Anne Robinson has no soul, and is history, thank fuck!

[comslave]

Any comments ... http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... onviction/

Wait - doesn't that graphic fail if 12% of reported rapes are false allegations?

I'm questioning the 78k "estimated". How is that estimate done? What definition of rape were they using?

Did it have something to do with coffee?

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Any comments ... http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... onviction/

Wait - doesn't that graphic fail if 12% of reported rapes are false allegations?

I'm questioning the 78k "estimated". How is that estimate done? What definition of rape were they using?

Did it have something to do with coffee?

Well, it's done by starting at the bottom of the graph and working back up ... adding in some survey data and statistical corrections along the way. You then draw the arrows pointing downward


(one of my main issues with infographics like that)

[welch]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.


Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I don't know if it's sides, or they decided that other people should get a chance. I took a look at the speakers, and they all look really good, with names I'd not seen before, always a good sign.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.


Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I don't know if it's sides, or they decided that other people should get a chance. I took a look at the speakers, and they all look really good, with names I'd not seen before, always a good sign.

You may not think there are sides ... but I can bet a tidy sum on the fact that the butthurt blogposts from FTB/Skepchick/A+ will be very sure there are sides.

[welch]

Is Melody really pulling the lipstick lesbian schtick?
She's such a loser.

ERV, didn't those assholes try to put the whole "doing to get attention from the boyz" card even as they knew you are not heterosexual?

I do not talk about my sexuality ad nauseum like these people, so when they originally pulled the 'attention from the boyz' card on me, it was because these oh-so-aware SJW assumed I was heterosexual, which was funny. It got even funnier when it took a *really long time* for the information to sink in (I mean, it was months after I pointed this out that they finally stopped saying it about me).

My sexuality doesnt matter. I might be with a man today and a chick tomorrow. Its none of their business, and its no one elses business either. But they are fucking obsessed with sex in an odd way-- Like a closeted conservative Christian is obsessed with gay sex?-- so they make it an issue. A weapon.

That's the thing that amuses me. They go on and on about equality, and sex-positive, but piss them off? Oh, the sex knives come out. "You're mad you can't get laid." "You're just another ugly dude with a small penis." "You're just kissing up to the guys so they'll think you desireable"

On and on. They're *astoundingly* hypocritical about sexuality. If you're on the hit list, out come the virgin/slut jokes.

Skep tickle -- Its not something that bothers me. Its the hypocrisy that bothers me, not the heteronormative assumptions. I mean, statistically, it is a valid assumption. But when these assholes act like theyre so enlightened, so high and mighty, and then they pull stunts like Melody et ass? Pisses me off. But its nothing to do with me personally-- Like people have been spelling my name wrong my entire life. Its a nickname. I dont care. Abbie, Abby, Abbey, Abi, hell, I had a Bossman who called me 'Amy' for almost a year. It wasnt "OH MAH GAWD HE DOESNT RESPECT FEMALE EMPLOYEES HE DOESNT EVEN CARE ABOUT THEIR NAMES" it was the fact he was East Asian. I butcher the fuck out of East Asian names, that he could get 'Amy' was nice. So when Stephie Steffy Poo Poo gets pissed when she is not addressed by her God Given Name, Her Royal Majesty Stephanie Svan, but calls Richard Dawkins 'Dick', that PISSED me off. Hypocrisy, not messing up peoples names.

Pretty much. I've yet to see them live up to ANY standard they demand of others, much less all of them.

[AbsurdWalls]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.

Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I'd like to go to TAM someday but the travel would be expensive and I am currently broke as all hell. Maybe next year.

Two live tapings of Skeptics Guide to the Universe, featuring Dr. Steve Novella, Jay Novella, Bob Novella, and Evan Bernstein.

I guess that's normal? I only ever listened to a few episodes of SGU. What put me off it most was the one after Steve Jobs died, their attitude towards it seemed quite distasteful.

[Altair]

Any comments ... http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... onviction/

Wait - doesn't that graphic fail if 12% of reported rapes are false allegations?

I'm questioning the 78k "estimated". How is that estimate done? What definition of rape were they using?

Did it have something to do with coffee?

The Guardian has a link to what appears to be the source of the data, the Ministry of Justice

Statistics are not my cup of tea, so I only did a quick search on the pdf linked to the right of the MoJ's site and found this

In 2011/12, the police recorded 53,665 sexual offences, accounting for around one per cent of all police recorded crime. This equates to around one offence per year for every thousand people in England and Wales.

