

I can not predict either. That is why I threw in a weasley words like "believe" and "over having children".

(and BTW ... most men do not do STEM either. Notice that?)

Weeeeelll... I'm more thinking along the lines that these careers are far more friendly to giving birth/having children than others.

Regarding these topic, I'll offer my observations (file these under personal experiences):
1) Engineers that are women and left the career to raise the kids; the husbands were also engineers. The couple combos were as follow: EE/EE, EE/EE, EE/CE, EE/ChemE. I know first hand that with the last couple, the husband wanted to stay home, but her career was in Nuclear and she was afraid of radiation exposure.
2) Engineers that are women, had children and kept working: either both spouses work for the same company or the husband is not an engineer (career-wise, the husband is not generating lots of $$$).

[decius]

Can anyone photoshop PZ's name and face onto that book cover?

Starting from low-res images, one gets crappy results. The correct procedure is doing the manipulation in high resolution, then scale down the result.

[Apples]

Ophelia once again proves unable to mount a simple argument without kicking the ball into her own tattered net. Regarding some scumbag dude who ran a 'revenge porn website' -

Sometimes bullying people just doesn’t work out, even if you do it on the internet, and even if all you’re doing is posting pictures of naked girls without their permission.

The founder of a so-called “revenge porn” website has been ordered to pay $250,000 (£170,000) in damages for defamation. Hunter Moore was found to have made false claims about the chief executive of an anti-bullying website. Mr Moore used Twitter to falsely claim James McGibney was a paedophile who possessed child pornography.

So you’re not allowed to slander people? Even on the internet? I thought you were. Jeez, they were only having a little fun, and free speech. One Twitter warrior had a strange reaction to the story.

Interesting libel case. I wonder if this sort of ruling would apply to accusations of “misogyny” & “active racism”?

Wut? The relevant comparison is to accusations of “misogyny” as opposed to, say, accusations of being a smelly ugly cunt? Yeh I don’t think so.

Is she actually suggesting that her internet critics have slandered her in a manner comparable to falsely accusing someone of being a pedophile in possession of child porn -- or that being called a "smelly ugly cunt" would give you a stronger libel case than being falsely accused of misogyny/racism? Hard to tell, given that she is such an opaque and incompetent writer. Anyway, good luck in court, Ophie - you're going to need it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... #more-7069
http://www.freezepage.com/1363092740BAMGQYUNAX

[decius]

New post by Novella on acupuncture:

The findings and interpretation add to the pile of evidence for two important conclusions:
1 – Acupuncture does not work.
2- Acupuncturists refuse to admit that acupuncture does not work.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... um=twitter

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Ophelia once again proves unable to mount a simple argument without kicking the ball into her own tattered net. Regarding some scumbag dude who ran a 'revenge porn website' -

Sometimes bullying people just doesn’t work out, even if you do it on the internet, and even if all you’re doing is posting pictures of naked girls without their permission.

The founder of a so-called “revenge porn” website has been ordered to pay $250,000 (£170,000) in damages for defamation. Hunter Moore was found to have made false claims about the chief executive of an anti-bullying website. Mr Moore used Twitter to falsely claim James McGibney was a paedophile who possessed child pornography.

So you’re not allowed to slander people? Even on the internet? I thought you were. Jeez, they were only having a little fun, and free speech. One Twitter warrior had a strange reaction to the story.

Interesting libel case. I wonder if this sort of ruling would apply to accusations of “misogyny” & “active racism”?

Wut? The relevant comparison is to accusations of “misogyny” as opposed to, say, accusations of being a smelly ugly cunt? Yeh I don’t think so.

Is she actually suggesting that her internet critics have slandered her in a manner comparable to falsely accusing someone of being a pedophile in possession of child porn -- or that being called a "smelly ugly cunt" would give you a stronger libel case than being falsely accused of misogyny/racism? Hard to tell, given that she is such an opaque and incompetent writer. Anyway, good luck in court, Ophie - you're going to need it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... #more-7069
http://www.freezepage.com/1363092740BAMGQYUNAX

Well, it all gets down to this: being called a misogynist on a public venue is WAY worse than being called a cunt, just like being called a racist on a public venue is WAY worse than being called an asshole. Case in point: being accused of racism in France can lend you in jail. Being accused of being an asshole? not so much.

It's probably cultural...

[Apples]

Ophie, crack blog reporter and go-to expert on the UCL/Krauss debacle, reacts with typical grace and humility when a Twitter-user points out she has just Tweeted a misleading/incomplete account of the incident:
http://i.imgur.com/ZJxmv42.jpg

http://standforpeace.org.uk/walkout-in- ... um=twitter

[Trophy]

Pearls of wisdom:

Actually the incident that led me away from skepticism was listening to James Randi’s Podcast when Shermer was a guest. He was talking about a faith healer he was investigating and a conversation he overheard between two women, one of which was worried about the fact that her illness wasn’t getting better. The upshot was that the other woman told her it was because she hadn’t given enough money to this guy’s “church” despite giving about a quarter of her income. Both of them started laughing and Shermer made a “Sometimes I don’t know why I even try to help these people” type comment. I felt bad for the poor woman, but they both just seemed to have contempt for her. They just moved on to the next topic, which I think was dowsing. I didn’t really want to be associated with skepticism if they were they people leading it. Obviously, I’ve made my way back into the fold and found more like-minded people rather than put up with jerks.

