Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Mykeru]

It seems a bit shitty to me to espouse a hard-partying lifestyle, only to wear the Zoolander earnest face when it's clear not everybody should drink.

http://i.imgur.com/3EJkEkE.jpg

Uh, yeah.

[James Caruthers]

I'm guessing this is aimed at Anders, despite my amusement at it also being relevant to most of the Skepchicks.

It seems a bit shitty to me to espouse a hard-partying lifestyle, only to wear the Zoolander earnest face when it's clear not everybody should drink.

They want to have it all ways. Be a slut, but no man can have sex with you while you're drunk without that being rape. Party hard with alcohol and probably drugs, but ignore and downplay the effects of the hard party lifestyle (until one of your own becomes an unperson a la Elyse.) Condemn something one moment, then embrace it the next.

I need feminism because I want to celebrate and condemn the party life at the same time. :snooty:

Maybe all parties with booze need to become womyn-only spaces. :naughty:

[welch]

I'm guessing this is aimed at Anders, despite my amusement at it also being relevant to most of the Skepchicks.

It seems a bit shitty to me to espouse a hard-partying lifestyle, only to wear the Zoolander earnest face when it's clear not everybody should drink.

http://i.imgur.com/3EJkEkE.jpg

Twitter Activism: when you neither give a fuck nor care if everyone knows.

[free thoughtpolice]

All I know is that Christina Rad is fit as fuck.
If she burned to death I'd shag the vase her ashes were kept in.

It's not an accident glamour photogs scour the region between the Danube and the Volga for models.

[youtube]RVUr28-L9sw[/youtube]

[deLurch]

Apparently at JREF this:
http://i.imgur.com/XT9tmL9.jpg
Requires immediate action:
http://i.imgur.com/a3c8afz.jpg
Which provokes a "whaaaat?"
http://i.imgur.com/fZo9eQw.jpg
Which will probably get me a suspension for breaking rule blah blah blah 'thou shalt not comment on mod policy"
Meanwhile my mod alert re the miss match between keeping Damion's Pit critiques while memory holing the rebuttal remains unanswered. And his posts remain standing unanswered.
My untethered EVA continues ...

Brive,
Even if I was the mod of JREF, I would consider you a dick head poster. They CLEARLY stated, no more posting about the other forums, and now you are bitching, whining & moaning that you did not get your last word in. I *might* be inclined to treat you the same. Send a message to the mods apologizing for your behavior. Personally (as in within yourself) agree to play by their rules, and I suspect discussion would go much better for you. Stop fighting to be on their shit list.

[Mr Radio]

Already setting the stage so she can preach about how she was the tough-love friend who tried to intervene on Anders for the inevitable moment that her drinking finally lands her in trouble. That's the power of twitter right there.

[Brive1987]

Brive,
Even if I was the mod of JREF, I would consider you a dick head poster. They CLEARLY stated, no more posting about the other forums, and now you are bitching, whining & moaning that you did not get your last word in. I *might* be inclined to treat you the same. Send a message to the mods apologizing for your behavior. Personally (as in within yourself) agree to play by their rules, and I suspect discussion would go much better for you. Stop fighting to be on their shit list.

Point me to a single post I've made on the JREF board where I have been impolite to a mod? And the point I made here "bitching and moaning" was that there had been no response to a private request that had been of interest to many here. Plus my general observations on JREF mentality.

...................................................................................

Dear JREF mod,

I apologise for making a polite post asking for the opportunity to re-dress a factual error on your board.

Further I apologise for (post deletion) sending a private request to also have the genesis post of Damion's regarding the Pit similarly dealt with.

It goes without saying that my discussing my views about JREF on the 'pit was simply :bjarte:

I am just so so sorry.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha :lol:

...................................................................................

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Hey 'Pitters, check this out:



You know you want to.

Did that guy even get close to the target?

That's not the point!

Oh, wait, it is, isn't it?

Point is, so the dude can exclaim, 'Before, I had no penis -- now I have two!!'

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Brive,
Even if I was the mod of JREF, I would consider you a dick head poster. They CLEARLY stated, no more posting about the other forums, and now you are bitching, whining & moaning that you did not get your last word in. I *might* be inclined to treat you the same. Send a message to the mods apologizing for your behavior. Personally (as in within yourself) agree to play by their rules, and I suspect discussion would go much better for you. Stop fighting to be on their shit list.

Point me to a single post I've made on the JREF board where I have been impolite to a mod? And the point I made here "bitching and moaning" was that there had been no response to a private request that had been of interest to many here. Plus my general observations on JREF mentality.

...................................................................................

Dear JREF mod,

I apologise for making a polite post asking for the opportunity to re-dress a factual error on your board.

Further I apologise for (post deletion) sending a private request to also have the genesis post of Damion's regarding the Pit similarly dealt with.

It goes without saying that my discussing my views about JREF on the 'pit was simply :bjarte:

I am just so so sorry.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha :lol:

...................................................................................

Karen Stollznow is one of seven JREF Fellows. She's booked for the upcoming TAM to talk about the vitally important topic of Alien Languages. JREF's going to protect their own at their forum, even if one of their own happens to be a LYING VENGEFUL RABBIT BOILING PSYCHO BITCH.

[Linus]

[.quote="Linus"]

You can comment on mod policy in the forum management and feedback section.[./quote]

Shut the fuck up, Chester.

You're mad but can't come up with anything better than this?

And you cant come up with anything better than

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2013 ... ad-Bro.jpg

Now shut the fuck up.

No.

[Mr Radio]

Dunno if this has been posted yet, but here:

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/to-the-pr ... 1570383740

Specifically, this:

You may be in Princeton, but it seems like we should probably put this in really simple kindergarten examples for you. In the simplest, crudest metaphor I can think of, let's say you're a fully abled person in a race against a man with only one leg. You train a long time, run really fast, and beat him. No one is saying you shouldn't be proud of working hard or running so fast; all we're really asking for is that you admit that maybe having two legs fucking helped a little bit.

Wow, what an awesome example.

Using this metaphor, let's again break down some other arguments you can't really use. For instance, just because some one-legged people are faster than some two-legged people or manage to race doesn't mean that it is still not, on the whole, easier for two-legged people to walk and run.

This logic is open to interpretation but only for SJWs. Non-SJWs can't use whatever the fuck this idiotic example of hers is, but SJWs can certainly cry that if there's injustice somewhere, there's injustice everywhere!

Again, privilege deals with macro level institutional and cultural ideas, not anecdata.

Anecwhat

If your grandfather only had one leg, but you had two,

And you take Grandpa's last leg, then

you don't get to claim that you do not have two-legged privilege.

Oh

Having ancestors that endured hardships is important only if either you endure those same hardships or if those past hardships have continued on today in the form of discrimination based on your shared characteristics.