The most commonly recorded sexual offence was sexual assault (including attempts), accounting for 41 per cent of the sexual offences recorded in 2011/12 (22,053 offences). A further 30 per cent were for rape (16,041 offences, including attempts). This compares with the estimate of 69,000 rapes (including attempts) per year on average as measured by the CSEW (see previous chapter). In line with the findings from the CSEW, levels of rape and sexual assault against females are higher than for males

Apparently the number 69000 comes from something called the CSEW.
If I'm reading this correctly, the number of actual rapes should be lower, since 41% of those 53.665 sexual offences are considered "assaults".
The Guardian adds 9000 male victims to the number to get the 78k, but I couldn't find that number in the PDF.

[Skep tickle]

One of the speakers is Dr. R. Elisabeth Cornwell, who is on the Board of CFI and is one of the speakers scheduled for WiS2.

Didn't you list her as an evolutionary psychologist earlier? Doesn't get more misogynist than that, or so I've heard.

Yeah, for that reason alone it was a little surprising to see her on the WiS2 speaker list. But, hey, CFI Board Member, probably would have been hard for MH to come up with a reason to exclude her...

[welch]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.

Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I'd like to go to TAM someday but the travel would be expensive and I am currently broke as all hell. Maybe next year.

Two live tapings of Skeptics Guide to the Universe, featuring Dr. Steve Novella, Jay Novella, Bob Novella, and Evan Bernstein.

I guess that's normal? I only ever listened to a few episodes of SGU. What put me off it most was the one after Steve Jobs died, their attitude towards it seemed quite distasteful.

Everyone took cheap shots at Jobs. It was the hip thing to do.

[Skep tickle]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.

Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I'd like to go to TAM someday but the travel would be expensive and I am currently broke as all hell. Maybe next year.

That's too bad. Getting there is expensive; the rooms are cheap, it being Las Vegas and all.

[

Two live tapings of Skeptics Guide to the Universe, featuring Dr. Steve Novella, Jay Novella, Bob Novella, and Evan Bernstein.

I guess that's normal? ...

Normally, their co-host Rebecca Watson would also be there for the tapings...

[karlaporter]

Amanda Marcotte ‏@AmandaMarcotte

@StorifyHelp Is there a way to block a user from using your tweets on Storify? Obsessed people need to lose access, for their own good.

"I want to say things in public, but remove everyone's ability to comment on the things I say. Free speech? Bah, who needs it!"

If you have to ask that question your're not doing it right. What's wrong with these people?

[CommanderTuvok]

I love that TAM speaking list. It is a MASSIVE FUCK YOU towards the Baboons.

http://files.myopera.com/Ledu00/albums/ ... -yours.jpg

All we need now is other conferences to follow suit and kick out these fucking shitstains.

[Dick Strawkins]

I notice Massimo Pigliucci will be at TAM this year.

I'm surprised that the 'Axis of Weevil' didn't pick up on him for his recent article in Aeon Magazine when he had some not particularly nice things to say about feminist science.

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views ... nsilience/

Throughout the 1990s, postmodernist, deconstructionist and radical feminist authors (the likes of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Bruno Latour and Sandra Harding) wrote all sorts of nonsense about science, clearly without understanding what scientists actually do. The feminist philosopher Harding once boasted: ‘I doubt that in our wildest dreams we ever imagined we would have to reinvent both science and theorising itself'. That’s a striking claim given the dearth of novel results arising from feminist science. The last time I checked, there were no uniquely feminist energy sources on the horizon.

[comslave]

Amanda Marcotte ‏@AmandaMarcotte

@StorifyHelp Is there a way to block a user from using your tweets on Storify? Obsessed people need to lose access, for their own good.

"I want to say things in public, but remove everyone's ability to comment on the things I say. Free speech? Bah, who needs it!"

I'll say it again, these people are children.

[CommanderTuvok]

Normally, their co-host Rebecca Watson would also be there for the tapings...

Well, she won't be missed. She can sit at home and fester like a fucking wankstain.

[Mr Danksworth]

I guess that's normal? I only ever listened to a few episodes of SGU. What put me off it most was the one after Steve Jobs died, their attitude towards it seemed quite distasteful.

Everyone took cheap shots at Jobs. It was the hip thing to do.[/quote]

And they did it using the products his company created. Fucking hypocrites.

[Metalogic42]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.


Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I don't know if it's sides, or they decided that other people should get a chance. I took a look at the speakers, and they all look really good, with names I'd not seen before, always a good sign.

You may not think there are sides ... but I can bet a tidy sum on the fact that the butthurt blogposts from FTB/Skepchick/A+ will be very sure there are sides.

Prediction 1: "Only 11/27 speakers are women!!!"
Prediction 2: "Coyne/Grothe/Hall/Mayhew/Shermer will be there, TAM is so misogynist!!!"

[Cunning Punt]

What a complete clusterfuck that comment thread is.

Pitchguest, you've posted at least 30 times in 150+ total comments. Why do you do it?

Bunch of good comments from several people there, including several 'pitters.

Cunning Punt, do you and Cupid Stunt ever feel left out when people wail about how there's *gasp* one member at the 'Pit whose 'nym is Cunt? I must admit enjoying seeing the not-actual-subtlety whiz right over their heads.

