Periodic Table of Swearing

[Scented Nectar]

...Certainly her diversion from the topic for which is paid to elucidate, to that which she knows by heart whilst hammered, is legendary.

But, what truly stuns the crap outta me, is that Dr. Steven Novella has tied a string to his nutsack, attached a stout leather handle to the other end, embossed upon that handle in out-sized capital letters "PROPERTY OF SAINT REBECCA WATSON. YANK AT WILL" and meekly handed it to the parasite without promise of recompense!

I'd bet they once had sex or something. I also imagine that anyone who has had sex with her, feels like they have to play nice around her, for fear the non-assault will turn into a rape/assault/harassment later in her head if she becomes displeased.

[Mykeru]

To Watson, these studies revealed less about the sex-drives of women and more about the gullibility of men: “A beautiful stranger approaches you on the street and asks you for sex and you don’t think it’s a scam?!?”

(my bold)

Which begs the question: "Why are men more susceptible than women to scams offering sex?"

Besides, if Twatson is qualified - intellectually, not necessarily academically - to rebut those scientific studies, why hasn't she published it on journal already?
And, holy fuck, I have known since elevator non-troversy that she has a massive delusion of grandeur, but this really takes a whole new level of arrogance.

I remember seeing a cartoon, I think it was in Mad magazine, showing an Archie Bunker type watching a baseball game. A black player is up at bat. In the first panel the guy says something like "Watch this, N*****s always choke". When the player hits a home run, he says "Well, that's what you get coming from the jungle" or something.

Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing for bigots. Of course, 'Becca knows better. The real findings of that little experiment? It confirms her bigotry:

Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.

And we can write forever on why none of those "skeptics" notice her ad hoc confirmation of her bias and why no one recognizes that bigotry when it's staring them in the face.

[Heintje]

I remember seeing a cartoon, I think it was in Mad magazine, showing an Archie Bunker type watching a baseball game. A black player is up at bat. In the first panel the guy says something like "Watch this, N*****s always choke". When the player hits a home run, he says "Well, that's what you get coming from the jungle" or something.

Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing for bigots. Of course, 'Becca knows better. The real findings of that little experiment? It confirms her bigotry:

Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.

And we can write forever on why none of those "skeptics" notice her ad hoc confirmation of her bias and why no one recognizes that bigotry when it's staring them in the face.

It's not the bigotry towards men that irks me so much. If it turns out that men really are on average more gullible than women, telling it as it is doesn't offend me the least. If there is an elegant, well-supported biological and/or sociological explanation for it, I would even love to hear it. That some people might be offended has no bearing whatsoever on truth.

What pisses me so much is her ideologically-motivated, a priori dismissal of biological explanation for human nature - the same affliction that seems widespread among the liberals. Doubly so when people who claim to accept the theory of evolution so readily dismiss its implication when it doesn't suit their ideology.

[windy]

Review of Watson's talk at Skepticon 5:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofth ... sychology/

Her target today: the dodgy nature of much evolutionary science.

What the fuck is she blathering about now? First I thought it's part of the rant against evolutionary psychology, but it seems it's a different complaint, if this gullible correspondent is correct:

Apparently, it has become ever-more commonplace for marketers to purchase scientific “credibility” for their products by offering a sum of money to PhDs with a more or less relevant qualification to come up with “science” which supports the results the marketers have decided they want in advance.

Why are "skeptics" lapping up recycled creationist claims? If it's "commonplace" where are all these "marketers" offering money to evolutionary scientists? I feel left out...

[Ape+lust]

I just want to express my gratitude for your satire, which has brought me plenty of lulz. I find the Greg-Zvan spoof movie poster especially hilarious. Can't stop chuckling every time Roger Ebert's "Trigger warning!" blurb comes to mind. Trigger warning indeed!

Keep up the good work! :)

Thanks friend, it's much appreciated!

Since I don't really know what I'm doing, the Watsonistas are giving me an education in using GIMP. Bless 'em!