I'm new here. Is this an example of that parallel logic that Benson is credited with?

[Brive1987]

http://i.imgur.com/B6Arlt6.jpg

[Linus]

Brive,
Even if I was the mod of JREF, I would consider you a dick head poster. They CLEARLY stated, no more posting about the other forums, and now you are bitching, whining & moaning that you did not get your last word in. I *might* be inclined to treat you the same. Send a message to the mods apologizing for your behavior. Personally (as in within yourself) agree to play by their rules, and I suspect discussion would go much better for you. Stop fighting to be on their shit list.

Point me to a single post I've made on the JREF board where I have been impolite to a mod? And the point I made here "bitching and moaning" was that there had been no response to a private request that had been of interest to many here. Plus my general observations on JREF mentality.

...................................................................................

Dear JREF mod,

I apologise for making a polite post asking for the opportunity to re-dress a factual error on your board.

Further I apologise for (post deletion) sending a private request to also have the genesis post of Damion's regarding the Pit similarly dealt with.

It goes without saying that my discussing my views about JREF on the 'pit was simply :bjarte:

I am just so so sorry.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha :lol:

...................................................................................

Karen Stollznow is one of seven JREF Fellows. She's booked for the upcoming TAM to talk about the vitally important topic of Alien Languages. JREF's going to protect their own at their forum, even if one of their own happens to be a LYING VENGEFUL RABBIT BOILING PSYCHO BITCH.

Your theory is not supported by the evidence. There are numerous posts in the JREF thread that are critical of Stollznow and damaging to her reputation. The domestic violence charges, Baxter's depiction of her as insane or a liar, Reap's account of her making false accusations against him, all the benradfordlegal stuff... It's all there. The post quoted above by Brive isn't even about Stollznow, it's about the slymepit and it was moderated because it came right after a mod post saying that the discussions of FTB and the pit in that thread were off topic.

The problem is just that when people who are used to places like the pit jump in and start debating on JREF without paying careful attention to the way things work there they are inevitably going to clash with moderators at first.

You can respond to claims about subjects that have been deemed off topic and you complain about moderator actions. You just can't do it all in the same thread. The way to do it would have been to respond to d4m10n's inaccurate claim about the pit by starting a new thread and then linking to it in the original thread with something like "To avoid going off topic, I'm addressing this subject here:"

[Brive1987]

Or JREF could have moved the whole SlymePit series of posts (started by Damion) to a new thread to retain continuity (as requested).

But that wouldn't be sensible ..

Out of interest - if you start a new thread, but the original criticisms are left on the old thread, how does a casual reader know when to jump into the transporter?

[Steersman]

Dunno if this has been posted yet, but here:

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/to-the-pr ... 1570383740

Specifically, this: ....

Interesting – likewise the original article. While I didn’t read both in their entirety, it seems there’s something to be said for both sides – as is frequently the case – and something in each that calls for throwing a stone or two. Hardly seems an untenable position to argue that most of us, at least in the West, have an advantage or two - to differing degrees - over and above those enjoyed by people in other areas or even in other parts of society. Where I think Jezebel and her ilk go off the rails, as the original op-ed piece suggested, is in apparently thinking that those “privileges” somehow means that those possessing them have to slink off stage, tails between their legs, when anything peripherally related to them is being discussed. As JFK put it a few years ago, "One cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong", although I suppose that could also be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm new here. Is this an example of that parallel logic that Benson is credited with?

Maybe – to some extent, although I think the Jezebel-privilege piece is a case of black-and-white categorical thinking: “four legs good; two legs bad”. The thing with Benson is more a case of being unclear on the concept of analogies. A related post here:

John Greg » Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:53 pm • [Post 1]
Ophelia is now claiming that her "invention" of parallel logic, to support her point that she did not compare TAM to Nazi Germany, was our invention. Yes, that's right. She is now saying she did not say that: we did. Honest. That's what she' saying. I mean, we have links, and screenshots, but no....

According to the latest, Ophelia did not post this statement:

"Orac – no I did not.

It’s a matter of parallel logic." .....

And an elaboration here.

[Brive1987]

Ah I see your final line :oops: .

Still, it seems better to keep a whole conversation (even those posts deemed posthoc off topic).

Maybe if mods move half a discussion they could clearly flag a link?

[Hunt]

Where I think Jezebel and her ilk go off the rails, as the original op-ed piece suggested, is in apparently thinking that those “privileges” somehow means that those possessing them have to slink off stage, tails between their legs, when anything peripherally related to them is being discussed. As JFK put it a few years ago, "One cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong", although I suppose that could also be taken with a grain of salt.

A lot of people have said that the original Princeton "kid" (as they dismissively call him) misunderstands the concept of privilege, but I think a lot of the criticism misunderstands the original blog post.

From the Jezebel article:

Having ancestors that endured hardships is important only if either you endure those same hardships or if those past hardships have continued on today in the form of discrimination based on your shared characteristics.

Here's the thing everyone doesn't seem to get: the "white privilege" argument could just as easily be applied to the "kid's" ancestors as to himself. I truly believe that was his original intention by giving his family history. You have to admit, it's a poignant point. It's not like the concept of White Privilege describes something that suddenly appeared in the late 20th/early 21st centuries. If it is operative today, certainly it's been operative for at least the last hundred years. So if you're going to apply white privilege to him, you're going to have to either apply it to all his ancestor's, with all the hardships they endured, OR admit that privilege is a fuzzy and essentially meaningless concept when considered out side the full context of any person's life.

[Hunt]

That's what I get for not Previewing. Well, still understandable, once you sort out who said what.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm of the opinion that there is some value to the concept of privilege, in a general population setting and as a tool for social analysis. I just find it useless when applied indiscriminately (ah!) to individuals, the way SJWs love to use it.

[Mr Radio]

Privilege was dreamed up by a white woman who, when writing that "knapsack of white privilege" paper that SJWs revere like the golden tablets, didn't collaborate with or even ask a single person of the set she classified in her paper as "not privileged" their thoughts on the matter. Further proof of white privilege, I guess this circular logic is also why she didn't need to cite or reference a single thing in that paper either.

[Dick Strawkins]

Here's the thing everyone doesn't seem to get: the "white privilege" argument could just as easily be applied to the "kid's" ancestors as to himself. I truly believe that was his original intention by giving his family history. You have to admit, it's a poignant point. It's not like the concept of White Privilege describes something that suddenly appeared in the late 20th/early 21st centuries. If it is operative today, certainly it's been operative for at least the last hundred years. So if you're going to apply white privilege to him, you're going to have to either apply it to all his ancestor's, with all the hardships they endured, OR admit that privilege is a fuzzy and essentially meaningless concept when considered out side the full context of any person's life.