I took my name from the late great Kenny Everett character, Cupid Stunt.

A gay comedian with a beard playing a female porn star, with a beard.

I'd link a vid but i'd only fuck it up.

It is very telling that a simple spoonerism seems to go right over the heads of our SJW's pals.

There you go.

[youtube]ZkqxagJglaI[/youtube]

[Michael J]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.


Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I sooooo wish I could go this year. Sigh. But it looks like due to the financial cramp we'll have with my guy's cancer, it'll have to wait for another year. Love the list of speakers!

Funny that there are a few speakers there I would not have ever heard of if not for the witchhunts. Sara looks purty in the photos (Am I allowed to say that?)

[DeepInsideYourMind]

To paraphrase Sam Harris

"I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a feminist philosophy one."

I notice Massimo Pigliucci will be at TAM this year.

I'm surprised that the 'Axis of Weevil' didn't pick up on him for his recent article in Aeon Magazine when he had some not particularly nice things to say about feminist science.

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views ... nsilience/

Throughout the 1990s, postmodernist, deconstructionist and radical feminist authors (the likes of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Bruno Latour and Sandra Harding) wrote all sorts of nonsense about science, clearly without understanding what scientists actually do. The feminist philosopher Harding once boasted: ‘I doubt that in our wildest dreams we ever imagined we would have to reinvent both science and theorising itself'. That’s a striking claim given the dearth of novel results arising from feminist science. The last time I checked, there were no uniquely feminist energy sources on the horizon.

[AbsurdWalls]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.

Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I'd like to go to TAM someday but the travel would be expensive and I am currently broke as all hell. Maybe next year.

Two live tapings of Skeptics Guide to the Universe, featuring Dr. Steve Novella, Jay Novella, Bob Novella, and Evan Bernstein.

I guess that's normal? I only ever listened to a few episodes of SGU. What put me off it most was the one after Steve Jobs died, their attitude towards it seemed quite distasteful.

Everyone took cheap shots at Jobs. It was the hip thing to do.

I'm trying to find the recording or a transcript because I wouldn't want to be unfair (I am really hoping it is the correct podcast too, I'm almost certain it is). From my memory they went through the decisions he made about his treatment quite critically and had the attitude of "Well, how stupid were these decisions? Might he have lived longer if he was smart enough to see through some of the pseudoscientific ideas he bought into?" and I was thinking:
1) People make treatment decisions for reasons other than "this is the optimal choice to live longest"
2) If Jobs really did think he was making the best choices to survive his illness then it should be on the skeptics who care about evidence-based medicine (and why criticise him if you don't?) to ask "How is it that he was hoodwinked in this way? Is there maybe something we can do to stop hundreds of other people making the same mistakes and missing out on getting the best possible treatment?"

[justinvacula]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.

Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I'd like to go to TAM someday but the travel would be expensive and I am currently broke as all hell. Maybe next year.

Two live tapings of Skeptics Guide to the Universe, featuring Dr. Steve Novella, Jay Novella, Bob Novella, and Evan Bernstein.

I guess that's normal? I only ever listened to a few episodes of SGU. What put me off it most was the one after Steve Jobs died, their attitude towards it seemed quite distasteful.

No Rebecca

[Cunning Punt]

The title drew me in. The content made me LMAO:

"English Usage Fuckeuppes"

http://www.freezepage.com/1361213118YRXPISJWTG

(original - http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/ ... uckeuppes/)

Is there anything more painful than the use of “infer” to mean “imply”? When someone says, “My statement didn’t infer what you claim it did”, I want to murder a billion kittens to slake my uncontrollable rage.

Yes. Because the massive usage of the letter "e" is so much less painful.

And it's obviously an affectation and not that he's retarded or whatever his problem is, which makes it really fucking annoying.

[Metalogic42]

Friday 11:00 p.m.

Be forewarned —

This really is Penn’s private party. He’s paying for everything and JREF has nothing to do with it. This party will be whatever Penn wants; it’s not a JREF event.

there will be stupid rock and roll
there will be obscenity
there will be scantily clad people
there will be 1200 Krispy Kreme doughnuts and tons of bacon
you will learn nothing

Everyone at TAM is invited, and it is free to attend. There is a suggested donation to the JREF at the door of $20.00 or more.

Note: This event is neither paid for nor sponsored by the JREF.

Bold mine...

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 850569.jpg

[DeepInsideYourMind]

The title drew me in. The content made me LMAO:

"English Usage Fuckeuppes"

http://www.freezepage.com/1361213118YRXPISJWTG

(original - http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/ ... uckeuppes/)

Is there anything more painful than the use of “infer” to mean “imply”? When someone says, “My statement didn’t infer what you claim it did”, I want to murder a billion kittens to slake my uncontrollable rage.