Apparently, ciriticism women for any reason sexist. Even if they are giving a quarter of their income to woomasters. They have worked out their place as "victims" so thoroughly, that any criticism of any women by white guys they don't like is considered sexism

[John Brown]

Some may not agree, but this is not justice:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6595913149

[Remick]

Saw this just recently. Don't have to listen to the whole thing, but right at 3:35 Haidt talks about liberals versus conservatives in regards to trusting science. In that each group, when scientific evidence conflicts with one of their "sacred values", they throw the evidence out the window.

[youtube]n9kJkuuedw0[/youtube]

He uses evolutionary science in regards to both groups(biological/physical evolution for conservatives) and (behavioral/psychology for the liberals).

[Patrick]

Ophelia once again proves unable to mount a simple argument without kicking the ball into her own tattered net. Regarding some scumbag dude who ran a 'revenge porn website' -

Sometimes bullying people just doesn’t work out, even if you do it on the internet, and even if all you’re doing is posting pictures of naked girls without their permission.

The founder of a so-called “revenge porn” website has been ordered to pay $250,000 (£170,000) in damages for defamation. Hunter Moore was found to have made false claims about the chief executive of an anti-bullying website. Mr Moore used Twitter to falsely claim James McGibney was a paedophile who possessed child pornography.

So you’re not allowed to slander people? Even on the internet? I thought you were. Jeez, they were only having a little fun, and free speech. One Twitter warrior had a strange reaction to the story.

Interesting libel case. I wonder if this sort of ruling would apply to accusations of “misogyny” & “active racism”?

Wut? The relevant comparison is to accusations of “misogyny” as opposed to, say, accusations of being a smelly ugly cunt? Yeh I don’t think so.

Is she actually suggesting that her internet critics have slandered her in a manner comparable to falsely accusing someone of being a pedophile in possession of child porn -- or that being called a "smelly ugly cunt" would give you a stronger libel case than being falsely accused of misogyny/racism? Hard to tell, given that she is such an opaque and incompetent writer. Anyway, good luck in court, Ophie - you're going to need it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... #more-7069
http://www.freezepage.com/1363092740BAMGQYUNAX

Well, it all gets down to this: being called a misogynist on a public venue is WAY worse than being called a cunt, just like being called a racist on a public venue is WAY worse than being called an asshole. Case in point: being accused of racism in France can lend you in jail. Being accused of being an asshole? not so much.

It's probably cultural...

I don't think it's cultural, unless the FTB/A+/Skepchick denizens constitute a culture.

When I hear or read someone calling someone else an asshole or similar epithet, it tells me a lot more about the person hurling the insult than about the person to whom it is directed. When someone calls someone else a racist or misogynist, though, it does suggest that the person so characterized might have exhibited behaviors that I would find abhorrent.

There is a difference between insults and accusations. When making an accusation, one must be prepared to back it up with evidence or to retract it and apologize.

[SkepularCharlie]

Another Aussie tweeter already acquainted with many on here.
Been watching from the shadows for some time. It's about time to get more involved.

http://i.imgur.com/L24o80y.jpg

New character avatar.
He's into pooping on irrational ppl, tormenting kitteh's, eating truffle and rational thought. Dislikes crab juice, A+ and oversized meal deals.

Welcome dear brother of mine. You're gonna take that crab juice and you're gonna enjoy it, otherwise fuck you!
Oh BTW,

http://i.imgur.com/w6XtPAY.jpg

& don't say anything stupid. I'll be watching you c*nt. :)

Thanks guys.

Oh, and thanks bro for the expected typical slymepit style welcome. Appreciated.

I'll be sure to use the crab juice in your next coffee, Asshole.

[LMU]

Good post at the JREF A+thread: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=5205

They are talking to an Aplusser who described emotions as "intellectual tools."

Here are some excerpts:

...
You can decide that, since the dispute exists on an emotional level, it must be contested and resolved on an an emotional level. So, time to pull out your own emotions like so many Poké Balls and do battle. Emotional tug-of-war. Emo a emo. Outrage, I choose you! If they can be disgusted by gay sex, you can be even more disgusted by their bigotry, and if you manage to show it convincingly, you win!

And that, I do think is what you're advocating. Or if not you, many others in the A+/FTB sphere. That's why abusive language (as long as you're abusing the right people) is so cherished and "tone policing" is such an ultimate sin there. Trying to win this kind of emotional duel while being restricted to civil discourse would be like trying to win a hog-calling contest without waking up a sleeping baby.
...
There's a name for that kind of emotional approach to argumentation, where the goal is to establish the moral superiority of your position by demonstrating how strong your own emotions are. It's called a tantrum.
...