[Ape+lust]

But, what truly stuns the crap outta me, is that Dr. Steven Novella has tied a string to his nutsack, attached a stout leather handle to the other end, embossed upon that handle in out-sized capital letters "PROPERTY OF SAINT REBECCA WATSON. YANK AT WILL" and meekly handed it to the parasite without promise of recompense!

Ah, I was wondering who modelled for these trinkets.

[Gumby]

I remember seeing a cartoon, I think it was in Mad magazine, showing an Archie Bunker type watching a baseball game. A black player is up at bat. In the first panel the guy says something like "Watch this, N*****s always choke". When the player hits a home run, he says "Well, that's what you get coming from the jungle" or something.

Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing for bigots. Of course, 'Becca knows better. The real findings of that little experiment? It confirms her bigotry:

Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.

And we can write forever on why none of those "skeptics" notice her ad hoc confirmation of her bias and why no one recognizes that bigotry when it's staring them in the face.

It's not the bigotry towards men that irks me so much. If it turns out that men really are on average more gullible than women, telling it as it is doesn't offend me the least. If there is an elegant, well-supported biological and/or sociological explanation for it, I would even love to hear it. That some people might be offended has no bearing whatsoever on truth.

What pisses me so much is her ideologically-motivated, a priori dismissal of biological explanation for human nature - the same affliction that seems widespread among the liberals. Doubly so when people who claim to accept the theory of evolution so readily dismiss its implication when it doesn't suit their ideology.

I can only hope that much of her audience started groaning inwardly when she yet again made the real topic of her talk "men are pigs". All she cared about was the implied man-bashing, never mind a possibly well-thought-out and interesting exposition of any science behind that experiment. She carefully left that all out in order to segue into her dead horse "all men are big stupid sex driven mouth-breathers", when she could easily have included at least some hastily-Googled info on the subject. I wonder how many of the "skeptics" in attendance didn't even bat one skeptical eyelash during her nonsense. Probably not many. Oh well, at least she carefully researched her hangover for her speech.

It's no wonder I don't go to these skeptic convention, even free ones like SkeptiCon. Cons seem to be basically just big boozefests that revolve around the same old (mainly D-list) speakers, with interesting, educational and skeptical presentations coming in dead last on the priority list. Maybe that impression is more wrong than right, and maybe I'm missing out, but it's idiots like PZ "Hey, readers, meet us at the Rathskellar, I'm partying with the Skepchicks all night" Myers and Rebecca "I have an uncontrollable urge to brag about my embarrassing alcohol problem in all my speeches" Watson that paint these events as extremely puerile and uninviting.

[real horrorshow]

It's no wonder I don't go to these skeptic convention, even free ones like SkeptiCon. Cons seem to be basically just big boozefests that revolve around the same old (mainly D-list) speakers, with interesting, educational and skeptical presentations coming in dead last on the priority list. Maybe that impression is more wrong than right, and maybe I'm missing out, but it's idiots like PZ "Hey, readers, meet us at the Rathskellar, I'm partying with the Skepchicks all night" Myers and Rebecca "I have an uncontrollable urge to brag about my embarrassing alcohol problem in all my speeches" Watson that paint these events as extremely puerile and uninviting.

It seems like the American Atheism/Scepticism conference scene is just one big frat party.

Yey, someone else is paying! Yey, I got drunk instead of preparing my talk! Yey [insert ignorant prejudice presented as fact for sycophants to applaud]! Grow the fuck up, there's real work to be done!

[Mykeru]

I remember seeing a cartoon, I think it was in Mad magazine, showing an Archie Bunker type watching a baseball game. A black player is up at bat. In the first panel the guy says something like "Watch this, N*****s always choke". When the player hits a home run, he says "Well, that's what you get coming from the jungle" or something.

Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing for bigots. Of course, 'Becca knows better. The real findings of that little experiment? It confirms her bigotry:

Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.