Yes. Because the massive usage of the letter "e" is so much less painful.

And it's obviously an affectation and not that he's retarded or whatever his problem is, which makes it really fucking annoying.

"anything more painful" .... ummm yeah, pretty much everything in the universe

[Cunning Punt]

BTW, read Sara and Miranda Celeste giving hell to the Sisterhood of the Vagina. I wonder who was the skepchick lusting over Sara's boyfriend.

Probably the same one that wanted a 3-way with Brian Dunning and his wife. (They said "no".)

[Gumby]

Given her current state - apparently - I'd say that was akin to asking someone not to think of the colour red.

Goddammit.

[Cunning Punt]

What a complete clusterfuck that comment thread is.

Pitchguest, you've posted at least 30 times in 150+ total comments. Why do you do it?

Bunch of good comments from several people there, including several 'pitters.

Yeah, but then it goes on for comment after comment about who said what to who, and Radford's original blog post, which I at least thought was pretty good, gets forgotten. If was running a blog at that place I would give every person one comment. That way they would have to stop and think about what they want to say, and say it all in one place rather than this back and forth.

Yes, I feel bad about that. To be fair, I wasn't the one who began the derail, although I suppose I was partly responsible for escalating it. On the other hand, I *was* trying to get the piece back on track. Since Ben's "poem" (or whatever) was supposed to resemble Eve Ensler's, to the point where they both have the starter, "I am over rape" it seemed absurd that Ben should get flack for it, but not Ensler. Then it got out of hand. Sigh. I'm my own worst enemy.

But your insight into your own behavior is a stark contrast to EBW , who said nothing of any substance, and I think just wanted to be the first to comment. And then and Social Justice Slacktivist Sally. Ugh.

[AbsurdWalls]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.

Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I'd like to go to TAM someday but the travel would be expensive and I am currently broke as all hell. Maybe next year.

That's too bad. Getting there is expensive; the rooms are cheap, it being Las Vegas and all.

Yeah, it looks like I could do all of the normal-people stuff that I'd be interested in for $625. Interesting that they do a package that only adds VIP seating to that but costs $375 more (unless I'm missing something).

I was surprised by how cheap hotel rooms would be. Still, it's a lot of money from my perspective at the moment. I can imagine I might go someday if I was trying to network to launch something of my own or raise the profile of a particular issue, but as a simple spectator I doubt I would be able to justify spending that much.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

What a complete clusterfuck that comment thread is.

Pitchguest, you've posted at least 30 times in 150+ total comments. Why do you do it?

Bunch of good comments from several people there, including several 'pitters.

Yeah, but then it goes on for comment after comment about who said what to who, and Radford's original blog post, which I at least thought was pretty good, gets forgotten. If was running a blog at that place I would give every person one comment. That way they would have to stop and think about what they want to say, and say it all in one place rather than this back and forth.

Yes, I feel bad about that. To be fair, I wasn't the one who began the derail, although I suppose I was partly responsible for escalating it. On the other hand, I *was* trying to get the piece back on track. Since Ben's "poem" (or whatever) was supposed to resemble Eve Ensler's, to the point where they both have the starter, "I am over rape" it seemed absurd that Ben should get flack for it, but not Ensler. Then it got out of hand. Sigh. I'm my own worst enemy.

But your insight into your own behavior is a stark contrast to EBW , who said nothing of any substance, and I think just wanted to be the first to comment. And then and Social Justice Slacktivist Sally. Ugh.

Stephanie Zvan took Ben's follow up off the rails even faster

[Gumby]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.


Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

Fucking awesome.

Harriet Hall.
Russell Blackford.
Jerry Coyne.
Barbara Drescher.
Sara Mayhew.
Michael Shermer.
Miranda Celeste Hale.

Talk about a huge FUCK YOU to the FTB/Skepchick assmunches. Plus, these people do useful and interesting things in their lives and for the A/S community, unlike the morons who do nothing but whinge on their blogs and harass and try to intimidate everyone who doesn't agree with them.

This made my day!

:clap:

[Apples]

Speaking of speaker lists, a few days ago Ophelia did a post about Apostacon in Omaha. Mostly she wanted to complain that there were "not nearly enough" women speakers and that they hadn't invited Vyckie Garrison of No Longer Quivering.

Today Ophie was twittering ... and twittering ... and twittering:
http://i.imgur.com/O3TmiSY.jpg
Jeez. She reminds me of my six-year-old niece.

Anyway, what was the big deal? The director of the con heard about her post and commented:

You’re right about us needing more women speakers and we’re working on that… our speaker list isn’t finalized yet so keep an eye out for updates. We added Sarah Morehead from Recovering from Religion to the speakers list last Friday and received an update on Sunday that AJ Johnson formerly of American Atheists has confirmed as a speaker now as well! Thanks also for the tip about Vyckie Garrison, we’ll look into it.