A major problem with the 'privilege' argument (or at least the SJW use of it as a means of dismissing others) is that it runs counter to the well supported scientific justifications for having laws that treat all people equally.

These justification work like this:

Within any group of individuals (a group of white middle-class women, a group of black people, a group of Chinese people, a group of white male Europeans) there will be a spectrum of ability.
When we compare two groups with each other that spectrum of ability will mean that even in cases where the average ability of one group is greater than the other, there will me members of the 'average lower ability' group that will have greater ability than some members of the 'average higher ability' group.

Therefore, to treat all members of the groups differently in law will be to discriminate unjustifiably against some members of one group and, also unjustifiably, in favor of members of the other group.

Hence modern laws say jobs must be open to both men and women, and to all races.

This basic point is true even if the average differences between groups are significant (and, at present there is not enough evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference between groups - at least in terms of intellectual ability.)

Taking a statistical average for a group with a skewed distribution (for example wealth - a small minority of the population is known to hold a large fraction of the wealth), will result in an apparent average far greater than that held by most of that group.

But taking a statistical average for a group that has higher income or wealth and using it to dismiss every member of that group as privileged is fraught with the danger that a 'group olympics' will begin that will result in the privilege accuser being dismissed themselves. For example Suey Park, probably one of the most notorious SJWs throwing privilege bombs around at the moment, is asian - a group that has a far greater income on average than white males.

But perhaps Suey herself doesn't get anything near that amount of average income for her group and it would be unfair to dismiss her on the basis of an average that she doesn't achieve. Therefore the only way we can treat her fairly is to view her as an individual rather than a group average.
And, indeed, this is the only way we can treat any individual fairly.

TLDR:
'Privilege' has a valid use in comparing groups, not individuals.

[Steersman]

I'm of the opinion that there is some value to the concept of privilege, in a general population setting and as a tool for social analysis. I just find it useless when applied indiscriminately (ah!) to individuals, the way SJWs love to use it.

Exactement! Précisément! :-)

The relatively well-known inability of many SJWs to appreciate nuance, and graduations; their inability to differentiate between shades of gray – everything has to be black or white. Or, as Strawkins suggested, an inability to differentiate between individuals and groups, a tendency to tar an entire group with the "failings" of some elements of it.

[Skep tickle]

I don't think I've ever watched an American Enterprise Institute video before (and I didn't sub), but I found the Sommers video to be quite reasonable.

Interesting looking through the course catalog for Gender & Women's Studies at UW.

The course that's been mentioned as one the incoming postdoc might teach for GWS, "GWS 530" hasn't been offered since Fall 2006. (Well, at least it hasn't been "taught" since then.) Looks like it's on the course offering list for Fall 2014. (2/3 of the way down).

Course Description: Examines the theories and methodologies of the relevant research areas in biology and animal behavior that underlie biological determinist theories of gender and gender differences, and explores alternative approaches, theoretical constructs and interpretations.

So basically anti-evo psych? I'm going to take a stab & guess that Pinker's The Blank Slate isn't on the reading list for the course. :p

Bigger picture, if there's something in the feminist approach that would improve the science then I hope it has been, or will soon be, aired in the appropriate venues so scientistst in that field can evaluate, critique, see what about it works & improves the "approaches" of science, more than only affecting the "interpretations". (Creationists have different interpretations, too.) Anyone know of papers published in scientific literature that are good examples of a feminist approach to biology or any branch of science being presented & supported? Links if you do, please.

Anyway, here are the GEN&WS courses

With one click (on "Last Taught" in upper right corner) the list can be re-organized by reverse chronologic order (from spring 2014, on back to 1990). It's like a time capsule of "gender & women's studies". I can't link to the re-sorted view, but those with a hankering for cruising through the history of course offerings in this field at UW in 4 short pages may find it interesting.

In that reverse-chronologic view:
Page 1 lists courses offered Spring 2014
Page 2 completes the Spring 2014 offerings & lists the Fall 2013 offerings
Page 3 lists courses from Summer 2013 then backwards in time to Summer 2010
Page 4 lists courses from Spring 2010 back to Spring 1990, then lists courses for which no "Last taught date" is given
Page 5 completes the list of courses for which no "Last taught date" given

Seems like the focus changed (expanded, including more intersectional awareness, courses looking less, well, traditional) from 2011 to 2012, but that's just on a quick glance.

[Steersman]

Where I think Jezebel and her ilk go off the rails, as the original op-ed piece suggested, is in apparently thinking that those “privileges” somehow means that those possessing them have to slink off stage, tails between their legs, when anything peripherally related to them is being discussed. As JFK put it a few years ago, "One cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong", although I suppose that could also be taken with a grain of salt. ....

<snip>

Here's the thing everyone doesn't seem to get: the "white privilege" argument could just as easily be applied to the "kid's" ancestors as to himself. ........ So if you're going to apply white privilege to him, you're going to have to either apply it to all his ancestor's, with all the hardships they endured, OR admit that privilege is a fuzzy and essentially meaningless concept when considered outside the full context of any person's life.

I expect that with things like “white privilege”, or money, it would be rather difficult to decide whether any particular ancestor had it or not, and how much influence it would have had on a current descendent. Reminds me of having read about a Russian parable, something to the effect of a dirt-poor farmer who, by dint of hard work and scrimping, managed to pull himself and his family up a notch or two. And his son, utilizing his inheritance, turned out rather prosperous and quite rich. But his son, as is frequently the case, was profligate and squandered his inheritance so that his son became a dirt poor farmer having to struggle out of poverty .....

So I’ll agree that the concept is decidedly a fuzzy if not quite a meaningless one. However, I don’t think it takes a lot of thought or observation to realize that many of us have had an easier time of it opening one door or another due to a “privilege”, a leg up, of one sort or another, whether it is due to money, talent, ability, sexual desirability, etc., etc., etc. I think there was some discussion here awhile back when user “Thunderfoot” suggested that a rather sexy woman had parlayed that into a desirable position in TV broadcasting – which I think she subsequently acknowledged.

But I think many fail to realize that many of those advantages have a downside – all too easy to allow one’s envy to hide those limitations, and the more problematic aspects. The mathematician Jacob Bronowski [The Ascent of Man] argued that evolutionary fitness very frequently comes at a high price – the environment tends to capture us, and if it changes then we can wind up high and dry, or the long-term costs can be very much more than we bargain for. Or, as Bob Dylan put it, “Don’t go mistaking paradise for that home across the road.”

[Apples]

Surfing the fourth wave of feminism.

I can work with that.

"In the workshop we share our orgasm with the group while being in control of our own clitoris," she says, explaining that the class consists of a "genital show-and-tell" followed by masturbation in a circle. Betty has been known to help out with her vibrator.

