If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

CaitieCat wrote:

Guest355 wrote:But being an expert on racism doesn’t make you an expert on the widely understood meaning of the word “racism.” The latter is a linguistic question, not a sociological question.

Dawkins didn’t claim that the word racism had no meanings other than the ones in the dictionary. He simply claimed that his meaning was one of the meanings of the word “racism” and supported his contention by citing a dictionary.

Actually, no. He claimed that their approach – saying racism as a societal process, and thus, worth studying and for activists dismantling, involves a power dimension – wasn’t in the dictionary, and his version was, yah-boo sucks to you silly sociologists for thinking you can define things in useful ways that go against my Holy Dictionary.

Textbook (excuse the pun) version of appeal to authority.

His claiming not to understand the difference is just the disingenuous shit icing on the ordure torte, and is meant for nothing more than empty taunting. It doesn’t deserve respect.

Richard Dawkins, in the above tweet wrote:When I said "Some people think you can't be racist against whites", I of course meant "Some people think racism is DEFINED to preclude it."

III.

Once upon a time a woman was approached by a drunk guy in a dark alley, but he was very polite, and explained that he had driven to the bar, but because he was responsible, he didn't want to drive home, but his cell phone was dead, so he asked the lady to call him a cab. She did, and he was grateful, and they said pleasant goodbyes before going their separate ways.

The End.

jjbinx007 wrote:http://skepticon.org/more-speaker-names ... -revealed/

So if PZ has officially divorced himself from the skeptic movement, and thinks being referred to as a skeptic is a gross insult, is it right he should be a speaker at Skepticon?

Pitchguest wrote:CaitieCat, a guest post over at Miriam's blog (who's now gone full SJW), has this to say about Richard Dawkins:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... they-suck/

And he/she says this in a response to another in the comment section:

CaitieCat wrote:

Guest355 wrote:But being an expert on racism doesn’t make you an expert on the widely understood meaning of the word “racism.” The latter is a linguistic question, not a sociological question.

Dawkins didn’t claim that the word racism had no meanings other than the ones in the dictionary. He simply claimed that his meaning was one of the meanings of the word “racism” and supported his contention by citing a dictionary.

Actually, no. He claimed that their approach – saying racism as a societal process, and thus, worth studying and for activists dismantling, involves a power dimension – wasn’t in the dictionary, and his version was, yah-boo sucks to you silly sociologists for thinking you can define things in useful ways that go against my Holy Dictionary.

Textbook (excuse the pun) version of appeal to authority.

His claiming not to understand the difference is just the disingenuous shit icing on the ordure torte, and is meant for nothing more than empty taunting. It doesn’t deserve respect.

Yeah, that's what he was doing. Appeal to authority.

Pitchguest wrote:CaitieCat, a guest post over at Miriam's blog (who's now gone full SJW), has this to say about Richard Dawkins:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... they-suck/

CaitieCat is a 47-year-old trans bi dyke, outrageously feminist, and is a translator/editor for academics by vocation. She also writes poetry, does standup comedy, acts and directs in community theatre, paints, games, plays and referees soccer, uses a cane daily, writes other stuff, was raised proudly atheist, is both English by birth and Canadian by naturalization, a former foxhole atheist, a mother of four, and a grandmother of four more (so far). Sort of a Renaissance woman (and shaped like a Reubens!).

CaitieCat wrote: (...)language is what the people who speak it want it to be

katamari Damassi wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:

Skepticon is such a tease

Conferences by PZ Myers

Skepticon likes to tantalize you, dribbling out speaker names a few at a time. Last week they told us that Aron Ra, Amanda Knief (who has a new book out, with Barry Lynn: The Citizen Lobbyist), and Amanda Marcotte will be there — we’re off to a great start! This week, it’s Debbie Goddard! Rebecca Hensler! Richard Carrier! And…me. It’s OK, you gotta sprinkle in some boring old drones to make the highlights sparkle more.
As I mentioned yesterday, Skepticon is the high energy fun con of the year. You should go. You should especially go if you want to learn how to put together a well-managed, exciting con on a budget — I’d like to see more of these things spring up all over the country.

Speaker names are not the only things being dribbled. MOAR CONS! MOAR CONS that will invite me and my friends as speakers!

Also, high energy? He must have a different definition.