He's no dummy - smart PR to nip in the bud the notion that Apostacon hates women.

Anyway, I guess Ophie was twitter-stuttering b/c she was super-excited that she is so influential and Vyyyyyyckie!!!!1111 will be "looked into."

Then another comment:

Where is Omaha? LMAO! Haha just kidding.

Ok seriously, this conference looks VERY VERY cool, but out of courtesy you might have wanted to contact them before writing this and implying they’re excluding women, or even Vicky, for that matter. That’s a pretty hefty charge in the current state of the movement, and not too kosher when you probably don’t have all the info just yet (unless you did contact them before writing it, and then I take back this comment LOL). I mean, that does seem to be just LOOKING for something to complain about?

It’s rare to have the speaker list FINAL when it’s first published, and that they clearly state they are adding more… maybe hold off on criticizing them. They have 6 women speaking, actually (Jamila Bey, AJ Johnson, Teresa Macbain, Deanna Lyons from her comment above-and I presume she’ll be added to the photo spread, Sarah Morehead & Catherine Stewart), they look like they’re doing a GREAT job representing the minority communities (6 women, 3 LGBTQ advocates, and 3 people of color to date) and it’s clear they are still adding speakers. As for Vicky, her blog is awesome, but they already have quite a few people who are likely speaking on leaving religion and fundamentalism (based on what I can find on google re their topics): Nathan Phelps, Teresa MacBain, Chris Stedman, Seth Andrews, and Sarah Morehead apparently runs an entire org called “Recovering From Religion”. As for local talent, it looks like Nathan Phelps, for one, is from the Midwest, as is Hector Avalos and Sarah Morehead, based on online info? ...

Love your blog Ophelia, thanks!

Michelle makes some fair points (Melody Hensley could also heed this kind of advice - sometimes things can be handled discreetly), but Ophie's not having it:

Michelle – did you see comment 3? William Newman doesn’t seem to think I needed a scolding. He thanked me for the tip about Vyckie. Maybe you didn’t need to scold me either.

No. I was not “just LOOKING for something to complain about.” I am very tired of being accused of that. No, a friend pointed out the event, and I took a look, and the scarcity of women jumped out at me. No I am not just LOOKING for something to complain about when I point out a scarcity of women in movies, tv shows, STEM fields, Congress.

Um ... Ophelia you fucking idiot - you think William Newman would "scold" you, no matter how irritated he might have been? He actually knows something about PR and isn't stupid enough to provoke a banshee like you. Typical Ophie - obnoxious, oblivious, immature, prickly, arrogant.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... apostacon/
http://www.freezepage.com/1361225838DXCGUXVHQF

[Dick Strawkins]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.

Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

I'd like to go to TAM someday but the travel would be expensive and I am currently broke as all hell. Maybe next year.

Two live tapings of Skeptics Guide to the Universe, featuring Dr. Steve Novella, Jay Novella, Bob Novella, and Evan Bernstein.

I guess that's normal? I only ever listened to a few episodes of SGU. What put me off it most was the one after Steve Jobs died, their attitude towards it seemed quite distasteful.

No Rebecca

This year's TAM is taking place two weeks after the Dublin 'Empowering Women Through Secularism' meeting that PZ, Ophelia and Rebecca are attending. Considering it's taking place in the same hotel (with the same elevator!) where all this crap originated, I guess Rebecca has more important things on her mind. For instance, trying to rekindle the outrage from two years ago.

[Gumby]

^lol. Waiting for the plethora of butthurt blogposts...

My bet is that they'll go the sour grapes route, not the butthurt route. Expect a lot of "Well, we never wanted to go after the horrors of last year, so we never contacted them" type posts. :lol:

[Gumby]

I love that TAM speaking list. It is a MASSIVE FUCK YOU towards the Baboons.

http://files.myopera.com/Ledu00/albums/ ... -yours.jpg

All we need now is other conferences to follow suit and kick out these fucking shitstains.

The first domino has tipped, maybe?

[decius]

Welch, there's a de-facto divide with consequences. For one thing, DJ is more or less openly fed up with the histrionics of the baboons and this is going to be reflected in his invitation list. Secondly, there are speakers who have made it publicly clear that they won't appear alongside certain divisive figures, or partake to events which feature them. They never changed their mind about it, and if they did, they would do so equally publicly.

This is a baboon-free Tam by design, I'm sure.

[Patrick]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.


Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

Fucking awesome.

Harriet Hall.
Russell Blackford.
Jerry Coyne.
Barbara Drescher.
Sara Mayhew.
Michael Shermer.
Miranda Celeste Hale.

Talk about a huge FUCK YOU to the FTB/Skepchick assmunches. Plus, these people do useful and interesting things in their lives and for the A/S community, unlike the morons who do nothing but whinge on their blogs and harass and try to intimidate everyone who doesn't agree with them.

