Periodic Table of Swearing

#961

via Sacha -

http://i.imgur.com/U3FtA.png

#962

franc wrote:via Sacha -

Forgot to link -

Rest of you folks, screencaps of tweets are nice, but please include links. tracking a tweet from a screencap is a pain.

rayshul wot · #963

...

Eh?

#964

My "Elevatorgate" article has registered, in this month of July (even as we're only half way through it), more readers than in any other month since its publication last September.

http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com ... vatorgate/

It seems some of you here have been spreading it around recently. Good job guys. Let's let everyone know exactly how it went down. It must really be getting around, as one regular Pharyngulite came by for a visit 2 days ago and left an expectedly ignorant comment, hoping to poison the well. Their desperation is so transparent now.

#965

Was it here that I saw Pamela Gay's list of grievances from her talk?

Regardless, since she provided no evidence for her allegations and innuendos, I went to check the status of her published research. I could find just a handful of papers, and those directly related to astronomy date back from the late nineties up until the early naughts.

She didn't stop publishing entirely, though. Here's what I've found:

>
Astronomy Education Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 36â€“52, April 2006
Astronomy Podcasting: A Low-Cost Tool for Affecting Attitudes in Diverse Audiences
Pamela L. Gay
Harvard University Science Center

A History and Informal Assessment of the Slacker Astronomy Podcast
A. Price, P. Gay, T. Searle, G. Brissenden
(Submitted on 13 Jun 2006)

Slacker Astronomy is a weekly podcast that covers a recent astronomical news event or discovery. The show has a unique style consisting of irreverent, over-the-top humor combined with a healthy dose of hard science. According to our demographic analysis, the combination of this style and the unique podcasting distribution mechanism allows the show to reach audiences younger and busier than those reached via traditional channels. We report on the successes and challenges of the first year of the show, and provide an informal assessment of its role as a source for astronomical news and concepts for its approximately 15,500 weekly listeners.

I initially thought this next paper couldn't possibly be hers, so I triple-checked and she's indeed the author.

Please, take a moment to contemplate the Sokalish abstract.

rs: Gay, Pamela
Descriptors: Basic Skills; Basic Writing; English Instruction; Higher Education; Teaching Methods; Writing Skills
Source: Journal of Basic Writing, v12 n2 p29-40 Fall 1993
Peer Reviewed: Yes

Abstract: Considers Mina Shaughnessy's metaphor likening the experience of basic writers to that of "uncultured natives" under European colonization. Advocates decolonizing the classroom by devising a pedagogy of voice in a dialogized space that is continually reconstructed from different locations and identities. (HB)

Could it possibly be that shoddy research and sparse publishing are holding back Pamela Gay's career? Of course not, it must be the patriarchy.

#966

I was wrong in one respect, she has co-authored some recent papers on the fate of quasars.

#967

Pammy is a full on believer in Christinsanity.
This does not bode well for her skeptical credentials, despite her self-appointed Chivalric Champion Dr Phil Plait's intensely nauseating and fawning White-Knighting[1] to deflect Pam's inability to withstand any criticism whatsoever, robust or meek, let alone an intellectual tournament to the skeptical facts. (See previous TAM where he felt obliged to comfort her bout of tears after leaving the podium. Can't be fucked to reference it for the kindy-kids. That is your home-work assignment for the knight)

Dr Gay. â€” Skeptic.
The two do not belong in the same sentence without a clear negative correlation.
What she is doing at a TAM is beyond me, unless as a type sample of how to be anti-skeptical.
She can't even juggle for fux sake! At least Beccy used to have that skill, pre-dipso-maniacal days.

Whereas:
Dr Gay/TAM/Sokal Hoax DO b'long together.
_____________
[1] In which Dr. Plait put his arms around Dr. Gay's shoulders, at a TAM, without express verbal or written permission.
It is recorded for posterity. For fux sake, don't tell the FC3 or they will have Plait indicted for war crimes. Or perhaps not. There is the banking to do, as well as that pesky laundry. One has to get one's priorities/priories correct: dirty dishes have precedence over the Hague

#968

Her astronomy podcasting is valuable, accessible and competently done. She doesn't let her superstition affect her cosmology, so I've always tolerated her and promoted her work to my friends. More or less the same goes for Plait. I can't stand his accomodationist stances and petulant whiteknighting, but his popularisation of science is sound.

It's a shame to see her falling prey to victimhood complex, all things considered.

#969

decius wrote:Her astronomy podcasting is valuable, accessible and competently done.

I am truly glad that you feel that way.

#970

I had a mind to turn my "franc is not a monster â€” he is a mirror" into a Latin motto for the posterity of the Hereditary Hoggle Hegemony.
It turned out to be somewhat risible, as the latin for mirror is "speculum".
Beccy's lobsters would be proud!
And heraldic motto authours would be proud as well; considering that including as many Latin puns as possible into a motto is considered an art-form beyond compare.
It has an allusion to a vaginal opening tool, as well as a sly reference to the French, and a rhyming pun on 'nostrum', or secret remedy.
Here is the motto:

Franc est non monstrum. Est speculum.

Shove that on yer family crest.

#971

Michael K Gray wrote:Franc est non monstrum. Est speculum.

Shove that on yer family crest.

http://i.imgur.com/eeiAO.png

#972

franc wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:Franc est non monstrum. Est speculum.
Shove that on yer family crest.

