Bunkspubble!

[JackSkeptic]

I thought about something for a while. I want to do more videos and post a lot more on my Beliefblower blog. But I have a webcam that is dieing a horrible death. So, after much deliberation, I decided to put a donate button on my website. Am I now a hypocrite?

Seriously. I worry about this kind of shit.

There's nothing wrong with asking for support.

It's all that stuff with FTBers at the moment screwing with my head. On the one hand, my guy and I are going to be very tight as far as money in the coming months. But I was thinking vlogging and blogging to those who enjoy what I put out and asking for donations to make it better is a bit different. On the other hand, I'm thinking of how it looked to me when various FTBers asked for handouts. Conflicted but going ahead with it for the moment.

I see no conflict. The issue was not the hand out, that is fine. The issue with them was it was for a serious illness that (thankfully) wasn't. But she still paid off several months of mortgage and bought an expensive pair of shoes on top. Most decent people would have offered to pay it back (she did but late) or given it to a cancer charity. It turned out she did not need the money, that is different from using the money on what you need.

Also people like those at A+ can make you paranoid about using words. I mean that idiot that got offended at 'Homosexual', I bet his family find him insufferable yet if they say anything he will call them homophobic.

They have no sense of context or ability to judge other people intentions, which is why I think many have Sociopathic tenancies. They can't operate in the real world so make one up for themselves in their own image. You can safely ignore their narrative as it is not a world of reality.

[Lurkion]

Renee,

In more detailed response, you're only a hypocrite if you've criticised people for putting a donate button on their site, mentioning a purpose for the money and not following through and then doing the same yourself.

If I were you, I'd just make it clear that you're going to use it for things INCLUDING getting a camera (which you need) but also other things if more comes in. You can feel free to mention the medical issues, but not to suggest you're running a help-my-medical-bills fundraiser unless that's your intent (and that's what you end up doing with the money).

I have a donate button on my blog and Youtube channel because people can feel free to donate if they like. In fact, I only put it there because someone asked after one (they never ended up donating, but whatevs lol). I also spent $40 on a 3000 sound effect pack for the videos, so if I do ever get donations, I can justify it with that (as long as I realise that if I ever got any donations, I'd be sortof morally compelled to continue producing material for a reasonable period of time).

Add the underlined words to my last post if you want it to make sense...

[ReneeHendricks]

Renee,

In more detailed response, you're only a hypocrite if you've criticised people for putting a donate button on their site, mentioning a purpose for the money and not following through.

If I were you, I'd just make it clear that you're going to use it for things INCLUDING getting a camera (which you need) but also other things if more comes in. You can feel free to mention the medical issues, but not to suggest you're running a help-my-medical-bills fundraiser unless that's your intent (and that's what you end up doing with the money).

I have a donate button on my blog and Youtube channel because people can feel free to donate if they like. In fact, I only put it there because someone asked after one (they never ended up donating, but whatevs lol). I also spent $40 on a 3000 sound effect pack for the videos, so if I do ever get donations, I can justify it with that (as long as I realise that if I ever got any donations, I'd be sortof morally compelled to continue producing material for a reasonable period of time).

Thanks Rocko :)

I've criticized for using money given for shoes when it was supposed to be for mortgage/etal, certainly. I will flesh out my donate button so there's no ambiguity. My guy and I both have had discussions about e-begging for supposed medical stuff and having the money go to shoes and other frivolous things and we both find it disgusting.

I''m sure I probably won't gather anything as far as donations. But at least it's up there in case someone feels the need :)

[Walter Ego]

It's all that stuff with FTBers at the moment screwing with my head. On the one hand, my guy and I are going to be very tight as far as money in the coming months. But I was thinking vlogging and blogging to those who enjoy what I put out and asking for donations to make it better is a bit different. On the other hand, I'm thinking of how it looked to me when various FTBers asked for handouts. Conflicted but going ahead with it for the moment.

This brings up a delicate subject I have been loath to mention until now. I haven't had any income since December because I've been too ill to work or even look for work. If nothing changes, my utilities will be cut off in a month or two (shelter and food are covered). I will qualify for some government benefits in August but it's going to be tough until then. I haven't decided to pass the tin cup yet, though.

[JackSkeptic]

Renee,

In more detailed response, you're only a hypocrite if you've criticised people for putting a donate button on their site, mentioning a purpose for the money and not following through.

