windy wrote:Old_ones wrote:Skep tickle wrote:
<snip>
(The "bitches be lying" was his comment, though in quotes in his tweet. I added the Koolaid part, hence it wasn't in quotes in my comment you quoted above.)
So then I'm guessing this clown basically thinks there are two positions on sexual harassment and assault accusations: "believe all victims" and "bitchez be lying".
I see that most of you don't understand weasel.
Damion isn't saying that all Pitters are in the "bitches be lying" camp, but that all the
non-fence-sitters are. I'm assuming he admits that there are lots of "fence-sitters" or "undecideds" here, but if all the ones with a firm opinion are (according to him) in the "bitches be lying" camp, he thinks that's still "strongly indicative" that whatever he's accusing the Pit of this time is true.
Yea, I had kind of noticed and wondered about his phrasing there as well; seems to me that he is being a little more careful these days about qualifying his criticisms, at least since several of us
objected to his
Slymepitters Celebrate Doxxing BlockBot Mods Storify. Reminds me of something from Pinker which highlights the problematic nature of a lack of care, being charitable, in being adequately precise in our language:
The taboo on human nature has not just put blinkers on researchers but turned any discussion of it into a heresy that must be stamped out. Many writers are so desperate to discredit any suggestion of an innate human constitution that they have thrown logic and civility out the window. Elementary distinctions – “some†versus “allâ€, “probable†versus “alwaysâ€, “is†versus “ought†– are eagerly flouted to paint human nature as an extremist doctrine and thereby steer readers away from it. [The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature; pg x]
Somewhat apropos, another case of that, this time something from the APA President Diane
Halpern that Guestus Aurelius linked to recently:
A relatively recent paradigm shows just how complicated sex differences can be. Several different researchers examined the way sex differences vary as a function of the gender equality across societies. Consider the finding that, in more gender-equal societies, females perform as well as males in mathematics (7), much better than males in reading (7), and much worse than males in visuospatial tasks (5). No simple theory, such as the hypothesis that sex differences reflect societal norms or that gender-equal societies will reduce all sex differences, can explain this pattern of results.
While she seems to recognize that there are differences that segregate or cluster by sex, I find her phrasing there terribly ambiguous and likely to lead astray those who might have an axe or two to grind: No, “females ... [do not perform] much better than males in readingâ€;
some females do, maybe even a majority; the same way that most men are taller than most women – but that hardly obviates the fact that a not insignificant percentage of women are taller than many men. Fun with Dick and Jane and statistics and precise uses of words ....