I didn't expect a kind of Norman Inquisition.

#973

justinvacula wrote:Recently, I have been quite intrigued by, let's call it, the 'epistemology of the Skepchick.' Rebecca Watson and Ophelia Benson, it seems, argue that because they feel conventions are unsafe and that they feel threatened, their belief is justified merely on that basis. When I disagreed with Watson, it amounted to me "telling her how to feel" and that I somehow lacked a right to "tell her how to feel" (whatever that means). When I said that Ophelia was unjustified in feeling that she was unsafe I.e. that her emails would justify her feeling, I was met with similar sentiments although this time it was more of a you do not know what it is like and look at the larger context gambit. When I noted that Ophelia ought to have first did research or waited to get more information before backing out of tam, this apparently did not matter as we were back to this I feel a certain way, so I am justified line.

Enter, then, Dr. Harriet Hall who wore the I feel safe and welcome at tam shirt. If Dr. Hall feels a certain way, when considering the skepchick epistemology, why don't they apply the same standards to Dr. Hall? Worse, Ophelia ridiculed Dr. Hall on her blog. Dare not someone ridicule Ophelia or argue against her reasoning on feeling unsafe.

Amazing stuff, huh?

I believe a lot of the problem is the way many (all?) feminists use the phrase "a safe place". The phrase is used to denote a place where their statements will not be challenged and they won't be forced to justify themselves (because they're victims or something). They then exploit the ambiguity... they know others will think that means a "not safe place" will be full of physical attacks, no just questions etc and try not to correct that mistaken impression if it's working for them.

I think a lot of the issues I have with professional feminists is rooted in the way many of them have volunteered or at least done the training at a sexual assault crisis centre at some time in order to get the required cred. In these centres it does make sense when adopting the support role to believe without challenge what the victim says. It helps empower someone when they need it. Where it goes awry is when a movement adopts this stance outside a crisis situation. They all end up defining every slight as a crisis and claim victimhood to collect all the empowerment from the group. No challenge or perspective is allowed as the victim gets to define everything. (eg. as long as RW gets to keep claiming she's a victim, and why wouldn't she try to this as long as she can, no one in her circle can challenge her no matter how much crap she spews or victims she creates) They eventually have to go outside the group to find more power, perhaps from white knights that for some reason feel guilty for something they haven't done.

#974

I think the finger in that crest needs a ring on it with a mirror in it with the reflection of the viewer with a horrified look on their face. But maybe that's just me.

#975

JAB wrote:...In these centres it does make sense when adopting the support role to believe without challenge what the victim says. It helps empower someone when they need it.

Great observation. Not kidding.

It has parallels in other areas of last rhetorical resort:
* Lying to a terminal patient about their prospects, thereby 'empowering' them.
* Lying to voters about their prospects, thus empowering them.
* Lying to a one-night-stand about their prospects, thus empowering them.
* Lying to a [insert pathetic victim here] about their prospects, thus empowering them.

This makes sense for the liar, though. Not for the sufferer, who is only offered the thin gruel of false hope of spectral 'support', that 'poofs' in an instant when put to the real-world proofs.

Such is only an aid to the supposed supporter, not the victim.
For that is Ophelia's schtick.

#976

Hey Guest, the one who wrote:

Or does RebeCUNT TWATson have (...) If you're really concerned about stuff like Namazie's cause (and who wouldn't be?)

Your unreasonable obsession with bad words for our naughty bits (you know down there) combined with your very reasonable concerns about islamicism, tells me you are Ophelia Benson as my top guess about you, Guest. Although the guessed at paraphrasing you also did regarding getting attention, is more Steffy-style. If you're Ophelia, I just want to say I'm a fan of your articles about theocracies, but obviously not the ones about 1st world, hyped up, feminist issues.

And by the way, we're not hypocrites. This new Slimepit has no rules about what topics people have to cover. If you find one missing, such as how we haven't discussed the shittiness of islamicism here at the new place yet, then YOU can bring up those subjects involving islamic atrocities. Don't order us to bring it up. Whoever thinks of it first, usually mentions it first. Many of us would join in and discuss it with you (and on that one, I suspect most of us will be in full agreement with you). You are not banned here under any name, and none of your comments will be deleted or edited if you want to discuss pretty much anything at all. But remember, you don't get to order others as to what topics they must discuss or how lacking in importance the talk is here. Go elsewhere if you really need a different style of conversation. The internet is huge. Somewhere out there is a site or two you'll like.

By the way, to the cunt kick, I say, "Thanks, but guests first". Who knew I was so polite. :D

Franc, it seems Seelix needs to read up on logical fallacies.

Michael K Gray wrote:Franc est non monstrum. Est speculum.

http://www.scentednectar.com/sneerfacto ... ugh-03.gif http://www.scentednectar.com/sneerfacto ... ugh-03.gif http://www.scentednectar.com/sneerfacto ... ugh-03.gif

#977

JAB wrote:I think the finger in that crest needs a ring on it with a mirror in it with the reflection of the viewer with a horrified look on their face. But maybe that's just me.

Again, a valid suggestion.
It got me thinking to create a benign Trojan software payload with the image of the crest, such that is reserves an area retaining the impression of the wicked witch's magic reflective device, that enables any webcam available on the respondent's device, to proffer an active 'real-time' mirror.