If I were you, I'd just make it clear that you're going to use it for things INCLUDING getting a camera (which you need) but also other things if more comes in. You can feel free to mention the medical issues, but not to suggest you're running a help-my-medical-bills fundraiser unless that's your intent (and that's what you end up doing with the money).

I have a donate button on my blog and Youtube channel because people can feel free to donate if they like. In fact, I only put it there because someone asked after one (they never ended up donating, but whatevs lol). I also spent $40 on a 3000 sound effect pack for the videos, so if I do ever get donations, I can justify it with that (as long as I realise that if I ever got any donations, I'd be sortof morally compelled to continue producing material for a reasonable period of time).

Thanks Rocko :)

I've criticized for using money given for shoes when it was supposed to be for mortgage/etal, certainly. I will flesh out my donate button so there's no ambiguity. My guy and I both have had discussions about e-begging for supposed medical stuff and having the money go to shoes and other frivolous things and we both find it disgusting.

I''m sure I probably won't gather anything as far as donations. But at least it's up there in case someone feels the need :)

If you include 'porn' on your button you'll triple your donations. Of course, you can then blame hubby for putting it there.

[Metalogic42]

I thought about something for a while. I want to do more videos and post a lot more on my Beliefblower blog. But I have a webcam that is dieing a horrible death. So, after much deliberation, I decided to put a donate button on my website. Am I now a hypocrite?

Seriously. I worry about this kind of shit.

Here is your answer:

[youtube]8T6O2iVncl0[/youtube]

[ReneeHendricks]

Renee,

In more detailed response, you're only a hypocrite if you've criticised people for putting a donate button on their site, mentioning a purpose for the money and not following through.

If I were you, I'd just make it clear that you're going to use it for things INCLUDING getting a camera (which you need) but also other things if more comes in. You can feel free to mention the medical issues, but not to suggest you're running a help-my-medical-bills fundraiser unless that's your intent (and that's what you end up doing with the money).

I have a donate button on my blog and Youtube channel because people can feel free to donate if they like. In fact, I only put it there because someone asked after one (they never ended up donating, but whatevs lol). I also spent $40 on a 3000 sound effect pack for the videos, so if I do ever get donations, I can justify it with that (as long as I realise that if I ever got any donations, I'd be sortof morally compelled to continue producing material for a reasonable period of time).

Thanks Rocko :)

I've criticized for using money given for shoes when it was supposed to be for mortgage/etal, certainly. I will flesh out my donate button so there's no ambiguity. My guy and I both have had discussions about e-begging for supposed medical stuff and having the money go to shoes and other frivolous things and we both find it disgusting.

I''m sure I probably won't gather anything as far as donations. But at least it's up there in case someone feels the need :)

If you include 'porn' on your button you'll triple your donations. Of course, you can then blame hubby for putting it there.

LOL Yeah, those days are behind me (I used to do webcam stuff a few years ago). It'll just have to be g-rated as far as my body goes.

[ReneeHendricks]

I thought about something for a while. I want to do more videos and post a lot more on my Beliefblower blog. But I have a webcam that is dieing a horrible death. So, after much deliberation, I decided to put a donate button on my website. Am I now a hypocrite?

Seriously. I worry about this kind of shit.

Here is your answer:

[yt]8T6O2iVncl0[/yt]

Ok, I can deal with that (wonder why I haven't seen that vid of Justicar's?). Thanks :)

[Metalogic42]

Renee,

In more detailed response, you're only a hypocrite if you've criticised people for putting a donate button on their site, mentioning a purpose for the money and not following through.

If I were you, I'd just make it clear that you're going to use it for things INCLUDING getting a camera (which you need) but also other things if more comes in. You can feel free to mention the medical issues, but not to suggest you're running a help-my-medical-bills fundraiser unless that's your intent (and that's what you end up doing with the money).

I have a donate button on my blog and Youtube channel because people can feel free to donate if they like. In fact, I only put it there because someone asked after one (they never ended up donating, but whatevs lol). I also spent $40 on a 3000 sound effect pack for the videos, so if I do ever get donations, I can justify it with that (as long as I realise that if I ever got any donations, I'd be sortof morally compelled to continue producing material for a reasonable period of time).