[JackSkeptic]

<snip>

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/826/whatna.png
<snip>

So ellenbeth was trolling? Sad. Very sad.

I won't direct you to any "Posting Etiquette 101" - largely because I don't think there is one here. But it is generally considered polite or good manners to not quote more than you have to for the context of what you're replying with. Which generally means snipping out the text that isn't relevant, and removing the "[img]" tags that produce the display of various images.

Just a friendly "heads up" ....

Oh ok. Sorry. Thanks for the heads up.

Ignore him, post how you like. Sometimes it is fine to post a whole thing and only have a word or two yourself. I often do it. That comment coming from Steersman of all people is the most ironic thing I have seen all year.

Please do not be put off posting here everyone is welcome.

[JackSkeptic]

Huh...
A few interesting points about how the attention the A+ crowd gets from forums like this actually helps their attention-whoring.
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2 ... -solution/

I've sometimes wondered if that is all we're doing, driving cash into their pockets and providing exposure. Yes, we are. But I feel if we stop they will become more of a menace to the AS community and that's more important to me. However, I largely ignore A+ now as they are irrelevant, I just go there for the entertainment.

[Southern]

Meh. Chavez is just like Perón or Getulio Vargas, plus anti-Americanism (Getulio Vargas was particularly lucky to be dictator when WWII was around, and got some pretty nice deals from the US for not supporting the Nazis). And even his anti-Americanism was bullshit: Venezuela's biggest trading partner was the US.

Just another stupid dictator who didn't knew where to stop, and made all about his stupid, cancerous carcass. And now he's dead. Right at your bloated face, Chavez you prick. You will always be second bananas to the Latin America's most loved Chaves:

http://i.imgur.com/gcCP69P.jpg?1

[EdgePenguin]

If any of you want to read something unrelated to Drama, I offer my latest blog post on science advocacy:

http://edgepenguin.com/content/sciad.html

[decius]

Chavez was an authoritarian narcissist whose shortcomings are enormous and obvious.
However, his regime successfully lifted lots of people from poverty and ignorance, mostly at the expenses of a gangrenous oligarchy which had strangled the country for far too long.
These are positive results, no matter how dislikeable the man was and how repulsive some of his beliefs were.

The problem with South American developing countries is the near-impossibility to establish actual democracy. He must be judged from within the context in which he operated.

[franc]

I've sometimes wondered if that is all we're doing, driving cash into their pockets and providing exposure. Yes, we are. But I feel if we stop they will become more of a menace to the AS community and that's more important to me. However, I largely ignore A+ now as they are irrelevant, I just go there for the entertainment.

I tend to disagree. They are bleeding. They are starting to feel the pain of falling revenue and site traffic. Conference circuit junkets are dropping off - and remember, most of those are booked a year in advance. Be interesting to see next years schedules. They are doing more and more irrational things in desperation for attention - Hensley's meltdown on CFI itself plus her live tweeting her prescription pill binge; Watson's latest efforts to fabricate fresh Reddit outrage to name just a few. I bet their back channel discussions would be a barrel of laughs. Lumbering behemoths rarely die quickly.

[JackSkeptic]

I've sometimes wondered if that is all we're doing, driving cash into their pockets and providing exposure. Yes, we are. But I feel if we stop they will become more of a menace to the AS community and that's more important to me. However, I largely ignore A+ now as they are irrelevant, I just go there for the entertainment.

I tend to disagree. They are bleeding. They are starting to feel the pain of falling revenue and site traffic. Conference circuit junkets are dropping off - and remember, most of those are booked a year in advance. Be interesting to see next years schedules. They are doing more and more irrational things in desperation for attention - Hensley's meltdown on CFI itself plus her live tweeting her prescription pill binge; Watson's latest efforts to fabricate fresh Reddit outrage to name just a few. I bet their back channel discussions would be a barrel of laughs. Lumbering behemoths rarely die quickly.

Yes, I'm very late to the party so I do not fully appreciate how much revenue they used to generate compared to now or how good their reputations were compared to now. Watson is certainly going for an exit route. Really the worst group you could try and be irrational with is rationalists. I have often wondered how they thought they had any chance of success in the medium term.

[JackSkeptic]

If any of you want to read something unrelated to Drama, I offer my latest blog post on science advocacy:

http://edgepenguin.com/content/sciad.html

Thanks for the read. The UK is focusing on economically driven advocacy, such as the extra funding for Graphene (which was discovered in the UK but not exploited as I'm sure you know) However I do not know if that was the only way to get funding at all or it represents a true switch from other research projects. I'll shut up now as it's an area I have almost no knowledge in, I am speaking from an outsider who saw how the government justified the science expenditure which these days they have to do.