This made my day!

:clap:

I'm not privy to the internal TAM politics, but isn't it possible that the part of your comment that I bolded has more to do with why these people are on the speaker list than any slight towards the hypocrites and liars our allies in reason from FTB?

If I'm delusional, let me enjoy it for five or ten minutes before slapping me with the clue stick.

[decius]

Skep Tickle, thanks for the very educational post.

I had missed the remarks about Hensley's medications, but I wasn't talking about her case - I just latched on quite abstractly about meds vs behavioural therapy.

Thanks again, though. It was a pleasure to read.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

I'm not privy to the internal TAM politics, but isn't it possible that the part of your comment that I bolded has more to do with why these people are on the speaker list than any slight towards the hypocrites and liars our allies in reason from FTB?

If I'm delusional, let me enjoy it for five or ten minutes before slapping me with the clue stick.

I am with you - I strongly suspect it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and everything to do with finding speakers who have achieved things, can speak well about them , can hold and espouse ideas, can accept and understand critique of those ideas, and who will add real value to the event.

[Steersman]

Amanda Marcotte ‏@AmandaMarcotte

@StorifyHelp Is there a way to block a user from using your tweets on Storify? Obsessed people need to lose access, for their own good.

"I want to say things in public, but remove everyone's ability to comment on the things I say. Free speech? Bah, who needs it!"

If you have to ask that question your're not doing it right. What's wrong with these people?

I think it’s called the human condition, the “human stain”, that we all suffer from to a greater or lesser extent. Reminds me of this observation by Michael Shermer in his The Believing Brain (highly recommended):

As we saw in the previous chapter, politics is filled with self-justifying rationalizations. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative shaded glasses. When you listen to both “conservative talk radio” and “progressive talk radio” you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event. Social psychologist Geoffrey Cohen quantified this effect in a study in which he discovered that Democrats are more accepting of a welfare program if they believe it was proposed by a fellow Democrat, even if the proposal came from a Republican and is quite restrictive. Predictably, Cohen found the same effect for Republicans who were far more likely to approve of a generous welfare program if they thought it was proposed by a fellow Republican. In other words, even when examining the exact same data people from both parties arrive at radically different conclusions. [pg 263]

Not that some people haven’t noted the phenomenon before as the parable of the blind men and the elephant attests – which goes back to at least 13th century Sufism. But I think that parable is well corroborated by many of the comments in Radford’s recent posts, and in PZ’s response. In the former case we have many – generally on both sides, although I think more on the “pro-gender-feminist” side – who grasp and loudly defend one element, differing by side, in Radford’s post while conveniently ignoring some truth to the other elements. And PZ, with maybe some justification, criticizes some of the interpretations of various statistics, yet thinks that Radford is only beating up on “a whole bunch of straw feminists”.

‘Tis enough to cry were it not for the humour, if of the gallows, the risible comparison with that parable.

[DW Adams]

Today Ophie was twittering ... and twittering ... and twittering:
http://i.imgur.com/O3TmiSY.jpg
Jeez. She reminds me of my six-year-old niece.

"Look at me!"

"I need a new friend, all my old ones seem to ignore me."

"Look at me! Be my friend?"

[decius]

Also, very telling is the absence of Toilet Slave General Phil Plait.

[Reap]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.


Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

Now that is a pretty good line-up. Good to see what's not there, if you know what I mean.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Today Ophie was twittering ... and twittering ... and twittering:

Jeez. She reminds me of my six-year-old niece.

"Look at me!"

"I need a new friend, all my old ones seem to ignore me."

"Look at me! Be my friend?"

Bueller?....... Bueller?.......Bueller?

[Gumby]

I'm not privy to the internal TAM politics, but isn't it possible that the part of your comment that I bolded has more to do with why these people are on the speaker list than any slight towards the hypocrites and liars our allies in reason from FTB?

If I'm delusional, let me enjoy it for five or ten minutes before slapping me with the clue stick.

You may be right. But whatever reason they had, the end result is still the same.

Sick of the Baboons: No FTB/Skepchick at TAM.
Wanted people who actually have accomplishments and knowledge: NO FTB/Skepchick at TAM.

I'm happy either way, because the message is being sent regardless.

[Steersman]

Well, the TAM 2013 programme and speaker list is out ... http://www.amazingmeeting.com/

Great to see that not a single Skepchick/FtB person made the list ... and a *very* large number of those they have been attacking did.

Guess we know which side JREF falls on now.

Far out. Maybe not the beginning of the end, but certainly the end of the beginning - so to speak.

Although I wonder what the speaker's lists were like during the last couple of years. Significant percentage from FTB/Skepchick?

And I didn't notice - any references to "harassment policies"?