Thanks Rocko :)

I've criticized for using money given for shoes when it was supposed to be for mortgage/etal, certainly. I will flesh out my donate button so there's no ambiguity. My guy and I both have had discussions about e-begging for supposed medical stuff and having the money go to shoes and other frivolous things and we both find it disgusting.

I''m sure I probably won't gather anything as far as donations. But at least it's up there in case someone feels the need :)

If you include 'porn' on your button you'll triple your donations. Of course, you can then blame hubby for putting it there.

LOL Yeah, those days are behind me (I used to do webcam stuff a few years ago). It'll just have to be g-rated as far as my body goes.

As a skeptic, I must demand evidence!

[free thoughtpolice]

Remember, Justicar has special needs . Zip up turtlenecks do not come cheap!

[JackSkeptic]

The comments on both Noelplum99's video and C0nc0rdance's are awesome!

They are annoying so many people. COncOrdance is a serious scientist and hates this sort of thing, for him to comment like he did is very telling. They won't get the message though.

[JackSkeptic]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... iscussion/

Reply to concordance.

[CommanderTuvok]

The pushback against the Creepy Clowns has begun. Notice how the Baboons get slaughtered in the comments when they can't censor the shir out of them?

They don't seem to realise that THEIR HATE MAKES US STRONGER.

[welch]

I'm going to start saying using the word "homophobic" is bad too. Oh, and "homo sapien".

You just say that because you're a total homo

[ReneeHendricks]

I'm going to start saying using the word "homophobic" is bad too. Oh, and "homo sapien".

You just say that because you're a total homo

:D Nah, a total BI

Mwah!

[CommanderTuvok]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... iscussion/

Reply to concordance.

That is an old reply. No doubt we will see some kind of copy and paste put-up job for PZ Phelps' latest "reply".

[Lurkion]

Hey, I was just on Twitter and some guy said:

African Americans can never be racist. Prejudice, yes; racist, no.

What? Google gave me - "prejudice based on race" as racism, which I think is a fair definition. So what's this guy's point?

I hate it when progressives try to change the definitions of words. AS I AM A PROGRESSIVE and I like my words like they are.

[JackSkeptic]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... iscussion/

Reply to concordance.

That is an old reply. No doubt we will see some kind of copy and paste put-up job for PZ Phelps' latest "reply".

Oops my bad, sorry. So history tells us he never learns.

[ReneeHendricks]

It looks like Stephie is dipping her toe into the evo psych debate:

http://www.freezepage.com/1360639796ZDEPUINNLZ

Remind me what her expertise is again? I'm thinking *not* evo psych.

[Metalogic42]

Hey, I was just on Twitter and some guy said:

African Americans can never be racist. Prejudice, yes; racist, no.

What? Google gave me - "prejudice based on race" as racism, which I think is a fair definition. So what's this guy's point?

I hate it when progressives try to change the definitions of words. AS I AM A PROGRESSIVE and I like my words like they are.

That's an A+ move. They can't live without it.

[TheMudbrooker]

I'm going to start saying using the word "homophobic" is bad too. Oh, and "homo sapien".

You just say that because you're a total homo

:D Nah, a total BI

Mwah!

You were looking for another term for bisexual, how about "twice as likely to have a date for Saturday night"

[Metalogic42]

It looks like Stephie is dipping her toe into the evo psych debate:

http://www.freezepage.com/1360639796ZDEPUINNLZ

Remind me what her expertise is again? I'm thinking *not* evo psych.

The whole evo-psych thing is just so they can have something to rail against. It's no different than the religious conservatives - since evolution is a done deal, they picked up on something else to object to for completely arbitrary reasons - global climate change.

Evo-psych deniers are the same as GCC deniers.

[ReneeHendricks]

I'm going to start saying using the word "homophobic" is bad too. Oh, and "homo sapien".

You just say that because you're a total homo

:D Nah, a total BI

Mwah!

You were looking for another term for bisexual, how about "twice as likely to have a date for Saturday night"

LOL that's true. Funny that there aren't many terms/words to describe bisexual women.

[Metalogic42]

After everyone was done laughing, I gave my real answer. I pointed out that evolutionary psychology is incredibly difficult to do well. It requires the accumulation of a lot of information that isn’t always easy or inexpensive to get. It requires lines of evidence from several disciplines to be considered together to even approach the proof required to say that the brain contains mechanisms to determine behavior that evolved in humanity’s pre-agricultural history.