#978

Scented Nectar wrote:...then YOU can bring up those subjects involving islamic atrocities. Don't order us to bring it up. Whoever thinks of it first, usually mentions it first.

I think that Islamic Atrocities are somewhat unacceptable.

(You heard it here first, folks!)

#979

Michael K Gray wrote:...[insert pathetic victim here]

Arrrgh! Did I say that? For 'pathetic', substitute 'bathetic'.
What was I thinking? (Damn this spinal tap)

#980

I could understand a 'safe space' extending to perhaps immunity from criticism regarding sexual orientation and similar immutable characteristics, but certainly not immunity from criticism of ideas that bloggers put forth on the internet. Expect to be criticized when ideas are published whether the topic be a noncontroversial one or not. This seems to return to Zvan's untenable idea of a cyberstalker (according to her definition). Criticism will happen...and perhaps moreso in cases of Watson et. al. because of their frequent character assasinations and dismissive tone. Although I don't use the phrase and don't find it helpful in some situations, I think it is fitting here - if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

#981

justinvacula wrote:I could understand a 'safe space' extending to perhaps immunity from criticism regarding sexual orientation and similar immutable characteristics, but certainly not immunity from criticism of ideas that bloggers put forth on the internet. Expect to be criticized when ideas are published whether the topic be a noncontroversial one or not. This seems to return to Zvan's untenable idea of a cyberstalker (according to her definition). Criticism will happen...and perhaps moreso in cases of Watson et. al. because of their frequent character assasinations and dismissive tone. Although I don't use the phrase and don't find it helpful in some situations, I think it is fitting here - if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

If I may distill your dilemma:
1) Characteristics over which one has no, or little influence should be quarantined from criticism.
2) Characteristics over which one has educational opportunities to alter should NOT be quarantined from criticism.

#982

It is also no surprise that Watson and co. are treated poorly and not respected as much by the atheist community. Why is it, for instance, that people like Dan Fincke and Chris Hallquist -- two great ftb bloggers on my survey -- don't get what Watson calls 'hundreds of regular threats by atheists and skeptics?' Perhaps it has something to do with the respect they have for the people they disagree with and their professional, charitable, and fair writing style. They set a stage of respect and get it while Watson sets the stage of disrespect and people respond in kind.

#983

Yes, no safe space between the ears :)

#984

Girl Writes What, on why the specific flavours of feminism don't matter:

[youtube][/youtube]

#985

James Onen wrote:Girl Writes What, on why the specific flavours of feminism don't matter:

[youtube][/youtube]

Oops.. failed to embed the video:

#986

Perhaps diversity invitiatives, along with the idea of a safe space, has prompted people to reach beyond a diversity worth wanting to one in which discourse is harmed and stifled by people wanting immunity from criticism of ideas (that are not immutable characteristics). Months ago, I wrote a post about diversity initiatives of a certain flavor sabatoging higher education. http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/04/hav ... taged.html

#987

James Onen wrote:Girl Writes What, on why the specific flavours of feminism don't matter:

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube]3o-OcTSeVcs[/youtube]

Just use the "filename" after v=

Code: Select all

[youtube]3o-OcTSeVcs[/youtube]

#988

justinvacula wrote:It is also no surprise that Watson and co. are treated poorly and not respected as much by the atheist community. Why is it, for instance, that people like Dan Fincke and Chris Hallquist -- two great ftb bloggers on my survey -- don't get what Watson calls 'hundreds of regular threats by atheists and skeptics?' Perhaps it has something to do with the respect they have for the people they disagree with and their professional, charitable, and fair writing style. They set a stage of respect and get it while Watson sets the stage of disrespect and people respond in kind.

vexorian on http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... ?ctab=all_ says "This seems to be a huge predominant topic in there. Any criticism done by Watson to another blogeer is an attack, meanwhile every criticism doen to Watson is valid points that Watson was too wrong to ignore." Well, no. Watson may very well have criticisms I (and perhaps others here) agree with. It just gets hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when ridicule and insults are over used to paraphrase: "You are wrong because you are a white male privileged old rich guy." Great example of a genetic fallacy too, and that goes both ways. Just because it is Watson giving a valid argument is no reason to ignore said valid argument.

#989

Michael K Gray wrote:It got me thinking to create a benign Trojan software payload with the image of the crest, such that is reserves an area retaining the impression of the wicked witch's magic reflective device, that enables any webcam available on the respondent's device, to proffer an active 'real-time' mirror.

You know, this type of program, or more specifically, software that may be installed unawares to remotely take webcam pics supposedly for catching computer thieves, is the reason that my one computer that DOES have a built in webcam, has a piece of paper covering the lens at all times, except if I ever use its webcam intentionally. I don't think this is too paranoid of me. http://www.scentednectar.com/sneerfacto ... sad-03.gif

I think that Islamic Atrocities are somewhat unacceptable.

I think they are very unacceptable. I feel strongly about that. But, I'm also hopeful that now, with internet communications spreading worldwide secular ideas of freedom and equality and rights, etc, that all the theocracies will end sometime over the next few decades or so. That sounds all optimistic though. I guess my coffee cup was half full or something this morning.
http://www.scentednectar.com/sneerfacto ... fee-03.gif

#990

Skeeve wrote:
James Onen wrote:Girl Writes What, on why the specific flavours of feminism don't matter:

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube]3o-OcTSeVcs[/youtube]

Just use the "filename" after v=
Code: Select all
[youtube]3o-OcTSeVcs[/youtube]

Thanks, Skeeve.