"No wonder I keep doing it. Are you kidding? The sounds, the sights, the smells. Fat, skinny, one tit gone. Women are so beautiful."

:cdc: :shock:

[Steersman]

I don't think I've ever watched an American Enterprise Institute video before (and I didn't sub), but I found the Sommers video to be quite reasonable.

Interesting looking through the course catalog for Gender & Women's Studies at UW.

The course that's been mentioned as one the incoming postdoc might teach for GWS, "GWS 530" hasn't been offered since Fall 2006. (Well, at least it hasn't been "taught" since then.) Looks like it's on the course offering list for Fall 2014. (2/3 of the way down). ....

Looks like your link got truncated – others might want to try this and select “Find Courses” and then select “Gender and Women’s Studies” in the “Subject” drop-down list.

[Tony Parsehole]

Surfing the fourth wave of feminism.

I can work with that.

"In the workshop we share our orgasm with the group while being in control of our own clitoris," she says, explaining that the class consists of a "genital show-and-tell" followed by masturbation in a circle. Betty has been known to help out with her vibrator.

"No wonder I keep doing it. Are you kidding? The sounds, the sights, the smells. Fat, skinny, one tit gone. Women are so beautiful."

:cdc: :shock:

Said as if it's the most normal thing in the world. Like a female version of soggy biscuit without the biscuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soggy_biscuit

[Tony Parsehole]

An 85 year old woman runs a wanking workshop and she's lauded in The Guardian as a liberal visionary.
I stroke my dick on the bus ONCE and I go on the sex offenders register.
Life isn't fair.

[Skep tickle]

Poked around a bit to address my own questions. This is largely thinking out loud. DO feel free to scroll on by.

Google Scholar search of feminist biology pointed me to some publications from the past 2 years. Took a quick glance at a couple of things that look like they may raise good points but it's not about the science per se, it's about culture & values & etc. Also on closer inspection they all seem to devolve into pomo quagmire (in later pages or chapters, if that aspect is not apparent early on).

One example is a critique (could only access the abstract) that "evidence-based medicine" (EBM) doesn't include consideration of values (or, only of non-feminist values). Well, I think that's correct for most of what's called EBM, though I wouldn't use "feminist" to describe values & bases for decisions other than those that tend to be enshrined in EBM. There are also studies that specifically look at values, like decision-making by patients.

In pub med, w/o using "feminist" in the search but looking for recent study on decision-making by patients, I found this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24764705
which links to full free text of the paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997453/

It's from Current Oncology, April 2014, paper titled "Patients' perceptions of gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment decisions."

FWIW, the gender identification of the paper's 6 authors is not immediately apparent, only first & middle initials are given.

The introduction of the paper opens with:

Current guidelines for the management of early-stage breast cancer result in thousands of women receiving chemotherapy without benefit.

Pardon my 2nd wave feminism, but this seems like a reasonable "feminist" issue for investigation. (That's not a new thought, we run into this issue/question/concern in my line of work, I just don't think of it as "feminist" to be clear about what's being done, to whom, why and for what benefits at what risks, on the basis of what information & what studies.)

Snippets from the paper:

...many participants appeared to have been overwhelmed by the results, providing confused accounts of numbers, charts, and graphs showing recurrence risks that they found difficult to interpret.

This is an important issue in trying to bring "evidence" (findings from studies) into practice, particularly when the patient would find the information useful but it's available and/or presented in a manner that's hard to make sense of.

Patients described emotionally and socially complex reasons why they valued gep testing in making their treatment decisions. Those reasons were often shaped by pre-existing beliefs and expectations of chemotherapy, which derived from sources such as prior experience of caring for a friend or relative with cancer, media representations of cancer treatment, and Internet or book-based research. Some held negative views of chemotherapy and anticipated undesirable effects on their work, lifestyle, and family. Others were open to taking chemotherapy because they wanted to feel that they had done everything possible to fight their cancer. Expectations about chemotherapy were also informed by the rapport with providers, often in relation to the willingness of the patient’s oncologist to be consultative and the degree of confidence instilled as a result. It was against this backdrop of pre-existing beliefs about chemotherapy and interactions with providers that patients valued the gep test, because it provided them with certainty amidst confusion, with options, and a sense of empowerment, and with personalized, authoritative information.

Hey, look. In this study based on focus groups and individual interviews, they found a range of opinions, preferences, values, etc, but also some common threads.

As the preceding example illustrates, the gep test brokered a dialogue for some women where previously none had existed. As a consequence, it was perceived as providing options at a difficult moment in their lives, allowing them to feel like active agents rather than passive recipients of care, regardless of whether it changed their treatment decision.

Patients also valued the gep test because they believed it provided them with more personalized, authoritative information than other clinical tests and medical opinions. Many expressed discomfort with the notion that treatment decisions based on traditional risk stratification markers (tumour size, tumour grade, nodal involvement, and hormone receptor status) would be protocol-driven or statistically-derived. They believed that the gep test reflected their unique circumstances, detached from statistics...

Perceptions of the gep test by patients were linked to the value and the symbolic importance that some patients ascribed to it. In this sense, a type of “magical thinking” underpinned their perceptions of the test, which was founded on a belief that gep testing had unique scientific power and, therefore, truth-value. The presumed validity of the results was a key feature of the test for many patients, with very few questioning...

Moreover, patients did not generally understand that the test is based on population-based estimates derived from sample cohort data. They believed that information unique to them was being returned, in contrast with the statistical estimates patients receive based on the pathology assessment of their tumours (size, grade, nodal involvement, and hormone receptor status)...

Perceptions of the gep test by patients were linked to the value and the symbolic importance that some patients ascribed to it. In this sense, a type of “magical thinking” underpinned their perceptions of the test, which was founded on a belief that gep testing had unique scientific power and, therefore, truth-value. The presumed validity of the results was a key feature of the test for many patients, with very few questioning or even discussing the test’s potential limitations with their oncologist. When prompted to think about why they hadn’t considered the possible limitations of the test, several participants identified emotional reasons for not doing so ...

The suggestion that there might be cause to question the validity of the test led one woman to become angry. Like others, she admitted (in this case, unwittingly) that her emotional investment in the test had precluded any such questioning ...

For some, an additional factor bolstering the presumed validity of the test was the public funding for it...

Uh oh. Authors have now said the patients, all women, were exhibiting "magical thinking" and at least some were "emotional". Does that now make this a paper that would be critiqued harshly in a Gender & Womens Studies course?

Ultimately, patients followed the course of action that their results suggested, despite the misperceptions or magical thinking that the test engendered. A number of patients received intermediate test results that pointed to no clear course of action. In those cases, patients generally interpreted the results to mean whatever they wanted them to mean, aligning them with their pre-existing treatment preferences. That finding might provide a further indication of emotionally-informed magical thinking.

