The Refuge of the Toads

Old subthreads
deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4741

Post by deLurch »

Really? wrote:NECSS statement on Dawkins:

http://necss.org/2016/02/14/statement-f ... committee/
We wish to apologize to Professor Dawkins for our handling of his disinvitation to NECSS 2016. Our actions were not professional, and we should have contacted him directly to express our concerns before acting unilaterally. We have sent Professor Dawkins a private communication expressing this as well. This apology also extends to all NECSS speakers, our attendees, and to the broader skeptical movement.

We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole. NECSS 2016 will therefore feature a panel discussion addressing these topics. There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity. We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation.

This statement and our discussions with Professor Dawkins were initiated prior to learning of his recent illness. All of NECSS wishes Professor Dawkins a speedy and full recovery.

The NECSS Executive Committee
Well, it is positive that the NECSS has come to a more reasonable ground and admitted their fault.

But who on earth is going to trust the NECSS to have a "frank and open discussion" and lead such a panel after how they treated Dawkins in such a knee jerk action? I certainly would not be keen on speaking my mind at their conference.

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4742

Post by gurugeorge »

Really? wrote:
comhcinc wrote:
So does this
We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole.
mean they are going to address the fact that they are a bunch of assholes and they need to cut that shit out?
No. It means that NECSS will feature a panel with PZ, Rebecca Watson, Stephoknee Zvan, Oolon and Richard Dawkins to discuss how Richard Dawkins has caused a rift in the skeptical community and within society as a whole.
Yeah, it sounds like they want to turn it around into an opportunity for a show trial of Richard Dawkins. I'd love it to be otherwise, and for them to be absolutely genuine in their request for honest discussion, but I fear that's what it's going to be like.

comhcinc
.
.
Posts: 10835
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:59 am
Location: from Parts Unknown
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4743

Post by comhcinc »

Really? wrote:
comhcinc wrote:
So does this
We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole.
mean they are going to address the fact that they are a bunch of assholes and they need to cut that shit out?
No. It means that NECSS will feature a panel with PZ, Rebecca Watson, Stephoknee Zvan, Oolon and Richard Dawkins to discuss how Richard Dawkins has caused a rift in the skeptical community and within society as a whole.
http://maglomaniac.com/wp-content/uploa ... mages.jpeg

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4744

Post by Ape+lust »

comhcinc wrote:I seen that. They lost about 70 million over 2014-2015 and then just raised 77 million so I don't think they are going anywhere. They might get bought out but I don't think it will affect what I want to use it for.

I have looked into other solutions and they cost a good bit more in actual cost and time setting stuff up. I am not looking to make more in fact unless I am just begged (this isn't a set up to be begged) I plan on eating all the cost myself forever. I need a hobby and I want to do this.
Good enough. Just wanted to make sure you'd heard. Best to you, I hope you have fun and encounter opportunities that might put some coin in your pocket.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4745

Post by free thoughtpolice »

deLurch wrote:
Really? wrote:NECSS statement on Dawkins:

http://necss.org/2016/02/14/statement-f ... committee/
We wish to apologize to Professor Dawkins for our handling of his disinvitation to NECSS 2016. Our actions were not professional, and we should have contacted him directly to express our concerns before acting unilaterally. We have sent Professor Dawkins a private communication expressing this as well. This apology also extends to all NECSS speakers, our attendees, and to the broader skeptical movement.

We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole. NECSS 2016 will therefore feature a panel discussion addressing these topics. There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity. We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation.

This statement and our discussions with Professor Dawkins were initiated prior to learning of his recent illness. All of NECSS wishes Professor Dawkins a speedy and full recovery.

The NECSS Executive Committee
Well, it is positive that the NECSS has come to a more reasonable ground and admitted their fault.

But who on earth is going to trust the NECSS to have a "frank and open discussion" and lead such a panel after how they treated Dawkins in such a knee jerk action? I certainly would not be keen on speaking my mind at their conference.
Dawkins should suggest Mick Nugent in his stead. He has no problem with speaking his mind and won't be intimidated or hoodwinked by the cry bully crowd.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4746

Post by JackSkeptic »

NECSS

'We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole.'

Yes NECSS, a conflict you are propagating either deliberately or by wilful ignorance.

' There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity'

I'm looking forward to your discussions between ID proponents and holocaust deniers as they also reflect diverse opinions.

NECSS has allowed entryists to obtain control and now they have lost their legitimacy and failed their stakeholders. The apology is useless and changes nothing.

Dawkins has a full diary, does not need the money and does it because he cares about communicating his ideas. The NECSS have no interest in that, only an interest in social posturing and pandering. They are total hypocrites as any one of their speakers have said or done things far for egregious than what Dawkins did. All he did was upset the fee fees of a bunch of regressive totalitarians.

If I were Dawkins I would tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.

HunnyBunny
Pit Sleuth
Pit Sleuth
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:54 am
Location: Blue

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4747

Post by HunnyBunny »

We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole.
Someone help me out. NECSS says there are deep rifts everywhere that need discussing. What exactly are these rifts & who is conflicted?