So, in other words...evo psych is complex. Perhaps even irreducibly so. :lol:

[Lsuoma]

I'm going to start saying using the word "homophobic" is bad too. Oh, and "homo sapien".

You just say that because you're a total homo

:D Nah, a total BI

Mwah!

Missed a TCH?

[JackSkeptic]

Hey, I was just on Twitter and some guy said:

African Americans can never be racist. Prejudice, yes; racist, no.

What? Google gave me - "prejudice based on race" as racism, which I think is a fair definition. So what's this guy's point?

I hate it when progressives try to change the definitions of words. AS I AM A PROGRESSIVE and I like my words like they are.

That's an A+ move. They can't live without it.

It allows them to be racist and deny it.

[Metalogic42]

Hey, I was just on Twitter and some guy said:

African Americans can never be racist. Prejudice, yes; racist, no.

What? Google gave me - "prejudice based on race" as racism, which I think is a fair definition. So what's this guy's point?

I hate it when progressives try to change the definitions of words. AS I AM A PROGRESSIVE and I like my words like they are.

That's an A+ move. They can't live without it.

It allows them to be racist and deny it.

They're not racist, they're just concerned about the integrity of their cultural identity!

[JackSkeptic]

Hey, I was just on Twitter and some guy said:

African Americans can never be racist. Prejudice, yes; racist, no.

What? Google gave me - "prejudice based on race" as racism, which I think is a fair definition. So what's this guy's point?

I hate it when progressives try to change the definitions of words. AS I AM A PROGRESSIVE and I like my words like they are.

That's an A+ move. They can't live without it.

It allows them to be racist and deny it.

They're not racist, they're just concerned about the integrity of their cultural identity!

You gaslighting me? STOP. Take a week off.

[Metalogic42]

Hey, I was just on Twitter and some guy said:

African Americans can never be racist. Prejudice, yes; racist, no.

What? Google gave me - "prejudice based on race" as racism, which I think is a fair definition. So what's this guy's point?

I hate it when progressives try to change the definitions of words. AS I AM A PROGRESSIVE and I like my words like they are.

That's an A+ move. They can't live without it.

It allows them to be racist and deny it.

They're not racist, they're just concerned about the integrity of their cultural identity!

You gaslighting me? STOP. Take a week off.

If i take a week off I'll come back even more of a cunt.

[Lsuoma]

You gaslighting me? STOP. Take a week off.

If i take a week off I'll come back even more of a cunt.

You'r coming back as FiFi?

[Angry_Drunk]

Hey, I was just on Twitter and some guy said:

African Americans can never be racist. Prejudice, yes; racist, no.

What? Google gave me - "prejudice based on race" as racism, which I think is a fair definition. So what's this guy's point?

I hate it when progressives try to change the definitions of words. AS I AM A PROGRESSIVE and I like my words like they are.

I’m far more pissed about people who confuse nouns and adjectives. (not you, the person you’re quoting).

[JackSkeptic]

Has anyone considered having an informal Slympit podcast?

[windy]

At FTB, Jason T. has a post linking to another post about the differences between gender and equity feminists. One of the things the blogger talks about (other than how fucking evil evo psych is) is that feminism is trying to remove gender roles (specifically in the STEM fields). What they neglect to say is that they are fine with gender roles in the low status/high danger occupations (construction, coal mining, oil derrick work etc.) but the high status/low danger jobs (STEM) well, those gender roles are just patriarchically imposed.

You feminists really want to get rid of gender roles? Start telling women to go into construction jobs, logging, commercial fishing, refuse collection, truck driving, and electrical power line repair.

Hi Submariner - don't think we have chatted :)

Quick question.

I'm wondering whether you consider on the streets law enforcement to be low status/high danger? I ask because women have been joining that for a while now, and they have been getting shot at.

Of course, you might argue that this is actually high danger/high status making it a special case, but then you still have the low status/high danger similar job of female prison guard. Do you think it possible that these jobs should be included in your analysis? If not, why not?