Skepticon is notorious for recycling the same speakers every single year, with a small amount of variation.
I think PeeZus and Carrier have been at every one and Watson has been at all apart from the first.
It is their private club party.

http://skepticon.org/speakers/

Didn't Peezus publicly divorce himself from skepticism? Why is he speaking at Skepticon?

CaitieCat wrote: (...)language is what the people who speak it want it to be

Tony Parsehole wrote:I just don't get all the dictionary hate from FTB's.
It's almost like they are trying to change the meaning of words to win petty online arguments ......

Tony Parsehole wrote:I just don't get all the dictionary hate from FTB's.
It's almost like they are trying to change the meaning of words to win petty online arguments ......

Altair wrote: ....At the end we get this short bio (bolding mine)

CaitieCat is a 47-year-old trans bi dyke, outrageously feminist, and is a translator/editor for academics by vocation. She also writes poetry, does standup comedy, acts and directs in community theatre, paints, games, plays and referees soccer, uses a cane daily, writes other stuff, was raised proudly atheist, is both English by birth and Canadian by naturalization, a former foxhole atheist, a mother of four, and a grandmother of four more (so far). Sort of a Renaissance woman (and shaped like a Reubens!).

Pitchguest wrote:Greta Christina, taking a break from her rape-fantasies, has (in my opinion) a misguided article about what questions you SHOULDN'T ask an atheist.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... h-answers/

And it just screams victim mentality. In my humble view, people can ask whatever they want of me. That is, if I'm in the right venue and in the right place (obviously I might not want people coming up to me asking questions in the supermarket), say a skeptic conference/convention or if I just wanted to debate, then I wouldn't preface the conversation with "these are so-and-so questions you SHOULDN'T ask" (even if it would be a relief if they didn't). Because then you've essentially shut down the conversation completely. I do realise, however, that the questions she does raise could be annoying, tedious or even insulting, but I would never say "don't ask" because not to put too pretty a point on it, that's what I'm there for. And in return, I can offer some zingers in kind.

You don't change many minds or point them to a different perspective by starting out dismissing their arguments first thing. At least, that's my take on it. YMMV.

Kareem wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:Greta Christina, taking a break from her rape-fantasies, has (in my opinion) a misguided article about what questions you SHOULDN'T ask an atheist.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... h-answers/

And it just screams victim mentality. In my humble view, people can ask whatever they want of me. That is, if I'm in the right venue and in the right place (obviously I might not want people coming up to me asking questions in the supermarket), say a skeptic conference/convention or if I just wanted to debate, then I wouldn't preface the conversation with "these are so-and-so questions you SHOULDN'T ask" (even if it would be a relief if they didn't). Because then you've essentially shut down the conversation completely. I do realise, however, that the questions she does raise could be annoying, tedious or even insulting, but I would never say "don't ask" because not to put too pretty a point on it, that's what I'm there for. And in return, I can offer some zingers in kind.

You don't change many minds or point them to a different perspective by starting out dismissing their arguments first thing. At least, that's my take on it. YMMV.

Yeah, I don't get that either. I'm perfectly fine with earnest questions about my atheism, race, whatever. I do hate when Christians already have their answer to what they're asking and just ignore mine, but I want people to ask a question if they don't understand something.
Maybe she should have posted those answers to a site where people other than atheists will frequent?

Altair wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:CaitieCat, a guest post over at Miriam's blog (who's now gone full SJW), has this to say about Richard Dawkins:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... they-suck/

At the end we get this short bio (bolding mine)

CaitieCat is a 47-year-old trans bi dyke, outrageously feminist, and is a translator/editor for academics by vocation. She also writes poetry, does standup comedy, acts and directs in community theatre, paints, games, plays and referees soccer, uses a cane daily, writes other stuff, was raised proudly atheist, is both English by birth and Canadian by naturalization, a former foxhole atheist, a mother of four, and a grandmother of four more (so far). Sort of a Renaissance woman (and shaped like a Reubens!).