[EdgePenguin]

If any of you want to read something unrelated to Drama, I offer my latest blog post on science advocacy:

http://edgepenguin.com/content/sciad.html

Thanks for the read. The UK is focusing on economically driven advocacy, such as the extra funding for Graphene (which was discovered in the UK but not exploited as I'm sure you know) However I do not know if that was the only way to get funding at all or it represents a true switch from other research projects. I'll shut up now as it's an area I have almost no knowledge in, I am speaking from an outsider who saw how the government justified the science expenditure which these days they have to do.

I'm an outsider to science lobbying, but I'm an insider in a field which isn't at all translational. I'm just worried that science advocates (many of whom are not scientists, although Science Is Vital bucks that trend somewhat) are causing unintentional damage to science funding culture in their enthusiasm to get the government behind science.

[JackSkeptic]

I suppose you have all noticed that even the few of the FtB crowd who posted at Nugent's have pulled out. I think they were hoping Nugent would do all the work for them which he did to a large extent. Hopefully some come back but I won't be holding my breath. They have no real interest in discussions outside areas they control and some have even managed to turn on Nugent which is incredible even if predictable. That says more for the tactics of ideologues than anything.

With any luck we will get several come here and do their 'critical thinking' thing they promised yesterday. I'm looking forward to them turning us into gibbering wrecks under their onslaught of reason.

[JackSkeptic]

If any of you want to read something unrelated to Drama, I offer my latest blog post on science advocacy:

http://edgepenguin.com/content/sciad.html

Thanks for the read. The UK is focusing on economically driven advocacy, such as the extra funding for Graphene (which was discovered in the UK but not exploited as I'm sure you know) However I do not know if that was the only way to get funding at all or it represents a true switch from other research projects. I'll shut up now as it's an area I have almost no knowledge in, I am speaking from an outsider who saw how the government justified the science expenditure which these days they have to do.

I'm an outsider to science lobbying, but I'm an insider in a field which isn't at all translational. I'm just worried that science advocates (many of whom are not scientists, although Science Is Vital bucks that trend somewhat) are causing unintentional damage to science funding culture in their enthusiasm to get the government behind science.

I think a similar thing is happening in the US according to what Concordance was saying. There is an overall 10% cut but no one knows if it will be across the board for all projects or select projects will have funding removed and the rest have their funding as promised. In any event the uncertainty is the main issue of course as it takes a lot of time and expense to get these projects under way.

[Submariner]

I suppose you have all noticed that even the few of the FtB crowd who posted at Nugent's have pulled out. I think they were hoping Nugent would do all the work for them which he did to a large extent. Hopefully some come back but I won't be holding my breath. They have no real interest in discussions outside areas they control and some have even managed to turn on Nugent which is incredible even if predictable. That says more for the tactics of ideologues than anything.

With any luck we will get several come here and do their 'critical thinking' thing they promised yesterday. I'm looking forward to them turning us into gibbering wrecks under their onslaught of reason.

I'm hoping for this too, Jack. Especially with you here.

[JackSkeptic]

Good post at the JREF A+thread: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=5205

They are talking to an Aplusser who described emotions as "intellectual tools."

Here are some excerpts:

...
You can decide that, since the dispute exists on an emotional level, it must be contested and resolved on an an emotional level. So, time to pull out your own emotions like so many Poké Balls and do battle. Emotional tug-of-war. Emo a emo. Outrage, I choose you! If they can be disgusted by gay sex, you can be even more disgusted by their bigotry, and if you manage to show it convincingly, you win!

And that, I do think is what you're advocating. Or if not you, many others in the A+/FTB sphere. That's why abusive language (as long as you're abusing the right people) is so cherished and "tone policing" is such an ultimate sin there. Trying to win this kind of emotional duel while being restricted to civil discourse would be like trying to win a hog-calling contest without waking up a sleeping baby.
...
There's a name for that kind of emotional approach to argumentation, where the goal is to establish the moral superiority of your position by demonstrating how strong your own emotions are. It's called a tantrum.
...

There's been some great posts over there. Well worth reading. They mainly focus on A+ though. The Nugent discussion has not even come up (although it may be elsewhere on that site)

[welch]

I've sometimes wondered if that is all we're doing, driving cash into their pockets and providing exposure. Yes, we are. But I feel if we stop they will become more of a menace to the AS community and that's more important to me. However, I largely ignore A+ now as they are irrelevant, I just go there for the entertainment.

I tend to disagree. They are bleeding. They are starting to feel the pain of falling revenue and site traffic. Conference circuit junkets are dropping off - and remember, most of those are booked a year in advance. Be interesting to see next years schedules. They are doing more and more irrational things in desperation for attention - Hensley's meltdown on CFI itself plus her live tweeting her prescription pill binge; Watson's latest efforts to fabricate fresh Reddit outrage to name just a few. I bet their back channel discussions would be a barrel of laughs. Lumbering behemoths rarely die quickly.