Nursing would be an example of a female dominated low status/high risk occupation, if you're not just talking about risk of death but other forms of physical injury as well. And another example where identity politics explanations often get prioritized over class and economics - I've seen suggestions to the effect that if more men chose nursing as a profession, then it would get a higher status, and conditions would improve. But that ignores the existence of low status/high risk jobs for men as Submariner mentioned.

[Pitchguest]

It looks like Stephie is dipping her toe into the evo psych debate:

http://www.freezepage.com/1360639796ZDEPUINNLZ

Remind me what her expertise is again? I'm thinking *not* evo psych.

Yeah, Steph, remind us again your expertise on evo-psych. Like that one time you ... wait ... or that other time that you ... hang on ... I think I'm getting it mixed up.

Maybe Ed Clint knows.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

11 February 2013 at 5:46 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment

What’s funny is that I’ve heard it’s harder to get into vet school these days than medical school. And I used to helped write letters of recommendation to get students into medical school back in academia. Some awesome talent in either case.

What, you mean you worked in admin?

[Lurkion]

Has anyone considered having an informal Slympit podcast?

ReapSowRadio occasionally qualifies. I've been on!

I think that would be a bit of fun. If so, I'm assuming most of all y'all are Americans: so schedule it on your Friday evening or Saturday evening... so I can participate.

[welch]

LOL you got it :D You know, it just occurred to me, I've never heard different terms for bisexuals (that would be me). Are there any? I'm sure there are, I've just not heard them for some reason.

Switch-hitter and AC/DC are the only two that come to mind without resorting to der Google.

Ok, I have heard those - usually geared toward bisexual men, however. I do recall being called "confused" once or twice LOL

Here's the term most straight men have for bisexual women: AWESOME!!!

[welch]

I thought about something for a while. I want to do more videos and post a lot more on my Beliefblower blog. But I have a webcam that is dieing a horrible death. So, after much deliberation, I decided to put a donate button on my website. Am I now a hypocrite?

Seriously. I worry about this kind of shit.

I know some people have a bit of a stick up their ass about donation buttons, etc. Not saying anyone here necessarily, but I've seen the attitude that taking donations is somehow corrupting, as if you will then be beholden to the donors, or that one should only ever blog for the pure and untainted love of blogging and money will necessarily corrupt that. I suppose it could happen, but I don't think it's a big risk for a normally independent person. I put a donate button on my blog that nobody reads, explicitly stating that it will be spent on beer. No takers so far, but I don't think anyone could call me any kind of hypocrite or question my objectivity over it. In a way, I see it as equal to the busking I did in my youth. I've never panhandled, but I've often been open to donations by like-minded folks.

If I had a nickel, I'd send it. Good luck!

It's not the asking for donations that makes anyone a hypocrite. I have zero problem with Greta asking for money. Clearly I don't, I donated. I don't REALLY have a problem with her buying fuckolavogs.

What just amazes me is how she expects anyone to believe that she had NO FUCKING CLUE that maybe, just maybe, buying high fashion shoes right after you ask for money to help "tide you over" for CANCER just MIGHT LOOK BAD. This is not rocket science, and she clearly understands the basics of PR and marketing. But even for her, that's some self-centered idiocy.

I have a paypal button up on my 'real' site. Sometimes people donate, sometimes they don't. either works, no shame attached.

[welch]

Renee,

In more detailed response, you're only a hypocrite if you've criticised people for putting a donate button on their site, mentioning a purpose for the money and not following through.

If I were you, I'd just make it clear that you're going to use it for things INCLUDING getting a camera (which you need) but also other things if more comes in. You can feel free to mention the medical issues, but not to suggest you're running a help-my-medical-bills fundraiser unless that's your intent (and that's what you end up doing with the money).

I have a donate button on my blog and Youtube channel because people can feel free to donate if they like. In fact, I only put it there because someone asked after one (they never ended up donating, but whatevs lol). I also spent $40 on a 3000 sound effect pack for the videos, so if I do ever get donations, I can justify it with that (as long as I realise that if I ever got any donations, I'd be sortof morally compelled to continue producing material for a reasonable period of time).

Thanks Rocko :)

I've criticized for using money given for shoes when it was supposed to be for mortgage/etal, certainly. I will flesh out my donate button so there's no ambiguity. My guy and I both have had discussions about e-begging for supposed medical stuff and having the money go to shoes and other frivolous things and we both find it disgusting.