It sounds impossible to be a translator/editor without having a certain baseline or model of what words mean. If using a dictionary definition is an appeal to authority, we should be able to translate a word to any other word we wanted and no one could tell us we're wrong, because

CaitieCat wrote: (...)language is what the people who speak it want it to be

:roll:

Gefan wrote:

Altair wrote: ....At the end we get this short bio (bolding mine)

CaitieCat is a 47-year-old trans bi dyke, outrageously feminist, and is a translator/editor for academics by vocation. She also writes poetry, does standup comedy, acts and directs in community theatre, paints, games, plays and referees soccer, uses a cane daily, writes other stuff, was raised proudly atheist, is both English by birth and Canadian by naturalization, a former foxhole atheist, a mother of four, and a grandmother of four more (so far). Sort of a Renaissance woman (and shaped like a Reubens!).

And I've gone and underlined the bit that annoys me the most.

I have enjoyed the company of some women who could have been actual models for Reubens and found them to be genuinely gorgeous. What pisses me off is the appropriation of the term "Rubenesque" by a certain group that apparently wants us to believe Reubens went through a little-known "Cetacean Period" in his work.
I don't know for a fact that this is a case of that wretched syndrome but I'd be willing to put money on it.

Tom Flynn
Corporate Secretary
Center for Inquiry (CFI)


Dear Mr. Flynn and the Board of Directors of CFI:

Please consider this missive as conveying strong support for Ronald Lindsay as the CEO of CFI.

I donated to, and joined, CFI on May 18, 2013, in direct response to Ronald Lindsay's widely-reported comments at the opening of the Women in Secularism 2 Conference. I have registered for the CFI Summit to be held in October 2013 in Tacoma WA and greatly look forward to attending. (I used a different email, <my other email>, for those transactions.) I plan to continue my membership in, and to some extent involvement in, CFI - if your organization holds to its mission statement (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about).

I am a lifelong skeptic (and atheist) who only became involved in organizations around 2008 but feels strongly about the importance of robust organizations working at the local and national level to nourish skepticism and critical thinking as well as secularism, secular humanism, and acceptance of atheism. To that end, I'm a lifetime member of Seattle Atheists and FFRF, and am a member of the Skeptics Society, Seattle Skeptics, and the Secular Coalition for America. I'm a sustaining donor to the Foundation Beyond Belief and have in the past donated significantly to the American Humanist Association. I've been a member, then moderator, then administrator at <my fav'rite skeptics board> for 4 years.

I'm also a woman who had the benefit of a strong scientific education and who now works as a physician in internal medicine and women's heath - and one who has been publicly branded a villain by at least 3 of the prominent bloggers at Freethought Blogs (http://freethoughtblogs.com/) and had my name and character dragged through the mud by 2 of them and their followers, for trying to ask questions about their claims and their methods. (I admit that, like Ronald Lindsay, I at times used a tone in my communication that they did not find sufficiently deferential, and that my tone may have descended at times to the level of "snark" due simply to my frustration in trying to have a reasonable interaction with them and their followers.)

It troubles me greatly to see any restrictive ideology try to take over any aspect of the skeptical movement and dogmatically claim that it is exempt from the very tenets of skepticism. CFI's mission statement leads me to suspect that you, the guiding oversight of CFI, are likely to agree. (I excerpted a few phrases from the CFI mission statement for a custom T-shirt I provided for Justin Vacula to wear on one of the days he attended the Women in Secularism 2 conference: "No topic should be placed off limits to scrutiny..." and "...values are properly the subject of...discussion".)

Sexism, racism, and other divisive -isms are excellent topics for open inquiry and discussion. Whether or not Ronald Lindsay might have phrased anything in a more politic manner, his message (including the importance of not silencing some voices in such discussions) - and CFI's mission - will never be acceptable to a certain faction seeking control over the discussion by requiring certain topics be discussed and others avoided, and by insisting that the discussion occur according to their liking or it must be shut down.

If Ronald Lindsay does not continue on as CEO of CFI, I fear this group and their adherents would undoubtedly interpret that move as a political success and would increase their efforts to influence the leadership of national organizations through methods such as vilification leading to job loss.

Thank you for your work maintaining the integrity and mission of CFI.

Sincerely,

<my name>

AnonymousCowherd wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:http://i.imgur.com/EzI4hwD.jpg

::Pancreas ... ruptured ... laughing::

But it was worth it. :lol:

Oh yeah.

Well, sort of. I have some regrets about the Islay malt hitting the light above the dining table.