I didn't realise believing Rebecca Watson and acting as her enforcer of petty vindictiveness was a global phenomena.

Personally, I'm fine with disagreeing with her ilk, in fact I'd say the world is in a bad state when the majority start agreeing with opinions held by Rebecca Watson.

The implication that NECSS was in anyway falling victim to deep rifts within Scepticism is a bullshit excuse.

I hope Richard declines the panel, if only for his health.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4748

Post by Really? »

I am amused by these two responses on the NECSS Facebook page:
Thank you for announcing this now and not in 2 weeks. I almost bought plane tickets. I mean, thankfully the tickets to your event would have been the last thing I'd probably have bought since it's the least refundable, but this does save me a great deal of time and effort in not patronizing your services again.

I guess I'll see you guys in 2017, that is unless you invite Shermer or Billy Cosby or something.
Sorry. I used to love listening to your podcast. Re-inviting Dawkins and kissing his feet is the last straw, Hang with your dudebros. I'm out.
:popcorn:

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4749

Post by Ape+lust »


AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4750

Post by AndrewV69 »

Kirbmarc wrote: I'm sure that some MRAs genuinely believe in gender equality. The problem is that many of the public figures associated with MRAs frankly don't. You can't believe in gender equality and then say (for example) that the duty of people in a jury trial in cases of rape is to always acquit (like Paul Elam has done in the past).
Pretty much why some argue that MRAs are just the flip side of Feminism.

HunnyBunny
Pit Sleuth
Pit Sleuth
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:54 am
Location: Blue

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4751

Post by HunnyBunny »

Rebecca responds:
A couple weeks ago, serial tweet-vomiter Richard Dawkins linked to a distasteful video created by serial harasser Sargon of Akkad. Shortly after, the Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism (NECSS) made the choice to remove him as a speaker. The move was surprising, as it’s increasingly rare to see a major skepto-atheist conference or organization take a stand against Dawkins.

Now it seems that NECSS has, in an extremely confusing PR move, decided to retract their retraction:

We wish to apologize to Professor Dawkins for our handling of his disinvitation to NECSS 2016. Our actions were not professional, and we should have contacted him directly to express our concerns before acting unilaterally. We have sent Professor Dawkins a private communication expressing this as well. This apology also extends to all NECSS speakers, our attendees, and to the broader skeptical movement.

I’m curious what changed between now and their previous statement (emphasis mine):

We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organizations.

Sargon of Akkad’s video (and Dawkins’ endorsement of it) wasn’t somehow more divisive or hateful two weeks ago. But perhaps Dawkins will get yet another chance to explain himself… during the panel that NECSS has asked him to be on (in addition to his regular speaking slot):

NECSS 2016 will therefore feature a panel discussion addressing these topics. There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity. We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation.

One of the most divisive men in skepticism on a panel about the divisive issues facing the movement. I wonder who they’ll ask to represent the opposing side. I have a guess as to who it won’t be.

Yep, no way this will go wrong.
Suck it up love, it won't be you they ask.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160214232 ... epchick%29

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4752

Post by Brive1987 »

I would love to see a Dawkins, Harris, Krauss tag-team shit all over a gaggle of shrieking harpies.

But not an isolated older gent recovering from a stroke. It's a trap.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4753

Post by Jan Steen »

We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation.
I see this as an underhand way for the NECSS to save face in the eyes of the SJWs. The honourable thing to do would have been to re-invite Dawkins unconditionally. Now it looks as if there are strings attached. What would stop them from inviting a certain parasite called R. 'Toxic Sludge' Watson to that panel as well?

Don't do it, Richard. It's a trap. Going there would look good on their cv; not so good on yours.

Oglebart
.
.
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:25 pm
Location: Ingerland

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4754

Post by Oglebart »

HunnyBunny wrote:Rebecca responds:

Becky's Bitter Bloviating


One of the most divisive men in skepticism on a panel about the divisive issues facing the movement. I wonder who they’ll ask to represent the opposing side. I have a guess as to who it won’t be.

Yep, no way this will go wrong.
Suck it up love, it won't be you they ask.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160214232 ... epchick%29
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/hal ... 1107180644

Guest_0048cc29

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4755

Post by Guest_0048cc29 »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: I'm sure that some MRAs genuinely believe in gender equality. The problem is that many of the public figures associated with MRAs frankly don't. You can't believe in gender equality and then say (for example) that the duty of people in a jury trial in cases of rape is to always acquit (like Paul Elam avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/jury-duty-at-a-rape-trial-acquit/has done in the past).
Pretty much why some argue that MRAs are just the flip side of Feminism.
Much as I dislike Paul Elam and think he has set back men's rights by decades, he states in a disclaimer added later to the beginning of that article that the article is intentionally extreme. Nevertheless I am not sure his logic is not valid.

IF you think the system is rigged from the get go, do you have any duty other than to acquit?