I''m sure I probably won't gather anything as far as donations. But at least it's up there in case someone feels the need :)

If you include 'porn' on your button you'll triple your donations. Of course, you can then blame hubby for putting it there.

LOL Yeah, those days are behind me (I used to do webcam stuff a few years ago). It'll just have to be g-rated as far as my body goes.

fap fap FAPPITY FAP FAP FAAAAAAPPPP!

[welch]

It looks like Stephie is dipping her toe into the evo psych debate:

http://www.freezepage.com/1360639796ZDEPUINNLZ

Remind me what her expertise is again? I'm thinking *not* evo psych.

she's an analcyst

[Lurkion]

It looks like Stephie is dipping her toe into the evo psych debate:

http://www.freezepage.com/1360639796ZDEPUINNLZ

Remind me what her expertise is again? I'm thinking *not* evo psych.

Yeah, Steph, remind us again your expertise on evo-psych. Like that one time you ... wait ... or that other time that you ... hang on ... I think I'm getting it mixed up.

Maybe Ed Clint knows.

I would like Clint to weigh in on this one: it seems they want to put too high a standard on sampling?

And what exactly is the problem in sampling from WEIRD? Notably, there shouldn't be any problem with sampling undergrads if you have reasonably accurate ways of accounting for culture.

Is there some reason to suggest that her sampling argument should fail? Like she is presupposing there WOULD be significant differences between WEIRD and others in that respect? Which means she is begging the question?

It all smells a bit ideologically fishy, but I'd like some input from those who don't need to spend so much time to come to grips with the field.

[Lurkion]

(BTW, my last post I was referring to Kate Clancy who is an anthropologist, not a psychologist. I do note that anthropologists tend not to be very scientific (in my studies at least)).

[comslave]

North Korea just exercised privilege.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/11/world/asi ... index.html

We should send Ophie there to shame them into submission.

[Pitchguest]

Has anyone considered having an informal Slympit podcast?

If it doesn't happen during the hour of the wolf, I'm all for it. (That means 'at night' for the unitiated.) So preferably sometime before six 'o clock US time.

[rayshul]

Hey, I was just on Twitter and some guy said:

African Americans can never be racist. Prejudice, yes; racist, no.

What? Google gave me - "prejudice based on race" as racism, which I think is a fair definition. So what's this guy's point?

I hate it when progressives try to change the definitions of words. AS I AM A PROGRESSIVE and I like my words like they are.

This is one of the beautiful fucking retarded things that comes out of their mouths. This particular concept is so fucking moronic that it defies belief.

However, it also means that as a first-generation-born-out-of-Africaaaa I can use all these slurs with abandon without a single motherfucker calling me racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

These cunts defy logic.

[Lurkion]

Hey, I was just on Twitter and some guy said:

African Americans can never be racist. Prejudice, yes; racist, no.

What? Google gave me - "prejudice based on race" as racism, which I think is a fair definition. So what's this guy's point?

I hate it when progressives try to change the definitions of words. AS I AM A PROGRESSIVE and I like my words like they are.

This is one of the beautiful fucking retarded things that comes out of their mouths. This particular concept is so fucking moronic that it defies belief.

However, it also means that as a first-generation-born-out-of-Africaaaa I can use all these slurs with abandon without a single motherfucker calling me racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

These cunts defy logic.

But if your parents say it, people should say "WOAH NO, SHUT YOUR MOUTH MR AFRICAN MAN."
Right?

[Skep tickle]

It's all that stuff with FTBers at the moment screwing with my head. On the one hand, my guy and I are going to be very tight as far as money in the coming months. But I was thinking vlogging and blogging to those who enjoy what I put out and asking for donations to make it better is a bit different. On the other hand, I'm thinking of how it looked to me when various FTBers asked for handouts. Conflicted but going ahead with it for the moment.

This brings up a delicate subject I have been loath to mention until now. I haven't had any income since December because I've been too ill to work or even look for work. If nothing changes, my utilities will be cut off in a month or two (shelter and food are covered). I will qualify for some government benefits in August but it's going to be tough until then. I haven't decided to pass the tin cup yet, though.

Sorry to hear you're in such a tough spot, Walter Ego. That sucks.

[Lurkion]

*By "say it", I mean "say the slurs".
Fuck I'm shit today.