Watching the video and listening to what GWW says about 'moderate' feminists, I was reminded of how Sam Harris likes to say religious moderates empower the radicals, by legitimising their core beliefs:

Religious moderates may ignore or overlook the more barbaric passages in their religious books, but by venerating the books in general, they leave us powerless to really oppose the belief systems of fundamentalists.

In my view, the gender ideology known as feminism is in serious need of skeptical analysis. Its currently an area of interest for me, and it's something I'm going to be exploring in a new blog I'm setting up. I contend that feminism is irrational and not based on facts. I believe in equal rights and all of that regardless of gender (or any other distinction), but this egalitarian view point is not unique to feminism, even though it claims it is. Just by being a humanist you already subscribe to equality for all, whether or not you self-identify as a feminist.

#991

justinvacula wrote:don't get what Watson calls 'hundreds of regular threats by atheists and skeptics?' Perhaps it has something to do with the respect they have for the people they disagree with and their professional, charitable, and fair writing style.

Or perhaps it has something to do with those threats not existing? Considering the hatred that has been directed towards both Abbie and me as an example, we are both on record here as NEVER having received a threat via any private message format. Why is that?

Let's face it Watson is a chronic liar. As are all of the FC5(6). They've been caught lying more times than most of us have had hot breakfasts. What this pink thing fails to realise is that truly anonymous messaging is beyond the faculties of the average moron that likes to yell on blogs. But let's just for a second be generous and grant her that it is. What you can't grant is that 100% of them, in their rage, will diligently cover their tracks. 1-n won't. That means there are (1-n)*(however many hundreds that Becky claims) threats have grubby, traceable fingerprints all over them. To consult the cesspit of lies, each of this comes with it's own unique, impossible to forge, message-ID:

Message-ID is a unique identifier for a digital message, most commonly a globally unique identifier used in email and Usenet newsgroups.

Message-IDs are required to have a specific format which is a subset of an email address (though Microsoft Outlook is known to generate invalid IDs with three parts) and to be globally unique. That is, no two different messages must ever have the same Message-ID. A common technique used by many message systems is to use a time and date stamp along with the local host's domain name, e.g., 950124.162336@example.com.

Any email provider that is given one of these message-ID's can instantly confirm whether it is a valid message sent by their service, and if done promptly, identify the sender. That's why by law they have to have abuse@ addresses for reporting, duh. Likewise Twitter or any of the IM providers. Further, these message-IDs are fully accepted by law enforcement as evidence. No if's or but's. It is the same as your physical fingerprint or DNA at any crime scene.

To the best of my knowledge, Becky has never produced a threat email with intact header information. Never. Perhaps even she has worked out that this is not something you can just forge. Similarly, the big baboon has been accusing me of threatening him via personal messaging. Requests that he produce similar header information are ignored. So there are two real options here -

1. These threats don't exist, or
2. They do exist, but they refuse to do what anybody else would do - provide these messages to ISP abuse departments and/or law enforcement

Either option is not satisfactory to anyone. Either the threats are a complete fabication... or they are not and Watson refuses to do the right thing for all concerned, including all her critics, and allows these perpetrators to continue doing what they do - with the real possibility that they will also threaten others. That is beyond negligence - it borders on complicity. No one wants genuine loons (e.g. Mabus) in the system.

So, given Becky's track record as a deceitful fraud, I call bullshit. These are more fairytales, just like EG was.

#992

James Onen wrote:In my view, the gender ideology known as feminism is in serious need of skeptical analysis. Its currently an area of interest for me, and it's something I'm going to be exploring in a new blog I'm setting up. I contend that feminism is irrational and not based on facts. I believe in equal rights and all of that regardless of gender (or any other distinction), but this egalitarian view point is not unique to feminism, even though it claims it is. Just by being a humanist you already subscribe to equality for all, whether or not you self-identify as a feminist.

May I recommend to you, then, the excellent book from Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate", as an introductory text (assuming you haven't read it)?

#993

Michael K Gray wrote:
JAB wrote:...In these centres it does make sense when adopting the support role to believe without challenge what the victim says. It helps empower someone when they need it.
Great observation. Not kidding.

It has parallels in other areas of last rhetorical resort:
* Lying to a terminal patient about their prospects, thereby 'empowering' them.
* Lying to voters about their prospects, thus empowering them.
* Lying to a one-night-stand about their prospects, thus empowering them.
* Lying to a [insert pathetic victim here] about their prospects, thus empowering them.

This makes sense for the liar, though. Not for the sufferer, who is only offered the thin gruel of false hope of spectral 'support', that 'poofs' in an instant when put to the real-world proofs.

Such is only an aid to the supposed supporter, not the victim.
For that is Ophelia's schtick.

Where did you get the idea that the support person lies to the victim? All they do is not force them to defend themselves. If they are going forward with a criminal charge there will be lots of people they will have to justify themselves to etc. No where in the crisis management do lies to the victim come in.