I really hate to group the two together, but is that so different from the quote (apocryphal??) between David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson when Thoreau was jailed for not paying taxes?
"David, what are you doing in jail?"
"Ralph, what are you doing outside?"
and as I linked before, Elam's stated refusal does have some support even from Justice Sotomayor.

reason.com/blog/2016/02/11/justice-sotomayor-says-there-is-a-place
The 2nd Circuit rejected the juror's dismissal, saying the judge did not give sufficient consideration to alternative explanations for his resistance. But it also said the dismissal clearly would have been justified if the juror was in fact determined to acquit the defendants regardless of the evidence. "As an obvious violation of a juror's oath and duty," the court said, "a refusal to apply the law as set forth by the court constitutes grounds for dismissal." It added:

> We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict....

> A jury has no more "right" to find a "guilty" defendant "not guilty" than it has to find a "not guilty" defendant guilty, and the fact that the former cannot be corrected by a court, while the latter can be, does not create a right out of the power to misapply the law. Such verdicts are lawless, a denial of due process and constitute an exercise of erroneously seized power.

Sotomayor, the only current member of the Supreme Court who has presided over a jury trial, said the 2nd Circuit may have been wrong to reject nullification in such sweeping terms.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4756

Post by Jan Steen »

:nin: by Breeve

Oglebart
.
.
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:25 pm
Location: Ingerland

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4757

Post by Oglebart »

Yep, I agree with everyone else regarding Dawkins and NECSS, surely he's had enough of the whole thing. Forget about them, go on holiday, get well.

Leave them to continue to mangle their conference, every subsequent development is digging them deeper it seems to me. Who would want to be part of this clusterfuck?

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4758

Post by Jan Steen »

Oglebart wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:Rebecca responds:

Becky's Bitter Bloviating


One of the most divisive men in skepticism on a panel about the divisive issues facing the movement. I wonder who they’ll ask to represent the opposing side. I have a guess as to who it won’t be.

Yep, no way this will go wrong.
Suck it up love, it won't be you they ask.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160214232 ... epchick%29
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/hal ... 1107180644
That Skepchick post wasn't written by Watson herself, but by one of her unpaid slave-girls.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4759

Post by Ape+lust »

HunnyBunny wrote:Rebecca responds:
A couple weeks ago, serial tweet-vomiter Richard Dawkins linked to a distasteful video created by serial harasser Sargon of Akkad. Shortly after, the Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism (NECSS) made the choice to remove him as a speaker. The move was surprising, as it’s increasingly rare to see a major skepto-atheist conference or organization take a stand against Dawkins.

Now it seems that NECSS has, in an extremely confusing PR move, decided to retract their retraction:

We wish to apologize to Professor Dawkins for our handling of his disinvitation to NECSS 2016. Our actions were not professional, and we should have contacted him directly to express our concerns before acting unilaterally. We have sent Professor Dawkins a private communication expressing this as well. This apology also extends to all NECSS speakers, our attendees, and to the broader skeptical movement.

I’m curious what changed between now and their previous statement (emphasis mine):

We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organizations.

Sargon of Akkad’s video (and Dawkins’ endorsement of it) wasn’t somehow more divisive or hateful two weeks ago. But perhaps Dawkins will get yet another chance to explain himself… during the panel that NECSS has asked him to be on (in addition to his regular speaking slot):

NECSS 2016 will therefore feature a panel discussion addressing these topics. There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity. We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation.

One of the most divisive men in skepticism on a panel about the divisive issues facing the movement. I wonder who they’ll ask to represent the opposing side. I have a guess as to who it won’t be.

Yep, no way this will go wrong.
Suck it up love, it won't be you they ask.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160214232 ... epchick%29
That's Rebecca's turd polisher Courtney doing her dirty work. Rebecca's too skeevy to admit what's obvious -- she hates Dawkins and would burn his life down if she could get away with it. No, she's got to pretend HE's obsessed with HER, while she mutters incantations over his effigy in the dark.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4760

Post by free thoughtpolice »

HunnyBunny wrote:
Rebecca responds:
Actually that was one Becky's vile harpy interns Alex Rudewell that wrote that.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4761

Post by free thoughtpolice »

:nin: :nin: :nin:

ffs
.
.
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:27 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4762

Post by ffs »

Since Sargon's still a topic, some might enjoy his recent interview on the Rubin Report

[youtube]A_oavkedzb4[/youtube]

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4763

Post by Kirbmarc »

Guest_0048cc29 wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: I'm sure that some MRAs genuinely believe in gender equality. The problem is that many of the public figures associated with MRAs frankly don't. You can't believe in gender equality and then say (for example) that the duty of people in a jury trial in cases of rape is to always acquit (like Paul Elam avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/jury-duty-at-a-rape-trial-acquit/has done in the past).
Pretty much why some argue that MRAs are just the flip side of Feminism.
Much as I dislike Paul Elam and think he has set back men's rights by decades, he states in a disclaimer added later to the beginning of that article that the article is intentionally extreme. Nevertheless I am not sure his logic is not valid.

IF you think the system is rigged from the get go, do you have any duty other than to acquit?