[Steersman]

After everyone was done laughing, I gave my real answer. I pointed out that evolutionary psychology is incredibly difficult to do well. It requires the accumulation of a lot of information that isn’t always easy or inexpensive to get. It requires lines of evidence from several disciplines to be considered together to even approach the proof required to say that the brain contains mechanisms to determine behavior that evolved in humanity’s pre-agricultural history.

So, in other words...evo psych is complex. Perhaps even irreducibly so. :lol:

Careful - you'll "trigger" their latent religious fundamentalism ....

But something I posted on Zvan’s site on the topic, although, not surprisingly, it is “awaiting moderation”. Freethought? – ha, what laugh. In any case:

So the fact that there are 10 times as many men in prison as there are women is only a consequence of “social constructions”? That there are 4 times as many women who are diagnosed with histrionic personality disorder is entirely due to “The Patriarchy”? That “men have a much stronger taste for no-strings sex with multiple or anonymous partners, as we see in the almost all-male consumer base for prostitution and visual pornography” is only a figment of Steven Pinker’s imagination and totally not a case of genetic differences influencing gender specific behaviours?

Methinks you’re hugging a little too closely several trees to notice the rather large and problematic forest.

[Submariner]

[quote="Jack"]http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... iscussion/


Both the C0nc0rdance video and the PZ post are from Oct of 2012, not from today's video.

[welch]

Has anyone considered having an informal Slympit podcast?

If it doesn't happen during the hour of the wolf, I'm all for it. (That means 'at night' for the unitiated.) So preferably sometime before six 'o clock US time.

saturday would probably be best then

[Skep tickle]

As I'm not a US conservative, I'd probably quibble only slightly with your quibble to my quibble. What is totally spot on, and I agree with thoroughly is "if you go far enough to either end of the ideological spectrum, you'll meet yourself coming the other way". That is spot-on.

Important medical/anatomical question.

Can one have one's head so far up one's arse that one's face is showing?

Anatomy question?? No siree - you want the topology department for that one.

[Pitchguest]

It looks like Stephie is dipping her toe into the evo psych debate:

http://www.freezepage.com/1360639796ZDEPUINNLZ

Remind me what her expertise is again? I'm thinking *not* evo psych.

Yeah, Steph, remind us again your expertise on evo-psych. Like that one time you ... wait ... or that other time that you ... hang on ... I think I'm getting it mixed up.

Maybe Ed Clint knows.

I would like Clint to weigh in on this one: it seems they want to put too high a standard on sampling?

And what exactly is the problem in sampling from WEIRD? Notably, there shouldn't be any problem with sampling undergrads if you have reasonably accurate ways of accounting for culture.

Is there some reason to suggest that her sampling argument should fail? Like she is presupposing there WOULD be significant differences between WEIRD and others in that respect? Which means she is begging the question?

It all smells a bit ideologically fishy, but I'd like some input from those who don't need to spend so much time to come to grips with the field.

Ever since Clint wronged Watson for her idiotic statements about evo-psych during her panel talk, they've been desperately trying to find something wrong with it, itching for an opportunity to hit back. To find something to prove him wrong. What they found out was that evo-psych has both good and bad science, and good and bad scientists practicing evo-psych; an obvious fact about science in general. In other words, they found fuck all.

However, since Clint did the faux pas of calling Watson on her bullshit, the whole of evo-psych must be discredited for her reputation to be restored. Which is why Myers, Zvan, Benson, etc, began their witch hunt.

It doesn't help their case that Jerry Coyne, someone who they've previously cited as a source for evo-psych evidently being bullshit, has changed his position regarding the science. Their one and only source *FLOOF* gone. But I'm sure they'll find something negative to pin on Coyne so they won't look like total idiots (if they haven't already - I haven't really kept up with that after I finished laughing).

[rayshul]

These cunts defy logic.

But if your parents say it, people should say "WOAH NO, SHUT YOUR MOUTH MR AFRICAN MAN."
Right?

Well, if they're African-Americans, I'm pretty sure they can just say, "STFU you pickaninny or aunt jemima or smoked irishman" (that list of ethnic slurs is fascinating) or something not totally racist like that.

The general idea behind the "racism = oppression + hate" and because non white people can never ever be powerful and are always oppressed, they can't provide the oppression component. Therefore it's not possible to be racist.