And we can write forever on why none of those "skeptics" notice her ad hoc confirmation of her bias and why no one recognizes that bigotry when it's staring them in the face.

It's not the bigotry towards men that irks me so much. If it turns out that men really are on average more gullible than women, telling it as it is doesn't offend me the least. If there is an elegant, well-supported biological and/or sociological explanation for it, I would even love to hear it. That some people might be offended has no bearing whatsoever on truth.

What pisses me so much is her ideologically-motivated, a priori dismissal of biological explanation for human nature - the same affliction that seems widespread among the liberals. Doubly so when people who claim to accept the theory of evolution so readily dismiss its implication when it doesn't suit their ideology.

I can only hope that much of her audience started groaning inwardly when she yet again made the real topic of her talk "men are pigs". All she cared about was the implied man-bashing, never mind a possibly well-thought-out and interesting exposition of any science behind that experiment. She carefully left that all out in order to segue into her dead horse "all men are big stupid sex driven mouth-breathers", when she could easily have included at least some hastily-Googled info on the subject. I wonder how many of the "skeptics" in attendance didn't even bat one skeptical eyelash during her nonsense. Probably not many. Oh well, at least she carefully researched her hangover for her speech.

It's no wonder I don't go to these skeptic convention, even free ones like SkeptiCon. Cons seem to be basically just big boozefests that revolve around the same old (mainly D-list) speakers, with interesting, educational and skeptical presentations coming in dead last on the priority list. Maybe that impression is more wrong than right, and maybe I'm missing out, but it's idiots like PZ "Hey, readers, meet us at the Rathskellar, I'm partying with the Skepchicks all night" Myers and Rebecca "I have an uncontrollable urge to brag about my embarrassing alcohol problem in all my speeches" Watson that paint these events as extremely puerile and uninviting.

1. I wonder why the female supremacy horseshit isn't enough to irk some people. I, wait, I don't wonder.

2. I mentioned Elisabeth Cornwell previously for the reason that she's kind of the anti-Becca. Rather than Rebecca Watson basically playing Rush Limbaugh, whose entire career has been doing unopposed monologues and stopped having anyone near who could call him on anything after he got his ass handed to him, I would pay good money to see Watson actually debate someone like Cornwell, an evolutionary biologist, or anyone else for that matter.

One of the practical aims of the Skepchick wilting flower routine is to ensure they can spout nonsense unopposed and should anyone rise as a real threat, in terms of criticism, they can count on as being portrayed as a real threat, as in restraining orders.

Start taking names so in the future we can remind people of their cowardice and lack of skepticism.

[Gumby]

It seems like the American Atheism/Scepticism conference scene is just one big frat party.

Yey, someone else is paying! Yey, I got drunk instead of preparing my talk! Yey [insert ignorant prejudice presented as fact for sycophants to applaud]! Grow the fuck up, there's real work to be done!

Well, I have to admit a certain bias. I'm a former falling-down drunk of 20+ years who has been 100% sober for the last 8 1/2. Mind you, I have no problem with people drinking alcohol in the normal sense. But I have developed a certain revulsion for people who think that getting drunk, acting like a total fool in public, and waking up in a pool of their own vomit wondering what the hell happened the night before is not only fun, cool and cute, but a lifestyle to be bragged about and promoted as the way to live. Frat party, as you say. People will drink, and people will get drunk. Human nature. My problem is with the promotion of boozing oneself into a coma by the main speakers on the (OK, American) atheist/skeptic conference circuit. PZ, Watson et al. are the ones who are constantly yammering about getting shitfaced and how great it is. They're the ones who dominate (and often organize) all the extracurricular activities, so all activities end up being about gin-swilling. No wonder that by the time the actual presentations start every day, everyone's either still drunk or hung over and don't really give a shit how on-point or concise the speeches are.

[Gumby]

Start taking names so in the future we can remind people of their cowardice and lack of skepticism.

All hail the Slimepit! For that is the reason for its existence.