I really hate to group the two together, but is that so different from the quote (apocryphal??) between David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson when Thoreau was jailed for not paying taxes?
"David, what are you doing in jail?"
"Ralph, what are you doing outside?"
and as I linked before, Elam's stated refusal does have some support even from Justice Sotomayor.

reason.com/blog/2016/02/11/justice-sotomayor-says-there-is-a-place
The 2nd Circuit rejected the juror's dismissal, saying the judge did not give sufficient consideration to alternative explanations for his resistance. But it also said the dismissal clearly would have been justified if the juror was in fact determined to acquit the defendants regardless of the evidence. "As an obvious violation of a juror's oath and duty," the court said, "a refusal to apply the law as set forth by the court constitutes grounds for dismissal." It added:

> We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict....

> A jury has no more "right" to find a "guilty" defendant "not guilty" than it has to find a "not guilty" defendant guilty, and the fact that the former cannot be corrected by a court, while the latter can be, does not create a right out of the power to misapply the law. Such verdicts are lawless, a denial of due process and constitute an exercise of erroneously seized power.

Sotomayor, the only current member of the Supreme Court who has presided over a jury trial, said the 2nd Circuit may have been wrong to reject nullification in such sweeping terms.
I can understand using jury nullification for drug users (who are only hurting themselves) or for tax evasion if you think that the taxes shouldn't have been paid, or for other "victimless crimes". In those cases the issue is whether or not the law is just, regardless of guilt. I may agree or disagree with the decision of the juror, but I can at least understand where they're coming from.

But to promote systematic jury nullification for all the trials for rape is insane. I don't think that I need to explain why. The system may be flawed, but real rapes happen, and rape isn't a "victimless crime" by any means. When it happens it's a vicious crime against the person, probably the most or one of the most heinous crime you can commit.

The issue with rape trials is to determine whether a rape happened or not, not to determine whether rape should be legal.

I can understand telling the jurors to ask for decent standards of evidence that prove that a rape happened beyond any reasonable doubt, and advising them not to trust the media, or to take the words of so-called "experts" with a pinch of salt.

But saying, like Elam does, that jurors should always presume a conspiracy on the part of the system in every case of rape is absurd. It's a conspiracy theory, just like the Patriarchy.

Shatterface
.
.
Posts: 5898
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4764

Post by Shatterface »

Surely the correct response to someone who apologises and admits they were wrong is to fuck them into the ground?

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4765

Post by Karmakin »

Anybody else think that the whole defense of Islamism thing we see coming from the Regressive Left is basically a result of the irrational hate of Dawkins and Harris injected into that culture by the Atheism+ people?

That sounds kind of silly...but is it true?

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4766

Post by Brive1987 »

A couple weeks ago, serial tweet-vomiter Richard Dawkins .....
Based on the current experiences of a family member, I know that nausea and vomiting can be an extended part of the post stroke experience. Maybe Becca is mixing things up. Again.

Or maybe she is just a cunt.


Take 2:
http://i.imgur.com/8p75PJB.jpg%5B/img%5D

HunnyBunny
Pit Sleuth
Pit Sleuth
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:54 am
Location: Blue

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4767

Post by HunnyBunny »

must correct myself, as pointed out, Becky wheeled out a minion to do the hatchet job.

Wild Zontargs
.
.
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4768

Post by Wild Zontargs »

[Making this post while still several pages back, apologies if I've been ninja'd]

Re: SJWs in SciFi/Fantasy, yes, that has become A (Big) Thing over the past few years, especially for books. Apparently most of the big publishers are skewing SJW, which is just a progression from skewing Left over the past several decades.

Most of the authors over at the Mad Genius Club blog are moving away from the big publishers and towards Amazon, self-publishing, and smaller publishers such as Baen, which are much more apolitical (and therefore attract a large share of Right-leaning readers and authors). Between the fucked up accounting the publishers use and the fact that they can sell books that people actually want to read, they're making more money this way, too.

Things have reached a tipping point over the last few years, with publisher TOR in particular going full-retard. The Hugo Awards have become a blatantly-political shit-show, SJWs working for publishers are circle-filing books for blatantly political reasons, senior editors are calling dissenting authors slurs in public, etc. It's full-on Schism time.

As for Pournelle, yes he's very much still active, no there's not a snowball's chance in hell that he'll go SJW. He recently finished editing the tenth volume of his resurrected anthology There Will Be War, which starts off with THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE by Gregory Benford, about an attack on a mosque being used as a base of operations in an Islamic holy war, and immediately follows that up with SEVEN KILL TIGER by Charles W. Shao, about a Chinese bioweapons attack on Africa for the purposes of eugenic ethnic cleansing.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4769

Post by Brive1987 »

Jan Steen wrote::nin: by Breeve
Trap. Can't be said too often.