Skep tickle wrote:My letter to CFI Board, just sent via email:

Tom Flynn
Corporate Secretary
Center for Inquiry (CFI)


Dear Mr. Flynn and the Board of Directors of CFI:

Please consider this missive as conveying strong support for Ronald Lindsay as the CEO of CFI.

I donated to, and joined, CFI on May 18, 2013, in direct response to Ronald Lindsay's widely-reported comments at the opening of the Women in Secularism 2 Conference. I have registered for the CFI Summit to be held in October 2013 in Tacoma WA and greatly look forward to attending. (I used a different email, <my other email>, for those transactions.) I plan to continue my membership in, and to some extent involvement in, CFI - if your organization holds to its mission statement (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about).

I am a lifelong skeptic (and atheist) who only became involved in organizations around 2008 but feels strongly about the importance of robust organizations working at the local and national level to nourish skepticism and critical thinking as well as secularism, secular humanism, and acceptance of atheism. To that end, I'm a lifetime member of Seattle Atheists and FFRF, and am a member of the Skeptics Society, Seattle Skeptics, and the Secular Coalition for America. I'm a sustaining donor to the Foundation Beyond Belief and have in the past donated significantly to the American Humanist Association. I've been a member, then moderator, then administrator at <my fav'rite skeptics board> for 4 years.

I'm also a woman who had the benefit of a strong scientific education and who now works as a physician in internal medicine and women's heath - and one who has been publicly branded a villain by at least 3 of the prominent bloggers at Freethought Blogs (http://freethoughtblogs.com/) and had my name and character dragged through the mud by 2 of them and their followers, for trying to ask questions about their claims and their methods. (I admit that, like Ronald Lindsay, I at times used a tone in my communication that they did not find sufficiently deferential, and that my tone may have descended at times to the level of "snark" due simply to my frustration in trying to have a reasonable interaction with them and their followers.)

It troubles me greatly to see any restrictive ideology try to take over any aspect of the skeptical movement and dogmatically claim that it is exempt from the very tenets of skepticism. CFI's mission statement leads me to suspect that you, the guiding oversight of CFI, are likely to agree. (I excerpted a few phrases from the CFI mission statement for a custom T-shirt I provided for Justin Vacula to wear on one of the days he attended the Women in Secularism 2 conference: "No topic should be placed off limits to scrutiny..." and "...values are properly the subject of...discussion".)

Sexism, racism, and other divisive -isms are excellent topics for open inquiry and discussion. Whether or not Ronald Lindsay might have phrased anything in a more politic manner, his message (including the importance of not silencing some voices in such discussions) - and CFI's mission - will never be acceptable to a certain faction seeking control over the discussion by requiring certain topics be discussed and others avoided, and by insisting that the discussion occur according to their liking or it must be shut down.

If Ronald Lindsay does not continue on as CEO of CFI, I fear this group and their adherents would undoubtedly interpret that move as a political success and would increase their efforts to influence the leadership of national organizations through methods such as vilification leading to job loss.

Thank you for your work maintaining the integrity and mission of CFI.

Sincerely,

<my name>

Shoulda used a thesaurus, used "discuss" and "discussion" repeatedly near the end there. Oh well. *shrug*

Tony Parsehole wrote:@Tigzy
Yeah. He seems to change his personality and vocabulary depending on the forum/blog so I was just wondering how far he may have taken it.

Lsuoma wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:I just don't get all the dictionary hate from FTB's.
It's almost like they are trying to change the meaning of words to win petty online arguments ......

They all want to live in their own Humpty-Dumpty World.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DPazuVksQ3E/T ... dumpty.jpg

Tony Parsehole wrote:

jjbinx007 wrote:

treestump wrote: One overarching rule though: never, EVER, post a link to the Slymepit, that will get you a ban.

...

This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread

I don't think the word "unmoderated" means what he thinks it means.

http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 338204.jpg

Unmoderated= Moderated
Atheism= Social justice
Feminism= Humanism
Disagreement=Harassment
Happy= Very angry


Anybody care to add to the list of Myerisms?

Metalogic42 wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:My letter to CFI Board, just sent via email:

<snip>

:clap:

Eskarina wrote:
And we all know what happened to Humpty-Dumpty in the end.

justinvacula wrote: Thanks everyone for the continuing support, helpful criticism, and promoting/donating to my fundraiser. I am heeding many of the helpful pointers here about flight...