What I am talking about is imediately following a traumatic event, where there are well researched ways to minimize the chances of PTSD. I'm not talking specifically about rape, but general trauma, where my training and experience were. It's not about lying. It's not about saying no one should question them. It' about being perhaps the one person that isn't questioning them while they are dealing with the emotional overload. It's not for the support person either. Talking about crap that has just happehed to you can help you deal with it. It can be hard to talk openly about that crap if you're constantly defending yourself.

My experience is many years volunteering at a telephone crisis centre. There was a sex assault service in our town, so we didn't get many calls on that. We were anonymous etc, so it wasn't like we were going to be testifying or even talking again to the person unloading. I also have been trained as a harrassment investigator at work... not the same thing at all. The only common bits I can recall are active listening techniques. Different goals.

#994

Heintje wrote:
James Onen wrote:In my view, the gender ideology known as feminism is in serious need of skeptical analysis. Its currently an area of interest for me, and it's something I'm going to be exploring in a new blog I'm setting up. I contend that feminism is irrational and not based on facts. I believe in equal rights and all of that regardless of gender (or any other distinction), but this egalitarian view point is not unique to feminism, even though it claims it is. Just by being a humanist you already subscribe to equality for all, whether or not you self-identify as a feminist.
May I recommend to you, then, the excellent book from Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate", as an introductory text (assuming you haven't read it)?

Thanks. I do have the e-book, though I have not read it yet. Others have recommended it to me as well so it be a great read.

Pinker himself described himself as a feminist in a debate he had regarding gender differences. He actually said a lot of things that I don't think are true in his opening statement:

Again for the benefit of the Martians in this room: This isn't just any old issue in empirical psychology. There are obvious political colorings to it, and I want to begin with a confession of my own politics. I am a feminist. I believe that women have been oppressed, discriminated against, and harassed for thousands of years. I believe that the two waves of the feminist movement in the 20th century are among the proudest achievements of our species, and I am proud to have lived through one of them, including the effort to increase the representation of women in the sciences.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate0 ... index.html

I take issue with a lot of what Pinker specifically said above. However, I can understand why he had to emphatically declare his ideological dispensation before discussing the matter at hand - after all, the debate was conducted in Harvard University in 2005, the same year in which its president got into trouble for suggesting that innate differences between the sexes might help explain why relatively few women tend to become professional scientists or engineers:

Already Summers is being forced to apologize, in the style of a Communist show trial, for sending "an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women." But the best signal to send to talented girls and boys is that science isn't about respecting sensitivities. It's about respecting facts. The only people who don't belong in science, male or female, are those who would rather close their eyesâ€”and yoursâ€”than see what's there.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html

If Pinker had not started his presentation by making it clear he endorses feminism, he would have been roasted for what he presented later - which comprised of empirical findings that seemed to show differences between the genders, and how this might account for the disparities seen with regards to representation in the sciences.

#995

franc wrote:
justinvacula wrote:don't get what Watson calls 'hundreds of regular threats by atheists and skeptics?' Perhaps it has something to do with the respect they have for the people they disagree with and their professional, charitable, and fair writing style.
Or perhaps it has something to do with those threats not existing? Considering the hatred that has been directed towards both Abbie and me as an example, we are both on record here as NEVER having received a threat via any private message format. Why is that?

Not *quite* true. Ive gotten one threat, along the lines of 'I KNOW WHO YOU ARE I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE I KNOW WHERE YOU WORK' over the XMRV saga.

The sender is a female, and her/her parents/her organization in so much trouble (the Mob, FBI, other crazy people, etc), that I didnt feel it was necessary to follow up on it with authorities. Pretty sure they have 'other things to worry about' than a grad student in Oklahoma criticizing their 'work'.

Incidentally, the only other people to try to censor me via NatGeo, and to hunt down my personal details to contact my university about me have been the insane XMRVers.

#996

I must say, I've really chuffed by the amount of blowback the FC5 have recieved from the attendees of TAM.

I have said all along - the Baboon bullies are very loud, but are a minority. Like the most vociferous Islamic loonies, they shout down all the other voices, and promote their view as the one most people share. We have seen enough evidence now to know that it is complete bullshit.

We are winning...

#997

franc wrote:via Sacha -

http://i.imgur.com/U3FtA.png

If she means 'appealing to emotion' via crappy art, music, and literature, no. And by 'no', I mean 'NO!! BLEEECH! BLEEEEEEEEEECH!!!!'

Is she means recognizing the value of emotion for skepticism, I agree.

One of the advantages I have over people like Dawkins, is when I talk about evolution, its not some mysterious magical thing that turned fish into monkeys.

I use ERVs to explain evolution, and then connect that connection to emotions-- Moms breast cancer, your little brother developing schizophrenia, your favorite elementary teacher developing MS, your own Hodgkins lymphoma, Kim Kardashians psoriasis-- Evolution is so Big, its something individuals have no personal connection to (even ones who 'believe' in evolution). I can make that personal connection, and connect a reflexive POSITIVE emotion with evolution, rather than a neutral, or even negative emotion (in the case of the crazy theists). I think that is a good thing.