[Ape+lust]

It's no wonder I don't go to these skeptic convention, even free ones like SkeptiCon. Cons seem to be basically just big boozefests that revolve around the same old (mainly D-list) speakers, with interesting, educational and skeptical presentations coming in dead last on the priority list. Maybe that impression is more wrong than right...

No, I think you're right. They're lazy motherfuckers. The joke is, they're expecting to supplant the "2nd wave" atheists with schmoozing, boozing, and nickel and dime speeches. The New Atheists made their bones taking on their opponents directly, which takes conviction, intellectual rigor, and nimbleness, qualities the Watsonistas aren't interested in. Hitchens would fly out to your podunk town and debate YOU, if you were foolish enough to ask. Who has Watson ever debated? The closest she came that I know of was a videocast with Ann Althouse, which happened because she was the only person alive who didn't know Althouse is a conservative nutter.

[superhamzah85]

I'm new, what's this place about exactly? I was banned after a coupla hours on a+

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 0&start=50

username: posthuman

I went in, pretending to be somewhat ignorant...when in fact, I hated them, but wanted to justify my hatred by being reasonable.

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

[Gumby]

It's no wonder I don't go to these skeptic convention, even free ones like SkeptiCon. Cons seem to be basically just big boozefests that revolve around the same old (mainly D-list) speakers, with interesting, educational and skeptical presentations coming in dead last on the priority list. Maybe that impression is more wrong than right...

No, I think you're right. They're lazy motherfuckers. The joke is, they're expecting to supplant the "2nd wave" atheists with schmoozing, boozing, and nickel and dime speeches. The New Atheists made their bones taking on their opponents directly, which takes conviction, intellectual rigor, and nimbleness, qualities the Watsonistas aren't interested in. Hitchens would fly out to your podunk town and debate YOU, if you were foolish enough to ask. Who has Watson ever debated? The closest she came that I know of was a videocast with Ann Althouse, which happened because she was the only person alive who didn't know Althouse is a conservative nutter.

Exactly. There is no sense of intellectualism, quickness of wit, or even humor from these self-proclaimed "third wavers". These people mask their total lack of intellect and charisma by drowning everything in booze and propaganda, then proceed to flim-flam their audiences and blog readers with material utterly lacking in substance. Watching the special-ed students commandeer the advanced-placement class and saying "Now we're gonna show you how it's done" is quite depressing. No wonder Dawkins has made it clear the disdain he has for these ill-behaved, stupid drunken children.

[Mykeru]

Well, I have to admit a certain bias. I'm a former falling-down drunk of 20+ years who has been 100% sober for the last 8 1/2.

I don't drink anymore because it's not how much you drink, it's what happens to you when you drink. Frankly, I don't miss it. I was always the sort if I had four beers I felt shitty the next day. I certainly don't miss hanging out with drunks, who are invariably tedious fuckers. The absolute worst reason to drink is so other people's annoying drunken antics are tolerable.

Of course, she benefits greatly from beer goggles, dumpy-frumpy fucker that she is.

Also, I dislike bars and the boozy phony pretense of it all. I wonder how much of Watson's socially retarded attitude towards gender issues is from her thinking everything she ever need to know about life she learned in bars?

And, as I say, it's all fun and games until detox, which is exactly where some of these people are heading. And if you've ever seen some guy strapped to a gurney, wearing a diaper and dick-tubes, dosed on enough Ativan to drop a rhino but still screaming, fucked beyond belief with "wet brain" (Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome) who should be shot out of mercy, it makes you appreciate how nasty alcohol can be. Especially as the people who accrue that much thiamine-deficient brain damage are invariably respectable "functional alcoholics".

Every now and then I pick up my copy of "Under the Influence, Myths and Realities of Alcoholism" to brush up.