Michael J
.
.
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4770

Post by Michael J »

Rebecca didn't write this. It is bylined as Alex Rudewell.
HunnyBunny wrote:Rebecca responds:
A couple weeks ago, serial tweet-vomiter Richard Dawkins linked to a distasteful video created by serial harasser Sargon of Akkad. Shortly after, the Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism (NECSS) made the choice to remove him as a speaker. The move was surprising, as it’s increasingly rare to see a major skepto-atheist conference or organization take a stand against Dawkins.

Now it seems that NECSS has, in an extremely confusing PR move, decided to retract their retraction:

We wish to apologize to Professor Dawkins for our handling of his disinvitation to NECSS 2016. Our actions were not professional, and we should have contacted him directly to express our concerns before acting unilaterally. We have sent Professor Dawkins a private communication expressing this as well. This apology also extends to all NECSS speakers, our attendees, and to the broader skeptical movement.

I’m curious what changed between now and their previous statement (emphasis mine):

We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organizations.

Sargon of Akkad’s video (and Dawkins’ endorsement of it) wasn’t somehow more divisive or hateful two weeks ago. But perhaps Dawkins will get yet another chance to explain himself… during the panel that NECSS has asked him to be on (in addition to his regular speaking slot):

NECSS 2016 will therefore feature a panel discussion addressing these topics. There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity. We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation.

One of the most divisive men in skepticism on a panel about the divisive issues facing the movement. I wonder who they’ll ask to represent the opposing side. I have a guess as to who it won’t be.

Yep, no way this will go wrong.
Suck it up love, it won't be you they ask.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160214232 ... epchick%29

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4771

Post by Brive1987 »

HunnyBunny wrote:must correct myself, as pointed out, Becky wheeled out a minion to do the hatchet job.

Actual bio:
Alex Rudewell is an intersectional Buddhist feminist. Her myriad talents include clogging your social media with pictures of her chihuahua, and occasionally her begrudging cat. If that sounds like your cup of tea, you can follow @alexrudewell on Twitter.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4772

Post by Jan Steen »

Shatterface wrote:Surely the correct response to someone who apologises and admits they were wrong is to fuck them into the ground?
It is if the apology isn't unconditional but comes with an attempt to set you up. As in this case.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4773

Post by Steersman »

JackSkeptic wrote:NECSS

'We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole.'

<snip>

If I were Dawkins I would tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.
Seems counter-productive, kind of like shooting ourselves in the feet. While I think Dawkins' health concerns should be of paramount importance, I also think it important to use the opportunity - maybe he could tender an overview statement if he can't attend? As I put it in a response to Aneris who was advancing the same argument on Sharon Hill's blog:
Steersman wrote:Aneris: Think that that would be kind of counter-productive, and more likely to “give aid and comfort to the enemy”. Far better to magnanimously accept the offer which would be likely to solidify his position as “the elder statesman” of the A/S movement. And, as an added bonus, it would probably piss off those SJWs who were gleefully supporting the disinvitation in the first place. Although that acceptance is likely to be somewhat contingent on his health which should, of course, be his primary concern.

And while I haven’t listened to all of his podcast, I think he’s quite justified in objecting to the “backlash from his own community” as I expect some it was seriously off the deep end; don’t think that type of thing does “our” cause any good at all, and think that it should be criticized whenever it occurs.
And, somewhat parenthetically, I think failing to so criticize those extreme responses looks rather like the identity politics - "my tribe, right or wrong" - that many of us, here and elsewhere, justifiably object to.

Michael J
.
.
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4774

Post by Michael J »

:nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: Ninja

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4775

Post by Kirbmarc »

Service Dog wrote: I liked what you said in the livestream. Sargon gave feminism more of a pass than you did. In the past, my concern has been that you see your own moderate dissent as inherently superior to more extreme dissent. But moderation isn't automatically better. In the face of something patently abhorrent, appeasement or splitting-the-difference isn't better than an extreme rejection of the abhorrent.
What's so incredibly abhorrent in society that requires extreme measures? The SJW are trying to build an authoritarian regime, but they're pretty far from implementing it. We don't live in a feminist dictatorship. The system is flawed, but it's not "oppressive against men" as much as it is "biased by media outrages". At least for now.