My husband had this hilarious piece of SJW logic explained to him once.

[Skep tickle]

Has anyone considered having an informal Slympit podcast?

If it doesn't happen during the hour of the wolf, I'm all for it. (That means 'at night' for the unitiated.) So preferably sometime before six 'o clock US time.

saturday would probably be best then

Six o'clock in any particular one US time zone? Otherwise, that's a 5 hour window.

[welch]

It looks like Stephie is dipping her toe into the evo psych debate:

http://www.freezepage.com/1360639796ZDEPUINNLZ

Remind me what her expertise is again? I'm thinking *not* evo psych.

Yeah, Steph, remind us again your expertise on evo-psych. Like that one time you ... wait ... or that other time that you ... hang on ... I think I'm getting it mixed up.

Maybe Ed Clint knows.

I would like Clint to weigh in on this one: it seems they want to put too high a standard on sampling?

And what exactly is the problem in sampling from WEIRD? Notably, there shouldn't be any problem with sampling undergrads if you have reasonably accurate ways of accounting for culture.

Is there some reason to suggest that her sampling argument should fail? Like she is presupposing there WOULD be significant differences between WEIRD and others in that respect? Which means she is begging the question?

It all smells a bit ideologically fishy, but I'd like some input from those who don't need to spend so much time to come to grips with the field.

Ever since Clint wronged Watson for her idiotic statements about evo-psych during her panel talk, they've been desperately trying to find something wrong with it, itching for an opportunity to hit back. To find something to prove him wrong. What they found out was that evo-psych has both good and bad science, and good and bad scientists practicing evo-psych; an obvious fact about science in general. In other words, they found fuck all.

However, since Clint did the faux pas of calling Watson on her bullshit, the whole of evo-psych must be discredited for her reputation to be restored. Which is why Myers, Zvan, Benson, etc, began their witch hunt.

It doesn't help their case that Jerry Coyne, someone who they've previously cited as a source for evo-psych evidently being bullshit, has changed his position regarding the science. Their one and only source *FLOOF* gone. But I'm sure they'll find something negative to pin on Coyne so they won't look like total idiots (if they haven't already - I haven't really kept up with that after I finished laughing).

Ed CLint did a horrible thing to watson: he criticized her based on facts and evidence, not opinion and feelings.

Fucking monster he is.

[Steersman]

As I'm not a US conservative, I'd probably quibble only slightly with your quibble to my quibble. What is totally spot on, and I agree with thoroughly is "if you go far enough to either end of the ideological spectrum, you'll meet yourself coming the other way". That is spot-on.

Important medical/anatomical question.

Can one have one's head so far up one's arse that one's face is showing?

Anatomy question?? No siree - you want the topology department for that one.

Exactly. A Klein bottle seems the closest possibility that I can think of ... :-)

[CommanderTuvok]

As referenced by Pitchguest, Stefunny's latest is just another stab at quelling her butthurt over somebody daring to call out Queen Bee. InSvanity was one of a bunch of Creepy Clowns who petutlantly put up posts at their sites telling everybody (unconviningly) about how wrong and OTT Ed Clint was. Svan is a bit like shitstain liar Benson, who continually puts up new pieces of shit on her blog (foe example about Shermer) because she can't get rid of the butthurt.

IIRC, Twatson didn't directly respond to the criticism - she left it up to others at FfTB to launch their usual attack pieces.

[Badger3k]

Larry Moran (Sandwalk) made a post on PZs post of the same topic as Stefunny. Apparently PZ has tried to make a post on evo-psych, but every study he has looked at is so bad he's given up on the whole thing. Too much banking, not enough Fluvogs?

[Steersman]

Zvan responds to my comment in her typically cogent, thorough, credible, intellectually honest, and voluminous fashion:

Stephanie Zvan
February 11, 2013 at 10:27 pm (UTC -6)

Tsk, tsk. Methinks you can’t read.

Not that I didn’t know that already. Shoo.

My subsequent response, also “awaiting moderation”:

Unless you're prepared to refute those facts I would say they knock your null hypothesis into a cocked hat. And likewise with your consequential claim - at least by insinuation and innuendo - that evolutionary psychology has no credibility whatsoever.

And not dealing with them doesn't add much lustre to the claim of "Freethought".