I brought it up on Reap's show and brought it up here, but the subject never gets any traction, and that is the white elephant in the room of the community right now, isn't harassment, it's alcohol abuse. Either the purpose of skeptical conferences is to maintain the frat lifestyle among the cliquely, and the purpose of the over-the-shoulder policies is, perhaps on a subconscious level, is so irresponsible women-children can get completely fucking blotto in a consequence-free manner.

So these speakers are giving talks where they discuss how shit faced they were? Really?

How about some trigger warnings for alcoholics? You think there might be some alcoholics in recovery that might not want to be exposed to that shit?

[Gumby]

I'm new, what's this place about exactly? I was banned after a coupla hours on a+

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 0&start=50

username: posthuman

I went in, pretending to be somewhat ignorant...when in fact, I hated them, but wanted to justify my hatred by being reasonable.

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

Well, the A+ forum seems to be down at the moment so I have no idea what went down, but the Slimepit is the place to be if you want to have a good laugh at the expense of those pretentious stunted wankers (as well as the idiots at FtB and Skepchick). Welcome.

[franc]

...Certainly her diversion from the topic for which is paid to elucidate, to that which she knows by heart whilst hammered, is legendary.

But, what truly stuns the crap outta me, is that Dr. Steven Novella has tied a string to his nutsack, attached a stout leather handle to the other end, embossed upon that handle in out-sized capital letters "PROPERTY OF SAINT REBECCA WATSON. YANK AT WILL" and meekly handed it to the parasite without promise of recompense!

I'd bet they once had sex or something. I also imagine that anyone who has had sex with her, feels like they have to play nice around her, for fear the non-assault will turn into a rape/assault/harassment later in her head if she becomes displeased.

Which feeds nicely into the "EG is PZ" conspiracy theory. Maybe it was Myers grovelling for one more spurt into the pink cottage cheese, and she put him in his place forever with the bonus of the perpetual threat of full disclosure.

[Mykeru]

I'm new, what's this place about exactly? I was banned after a coupla hours on a+

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 0&start=50

username: posthuman

I went in, pretending to be somewhat ignorant...when in fact, I hated them, but wanted to justify my hatred by being reasonable.

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

I wouldn't know. I would have to have been a member of that forum to have been banned from it. What made you think all that was a good idea?

[superhamzah85]

I'm new, what's this place about exactly? I was banned after a coupla hours on a+

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 0&start=50

username: posthuman

I went in, pretending to be somewhat ignorant...when in fact, I hated them, but wanted to justify my hatred by being reasonable.

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

I wouldn't know. I would have to have been a member of that forum to have been banned from it. What made you think all that was a good idea?

In order for my hatred to be scientifically justified, the data from the experiments had to be demonstrably repeatable.

[Dilurk]

I watched this nonsense on twitter.

http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... ystevens-9

saramayhew seems somewhat sane.

[franc]

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

This isn't a safe place for anybody. You live or die by your own words and (in)ability to support them. Personally, I'd be hard pressed to write an intro that reeked any more of being a baboon mole or a drive-by attention whore, but hey, I won't rush to judgement just yet.

[superhamzah85]

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

This isn't a safe place for anybody. You live or die by your own words and (in)ability to support them. Personally, I'd be hard pressed to write an intro that reeked any more of being a baboon mole or a drive-by attention whore, but hey, I won't rush to judgement just yet.

You were so close you ooze of cunt slime, I am in a fact a baboon whore, 2/4 - not bad. ;)

[Gumby]

I don't drink anymore because it's not how much you drink, it's what happens to you when you drink. Frankly, I don't miss it. I was always the sort if I had four beers I felt shitty the next day.

I was always the sort if I had half a bottle of Jack Daniels and a twelve-pack to wash it down I felt shitty the next day. And I always felt shitty the next day. Every day.

I certainly don't miss hanging out with drunks, who are invariably tedious fuckers. The absolute worst reason to drink is so other people's annoying drunken antics are tolerable.

I know what you mean. I used to be a bartender and that is the only way I could deal with the drunks - get as drunk as they did.