I can understand rejecting completely the "safe space" model of society and correcting false assumptions like "1 in 5" or the "77% wage gap", and fighting moral panics like "the campus rape epidemic" or the idea that any man is a potential pedophile. But all of this can be accomplished without resorting to other moral panics and conspiracy theories.
I don't see it as a clear positive sign-- that you survived longer than most commenting in SJW spaces, without being banned.
I was only trolling them. What I wrote on Atheism Plus was to make fun of them, not to seek a compromise. I pretend I was some sort of Dexter-lite psychopath, FFS.
At what cost? Did you take refuge in mealy-mouthed conceptual compromises, rather than calling a spade a spade? That may have strategic value... but it risks making you a quisling against truth. I'm more attached to grasping the truth, than dancing around it in hopes of political advantage.
I don't think you've understood what I said. This isn't a matter of making compromises with the SJWs. This is a matter of pointing out the truth, and the truth reveals that the SJWs are loons and that many MRAs are also loons. Including Elam.
I side with Jury Nullification advocacy groups, in general, whether they are opposed to Drug War laws, Mandatory Minimum sentencing, or what-ever. I think this man is a model citizen: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyreg ... .html?_r=0 I do not accept that jurors are mere 'finders of fact' in regard to whether the person on trial is guilty within the law: jurors should be empowered to find the trial itself too flawed to play role within it. And a groundswell of such dissent is an established, legitimate route to reform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
As I wrote, I understand the concept of jury nullification in the cases of drug laws, where you're protesting against victimless crimes being crimes. But in the case of rape trials using systematic jury nullification means that you believe in a conspiracy within the justice system which invalidates all rape trials. This is, quite frankly, insane.
But is Elam right? Does the system discriminate against men? I think the evidence is clear it does. One specific example would be the Jodi Arias trial-- in which expert feminist witness & domestic violence author Alice LaViolette was introduced as highly influential on the entire field of working with The State in prosecuting domestic violence for 30 years. But, in the Arias case, LaViolette's testimony wasn't being used to prosecute a man (as usual). This time it was being used to exonerate Jodi Arias's brutal murder of her ex-boyfriend, smear the murder victim as an abuser... LaViolette was even exposed as smuggling secret messages out of jail with Arias-- to tamper with witnesses and evidence. Her credibility couldn't withstand a zealous prosecutor, the one time she wasn't on the prosecutor's side. An indictment of the system built on her guidance.
I beg to disagree. "Feminist witnesses" are expert witnesses, not an integral part of the justice system. I can understand letting the juror know about their lousy standards, and advise them to take their expertise with a pinch of salt. Defense lawyers can use the Jodi Arias case in their arguments. Informing jurors of problems with expert witnesses is some good advice.

But saying that jury nullification should be used systematically implies not only lousy standards of expert witnesses, but a conspiracy in the entire justice system on the level of the systematic FBI infiltration of the political extremist groups that you wrote about before. This is pretty much insane.
I do understand you are advocating for everyone being treated as individuals. When I said a good feminist would have to be an MRA, I wasn't saying the only 2 choices are bad feminist vs. MRA/good-feminist. The third & best option is to treat everyone as equal individuals. But, if one goes down the identity politics path of feminism-- the only honest endpoint is the feminist becoming an MRA.
Why should we go the identity politics path, and not simply focus on individual rights? Identity politics are of dubious use, and often have created more problems than they're worth.
Because feminism establishes so many criteria for judging society... wage gap, genital mutilation, reproductive freedom, right to vote, zero tolerance of domestic violence & rape-- which if honestly applied to both sexes... end up proving males are actually more disadvantaged than females. Nothing wrong with not measuring by those criteria at-all & treating everyone as equal individuals. But if one goes down the feminist route-- the only honest thing to do is admit when the results contradict expectations.
Seriously? Are you arguing that man are paid systematically less than women? Or that circumcision is just as bad as, or worse than, FGM? Or that men are limited in their reproductive freedom (even though they don't get pregnancies, wanted or not)? Or that men are systematically disenfranchised as men (instead of this being a side-product of incarceration rates and prohibitions of felons from voting=

I can understand a legitimate concern for male victims of domestic violence and rape who are frequently treated like jokes in society in general, and not given adequate protection or support by the authorities. But the rest is pretty loony.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4776

Post by Steersman »

Brive1987 wrote:
Jan Steen wrote::nin: by Breeve
Trap. Can't be said too often.
You done good the other day - don't go all 9/11 Truther on us .... ;-)

d4m10n
.
.
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:17 am
Location: OKC
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4777

Post by d4m10n »

A couple weeks ago, serial tweet-vomiter Richard Dawkins linked to a distasteful video created by serial harasser Sargon of Akkad.
SYE_TEN_ATHEIST keeps getting the short shrift.
One of the most divisive men in skepticism on a panel about the divisive issues facing the movement. I wonder who they’ll ask to represent the opposing side. I have a guess as to who it won’t be.
Probably won't be anyone who's publicly promised to avoid any Dawkins' talks.

But who will it be? Which self-identified skeptic or freethinker will take a very public stand for no-platforming? Let's start a pool.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4778

Post by Steersman »

Michael J wrote::nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: Ninja
:lol:

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4779

Post by Brive1987 »

Of course the author distinction is fine detail. A skep-bot wouldn't write about stroke suffering Dawkins without the boss looking over their shoulder - squirming and squealing at every invective.

Watson is simply advancing under cover of thrown smoke.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4780

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

d4m10n wrote:
A couple weeks ago, serial tweet-vomiter Richard Dawkins linked to a distasteful video created by serial harasser Sargon of Akkad.
SYE_TEN_ATHEIST keeps getting the short shrift.
One of the most divisive men in skepticism on a panel about the divisive issues facing the movement. I wonder who they’ll ask to represent the opposing side. I have a guess as to who it won’t be.
Probably won't be anyone who's publicly promised to avoid any Dawkins' talks.

But who will it be? Which self-identified skeptic or freethinker will take a very public stand for no-platforming? Let's start a pool.
I saw Dead Pool tonight. Great fun.