"Emotionally-informed magical thinking" - yikes, perhaps not an inaccurate assessment from the Vulcan-scientist point of view but the focus on "emotion" in particular does seem a bit glaring as something that's applied as a label much more to women & their thought processes than to men.

On the other hand, these women have breast cancer and they're trying to decide whether or not to have chemotherapy based on the results of a test they've had done. "Emotion" seems like a pretty normal experience in that situation.

So, my take-away is that this paper makes some useful observations about how patients (at least, patients like the ones enrolled in this study) interpret, react to, and make decisions on the basis of, a test result & relevant information about it that they were given. This kind of paper seems like a useful addition, to me, to the world of "EBM". As the authors say in closing,

Our results provide insight into an important paradox: patients tend to overestimate the truth-value of gep testing based on misperceptions of its validity. These results identify a need for communication or decision aids to support patients’ understanding of the test and its limitations. Finally, our results might also help to support provider awareness of the ways in which patients can be emotionally invested in their gep results and the impact of those investments on treatment decisions.

My old outdated thus-clouded feminist lens would say that the main issue w/ this paper is 2 words & phrases used that could be interpreted as negative toward women, given that they're not commonly used in the medical literature in other settings (AFAIK). I wouldn't throw it all away due to that; someone who feels it's worth it to comment could submit a letter to the journal politely expressing any such concerns. Usually such a comment that's published is followed in the same issue by a reply from the authors of the paper, rebutting or explaining or agreeing to the letter-writer's comments.

[Skep tickle]

An 85 year old woman runs a wanking workshop and she's lauded in The Guardian as a liberal visionary.
I stroke my dick on the bus ONCE and I go on the sex offenders register.
Life isn't fair.

:lol:

[James Caruthers]

An 85 year old woman runs a wanking workshop and she's lauded in The Guardian as a liberal visionary.
I stroke my dick on the bus ONCE and I go on the sex offenders register.
Life isn't fair.

That's because of your male privilege, you cisnormative hetpatriarchal potential rapist MRAtheist abuser! Check your privilege! :snooty:

Better head to the hospital for a privilege removal (passable trans?). Then you can identify as a trans-underprivileged otherkin and you can shame anyone who looks at you funny while you're shlicking on the bus.

Also, you should remember to remind onlookers that penises can be feminine too. Semen can be female. :snooty:

[rpguest]

I'm guessing this is aimed at Anders, despite my amusement at it also being relevant to most of the Skepchicks.

http://i.imgur.com/fuA163u.jpg

relevant to all the skepchicks, not most

[Skep tickle]

I don't think I've ever watched an American Enterprise Institute video before (and I didn't sub), but I found the Sommers video to be quite reasonable.

Interesting looking through the course catalog for Gender & Women's Studies at UW. ...

Looks like your link got truncated – others might want to try this and select “Find Courses” and then select “Gender and Women’s Studies” in the “Subject” drop-down list.

I blame the Patriarchy. :)

[Hunt]

Semen can be female. :snooty:

Semyn, it's not just a city in Russia. No, wait, it is just a city in Russia.

[Linus]

Or JREF could have moved the whole SlymePit series of posts (started by Damion) to a new thread to retain continuity (as requested).

But that wouldn't be sensible ..

Out of interest - if you start a new thread, but the original criticisms are left on the old thread, how does a casual reader know when to jump into the transporter?

You can quote the original criticisms in the new thread and provide links between threads where needed.

[Brive1987]

I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the advice.

[Søren Lilholt]

Cainaji is back at her old routine of hurling Native American curses at commenters:

43
Inaji

4 May 2014 at 3:47 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Hey, Paul Bell, go fuck yourself, unzóȟloka ištógmuzapi s’e uŋ.

This Paul Bell does appear to be trolling, but when Peezus bans him the charge is entirely trumped up:

76
PZ Myers

4 May 2014 at 4:28 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Our dull little racist will have to find his petty pleasures elsewhere now.

Racist? In the same way that Stalinists called all their real or imagined opponents 'fascist imperialist spies', for Peezus anyone criticizing his SJ wankery is automatically a racist. Needless to say, there was nothing racist in Paul Bell's comments. I can't help but think that the casual way Peezus libels people seems to point at some sort of pathology in his character.

There are some lulz to be had on that thread, though.

After Cainaji cast her spell on him, the troll wrote:

65
Paul Bell

4 May 2014 at 4:13 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

@ 59 – Well that’s one thing we can agree on. I find you chippy women and their supporters rather dull.

I was led to believe this place was exciting even if full of hideous liberals.

I’m off to watch Fargo for now, for something more worthwhile.

Hilariously, Cainaji then demonstrates that she knows more about the Lakota language than about English:

Please, find any comment where Paul Bell actually presented a disagreement or an argument, I’ll wait. I was polite enough to answer his question, with very helpful material, which, if one is interested, provides one hell of a lot of information, explanation, and education. So, what did I get in return? Sneers, condescension, and told I was a chippy woman. Chippy, as I pointed out upthread, means prostitute or slut. So, you decide to come out of the lurking closet to defend Paul Bell? I find that very interesting indeed.

Meaning of 'chippy' according to the Oxford English dictionary:

(Of a person) touchy and defensive, especially on account of having a grievance or a sense of inferiority

This makes makes far more sense to me than what Cainaji read into it. But, as we know, on FTB words mean what the commenters intend them to mean, nothing more, nothing less. Dictionaries are an invention of the Devil Patriarchy. :lol:

http://www.freezepage.com/1399326799NHLOFFYACX

Risible morons.

[Linus]

Ah I see your final line :oops: .

Still, it seems better to keep a whole conversation (even those posts deemed posthoc off topic).

Maybe if mods move half a discussion they could clearly flag a link?

I agree and it wasn't even really that off topic. Not saying the mods aren't annoying sometimes, just that there are ways to avoid getting modded and still post the things you want. They are the opposite of the A+ mods in a way. They will "tone troll" away cursing and insults and enforce mundane rule violations, but they won't punish people for having the wrong opinions. I believe there is still an active holocaust denier posting there and I recall there being a thread in which the OP was advocating the reinslavement of black people a few years ago.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I believe there is still an active holocaust denier posting there and I recall there being a thread in which the OP was advocating the reinslavement of black people a few years ago.

Sounds like a great place to hang out. :bjarte:

[Brive1987]

That's weird. If never seen "chippy" before today. No bells rang.

Then what do I read second para under second photo?
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/ce ... 6905823134

I feel a buzz word coming on.

[Konrad_Cruze]

Lots of shit I should be doing, but I don't feel like it right now. (All-nighter?)