I also think that it is stupid to ignore the social needs of people. A lot of us here are lone wolves. *shrug* I am. But lots of people ARENT. When they leave religion (or any community, like I dunno, ghost hunters or Amway), they lose a lot, if not all, of their social network. Where OKC Atheists has excelled is providing a replacement community for social and emotional support-- Its a place to make friends, go bowling with the kids, get drunk and sing karaoke, attend comedians/movies/concerts, try new restaurants, volunteer, or just plain talk and learn something.

If youve just left a church and functionally lost all of your family and friends, can you imagine what a group like this looks like? An oasis. Contrast that with how a lot of skeptic groups meet, loud dark noisy bar where everyone talks about how stupid theists are, and you realize how stupid ignoring emotional needs is.

Ignoring the benefits of emotional connections in skepticism is folly.

But Amy probably meant 'emotion' via crappy art/music/literature, since that was the topic of her panel, so...

Guest · #998

rayshul ooooohhhh wrote:My little ranty point up there was to illustrate the background/context of Dawkins comment and my frustration at the way he was treated and scapegoated for a comment that has since been taken largely out of its wider context. I don't have the links, etc, to the past but I've noted that most histories of the event haven't brought this up. Can you appreciate why this is frustrating?

f anything that context makes it worse; Dawkins was going after Watson when it was Watson's critics who were the ones making all the noise and acting like it was a big deal and derailing the conversation from more important matters.

The critics had and still have an important function in pointing out where skeptics are not behaving skeptically, silencing debate and using their platforms to bully out other opinions.

This would be fine if the critics themselves were behaving skeptically instead of making everything personal, creating strawmen (like Dawkins did) to argue against instead of dealing with what people actually say; if they weren't reacting to genuine criticisms of their own behaviour with ridiculous, self serving howls of "censorship" and "bullying" while hypocritically comparing disagreement with their precious opinions to Nazism and laughing about how they'd like to kick those uppity women in the cunt.

That's not skepticism, it's childish petulance, and it isn't helping anyone.

#999

Heintje wrote:
James Onen wrote:In my view, the gender ideology known as feminism is in serious need of skeptical analysis. Its currently an area of interest for me, and it's something I'm going to be exploring in a new blog I'm setting up. I contend that feminism is irrational and not based on facts. I believe in equal rights and all of that regardless of gender (or any other distinction), but this egalitarian view point is not unique to feminism, even though it claims it is. Just by being a humanist you already subscribe to equality for all, whether or not you self-identify as a feminist.
May I recommend to you, then, the excellent book from Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate", as an introductory text (assuming you haven't read it)?

Which variant of feminism? All of them? To me some variants appear to be isomorphic to humanism, does humanism need skeptical analysis as well? There are branches of feminism that are already fighting tooth and nail with each other because of differing viewpoints (dogmas?) I have always maintained that yes there is sexism and misogyny everywhere, hence of course there are some sexist misogynistic atheists-- but the feminist wars should be fought outside of atheism per se. We should be all be politely agreeing to agree to disagree and fighting our common enemy for now, not forgetting for one moment that there is sexism about even within the ranks, but not using this to divide us but to get us all aware and thinking about it outside of atheism.

I hope I didn't ramble too much...

#1000

Dear Guest,
why not post under your usual internet identity rather than anonymously? I know there is no imperative to do so, but I might be inclined to take your posts as being more than the usual drive-by shit if you were a bit more transparent. Up to you.

#1001

Guest wrote:
rayshul ooooohhhh wrote:My little ranty point up there was to illustrate the background/context of Dawkins comment and my frustration at the way he was treated and scapegoated for a comment that has since been taken largely out of its wider context. I don't have the links, etc, to the past but I've noted that most histories of the event haven't brought this up. Can you appreciate why this is frustrating?
if anything that context makes it worse; Dawkins was going after Watson when it was Watson's critics who were the ones making all the noise and acting like it was a big deal and derailing the conversation from more important matters.

The critics had and still have an important function in pointing out where skeptics are not behaving skeptically, silencing debate and using their platforms to bully out other opinions.
This would be fine if the critics themselves were behaving skeptically instead of making everything personal, creating strawmen (like Dawkins did) to argue against instead of dealing with what people actually say; if they weren't reacting to genuine criticisms of their own behaviour with ridiculous, self serving howls of "censorship" and "bullying" while hypocritically comparing disagreement with their precious opinions to Nazism and laughing about how they'd like to kick those uppity women in the cunt.

It is very unfortunate indeed that the discussion degenerated to that point, arguing about the use of gendered insults and letting that derail the argument. I have stated on here I am not at all comfortable with gendered insults but that also extends to calling people 'dickheads' or even 'don't be a dick'. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I agree, it is very difficult for all of us involved not to descend into tu quoque behaviour and worse, genetic fallacies. Sceptics are not immune to emotion. Regarding censorship, you will not see posts here deleted. Nor will you have a horde of others telling you that you are wrong, just because. You have made some valid points. Let's discuss them as adults.

That's not skepticism, it's childish petulance, and it isn't helping anyone.

I agree. None of this is helping anyone except the theists. I have pointed that out that to me (dammit I'm going to be a double grandmother soon), this entire thing is childish.

It's hard to tell if this is the same guest[/] as before, but if it is, thank you.

#1002

Would you Guest's at least add something to distinguish you lot? You lot are giving me a headache. ; - ) (I detest graphical smilies arghhhh!)