DW Adams
.
.
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Planet of pudding brains
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4781

Post by DW Adams »

After listening to the SoA + Slyme Pit podcast yesterday, I was reminded about another incident with the FtB/Shepchick crew.

The Ed Clint affair. I blogged about it at the time, but after upgrading software, all my comments were wiped. :(

Michael J
.
.
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4782

Post by Michael J »

Jan Steen wrote:
We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation.
I see this as an underhand way for the NECSS to save face in the eyes of the SJWs. The honourable thing to do would have been to re-invite Dawkins unconditionally. Now it looks as if there are strings attached. What would stop them from inviting a certain parasite called R. 'Toxic Sludge' Watson to that panel as well?

Don't do it, Richard. It's a trap. Going there would look good on their cv; not so good on yours.
I think we need more information on what the panel is about before we judge

Everybody here is assuming it is "sexism and racism in the A/S movement and how to fix it" but it could very well be lining up people from both sides of the rift. The problem is that the other side will refuse to share the stage with anybody from our side of the rift. They don't do debates.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4783

Post by AndrewV69 »

HunnyBunny wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:A very bizarre tweet from latsot:

[.tweet][/tweet]

How has latto jumped from "SJW idols" to "dead people"? We'll likely never know, but he's a weird guy.
I assumed he was referring to Scalia, who is very dead, from Yeti's opening tweet. He just didn't get your reply tweet, bless him.

It is odd that Latsot has started tweeting Pitters again. He had me blocked for a year or more, but suddenly I'm unblocked.
I just blocked he/she/it as a preemptive measure.

*shrug*

Just like I did with the @blockbot admins and other assorted morons. It is one thing to read about and laugh at them on the 'Pit. But there are limits.

HunnyBunny
Pit Sleuth
Pit Sleuth
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:54 am
Location: Blue

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4784

Post by HunnyBunny »

"Ok guys, Plan B is now in operation: Destroy NECSS. We'll always have Skepticon"

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4785

Post by Kirbmarc »

HunnyBunny wrote:"Ok guys, Plan B is now in operation: Destroy NECSS. We'll always have Skepticon"
She's erasing Cara Santa Maria, I think.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4786

Post by Brive1987 »

d4m10n wrote:
A couple weeks ago, serial tweet-vomiter Richard Dawkins linked to a distasteful video created by serial harasser Sargon of Akkad.
SYE_TEN_ATHEIST keeps getting the short shrift.
One of the most divisive men in skepticism on a panel about the divisive issues facing the movement. I wonder who they’ll ask to represent the opposing side. I have a guess as to who it won’t be.
Probably won't be anyone who's publicly promised to avoid any Dawkins' talks.

But who will it be? Which self-identified skeptic or freethinker will take a very public stand for no-platforming? Let's start a pool.
How could Becca not be asked or fail to attend. She is the only one publically screaming .

One thing you can be sure of. It won't be the NECSS board.

It's a trap.

HunnyBunny
Pit Sleuth
Pit Sleuth
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:54 am
Location: Blue

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4787

Post by HunnyBunny »

If you stay still for a minute or two you can feel the disturbance in the force, as if dozens of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly butthurt.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4788

Post by Really? »

HunnyBunny wrote:"Ok guys, Plan B is now in operation: Destroy NECSS. We'll always have Skepticon"
How did she have time to write that tweet, seeing as how the book she was paid to write is a few years late?

She also seems to have had the time to write this:

https://medium.com/@heinousdealings/i-m ... 14249c16e8

There's nothing like restricting your reading list by race one year, gender the other.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4789

Post by Tigzy »

Kirbmarc wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:"Ok guys, Plan B is now in operation: Destroy NECSS. We'll always have Skepticon"
She's erasing Cara Santa Maria, I think.
And Hai-Ting Chinn. Maybe Heina doesn't think Hai's a proper Asian like she is. Got internalised whiteness or something.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4790

Post by Brive1987 »

I say we all chip in to buy Nugent a plane ticket.

d4m10n
.
.
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:17 am
Location: OKC
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4791

Post by d4m10n »

Kirbmarc wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:"Ok guys, Plan B is now in operation: Destroy NECSS. We'll always have Skepticon"
She's erasing Cara Santa Maria, I think.
daño trasero mucho, tu sabes

Oglebart
.
.
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:25 pm
Location: Ingerland

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4792

Post by Oglebart »

Really? wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:"Ok guys, Plan B is now in operation: Destroy NECSS. We'll always have Skepticon"
How did she have time to write that tweet, seeing as how the book she was paid to write is a few years late?

She also seems to have had the time to write this:

https://medium.com/@heinousdealings/i-m ... 14249c16e8

There's nothing like restricting your reading list by race one year, gender the other.
She has been taking lessons on delaying a Kickstarter project from Brianna Wu it seems. Her PC port of her terrible game was originally supposed to be finished around autumn 2014, and it's been "almost done" since then. Go figure.