Indeed. Amusingly, Watson's attempt to garner larger attention was the worst thing she could have done. Within the small, and somewhat insular world of skepticism/atheism, she had enough visibility and clout to maintain her status and position. Because so many within that world will bend over backwards to avoid even the hint of badthought, she could easily manipulate things.

However, out in the larger world, she's a minnow in the ocean. Out there, bad hair dye, Warby Parker knockoffs, and atonal giggling do not actually substitute for thinking. As an example, for as loud as she is, Amanda Marcotte is essentially the feminist version of the crazy guy on the corner screaming about the apocalypse. Everyone knows he's there, but he's not really influencing anyone. What little credibility she had was flushed with the Duke Lacrosse case, which is forever the millstone around her neck. Marcotte may see Watson as an ally/protege, but they'll have to be deep into cirrhosis-induced dementia to think they are as influential as Dawkins, much less someone with a good shot of being known to the general public, like Neil Tyson.

The more eyes upon her, the more people who realize she's yet another incompetent snake oil salesman who made the mistake of confusing "shaking down the rubes" with "being a doctor".

[decius]

More evidence of reddit's deeply entrenched misogyny.

Steven Pinker ‏@sapinker
Tonight at 6PM EDT on Reddit: Ask me Anything

[John Brown]

Indeed. Amusingly, Watson's attempt to garner larger attention was the worst thing she could have done. Within the small, and somewhat insular world of skepticism/atheism, she had enough visibility and clout to maintain her status and position. Because so many within that world will bend over backwards to avoid even the hint of badthought, she could easily manipulate things.

However, out in the larger world, she's a minnow in the ocean. Out there, bad hair dye, Warby Parker knockoffs, and atonal giggling do not actually substitute for thinking. As an example, for as loud as she is, Amanda Marcotte is essentially the feminist version of the crazy guy on the corner screaming about the apocalypse. Everyone knows he's there, but he's not really influencing anyone. What little credibility she had was flushed with the Duke Lacrosse case, which is forever the millstone around her neck. Marcotte may see Watson as an ally/protege, but they'll have to be deep into cirrhosis-induced dementia to think they are as influential as Dawkins, much less someone with a good shot of being known to the general public, like Neil Tyson.

The more eyes upon her, the more people who realize she's yet another incompetent snake oil salesman who made the mistake of confusing "shaking down the rubes" with "being a doctor".

Quite. I said as much myself the day after that video surfaced of the SXSW Reddit panel. If Rebecca Watson feels she can take on Reddit, she had better be prepared to also take on 4Chan. When that happens, all we need to do is sit back and watch. All of her sycophantic defenders will have lost their rallying cry (misogynistic atheists!1!!11), and Watson herself will be relegated to obscurity.

The drama might pay the bills, but it will cost her her status in the skeptical community.

[agarybuseychristmas]

Becky could not sound more like a spoiled teenage valleygirl in that reddit panel video if she tried. The intonation, pitch, condescension just LEAKING through made it seem like she was going to z-snap and say "talk to the hand"

[Southern]

Indeed. Amusingly, Watson's attempt to garner larger attention was the worst thing she could have done. Within the small, and somewhat insular world of skepticism/atheism, she had enough visibility and clout to maintain her status and position. Because so many within that world will bend over backwards to avoid even the hint of badthought, she could easily manipulate things.

However, out in the larger world, she's a minnow in the ocean. Out there, bad hair dye, Warby Parker knockoffs, and atonal giggling do not actually substitute for thinking. As an example, for as loud as she is, Amanda Marcotte is essentially the feminist version of the crazy guy on the corner screaming about the apocalypse. Everyone knows he's there, but he's not really influencing anyone. What little credibility she had was flushed with the Duke Lacrosse case, which is forever the millstone around her neck. Marcotte may see Watson as an ally/protege, but they'll have to be deep into cirrhosis-induced dementia to think they are as influential as Dawkins, much less someone with a good shot of being known to the general public, like Neil Tyson.

The more eyes upon her, the more people who realize she's yet another incompetent snake oil salesman who made the mistake of confusing "shaking down the rubes" with "being a doctor".

Quite. I said as much myself the day after that video surfaced of the SXSW Reddit panel. If Rebecca Watson feels she can take on Reddit, she had better be prepared to also take on 4Chan. When that happens, all we need to do is sit back and watch. All of her sycophantic defenders will have lost their rallying cry (misogynistic atheists!1!!11), and Watson herself will be relegated to obscurity.

The drama might pay the bills, but it will cost her her status in the skeptical community.

Oh boy, do I ever want to watch this. It will become the greatest "I told you" since Ferdinand Foch.

[EdgePenguin]

I've sometimes wondered if that is all we're doing, driving cash into their pockets and providing exposure. Yes, we are. But I feel if we stop they will become more of a menace to the AS community and that's more important to me. However, I largely ignore A+ now as they are irrelevant, I just go there for the entertainment.