Also, I dislike bars and the boozy phony pretense of it all. I wonder how much of Watson's socially retarded attitude towards gender issues is from her thinking everything she ever need to know about life she learned in bars?

Bars are in no way indicative of real life. If Watson's warped ideas of males, and male/female interaction, are derived entirely from the bar scene, then it's no wonder her worldview is as fucked up as it is.

And, as I say, it's all fun and games until detox, which is exactly where some of these people are heading. And if you've ever seen some guy strapped to a gurney, wearing a diaper and dick-tubes, dosed on enough Ativan to drop a rhino but still screaming, fucked beyond belief with "wet brain" (Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome) who should be shot out of mercy, it makes you appreciate how nasty alcohol can be. Especially as the people who accrue that much thiamine-deficient brain damage are invariably respectable "functional alcoholics".

Thankfully I never got to that point, but I have known a few people that did. Except for one, they are all dead now. That's one of the reasons I decided to quit drinking... I got tired of attending the funerals of friends and noticing how much healthier they looked lying in the casket than they ever did when they were alive.

I brought it up on Reap's show and brought it up here, but the subject never gets any traction, and that is the white elephant in the room of the community right now, isn't harassment, it's alcohol abuse. Either the purpose of skeptical conferences is to maintain the frat lifestyle among the cliquely, and the purpose of the over-the-shoulder policies is, perhaps on a subconscious level, is so irresponsible women-children can get completely fucking blotto in a consequence-free manner.

Nail, meet hammer. Given the extremely dubious character of the people in atheism and skepticism who cry"Harassment!!!" all the time, I remain extremely skeptical that there is as big of a problem as they constantly carp about. But if there is a harassment problem in the atheist/skeptic scene that statistically exceeds the harassment in the general population, it's because of the alcohol. They promote a lushy, boozy, bar-scene lifestyle, and then piss and moan if someone asks them for coffee in an elevator. How they don't see the connection is amazing to me. I remember when I was at my worst with alcohol, paranoia was something I lived with every day. No wonder these sodden motherfuckers see rapists behind every telephone pole.

So these speakers are giving talks where they discuss how shit faced they were? Really?

How about some trigger warnings for alcoholics? You think there might be some alcoholics in recovery that might not want to be exposed to that shit?

Which is why it is highly unlikely I will ever attend one of these things, even if the presentations were wonderful. As you said earlier, there's nothing more annoying than a group of drunks. In a very real way, the obnoxious drunken children who dominate these conferences are flat-out discriminating against people who don't want to be subjected to drunken boorishness. Where's the policy covering that type of harassment?

[Ape+lust]

I watched this nonsense on twitter.

http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... ystevens-9

saramayhew seems somewhat sane.

Sara Mayhew was the one Melody Hensley and Surly Amy were gang-snarking on on Twitter, just days after Amy had spewed tears and snot over "mean" t-shirts and "fake" ceramic baubles.

[Gumby]

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

This isn't a safe place for anybody. You live or die by your own words and (in)ability to support them. Personally, I'd be hard pressed to write an intro that reeked any more of being a baboon mole or a drive-by attention whore, but hey, I won't rush to judgement just yet.

Yeah, my spidey sense was tingling as well, but unlike FtB, everyone gets a fair shake here, is my motto...

[Blorb]

I watched this nonsense on twitter.

http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... ystevens-9

saramayhew seems somewhat sane.

She is very sane. And I guess it should come as no surprise that she was previously targeted by the Skepchick/CFI-DC attack squad, and was accused by them of being something along the lines of a chill girl who does it all to be famous with teh boys.

http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.ph ... skepchick/

[superhamzah85]

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

This isn't a safe place for anybody. You live or die by your own words and (in)ability to support them. Personally, I'd be hard pressed to write an intro that reeked any more of being a baboon mole or a drive-by attention whore, but hey, I won't rush to judgement just yet.

Yeah, my spidey sense was tingling as well, but unlike FtB, everyone gets a fair shake here, is my motto...