Tony Parsehole wrote:

Eskarina wrote:
And we all know what happened to Humpty-Dumpty in the end.

Yes, he spent the rest of his life wondering why people believed he was an egg when the poem makes no mention of it at all.

bhoytony wrote:

justinvacula wrote: Thanks everyone for the continuing support, helpful criticism, and promoting/donating to my fundraiser. I am heeding many of the helpful pointers here about flight...

[youtube]-sAxrWl5DGU[/youtube]

Pitchguest wrote:Skep: You know, any time you run to a thesaurus to get a different word for an argument, you might as well as admit...you've lost.

Altair wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:CaitieCat, a guest post over at Miriam's blog (who's now gone full SJW), has this to say about Richard Dawkins:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... they-suck/

At the end we get this short bio (bolding mine)

CaitieCat is a 47-year-old trans bi dyke, outrageously feminist, and is a translator/editor for academics by vocation. She also writes poetry, does standup comedy, acts and directs in community theatre, paints, games, plays and referees soccer, uses a cane daily, writes other stuff, was raised proudly atheist, is both English by birth and Canadian by naturalization, a former foxhole atheist, a mother of four, and a grandmother of four more (so far). Sort of a Renaissance woman (and shaped like a Reubens!).

It sounds impossible to be a translator/editor without having a certain baseline or model of what words mean. If using a dictionary definition is an appeal to authority, we should be able to translate a word to any other word we wanted and no one could tell us we're wrong, because

CaitieCat wrote: (...)language is what the people who speak it want it to be

:roll:

Skep tickle wrote:My letter to CFI Board, just sent via email:

Tom Flynn
Corporate Secretary
Center for Inquiry (CFI)


Dear Mr. Flynn and the Board of Directors of CFI:

Please consider this missive as conveying strong support for Ronald Lindsay as the CEO of CFI.

<snip>

If Ronald Lindsay does not continue on as CEO of CFI, I fear this group and their adherents would undoubtedly interpret that move as a political success and would increase their efforts to influence the leadership of national organizations through methods such as vilification leading to job loss.

Thank you for your work maintaining the integrity and mission of CFI.

Sincerely,

<my name>

Shoulda used a thesaurus, used "discuss" and "discussion" repeatedly near the end there. Oh well. *shrug*

Mykeru wrote:Justin,

In all seriousness. Enjoy your flight, stash all the free peanuts you can and, most importantly, once you get through the most dangerous part of the flight, the takeoff, it's smooth sailing from there.

[youtube]ivJ9sEu8-iM[/youtube]

Also, stick the landing.

[youtube]s4DSNILMEqI[/youtube]

Gefan wrote:
This is my vote for Captain on Peezus, Becky, and Ophie's flight:

http://simviation.com//yabbuploads/quagmire.jpg

Skep tickle wrote:

Za-zen wrote:...I hope she takes the stairs this time, i know she's brave, but i think it's too much to ask of her to face the horror of that cage she was assaulted in. Lets all send our sisterly strength to her so that she can climb those stairs to freedom without too much emotional turmoil. the cost of it all, i think i need to throw up, they just don't care. ...

I know you're joking, but AFAIK she has not portrayed the elevator incident like this, unless the way she has referred to it has changed over time. (Which of course is possible; I haven't been taking detailed notes.) I haven't had the impression that she feels fearful of interactions with men (IRL at least), rather that she tried to express such interactions can come across and to point out how much gratuitous sexualized drivel some women, at least, receive (online at least).

Her (initial) description of the elevator episode and her "guys don't do that" were both pretty straightforward and level-headed IMO. Many women have agreed that being approached in an elevator, even if everyone's on good behavior, adds a tension regarding personal safety that's less if not absent in other settings.

AFAIK what lit the keg was her presenting (from the stage, at the start of a keynote talk that was supposed to be about how Religion treats women, after a couple of slides of examples of nasty troll comments that she treated with humor), Stef McGraw's commentary on RW's vlog comments as a prime example of "misogyny" in the skeptic community.