I tend to disagree. They are bleeding. They are starting to feel the pain of falling revenue and site traffic. Conference circuit junkets are dropping off - and remember, most of those are booked a year in advance. Be interesting to see next years schedules. They are doing more and more irrational things in desperation for attention - Hensley's meltdown on CFI itself plus her live tweeting her prescription pill binge; Watson's latest efforts to fabricate fresh Reddit outrage to name just a few. I bet their back channel discussions would be a barrel of laughs. Lumbering behemoths rarely die quickly.

I started realising this with the whole Anita Sarkeesian affair. To help a sister in despair, hundreds of feminists chipped in and raised over $150,000 for her gaming video blog. I started wondering - where does this cash come from? Its like Surlyramics - money changing hands between members of the community, many of whom don't have livelihoods outside the community. And again with the funds that FTB/Skepchick raise to send their sisters on drinking holidays. This is an income for some people.

So they question is, how many Surly Amy's and Anita Sarkeesian's can the feminist fringe support? Ultimately, the cash donations/purchases at conferences have to come from members of the community who have gainful employment outside. No wonder Amy is so keen to stop people selling 'fake jewelry' at conferences - there isn't actually that much money going round so she can't tolerate any competition.

The limited ability of the online feminist and conference scenes to support this intellectual aristocracy isn't the only problem; the other problem is their insular attitude is driving away actual earners. They may find very soon that paying each other to fly to conferences and get wasted is not sustainable once they have alienated people with real jobs from their submovement.

[EdgePenguin]

Given how bad I suck at punctuation, I'm so glad I'm a physicist not a writer.

[JackSkeptic]

Indeed. Amusingly, Watson's attempt to garner larger attention was the worst thing she could have done. Within the small, and somewhat insular world of skepticism/atheism, she had enough visibility and clout to maintain her status and position. Because so many within that world will bend over backwards to avoid even the hint of badthought, she could easily manipulate things.

However, out in the larger world, she's a minnow in the ocean. Out there, bad hair dye, Warby Parker knockoffs, and atonal giggling do not actually substitute for thinking. As an example, for as loud as she is, Amanda Marcotte is essentially the feminist version of the crazy guy on the corner screaming about the apocalypse. Everyone knows he's there, but he's not really influencing anyone. What little credibility she had was flushed with the Duke Lacrosse case, which is forever the millstone around her neck. Marcotte may see Watson as an ally/protege, but they'll have to be deep into cirrhosis-induced dementia to think they are as influential as Dawkins, much less someone with a good shot of being known to the general public, like Neil Tyson.

The more eyes upon her, the more people who realize she's yet another incompetent snake oil salesman who made the mistake of confusing "shaking down the rubes" with "being a doctor".

Quite. I said as much myself the day after that video surfaced of the SXSW Reddit panel. If Rebecca Watson feels she can take on Reddit, she had better be prepared to also take on 4Chan. When that happens, all we need to do is sit back and watch. All of her sycophantic defenders will have lost their rallying cry (misogynistic atheists!1!!11), and Watson herself will be relegated to obscurity.

The drama might pay the bills, but it will cost her her status in the skeptical community.

Oh boy, do I ever want to watch this. It will become the greatest "I told you" since Ferdinand Foch.

Her allies in the skeptic community will see her as 'brave' and 'inspirational'. If they are already blinded by her antics almost whatever she does can't go wrong for her. These are people who think nothing of setting off alarms and shouting and disrupting debates and talks. So to them it's all good.

[JackSkeptic]

I've sometimes wondered if that is all we're doing, driving cash into their pockets and providing exposure. Yes, we are. But I feel if we stop they will become more of a menace to the AS community and that's more important to me. However, I largely ignore A+ now as they are irrelevant, I just go there for the entertainment.

I tend to disagree. They are bleeding. They are starting to feel the pain of falling revenue and site traffic. Conference circuit junkets are dropping off - and remember, most of those are booked a year in advance. Be interesting to see next years schedules. They are doing more and more irrational things in desperation for attention - Hensley's meltdown on CFI itself plus her live tweeting her prescription pill binge; Watson's latest efforts to fabricate fresh Reddit outrage to name just a few. I bet their back channel discussions would be a barrel of laughs. Lumbering behemoths rarely die quickly.

I started realising this with the whole Anita Sarkeesian affair. To help a sister in despair, hundreds of feminists chipped in and raised over $150,000 for her gaming video blog. I started wondering - where does this cash come from? Its like Surlyramics - money changing hands between members of the community, many of whom don't have livelihoods outside the community. And again with the funds that FTB/Skepchick raise to send their sisters on drinking holidays. This is an income for some people.

So they question is, how many Surly Amy's and Anita Sarkeesian's can the feminist fringe support? Ultimately, the cash donations/purchases at conferences have to come from members of the community who have gainful employment outside. No wonder Amy is so keen to stop people selling 'fake jewelry' at conferences - there isn't actually that much money going round so she can't tolerate any competition.