There are some LOLs on PZ's Why Everyone is Leaving FTB thread:

So Tabby Lavalamp has urged people to stop childish namecalling:

49
Tabby Lavalamp

2 May 2014 at 1:58 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Oh for fuck’s sake, Nich. I wasn’t defending Paul Loebe or Chris Rodda or anyone else. I was saying calling someone “Douche Beyond Belief” is childish. That is not the same as defending people who certainly can and have acted as douches.

The Horde, of course, treats xir with respect. Hahaha...no.

54
anteprepro

2 May 2014 at 2:15 pm (UTC -5)

Fucking fuck me and blockquotes today.

Tabby says:

I wasn’t defending Paul Loebe or Chris Rodda or anyone else. I was saying calling someone “Douche Beyond Belief” is childish. That is not the same as defending people who certainly can and have acted as douches.

Your concern is noted. (It is childish to call them douches, even if you admit they are acting like douches? Oooookaaaay….)

61
Seize

2 May 2014 at 2:46 pm (UTC -5)

I too find “Douche Beyond Belief” most distasteful, but only because there are so many excellent options that acutally rhyme with “Rock.”

Tabby @ 60, no, you’re not a concern troll, but you’re approaching a tone troll. And a pointless one at that, seeing as you apparently are not trying to undermine any of nich’s positions. Common taters here are hardly known for our civility.

Tabby tries to fight back:

63
Tabby Lavalamp

2 May 2014 at 2:54 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Seize, I’m not a new commentator, I’m just not particularly active. I know how it is around here.

When I see right-wingers go on about “Obummer” and “Moochelle”, I think they’re being childish. When I see MRAs and Slymepitters talk about “Rebec**t T**Tson”, I think they’re being childish. When I see something like that coming from someone I’d otherwise agree with, not only do I think it’s still childish, but I’m disappointed. It’s not about tone, it’s about being better than the name-callers. It makes it really hard to call them out on it when our side is doing the same thing.

What do the asterisks stand for?

And xir is still treated poorly:

66
anteprepro

2 May 2014 at 3:13 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Tabby

When I see right-wingers go on about “Obummer” and “Moochelle”, I think they’re being childish. When I see MRAs and Slymepitters talk about “Rebec**t T**Tson”, I think they’re being childish. When I see something like that coming from someone I’d otherwise agree with, not only do I think it’s still childish, but I’m disappointed. It’s not about tone, it’s about being better than the name-callers.

Name calling is serious business.

I have a REALLY hard time believing that you are a regular reader of Pharyngula and yet still have such a simplistic, knee jerk opposition to “name calling”.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOOCHELLE AND TWATSON!

68
nich

2 May 2014 at 3:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

When I see right-wingers go on about “Obummer” and “Moochelle”, I think they’re being childish.

Obummer might lack creativity, but who the fuck cares if somebody calls him Obummer if the criticism of him has substance? Moochelle is fat shaming so fuck that. When the ‘pitters call Rebecca Watson that nasty name, that’s not being childish, that’s being a garden variety fucking misogynist. To claim that calling Paul “It’s Funny Cuz She’s Blind” Loebe a douche is worse (“not only do I think it’s still childish, but I’m disappointed”) than the garbage above cuz I should know better earns you a great big fuck you.

Fuck you.

Uh oh. Another attempt at reason:

90
see_the_galaxy

2 May 2014 at 6:51 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

But I will say that maybe we as a group here on FTB shouldn’t be so harsh in our criticisms of each other and be nicer to each other even if we disagree.

The comments sections do a lot of harm, actually. And since we’re oppositional (going up against powerful well funded opponents), we would do well to reflect: that since viciousness hurts us (and therefore helps our opponents) and since our opponents aren’t idiots, it follows that a lot of disruptive trolling (not all, but some) is not authentic, but must be Christian or right-wing sock puppets.

Hahahaha...Peezus, defender of the military:

95
Steve Caldwell

2 May 2014 at 7:31 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

nich @18 wrote:

@15: No. What’s childish is to tell a bunch of people that you’re leaving FTB because it’s blocked on bases then run off to Patheos and whine that PZ was mean to you.

That’s news to me … I work on a military installation and every blog on FTB is reachable at work except for Pharyngula.

Patheos is reachable at work and so are most wordpress.com blogs (e.g. Jerry Coyne’s blog).

Is there such a thing as "PG cephalopod erotica?"

111
jasonfailes

3 May 2014 at 12:57 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Holy Hell, I was open to hearing her perspective until I went over there and read what she had to say. Evidently, PZ is a “fake” feminist because he’s ironically used the term “trophy wife” and posted PG cephalopod erotica.

Also, something, something Greg Laden, but there are no links so I can’t even learn more about whatever the hell happened there.

The great thing about FTB is that it doesn't change. Reason never takes root.

Just truly inspiring stuff there. Someone tries to explain why people are leaving FBT in droves and hit the nail on the head. Whats the response? is it no you are are wrong this is why? No Is it you make a valid point we should look into that? No Perhaps its youa are correct but we dont care? No All they do is reinforce the piont that was made. Are these people blind?

[Konrad_Cruze]

They pound on my inbox every day

Stop pounding PZ's inbox!

images/smilies/icon/surprised.gif

PZ would much prefer you to pound his out box with a tentical

[Konrad_Cruze]

Tell me if it's been noted, but didn't RW have a $100 patron? No more.

http://i.imgur.com/Rawp8e5.jpg

Can I have a limerick with the word cunt in it please.

[justinvacula]

A heavier version :)

[youtube]ar8bROGoKiU[/youtube]

[Pitchguest]

I did coin "Rebitchka" back in the olden days of yonder. It was in the context of the "Dear Dick" discussion, and I was merely observing that the clowns may have been less offended if we had changed her first name instead of her last. My observation was wrong.

Phil, we've been over this. No, you didn't. 'Rebitchka' is all Ophelia's doing.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I did coin "Rebitchka" back in the olden days of yonder. It was in the context of the "Dear Dick" discussion, and I was merely observing that the clowns may have been less offended if we had changed her first name instead of her last. My observation was wrong.

Phil, we've been over this. No, you didn't. 'Rebitchka' is all Ophelia's doing.

I thought "Rebecunt" was Benson's doing. I haz a confuse. I'm quite sure I came up with "Rebitcha", "Rebitchka" or some variation thereof. If Scented Nectar posts soon, I'll use her sig link to her ERV archive, find the original sin, and prove you are WRONG WRONG WRONG! Or I am. Whatever.

[DownThunder]

That's weird. If never seen "chippy" before today. No bells rang.

Then what do I read second para under second photo?
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/ce ... 6905823134

I feel a buzz word coming on.