Ugh you paranoid burgers!

https://www.youtube.com/user/superhamza ... d?filter=2

That's my account. Judge from my acitivity.

Oh yeah, I stole the name, anyone can do that I suppose, you paranoid ______



See latest comment.

Do I pass now?

[Gumby]

I watched this nonsense on twitter.

http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... ystevens-9

saramayhew seems somewhat sane.

Sara Mayhew was the one Melody Hensley and Surly Amy were gang-snarking on on Twitter, just days after Amy had spewed tears and snot over "mean" t-shirts and "fake" ceramic baubles.

I love how, when Sara Mayhew insisted on sticking to what she actually said instead of what words the others were trying to put in her mouth, Sally Syringe accused of her of getting too semantic. Typical baboon arguing technique.

[Gumby]

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

This isn't a safe place for anybody. You live or die by your own words and (in)ability to support them. Personally, I'd be hard pressed to write an intro that reeked any more of being a baboon mole or a drive-by attention whore, but hey, I won't rush to judgement just yet.

Yeah, my spidey sense was tingling as well, but unlike FtB, everyone gets a fair shake here, is my motto...

Ugh you paranoid burgers!

https://www.youtube.com/user/superhamza ... d?filter=2

That's my account. Judge from my acitivity.

Oh yeah, I stole the name, anyone can do that I suppose, you paranoid ______



See latest comment.

Do I pass now?

Who cares?

[superhamzah85]

Yeah, new member, 2 people suspect I'm a mole, despite my first post basically saying I'm here because I mole'd on a+ and got banned.

Worst/best mole strategy ever?

[Gumby]

I watched this nonsense on twitter.

http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... ystevens-9

saramayhew seems somewhat sane.

She is very sane. And I guess it should come as no surprise that she was previously targeted by the Skepchick/CFI-DC attack squad, and was accused by them of being something along the lines of a chill girl who does it all to be famous with teh boys.

http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.ph ... skepchick/

From that blog post:

CFI-DC Executive Director, Melody Hensley chimes in to proclaim that I get my speaking gigs by sucking up to “boys” and attacking Skepchicks. This is the kind of attitude I’m tired of seeing. I don’t disagree that harassment happens, I disagree that name-calling, line drawing, and demonizing is a helpful approach to the issue. In fact, I think it’s harmful. I haven’t attacked, belittled, teased, or treated Amy, Melody, or any other voice in the discussion as my enemy that I can justify being mean to. But their tweets show that they believe I deserve their malicious remarks.

Yeah, she's sane. Sanity is verboten and must be stamped out by the true leaders of the Glorious Third Wave!

[Ape+lust]

I love how, when Sara Mayhew insisted on sticking to what she actually said instead of what words the others were trying to put in her mouth, Sally Syringe accused of her of getting too semantic. Typical baboon arguing technique.

Yeah, she was hyperskeptical about what others were saying she was saying... or something. Gawd, these brats are so full of themselves. They can't be unaware of what they're doing.

[Scented Nectar]

...Certainly her diversion from the topic for which is paid to elucidate, to that which she knows by heart whilst hammered, is legendary.

But, what truly stuns the crap outta me, is that Dr. Steven Novella has tied a string to his nutsack, attached a stout leather handle to the other end, embossed upon that handle in out-sized capital letters "PROPERTY OF SAINT REBECCA WATSON. YANK AT WILL" and meekly handed it to the parasite without promise of recompense!

I'd bet they once had sex or something. I also imagine that anyone who has had sex with her, feels like they have to play nice around her, for fear the non-assault will turn into a rape/assault/harassment later in her head if she becomes displeased.

Which feeds nicely into the "EG is PZ" conspiracy theory. Maybe it was Myers grovelling for one more spurt into the pink cottage cheese, and she put him in his place forever with the bonus of the perpetual threat of full disclosure.