*ducks from flying tomatoes for bringing this up*

Altair wrote:On the subject of Miri's guest post about dictionaries not being the sources of word definitions, she's going to be revising these posts found on her old blog any minute now, right?

right?

http://brutereason.net/2012/10/24/if-yo ... a-new-god/
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7852/post2i.png

http://brutereason.net/2012/10/14/on-me ... e-awesome/
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/4048/post1c.png

Tony Parsehole wrote:"Anybody who wears denim is an anarcho-syndicalist.
Don't like it? Blame the anarcho-syndicalist's for co-opting jeans."

-Josh The Official Spokesgay, professional mong.

Ape+lust wrote:http://i.imgur.com/EzI4hwD.jpg

Gefan wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:
http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 338204.jpg

Ah, Violent PZ.

Here's his partner, Shaggy Too Drunk.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ezt24UszRvM/T ... Watson.jpg

Altair wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:CaitieCat, a guest post over at Miriam's blog (who's now gone full SJW), has this to say about Richard Dawkins:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... they-suck/

At the end we get this short bio (bolding mine)

CaitieCat is a 47-year-old trans bi dyke, outrageously feminist, and is a translator/editor for academics by vocation. She also writes poetry, does standup comedy, acts and directs in community theatre, paints, games, plays and referees soccer, uses a cane daily, writes other stuff, was raised proudly atheist, is both English by birth and Canadian by naturalization, a former foxhole atheist, a mother of four, and a grandmother of four more (so far). Sort of a Renaissance woman (and shaped like a Reubens!).

Jan Steen wrote:
It's Rubens, not Reubens. A great artist and a marvellous draughtsman. But his painting The Three Graces is a fine example of unintentional humour.

http://i.imgur.com/PqdIBu3.jpg[/img]

Tony Parsehole wrote: Speaking of Oolon.....Do ya know how there are two Oolon's, one on either side of this great divide? One is the guy we all know and pity and the other is a bloke who goes by the name Oolon Colluphid (who made this lulzy, top-rated entry on Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ism%20Plus ). Now, I remember somebody saying that both those Oolon's *coincidentally* come from the same area of the UK. Does anybody know if there's any truth to that?

Altair wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:
It's Rubens, not Reubens. A great artist and a marvellous draughtsman. But his painting The Three Graces is a fine example of unintentional humour.

http://i.imgur.com/PqdIBu3.jpg[/img]

Stop oppressing her by using the painter's real name! It's an appeal to authority, fallible people write history books, the painter's named whatever Caitie wants him to be named!

:dance:

Tribble wrote: [image stuff]



When I see her in that wig, she kind of phases over into androgyny and looks a lot like a teenage boy.. She should drop the polyester and go back to real hair.

Skep tickle wrote:

Za-zen wrote:...I hope she takes the stairs this time, i know she's brave, but i think it's too much to ask of her to face the horror of that cage she was assaulted in. Lets all send our sisterly strength to her so that she can climb those stairs to freedom without too much emotional turmoil. the cost of it all, i think i need to throw up, they just don't care. ...

I know you're joking, but AFAIK she has not portrayed the elevator incident like this, unless the way she has referred to it has changed over time. (Which of course is possible; I haven't been taking detailed notes.) I haven't had the impression that she feels fearful of interactions with men (IRL at least), rather that she tried to express such interactions can come across and to point out how much gratuitous sexualized drivel some women, at least, receive (online at least).

Her (initial) description of the elevator episode and her "guys don't do that" were both pretty straightforward and level-headed IMO. Many women have agreed that being approached in an elevator, even if everyone's on good behavior, adds a tension regarding personal safety that's less if not absent in other settings.

AFAIK what lit the keg was her presenting (from the stage, at the start of a keynote talk that was supposed to be about how Religion treats women, after a couple of slides of examples of nasty troll comments that she treated with humor), Stef McGraw's commentary on RW's vlog comments as a prime example of "misogyny" in the skeptic community.

*ducks from flying tomatoes for bringing this up*

Altair wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:
It's Rubens, not Reubens. A great artist and a marvellous draughtsman. But his painting The Three Graces is a fine example of unintentional humour.

http://i.imgur.com/PqdIBu3.jpg[/img]

Stop oppressing her by using the painter's real name! It's an appeal to authority, fallible people write history books, the painter's named whatever Caitie wants him to be named!