Rather nice to see who is espousing what on this side of the pond. Maybe this counts as a woman being harassed online for "having an opinion"? Im sure that the twitter SJW contingent will denounce this dreadful beha........oh wait, they're doing it? Never mind.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I did coin "Rebitchka" back in the olden days of yonder. It was in the context of the "Dear Dick" discussion, and I was merely observing that the clowns may have been less offended if we had changed her first name instead of her last. My observation was wrong.

Phil, we've been over this. No, you didn't. 'Rebitchka' is all Ophelia's doing.

And Google seems to say you're right. Fuck, what did I ever coin? Bah, must not have been that important anyway.

[DownThunder]

Also, Natalie Barr was "totally asking for it". The feminist backlash, that is.

Those sj fuckers can spin on a pinhead.

[KiwiInOz]

That's weird. If never seen "chippy" before today. No bells rang.

Then what do I read second para under second photo?
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/ce ... 6905823134

I feel a buzz word coming on.

Rather nice to see who is espousing what on this side of the pond. Maybe this counts as a woman being harassed online for "having an opinion"? Im sure that the twitter SJW contingent will denounce this dreadful beha........oh wait, they're doing it? Never mind.

And here was I thinking that a chippy was a carpenter.

[Aneris]

Some musical interlude. I love choirs. Their Kickstarter campaign, with more music, did very well. They're already funded but have still 19 days to go.

[.youtube]4cSKM889sR4[/youtube]

And the same tune from a rehearsal.

Handy for the railway station to have the right acoustics.

I like a bit of Bulgarian Women's choral music myself.
[youtube]Bls1NVRNczQ[/youtube]

Nice, I never heard the original...
+

A heavier version :)

[.youtube]ar8bROGoKiU[/youtube]

begins slow...

[youtube]8S_R13jV11Q[/youtube]

[Really?]

Dunno if this has been posted yet, but here:

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/to-the-pr ... 1570383740

Specifically, this:

You may be in Princeton, but it seems like we should probably put this in really simple kindergarten examples for you. In the simplest, crudest metaphor I can think of, let's say you're a fully abled person in a race against a man with only one leg. You train a long time, run really fast, and beat him. No one is saying you shouldn't be proud of working hard or running so fast; all we're really asking for is that you admit that maybe having two legs fucking helped a little bit.

Wow, what an awesome example.

Using this metaphor, let's again break down some other arguments you can't really use. For instance, just because some one-legged people are faster than some two-legged people or manage to race doesn't mean that it is still not, on the whole, easier for two-legged people to walk and run.

It sounds as though the Jezebel "writer" is saying that women and homosexuals are inherently handicapped and are equivalent to people who have only one leg.

Or that women and homosexuals are inherently broken people who can't compete on a level playing field.

[welch]

Where I think Jezebel and her ilk go off the rails, as the original op-ed piece suggested, is in apparently thinking that those “privileges” somehow means that those possessing them have to slink off stage, tails between their legs, when anything peripherally related to them is being discussed. As JFK put it a few years ago, "One cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong", although I suppose that could also be taken with a grain of salt.

A lot of people have said that the original Princeton "kid" (as they dismissively call him) misunderstands the concept of privilege, but I think a lot of the criticism misunderstands the original blog post.

From the Jezebel article:

Having ancestors that endured hardships is important only if either you endure those same hardships or if those past hardships have continued on today in the form of discrimination based on your shared characteristics.

Here's the thing everyone doesn't seem to get: the "white privilege" argument could just as easily be applied to the "kid's" ancestors as to himself. I truly believe that was his original intention by giving his family history. You have to admit, it's a poignant point. It's not like the concept of White Privilege describes something that suddenly appeared in the late 20th/early 21st centuries. If it is operative today, certainly it's been operative for at least the last hundred years. So if you're going to apply white privilege to him, you're going to have to either apply it to all his ancestor's, with all the hardships they endured, OR admit that privilege is a fuzzy and essentially meaningless concept when considered out side the full context of any person's life.

or admit that it's like BMI. It's a useful concept when talking about fairly large groups of people as compared to other fairly large groups of people within a given society. For example, as a group white people in the US are going to have an easier time of it than black people. Within either group, there are sub-groups where you can say the same thing about one sub-group as compared to the other.

But when you try to tell an individual person "you have privilege", it breaks down and badly, because at that point, you're trying to tell them that they have an easy time, their life has been easy, and you can't say that about an individual based *solely* on shit like race, or gender identification, sexual preference, whatever. You can't even say it about someone who grew up rich. If (one of) their parents molested/beat them on a regular basis, how much "privilege" did their money afford them?

Now, as a group, rich people, (and for this, I'll define that as having a million or more in (near) liquid assets), have it easier than those who are not rich, and that probably applies fairly consistently on an individual basis, but not with the consistency as used by SJWs.

If you're going to tell me that the various groups I am a part of, i.e. white, male, heterosexual, etc., have societal privilege, sure, I'll absolutely agree with that. But if you're going to try to then tell me that said privilege translates to me having some kind of privileged, or even easy life, I'm going to laugh in your face.

But that is what the SJWs are doing with the concept, that and using it as a fast track to "I win" in any argument.

[justinvacula]

I recount my experiences protesting the 2014 Circle the Square With Prayer event on Public Square in Wilkes-Barre commemorating the National Day of Prayer.

2014 National Day of Prayer protest experience

http://justinvacula.com/2014/05/06/2014 ... xperience/

Here's a Youtube video, included in my piece, of a Christian pastor at the event praying for me:

[youtube]GWBk8lPHYjs[/youtube]

Upcoming is a response to a pastor who claimed that I was [seen as] disrespectful and offensive. I'll also be linking my recent appearance on the A-News Podcast talking about the unfair treatment from Wilkes-Barre concerning the FFRF banner being unpromiently displayed on the reverse side of the scaffolding structure. When it's online, I will also link my interview I had this weekend with an international news source about the banner situation.

I also hope to chime in elsewhere, too, not only sharing my own content. Receptive to past criticisms, I've been contributing more...but I mostly lurk and posting is difficult from my mobile phone which I use to often browse the pit when not at home.

[welch]

That's weird. If never seen "chippy" before today. No bells rang.

Then what do I read second para under second photo?
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/ce ... 6905823134

I feel a buzz word coming on.

It's an older term. Like "first two decades of the 1900s" older term. But generally meant prostitute or similar as I understood its use.

[decius]

The choir song, I posted yesterday Heyr, himna smiður is typically touted as an 12th century song. That made me skeptical. I found such harmonies very unlikely, especially from Iceland which was christianized only about 1000 CE, easily 200 years after the continent. At the time Christians favoured the Gregorian Chant, which consists of latin words sung as a melody without polyphony (i.e. all voices sing the same tune). Pagans didn't yet invent melodic death metal and its typical faux pagan/heathen/viking style harmonies (which are about as authentic as viking horns). When the chieftain Kolbeinn Tumason wrote the words of Heyr, himna smiður (Hear, Smith of heavens), which appears to beseech the Christian deity, his people most likely were into Gregorian music or the folk music of the time, which was some sort of tootling.