#1003

ERV wrote: If youve just left a church and functionally lost all of your family and friends, can you imagine what a group like this looks like? An oasis. Contrast that with how a lot of skeptic groups meet, loud dark noisy bar where everyone talks about how stupid theists are, and you realize how stupid ignoring emotional needs is.

Ignoring the benefits of emotional connections in skepticism is folly.

Indeed-- you can only relate to someone else over talking about "the other" and how "stupid" they are for so long. After awhile, you've covered the entire spectrum of that subject, and if that's all you had?

The conversation is pretty much over at that point, and you'll more than likely wander off, in search of something else. Anything else....

#1004

.... such as lurking on the Slyme Pit for a week before finally commenting...

#1005

I see the guests are taking advantage of the ability to be anonymous and uncensored to post here. Perhaps they will take these revolutionary new ideas back to where they came from and promote them there. Or perhaps not.

#1006

ERV wrote:Not *quite* true. Ive gotten one threat, along the lines of 'I KNOW WHO YOU ARE I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE I KNOW WHERE YOU WORK' over the XMRV saga.

Yeah granted. I should have specified "with this idiocy that we deal with here". Outside of all of this, I stopped counting death threats last century. Comes with the territory when you humilate maniacs online. But in any case, you either don't bitch about them - or you do something about them. Not bitch about it when forensic traces expire, or use the "it was so horrible I deleted it!" routine - that last one particularly grates with me as I have been subjected to it relentlessly even before any of this, and it is a tactic favoured particularly by the new, new atheists of the Watsonista variety.

#1007

Bob of QF wrote:.... such as lurking on the Slyme Pit for a week before finally commenting...

Hiya Bob. I commented to you over on FB about Topix. The initials for my username on Topix were MfA, if that rings a bell. Welcome! This is a nice place to discuss things calmly and rationally. And it's fun, too! Make yourself at home.

#1008

franc wrote:
Munkhaus wrote:{How do I make the link just a single word?}
You could Read The Fucking Manual - or you can wait for a schmuck like me to hold your dick while you pee. /tech support mode

Like this, it's not all that different to HTML. Type words, highlight selection, click URL button in tool bar. It adds some shit, modify as follows -
Code: Select all
[url=http://www.pusquish.com/pink_gumboots]Gyno-podiatry degree[/url]
NOTE: you DON'T need quotes around URL, and don't forget to add the "=" in the first bit. Preview until you get it right.

That's OK, don't mention it.

Thanks Franc.
And rebuke gratefully accepted.

#1009

Following bhoytony's and dilurk's and others' comments about how nice it would be if guests would use their names (I agree, and would urge them to even - GASP! - register!) I've added a guest avatar as a gentle prod.

It may, of course, provoke howls of outrage, but DILLIGAF?

#1010

If you don't know what it means, google it...

#1011

ERV wrote:
franc wrote:If she means 'appealing to emotion' via crappy art, music, and literature, no. And by 'no', I mean 'NO!! BLEEECH! BLEEEEEEEEEECH!!!!'

Scrolling through the gibberish in that feed, I am pretty confident that's what she meant. Craft workshops making cunts out of cardboard and ribbon to "self-empower". It could also be a subliminal slip - the gas in the tank of FfFB idiocy is "appeal to emotion". Take that away and you have a vacuum.

#1012

franc wrote: Scrolling through the gibberish in that feed, I am pretty confident that's what she meant. Craft workshops making cunts out of cardboard and ribbon to "self-empower".

Or for the less creative, wielding the crayons on [urlhttp://www.amazon.com/dp/B00656415I/]this[/url].

#1013

decius wrote:Her astronomy podcasting is valuable, accessible and competently done. She doesn't let her superstition affect her cosmology, so I've always tolerated her and promoted her work to my friends. More or less the same goes for Plait. I can't stand his accomodationist stances and petulant whiteknighting, but his popularisation of science is sound.

It's a shame to see her falling prey to victimhood complex, all things considered.

Im going to hold off until I see the video, but if she says "Sexual harassment is just part of science" Im going to be very upset.

She might very well have gotten harassment in her field. She might have very well gotten harassment where she has worked/gone to school. She might very well have gotten harassment in her time.

But other fields and other locations and other generations, this isnt true at all.

Harassment might be 'a part of Pamela Gays experiences', but is not in any way shape or form 'a part of science'.

I also think its interesting when women complain like this. The women I interact with, the pioneers in virology, are more focused on how much better the atmosphere is for women today. They are excited for my generation, not claiming 'we dont get it'.

I also dont know why you all think you 'have' to support Gay or Plait because their science posts are good. There are lots of great astronomers out there, some of whom arent douches. SciBlogs has, in my opinion, the best astronomy blogger on the internet, Ethan: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/

#1014

bhoytony wrote:I see the guests are taking advantage of the ability to be anonymous and uncensored to post here. Perhaps they will take these revolutionary new ideas back to where they came from and promote them there. Or perhaps not.

I have absolutely no problem with guests remaining anonymous and uncensored, provided they bring an argument or discussion to the table. We pride ourselves on not censoring after all. If the ideas have merit then let's discuss, like adults, let us not be guilty of the same thing we decry ourselves. There is no reason to pile onto a poster and tell them they are wrong without giving reasoned thought. That is exactly all ERV has always wanted is it not? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I'm happy to let it all be.