:dance:

Jan Steen wrote:

Altair wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:CaitieCat, a guest post over at Miriam's blog (who's now gone full SJW), has this to say about Richard Dawkins:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... they-suck/

At the end we get this short bio (bolding mine)

CaitieCat is a 47-year-old trans bi dyke, outrageously feminist, and is a translator/editor for academics by vocation. She also writes poetry, does standup comedy, acts and directs in community theatre, paints, games, plays and referees soccer, uses a cane daily, writes other stuff, was raised proudly atheist, is both English by birth and Canadian by naturalization, a former foxhole atheist, a mother of four, and a grandmother of four more (so far). Sort of a Renaissance woman (and shaped like a Reubens!).

It's Rubens, not Reubens. A great artist and a marvellous draughtsman. But his painting The Three Graces is a fine example of unintentional humour.

[blimpg]http://i.imgur.com/PqdIBu3.jpg[/blimpg]

If it helps, this boring old drone already has his talk subject picked out: I’m going to be discussing the Cambrian Explosion, since it seems to be the emerging cause of the year for the creationists.

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:

Za-zen wrote:...I hope she takes the stairs this time, i know she's brave, but i think it's too much to ask of her to face the horror of that cage she was assaulted in. Lets all send our sisterly strength to her so that she can climb those stairs to freedom without too much emotional turmoil. the cost of it all, i think i need to throw up, they just don't care. ...

I know you're joking, but AFAIK she has not portrayed the elevator incident like this, unless the way she has referred to it has changed over time. (Which of course is possible; I haven't been taking detailed notes.) I haven't had the impression that she feels fearful of interactions with men (IRL at least), rather that she tried to express such interactions can come across and to point out how much gratuitous sexualized drivel some women, at least, receive (online at least).

Her (initial) description of the elevator episode and her "guys don't do that" were both pretty straightforward and level-headed IMO. Many women have agreed that being approached in an elevator, even if everyone's on good behavior, adds a tension regarding personal safety that's less if not absent in other settings.

AFAIK what lit the keg was her presenting (from the stage, at the start of a keynote talk that was supposed to be about how Religion treats women, after a couple of slides of examples of nasty troll comments that she treated with humor), Stef McGraw's commentary on RW's vlog comments as a prime example of "misogyny" in the skeptic community.

*ducks from flying tomatoes for bringing this up*

It wasn't only the fingerwagging at McGraw, it was also the snarky and arrogant 'schooling' of Paula Kirby about issues she knows fuck all about compared to Kirby. What really blew the whole thing up was Watson's reaction to being criticised.

Tribble wrote:

Gefan wrote: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ezt24UszRvM/T ... Watson.jpg

When I see her in that wig, she kind of phases over into androgyny and looks a lot like a teenage boy.. She should drop the polyester and go back to real hair.

Tribble wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:

Za-zen wrote:...I hope she takes the stairs this time, i know she's brave, but i think it's too much to ask of her to face the horror of that cage she was assaulted in. Lets all send our sisterly strength to her so that she can climb those stairs to freedom without too much emotional turmoil. the cost of it all, i think i need to throw up, they just don't care. ...

I know you're joking, but AFAIK she has not portrayed the elevator incident like this, unless the way she has referred to it has changed over time. (Which of course is possible; I haven't been taking detailed notes.) I haven't had the impression that she feels fearful of interactions with men (IRL at least), rather that she tried to express such interactions can come across and to point out how much gratuitous sexualized drivel some women, at least, receive (online at least).

Her (initial) description of the elevator episode and her "guys don't do that" were both pretty straightforward and level-headed IMO. Many women have agreed that being approached in an elevator, even if everyone's on good behavior, adds a tension regarding personal safety that's less if not absent in other settings.

AFAIK what lit the keg was her presenting (from the stage, at the start of a keynote talk that was supposed to be about how Religion treats women, after a couple of slides of examples of nasty troll comments that she treated with humor), Stef McGraw's commentary on RW's vlog comments as a prime example of "misogyny" in the skeptic community.

*ducks from flying tomatoes for bringing this up*

I was on board with her being a bit creeped out. After all, even as a guy, I don't like to be talked to by people in confined spaces. What annoyed the hell out of me when I finally found out about it, was the side-show she made out of it. Along with the changing stories, the abusing others, they lying about the threats (and why she couldn't produce them) and the subsequent hyper-exaggeration that took a normal, if poorly played, human interaction and blowing up it up into the Charlie Foxtrot they made out of it...