The limited ability of the online feminist and conference scenes to support this intellectual aristocracy isn't the only problem; the other problem is their insular attitude is driving away actual earners. They may find very soon that paying each other to fly to conferences and get wasted is not sustainable once they have alienated people with real jobs from their submovement.

I get the feeling some are on trust funds or parents willing to bail them out (they have the attitude which indicates it) but they would not mention that. But yes it is largely a closed monetary system with limited resources.

[AndrewV69]

Andrew: my paternal grand-parents (Italian) moved to Nice just before WWII. My maternal grand-parent (Belgian and Polish) moved to France in 1978. Not to mention Nice wasn't French until 1860. So no worries, you're probably more French than I am :lol:

Well you may have a point. Although I am a lot more Scot and Irish than anything else at this point.

My branch of the family left in 1820 and really started out breeding with everything under the sun starting around 1865.

[Tigzy]

http://i.imgur.com/WLfBIig.png

[Maximus]

With the videos AndrewV69 posted yesterday and with feminism in general, it seems their greatest foe is attention. Without attention their free to form crazy illuminati style conspiracy theories while the general public operate under the asumtion that feminism is just about is equality. Anytime they show up spouting jargon people start to clue into the fact that a lot of what they say just doesn't add up, like with Rebecca's claims, and Anita's videos. The more exposure they get, the more people see they're full of shit.

And since they crave attention they are going to do themselves in. Maybe they should have stayed in academia where they seem to be bulletproof.

[Maximus]

http://i.imgur.com/WLfBIig.png

:lol: That is the best fucking thing I have ever seen!

[welch]

Becky could not sound more like a spoiled teenage valleygirl in that reddit panel video if she tried. The intonation, pitch, condescension just LEAKING through made it seem like she was going to z-snap and say "talk to the hand"

What I saw was fairly normal for a tech conference Q&A. The imgur guy was not rude at all, at least not for that venue. But, when you're becky, and used to getting the kind of obsequious deference that only the Queen Of All Bad Dye Jobs can get, well, I imagine a group of people not being impressed with you and hanging on your every word would seem weird and rude.

[EdwardGemmer]

If you are interested in Anita Sarkeesian's video game series, a couple good links.

From a creator of Gears of War:

Heaven forbid a woman actually take a magnifying glass to our beloved hobby and actually try to unravel and figure out why things are the way they are in the effort that somehow she might change things?

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index ... -distress/

Sarkeesian spends 23 minutes criticizing the gross and cliched way females were depicted in video games during the 1980s and ’90s, which, as her thesis/title suggests, was primarily as passive victims captured by villains, and thus shiny objects to be collected by the game’s hero, rather than characters with any sort of agency of their own. It’s an accurate observation, but considering almost every game she cites in her catalog of “Damsels in Distress” are Japanese titles produced by Japanese developers for a primarily Japanese market, there’s an obvious cultural commonality here that goes inexcusably unexplored.

[ERV]

http://i.imgur.com/WLfBIig.png

A literal LOL and near choking on water. Why I insist upon eating/drinking while browsing this forum... it will be the death of me.

[JackSkeptic]

http://i.imgur.com/WLfBIig.png

They'd need 10 people just to handle Steersman. Although knowing him he will go into contrarian mode and attack us. That would be fun too:)

[welch]

If you are interested in Anita Sarkeesian's video game series, a couple good links.

From a creator of Gears of War:

Heaven forbid a woman actually take a magnifying glass to our beloved hobby and actually try to unravel and figure out why things are the way they are in the effort that somehow she might change things?

if the book report that was the first video is anything to go by, she could make a hundred and change nothing. Shitty, shallow analysis should be called out for being just that. I don't care who did it. If Jordan Fucking Mechner had done this series, I'd have still called it shitty, shallow analysis that is naught but a c-grade book report.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index ... -distress/

Sarkeesian spends 23 minutes criticizing the gross and cliched way females were depicted in video games during the 1980s and ’90s, which, as her thesis/title suggests, was primarily as passive victims captured by villains, and thus shiny objects to be collected by the game’s hero, rather than characters with any sort of agency of their own. It’s an accurate observation, but considering almost every game she cites in her catalog of “Damsels in Distress” are Japanese titles produced by Japanese developers for a primarily Japanese market, there’s an obvious cultural commonality here that goes inexcusably unexplored.

Pretty much. I'd love to see someone actually do a good, deep look at this. It could be interesting. Too bad Sarkeesian may have poisoned that well for some time.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

http://i.imgur.com/WLfBIig.png

:lol: :lol: :lol: Almost pissed meself off!!!

[katamari Damassi]

If you are interested in Anita Sarkeesian's video game series, a couple good links.

From a creator of Gears of War:

Heaven forbid a woman actually take a magnifying glass to our beloved hobby and actually try to unravel and figure out why things are the way they are in the effort that somehow she might change things?