[Apples]

I notice Massimo Pigliucci will be at TAM this year.

I'm surprised that the 'Axis of Weevil' didn't pick up on him for his recent article in Aeon Magazine when he had some not particularly nice things to say about feminist science.

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views ... nsilience/

Throughout the 1990s, postmodernist, deconstructionist and radical feminist authors (the likes of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Bruno Latour and Sandra Harding) wrote all sorts of nonsense about science, clearly without understanding what scientists actually do. The feminist philosopher Harding once boasted: ‘I doubt that in our wildest dreams we ever imagined we would have to reinvent both science and theorising itself'. That’s a striking claim given the dearth of novel results arising from feminist science. The last time I checked, there were no uniquely feminist energy sources on the horizon.

Well, Ophie likes Pigliucci right now, because he's picking on Michael Shermer, whose musings about the basis of morality she described today as "amateurish and arrogant." She also gleefully highlighted a paragraph from Pigliucci's post:

Most men, for example, are much more receptive toward unsolicited offers of sex than are women.

This is just a parenthetical observation, Michael, but that study has been debunked, together with a lot of the other questionable “science” about gender we get from a certain brand of evolutionary psychology…

Um .... really? So Pigliucci's reference for that statement is a link to a blog that links to a New York Times article that describes a study in which women were apparently asked hypothetical questions about whether they would be interested in casual sex with celebrities or friends whom they were told were "good in bed." So not a debunking of the "unsolicited offers of sex" study. Fail.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... /#comments
http://www.freezepage.com/1361227485WRGCIXBXSZ

[Dick Strawkins]

I'm not privy to the internal TAM politics, but isn't it possible that the part of your comment that I bolded has more to do with why these people are on the speaker list than any slight towards the hypocrites and liars our allies in reason from FTB?

If I'm delusional, let me enjoy it for five or ten minutes before slapping me with the clue stick.

I am with you - I strongly suspect it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and everything to do with finding speakers who have achieved things, can speak well about them , can hold and espouse ideas, can accept and understand critique of those ideas, and who will add real value to the event.

How is that NOT a political choice?
The whole Minnesotta mafia/skepchicks agenda has been the promotion of FOTI non-entities as keynote speakers - and giving talks about themselves. JREF are very publicly choosing a different route.

[Mr Danksworth]

I'm not privy to the internal TAM politics, but isn't it possible that the part of your comment that I bolded has more to do with why these people are on the speaker list than any slight towards the hypocrites and liars our allies in reason from FTB?

If I'm delusional, let me enjoy it for five or ten minutes before slapping me with the clue stick.

I am with you - I strongly suspect it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and everything to do with finding speakers who have achieved things, can speak well about them , can hold and espouse ideas, can accept and understand critique of those ideas, and who will add real value to the event.

Isn't it amazing that if event promoters stick to these guidelines, FTB/Skepchik/Et al. are automatically excluded?

[AbsurdWalls]

I'm not privy to the internal TAM politics, but isn't it possible that the part of your comment that I bolded has more to do with why these people are on the speaker list than any slight towards the hypocrites and liars our allies in reason from FTB?

If I'm delusional, let me enjoy it for five or ten minutes before slapping me with the clue stick.

I am with you - I strongly suspect it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and everything to do with finding speakers who have achieved things, can speak well about them , can hold and espouse ideas, can accept and understand critique of those ideas, and who will add real value to the event.

It is also entirely possible that the usual suspects were in fact invited and and they declined. Meaning this may not be evidence of any of those things.

So... cool your jets I guess, or run the risk of looking quite foolish.

[decius]

It is also entirely possible that the usual suspects were in fact invited and and they declined. Meaning this may not be evidence of any of those things.

So... cool your jets I guess, or run the risk of looking quite foolish.

Do you think their endlessly self-promoting ego would allow that?

[windy]

Social Justice Warriors can be oppressed by...beer labels.

In the complaint, Ero notes, “It is particularly offensive and demeaning for persons with albinism who immigrated to British Columbia to escape disability-based persecution to have patrons ordering and consuming ‘albinos.’ ”

This lawsuit is ridiculous. Albinos in Canada are not oppressed as a group. They are not victims of oppression any more than anyone else, be they short, fat, thin, tall, ugly or beautiful. People are being murdered and are victims of systemic oppression around the world and these idiots feel oppressed by a bloody beer label.

Not to mention it's not even referring to albinos as people! Are they going to go after Black Sheep ale next? (Arrogant Bastard would be more appropriate though)

I'm guessing this guy doesn't share the outrage...
http://www.youtube.com/user/albnorhyno?feature=watch

[Submariner]

I'm not privy to the internal TAM politics, but isn't it possible that the part of your comment that I bolded has more to do with why these people are on the speaker list than any slight towards the hypocrites and liars our allies in reason from FTB?