What I do not care for is fly by sniping without giving an argument. I don't care who they are as long as I can stop confusing guest from guest.

#1015

Lsuoma wrote:
franc wrote: Scrolling through the gibberish in that feed, I am pretty confident that's what she meant. Craft workshops making cunts out of cardboard and ribbon to "self-empower".
Or for the less creative, wielding the crayons on [urlhttp://www.amazon.com/dp/B00656415I/]this[/url].

HAHAHAHAHA ADMIN FAIL!

#1016

ERV wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
franc wrote: Scrolling through the gibberish in that feed, I am pretty confident that's what she meant. Craft workshops making cunts out of cardboard and ribbon to "self-empower".
Or for the less creative, wielding the crayons on [urlhttp://www.amazon.com/dp/B00656415I/]this[/url].
HAHAHAHAHA ADMIN FAIL!

Ah, feck!!!!

#1017

Incidentally, the only other people to try to censor me via NatGeo, and to hunt down my personal details to contact my university about me have been the insane XMRVers.

I find this to be pretty amazing, frankly. I'm a graduate student also (also in microbiology, but I work on a certain common bacteria we can all easily get if a condom is not worn) and the more I go to meetings and actually interact with people in the field the more I realize just how often people try to get away with shit science and let their egos override any scientific integrity. I've witnessed groups from other countries attempt to copy ideas from people in my university and make them their own, virtually unchanged.

I think the lesson here is that stupid, egotistical, self-interested assholes will be everywhere - even among those who consider themselves to be "rationalists"/"freethinkers", or otherwise claim on a superficial level to be interested in science and the Truth.

This is why I have a strong suspicion that what franc says in this thread about Watson being a chronic liar is the truth - that episode involving the "Cofeelovingskeptic" and Watson lying about what he said to her is enough evidence for me. Similarly, with PZ its all about his ego - he likes being a professional atheist and cult leader to his minions, and all the fame and recognition it gets him that he wouldn't get by just being an associate professor at a lower tier university.

#1018

ERV wrote:
decius wrote:Her astronomy podcasting is valuable, accessible and competently done. She doesn't let her superstition affect her cosmology, so I've always tolerated her and promoted her work to my friends. More or less the same goes for Plait. I can't stand his accomodationist stances and petulant whiteknighting, but his popularisation of science is sound.

It's a shame to see her falling prey to victimhood complex, all things considered.
Im going to hold off until I see the video, but if she says "Sexual harassment is just part of science" Im going to be very upset.

That is her opinion Abbie. I agree with you that "Sexual harassment is just part of science" isn't, but what she could have said is "Sexual harassment is everywhere and I have had some as a scientist" and I would have agreed. She has every right to express an opinion for herself.

She might very well have gotten harassment in her field. She might have very well gotten harassment where she has worked/gone to school. She might very well have gotten harassment in her time.

But other fields and other locations and other generations, this isnt true at all.

Yes indeed.

Harassment might be 'a part of Pamela Gays experiences', but is not in any way shape or form 'a part of science'.

I also think its interesting when women complain like this. The women I interact with, the pioneers in virology, are more focused on how much better the atmosphere is for women today. They are excited for my generation, not claiming 'we dont get it'.

Where I think you and I agree with is, Pamela Gays has every right to express an opinion, she does not have the right to claim her opinion is the same one all of us hold

I also dont know why you all think you 'have' to support Gay or Plait because their science posts are good. There are lots of great astronomers out there, some of whom arent douches. SciBlogs has, in my opinion, the best astronomy blogger on the internet, Ethan: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/

#1019

ERV wrote:
decius wrote:Her astronomy podcasting is valuable, accessible and competently done. She doesn't let her superstition affect her cosmology, so I've always tolerated her and promoted her work to my friends. More or less the same goes for Plait. I can't stand his accomodationist stances and petulant whiteknighting, but his popularisation of science is sound.
...

I also dont know why you all think you 'have' to support Gay or Plait because their science posts are good. There are lots of great astronomers out there, some of whom arent douches. SciBlogs has, in my opinion, the best astronomy blogger on the internet, Ethan: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/

I love his blog as well! I heartily second your recommendation.

#1020

Gumby wrote:
Bob of QF wrote:.... such as lurking on the Slyme Pit for a week before finally commenting...
Hiya Bob. I commented to you over on FB about Topix. The initials for my username on Topix were MfA, if that rings a bell. Welcome! This is a nice place to discuss things calmly and rationally. And it's fun, too! Make yourself at home.

I'm pretty much done with Topix-- I've said what I went there to day, more than once. With an excess of 60,000 comments to my name over there, I've likely said too much, even. Finis.

But I stumbled across this via several other links, and had not realized how shitty ERV had been treated by the [no]FTB crowd, simply because she permitted and encouraged free speech without limits.

/sarcasm: The horror! Free speechifying without placing arbitrary editorial restrictions... when will it stop? /end sarcasm

Once ERV explained how the money works at the various blogging venues? It all became crystal clear. It was obvious why PZ quit blogging about science-- to many little people, science is boooring. But more to the point, science is blind to political discourse. You cannot generate gobs and gobs of traffic by writing about science.

But writing about highly-charged emotional subjects? And deliberately creating schism within groups of people? Well, that can and will generate traffic.

... feeding the bottom line.

Follow the money almost always leads to the real motivation, does it not?