I don't like Gregorian, but you've heard that style...

Harmonies are of the few genuinely good things Christianity has ever brought about. But as always with the Christians, they perhaps also hindered its development as polyphony was considered devil's music for a long time. It wasn't until the high middle ages when polyphony slowly emerged and then it had to move north and reach Iceland still. The renaissance music which came up, well in the renaissance (late 14th), was experimental by comparison. Almost like first pop music, or better, dance music. Here is a choir version of my favourite of that period: Tourdion, a french renaissance song noted down or "popularized" by Pierre Attaingnant in 1530 according to the All Knowing Encyclopedia.


The baroque composers then pushed the envelope some ore. Everyone heard of Vivaldi (1678 – 28 July 1741). This whole period is often summed up as Classical Music. Johan Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) is considered a late Baroque composer and he famously wrote religious music, too. Mozart was only born six years after Bach's death (1756–1791) and Beethoven even later (1770–1827), which is really the classical period. Yet no place to put the Icelandic song anywhere there.

During Romanticism, which followed after the late the classical, late Enlightenment, the composers often reached back to the day and age before reason and machines took over the world. That new thing called "Nationalism" required new narratives and they tried to root them in the distant past and distill a kind of essence of their peoples (that's one of many reasons). This is when the middle ages, or in Germany and Scandinavia also the pre-christian times became fashionable again. Artists added horns or wings to the viking helmets. What we today often associate with the past was actually shaped by the sensitivities of this age, which almost seamlessly crossed over into pop culture. I found this nice read about the origin of the horns and wings on Viking helmet.

And here's Heyr, himna smiður again from another choir:


Not that it was any difficult to find it out. The composer of the tune Heyr, himna smiður was one Þorkell Sigurbjörnsson (1938-2013), a contemporary too obscure to have his own entry in Wikipedia. But the words they sing are from the late 12th century chieftain.

Why post it here? Because I can and it currently doesn't fit on my blog (which is stuck with Silverman, pt3). :)

All very punctual and informative, except that Baroque pre-dates and is not normally conflated with Classical.
Also, Vivaldi is a very late Baroque composer, who thrived on the ingenuity of his predecessors and created some things of his own, but he is far removed in time from the turning point between early and Baroque eras.

[decius]

The choir song, I posted yesterday Heyr, himna smiður is typically touted as an 12th century song. That made me skeptical. I found such harmonies very unlikely, especially from Iceland which was christianized only about 1000 CE, easily 200 years after the continent. At the time Christians favoured the Gregorian Chant, which consists of latin words sung as a melody without polyphony (i.e. all voices sing the same tune). Pagans didn't yet invent melodic death metal and its typical faux pagan/heathen/viking style harmonies (which are about as authentic as viking horns). When the chieftain Kolbeinn Tumason wrote the words of Heyr, himna smiður (Hear, Smith of heavens), which appears to beseech the Christian deity, his people most likely were into Gregorian music or the folk music of the time, which was some sort of tootling.

I don't like Gregorian, but you've heard that style...

Harmonies are of the few genuinely good things Christianity has ever brought about. But as always with the Christians, they perhaps also hindered its development as polyphony was considered devil's music for a long time. It wasn't until the high middle ages when polyphony slowly emerged and then it had to move north and reach Iceland still. The renaissance music which came up, well in the renaissance (late 14th), was experimental by comparison. Almost like first pop music, or better, dance music. Here is a choir version of my favourite of that period: Tourdion, a french renaissance song noted down or "popularized" by Pierre Attaingnant in 1530 according to the All Knowing Encyclopedia.


The baroque composers then pushed the envelope some ore. Everyone heard of Vivaldi (1678 – 28 July 1741). This whole period is often summed up as Classical Music. Johan Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) is considered a late Baroque composer and he famously wrote religious music, too. Mozart was only born six years after Bach's death (1756–1791) and Beethoven even later (1770–1827), which is really the classical period. Yet no place to put the Icelandic song anywhere there.

During Romanticism, which followed after the late the classical, late Enlightenment, the composers often reached back to the day and age before reason and machines took over the world. That new thing called "Nationalism" required new narratives and they tried to root them in the distant past and distill a kind of essence of their peoples (that's one of many reasons). This is when the middle ages, or in Germany and Scandinavia also the pre-christian times became fashionable again. Artists added horns or wings to the viking helmets. What we today often associate with the past was actually shaped by the sensitivities of this age, which almost seamlessly crossed over into pop culture. I found this nice read about the origin of the horns and wings on Viking helmet.

And here's Heyr, himna smiður again from another choir:


Not that it was any difficult to find it out. The composer of the tune Heyr, himna smiður was one Þorkell Sigurbjörnsson (1938-2013), a contemporary too obscure to have his own entry in Wikipedia. But the words they sing are from the late 12th century chieftain.

Why post it here? Because I can and it currently doesn't fit on my blog (which is stuck with Silverman, pt3). :)

All very punctual and informative, except that Baroque pre-dates and is not normally conflated with Classical.
Also, Vivaldi is a very late Baroque composer, who thrived on the ingenuity of his predecessors and created some things of his own, but he is far removed in time from the turning point between early and Baroque eras.

[decius]

On the other hand, Classical and Romantic styles are often conflated.

[DownThunder]

That's weird. If never seen "chippy" before today. No bells rang.

Then what do I read second para under second photo?
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/ce ... 6905823134

I feel a buzz word coming on.

Rather nice to see who is espousing what on this side of the pond. Maybe this counts as a woman being harassed online for "having an opinion"? Im sure that the twitter SJW contingent will denounce this dreadful beha........oh wait, they're doing it? Never mind.

And here was I thinking that a chippy was a carpenter.

You could be right. Is the article saying that Natalie Barr is flat as a board and easy to screw?

[Pitchguest]

I did coin "Rebitchka" back in the olden days of yonder. It was in the context of the "Dear Dick" discussion, and I was merely observing that the clowns may have been less offended if we had changed her first name instead of her last. My observation was wrong.

Phil, we've been over this. No, you didn't. 'Rebitchka' is all Ophelia's doing.

I thought "Rebecunt" was Benson's doing. I haz a confuse. I'm quite sure I came up with "Rebitcha", "Rebitchka" or some variation thereof. If Scented Nectar posts soon, I'll use her sig link to her ERV archive, find the original sin, and prove you are WRONG WRONG WRONG! Or I am. Whatever.

'Rebitchka' and 'Rebitchka' are both Ophelia's concoctions. There is a 'Rebitcha Twatson' before that, but not by you. I'm pretty sure I've addressed this before. Anyway, you're being too hard on yourself. :D