If I'm delusional, let me enjoy it for five or ten minutes before slapping me with the clue stick.

You may be right. But whatever reason they had, the end result is still the same.

Sick of the Baboons: No FTB/Skepchick at TAM.
Wanted people who actually have accomplishments and knowledge: NO FTB/Skepchick at TAM.

I'm happy either way, because the message is being sent regardless.

I for one wish I were able to attend this baboon free TAM.

I hope and (pray?) that this TAM sets record attendance and ends up being noted historically as the coolest TAM ever.

[Dick Strawkins]

I'm not privy to the internal TAM politics, but isn't it possible that the part of your comment that I bolded has more to do with why these people are on the speaker list than any slight towards the hypocrites and liars our allies in reason from FTB?

If I'm delusional, let me enjoy it for five or ten minutes before slapping me with the clue stick.

I am with you - I strongly suspect it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and everything to do with finding speakers who have achieved things, can speak well about them , can hold and espouse ideas, can accept and understand critique of those ideas, and who will add real value to the event.

It is also entirely possible that the usual suspects were in fact invited and and they declined. Meaning this may not be evidence of any of those things.

So... cool your jets I guess, or run the risk of looking quite foolish.

Apparently Richard Carrier was asked but his demands were too high. (I think he asked for Schleswig and Holstein.) :)

[DeepInsideYourMind]

It is also entirely possible that the usual suspects were in fact invited and and they declined. Meaning this may not be evidence of any of those things.

So... cool your jets I guess, or run the risk of looking quite foolish.

Do you think their endlessly self-promoting ego would allow that?

TAM : "Hey PZ, we know we may not always agree on things, but we would love to have you come speak at TAM and tell everyone about your recent favourite subjects"

PZ : "No thanks, I know how important an event TAM is, but I will decline on the grounds that ........"


Fill in the blank ...

[Michael K Gray]

Except you can get warm LEDs that look just like incandescents.

Mmm. Not quite.
Hi-power "Warm" LEDs still have a very lumpy & spiky spectrum, not at all like smooth black-body radiation.
Some warm leds leak UV as well. This is both invisible, and very disruptive to circadian rhythms.
Whilst they appear to be the same, they are definitely not the same.

[KiwiInOz]

rape by physical action.

Where does sex by coercion (or begging) fit into the concept of rape. I don't mean physical coercion or overt threats, but more emotional blackmail or persistent nagging?

[KiwiInOz]

rape by physical action.

Where does sex by coercion (or begging) fit into the concept of rape. I don't mean physical coercion or overt threats, but more emotional blackmail or persistent nagging?

Sorry - didn't mean to imply that Dick wrote that line of text - rather it was an inadequate potted summary of a whole lot of text that he wrote or quoted that I edited for brevity.

[decius]

TAM : "Hey PZ, we know we may not always agree on things, but we would love to have you come speak at TAM and tell everyone about your recent favourite subjects"

PZ : "No thanks, I know how important an event TAM is, but I will decline on the grounds that ........"


Fill in the blank ...

That may work for one or two of them, but the whole bloc (including former JREF president and Feminazi Apologist in Chief at Tam Phil Plait)?

Perhaps they were invited and made absurd demands (like ban fake jewellery, exclude XYZ, gimme gimme gimme, etc) and flounced when denied. This I could imagine happening, but otherwise this whole thing can't be by chance.

BTW, there's a journalistic technique which consists of seemingly putting out conjectures, when in fact one is giving information. Read a few trusted sources here and there.

[welch]

Amanda Marcotte ‏@AmandaMarcotte

@StorifyHelp Is there a way to block a user from using your tweets on Storify? Obsessed people need to lose access, for their own good.

"I want to say things in public, but remove everyone's ability to comment on the things I say. Free speech? Bah, who needs it!"

If you have to ask that question your're not doing it right. What's wrong with these people?

They see the world as "Highlander". There can be only one.

Is there an opinion? Only one can be right, all others must be wrong.

Is there a decision? only one can be right, all others must be wrong.

So what happens when you're talking about something that isn't black and white, like oh, I dunno, feminism? What happens when you don't completely agree with Marcotte on every aspect and in every way?

Well, if you're not a highlanderist dipshit, you realize that just like even in "hard" sciences, (like Physics), it is possible for two people to see the same information and walk away with different conclusions or theories. That you can have multiple opinions and theories on something and they don't all have to directly compete with each other. That this is not "two men enter, one man leaves" shit.

Or, if you're Marcotte, since there can be only one, any and all disagreements are an attack on your opinions and theories. Since you further tie EVERYTHING to who you are as a person, any and all disagreements must be an attack on you.

It's incredibly stupid and short-sighted and leads to what we currently see. Demonization, no retreat, no surrender. The whole thing is a montage of 80s martial arts/action adventure plots.