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index ... -distress/

Sarkeesian spends 23 minutes criticizing the gross and cliched way females were depicted in video games during the 1980s and ’90s, which, as her thesis/title suggests, was primarily as passive victims captured by villains, and thus shiny objects to be collected by the game’s hero, rather than characters with any sort of agency of their own. It’s an accurate observation, but considering almost every game she cites in her catalog of “Damsels in Distress” are Japanese titles produced by Japanese developers for a primarily Japanese market, there’s an obvious cultural commonality here that goes inexcusably unexplored.

I understand where the Gears of War guy is coming from, but if he thinks his efforts to make his games more inclusive will be appreciated by the Sarkeesians of the world, he's in for a rude awakening.

[JayTeeAitch]

Hey Wonderist - sounds like you've got a baboon who thinks his mad skillz exceed yours:

I have a proposal with respect to online harassment. I want to meet, and maybe train Rhetorical Assassins and organize ethical counter strikes in online forums where speech is being suppressed.

Now that I just dropped a bunch of very loaded words let me define them and my intentions for you.
...
snip
...

Sweet jesus, that's funnier than butterflies on drives - Rocko, give it a reading!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

They'd need 10 people just to handle Steersman. Although knowing him he will go into contrarian mode and attack us. That would be fun too:)

[youtube]GHkT036deZ4[/youtube]

[Apples]

Becky could not sound more like a spoiled teenage valleygirl in that reddit panel video if she tried. The intonation, pitch, condescension just LEAKING through made it seem like she was going to z-snap and say "talk to the hand"

What I saw was fairly normal for a tech conference Q&A. The imgur guy was not rude at all, at least not for that venue. But, when you're becky, and used to getting the kind of obsequious deference that only the Queen Of All Bad Dye Jobs can get, well, I imagine a group of people not being impressed with you and hanging on your every word would seem weird and rude.

If you ask Amanda Marcotte, the reason the Reddit crowd didn't like the panel was ... wait for it ... racism and sexism.

[EdwardGemmer]

I understand where the Gears of War guy is coming from, but if he thinks his efforts to make his games more inclusive will be appreciated by the Sarkeesians of the world, he's in for a rude awakening.

I dunno, it seems likely that Gears of War will be mentioned in her next video, so we shall see.

[AndrewV69]

Now, just because I do not see it does not mean it is not so, but my argument is that unless you compel women to never have children, and force them to do STEM, it is not going to happen. They may have the capability but the majority are simply not interested...

...In the end, I believe most women have no interest in working in STEM fields over having children. The good thing is as far as I can see, there are a lot less barriers preventing those who are interested from doing so.

I definitely don't think that's true, but obviously I can't predict the future!

I can not predict either. That is why I threw in a weasley words like "believe" and "over having children".

(and BTW ... most men do not do STEM either. Notice that?)

Weeeeelll... I'm more thinking along the lines that these careers are far more friendly to giving birth/having children than others.

I am thinking that women like you, a friend, and my mother are outliers in the sense that despite having the option, have a strong preference for not staying home.

My experience has been by the time they had their second child, most of the women I have known, could not be tempted out the house.

You could try doing an informal survey of your own, although if you are management, that might be risky, and given your current condition could give the impression that you are not coming back yourself.

Apart from the articles in places like Forbes, the Guardian and the Daily Mail, you will recall I mentioned the work of Catherine Hakim (who is childless by choice herself) here:

http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 236#p73236

So I suspect that I am on pretty strong ground on this.


Incidently, Betty Friedan in her book "It changed my Life :Writings on the Women's Movement", attributed the following to Simone de Beauvoir:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=iv4-Qy8 ... ed&f=false

No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”

[Zenspace]

I've sometimes wondered if that is all we're doing, driving cash into their pockets and providing exposure. Yes, we are. But I feel if we stop they will become more of a menace to the AS community and that's more important to me. However, I largely ignore A+ now as they are irrelevant, I just go there for the entertainment.

I tend to disagree. They are bleeding. They are starting to feel the pain of falling revenue and site traffic. Conference circuit junkets are dropping off - and remember, most of those are booked a year in advance. Be interesting to see next years schedules. They are doing more and more irrational things in desperation for attention - Hensley's meltdown on CFI itself plus her live tweeting her prescription pill binge; Watson's latest efforts to fabricate fresh Reddit outrage to name just a few. I bet their back channel discussions would be a barrel of laughs. Lumbering behemoths rarely die quickly.

Yes, I'm very late to the party so I do not fully appreciate how much revenue they used to generate compared to now or how good their reputations were compared to now. Watson is certainly going for an exit route. Really the worst group you could try and be irrational with is rationalists. I have often wondered how they thought they had any chance of success in the medium term.

Simple. They fell to one of the most common problems with celebrities: they started to believe their own hype.

[JackSkeptic]

I understand where the Gears of War guy is coming from, but if he thinks his efforts to make his games more inclusive will be appreciated by the Sarkeesians of the world, he's in for a rude awakening.

I dunno, it seems likely that Gears of War will be mentioned in her next video, so we shall see.

Sarkeesian is finding the evidence she is looking for instead of following it. Fail.