Suet Cardigan
.
.
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:26 am
Location: England, a bastion of barbarism and cluelessness

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4793

Post by Suet Cardigan »

New Sargon vid:

[youtube]1428tqVc7BU[/youtube]

Discusses Dawkins/Twitter/Watson etc

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4794

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Does anybody know if Heina has ever moaned about the problem of the lack of diversity at other FTBullies events?

Or is it just this one? Anyway, I now class NECSS as a SJW event, after the Dawkins debacle. So, it is highly amusing to see Heina criticise a SJW event for lack of diversity. Of course there is a lack of fucking diversity. Pick any conference and it is mostly middle class white people, i.e. SJWs and FTBully types.

The events organised and populated by the FTBullies and Skepchicks are whiter than the faces of Richard Carrier's girlfriends.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4795

Post by free thoughtpolice »

For those following youtube drama, Jenny McDermott flags another video channel.
She really is a piece of work, writing letters to people's employers, calling the FBI, flagging videos, and filing DMCAs and so on. Here she complains about people making fun of her true love, Bewidered Ape's lisp, calling it sexual harassment. :doh:
[youtube]NQQjA8o1-uo[/youtube]

Richard Dworkins
.
.
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:31 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4796

Post by Richard Dworkins »

Karmakin wrote:Anybody else think that the whole defense of Islamism thing we see coming from the Regressive Left is basically a result of the irrational hate of Dawkins and Harris injected into that culture by the Atheism+ people?

That sounds kind of silly...but is it true?
No, I don't think so. I recall hearing, days after 9/11, that the plane crashes were the desperate actions of an oppressed group fighting Western Imperialism. Many left wingers I knew were so desperate to malign the Military industrial complex that they would align themselves with any group they saw as attacking it. I don't think that's new even then. There were idiots who thought Baader-Meinhof and the Khmer Rouge were righteous.

Sulman
.
.
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4797

Post by Sulman »

Brive1987 wrote: How could Becca not be asked or fail to attend. She is the only one publically screaming .

One thing you can be sure of. It won't be the NECSS board.

It's a trap.
There's something off about it. These people have no morals, and are cynical enough to think they can browbeat Dawkins when he's physcally impaired.

Watson only cares about self-promotion. Nothing else. It would be a huge win for her.

My suspicion is Dawkins won't do it on health grounds, but I'm guessing he will not want anything to do with Watson as he has been clear there is no further business there.

comhcinc
.
.
Posts: 10835
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:59 am
Location: from Parts Unknown
Contact:

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4798

Post by comhcinc »

Ape+lust wrote:
comhcinc wrote:I seen that. They lost about 70 million over 2014-2015 and then just raised 77 million so I don't think they are going anywhere. They might get bought out but I don't think it will affect what I want to use it for.

I have looked into other solutions and they cost a good bit more in actual cost and time setting stuff up. I am not looking to make more in fact unless I am just begged (this isn't a set up to be begged) I plan on eating all the cost myself forever. I need a hobby and I want to do this.
Good enough. Just wanted to make sure you'd heard. Best to you, I hope you have fun and encounter opportunities that might put some coin in your pocket.

Hey thanks for looking out. If I were to even think about trying to make some shekels I would try to get sponsorships. Seems more honest than asking for direct donations. Idk.

Richard Dworkins
.
.
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:31 am

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4799

Post by Richard Dworkins »

Also, hello again 'pitters.

I'm back after real life hit me like a 38 ton truck in the middle of last year, then rolled over me slowly for the following months before finally reversing at the beginning of February.

Did I miss anything epic?

HunnyBunny
Pit Sleuth
Pit Sleuth
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:54 am
Location: Blue

Re: The Refuge of the Toads

#4800

Post by HunnyBunny »

Gretchen Koch thinks Dawkins has worked hard all his life to achieve great things is privileged, and wonders how many 'feminists' have narrowly missed having a stroke because they aren't as privileged as him
It's common knowledge that there are many feminists, including Chanty Binx, who have become the targets of sustained harassment both on the internet and off because they are well-known feminists. Each of these women has suffered from it. Each has had to make a choice, perhaps repeated choices, about whether to continue speaking out, and to what extent they can handle doing so. Most of these women do not have anything like the platform and hordes of admirers that Dawkins has, factors that-- along with other privileges-- have enabled him to have considerable insulation from such ridicule. It's a really good thing none of them have had strokes (that we know of) as a result......so far.....isn't it?
It's odd that being a 'well-known feminist' can so negatively affect the lives of women like Chanty, resulting in sustained harassment. Germaine Greer, Chistina Hoff-Sommers etc are feminists, who get nasty stuff said about them & to them, they don't seem to talk much about their suffering.

Koch wrote this before the re-invite NECSS was issued. She has a brief follow-up,:
So yes, Dawkins was re-invited. It's not clear why, except that the NECSS organizers apparently felt that they didn't un-invite him properly? Huh.
Huh indeed, who knew acting like authoritarian facists and treating a world-renowned Scientist with complete disrespect could have repercussions that required reflection and redress.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160215011 ... witterfeed

Locked