That wouldn't surprise me. And it would explain his complete, faithful, and unquestioning backing of all her irrational whinings.

[Gumby]

Yeah, new member, 2 people suspect I'm a mole, despite my first post basically saying I'm here because I mole'd on a+ and got banned.

Worst/best mole strategy ever?

I'd go with "worst", so far.

[Scented Nectar]

Is this is a safe place for banned a+ users?

Well, it's safe from the FTBers, the skepchicks, and A+ers' censoring powers of deletion, denial of reality and other similar stuff.

[welch]

Review of Watson's talk at Skepticon 5:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofth ... sychology/

Rebecca Watson of Skepchick is a marvel: extremely funny, always-knowledgeable, and seemingly on top of all the latest developments in the relationship between science and culture. I pity any scientist or pseudo-scientist who finds themselves on the end of her wit-skewer. She has a way of piercing nonsense with a smile and a wink which is utterly irresistible.

Her target today: the dodgy nature of much evolutionary science.

It's the fawning review of an acolyte, but still:

However, I’m not sure her criticism was entirely fair here: evolutionary psychology comes in many forms, not all of which are as simplistic as the examples she was criticizing tonight.

Seems it was mostly superficially spinned second-hand stuff:

This shifted smoothly into a commentary on our sexist society, via a series of strange studies in which attractive members of each sex stopped passers-by on the street and asked them if they’d be willing to go have sex with them. Finding that hardly any women accepted such a proposal, and that most men did, the researchers erroneously concluded that women are less interested in sex – without considering any of the social pressures which encourage men and women to act differently. To Watson, these studies revealed less about the sex-drives of women and more about the gullibility of men: “A beautiful stranger approaches you on the street and asks you for sex and you don’t think it’s a scam?!?”

Hey, she seems to have stopped giving the elevatorgate talk over and over, and to have returned to giving the talks people came to see, so good on her for that.

[Gumby]

I love how, when Sara Mayhew insisted on sticking to what she actually said instead of what words the others were trying to put in her mouth, Sally Syringe accused of her of getting too semantic. Typical baboon arguing technique.

Yeah, she was hyperskeptical about what others were saying she was saying... or something. Gawd, these brats are so full of themselves. They can't be unaware of what they're doing.

I've always wondered the same thing about really religious people - fundies, Ken Ham-level creationists, that type. Can they really be so oblivious? Can they be that ignorant of simple reality and facts? Are they really that devoid of reasoning skills? Do they really believe what they say as much as they try to convince others they do? Is cognitive dissonance really that powerful? I've never really been able to make up my mind, but in general, I think that the followers - the rabble, the sheep, the mindless sycophants - tend to be more sucked in to the True Believer mentality... whereas the movers and shakers, the Ken Hams and Pat Robertsons et al, are more savvy and educated, tend to know at a much more conscious level that their beliefs are bullshit. At their level, it's all about the power and money, and it becomes fraud and charlatanry. Feel free to apply those observations to the atheist/skeptic community and the FtB/Skepchick/A+ types that are trying to commandeer it.

[superhamzah85]

Welcome to the birth of religion.

If Atheism+ has taught us anything, it's how religions form. Taking whatever contemporaneous ideas seem good, and then setting them in stone as TRUTH. Enter blasphemy, dogma, heresy, excommunication and a whole range of lovely fallacies, from confirmation bias, slippery slope fallacies, generalizations, and downright lies.

[Dilurk]

Yeah, new member, 2 people suspect I'm a mole, despite my first post basically saying I'm here because I mole'd on a+ and got banned.

Worst/best mole strategy ever?

I personally don't care. I'll judge you by your arguments and how well you back them up with cold hard evidence. If that bothers you then this is not the place for you. Otherwise, welcome to the pit.

[Gumby]

Jeez... patheic, mindless groveling hits a new low. Whoda thunkit, coming from that bastion of cold reason and skepticism that is the A+Theism forum?

Rebecca - I unreservedly apologise for all the hate that you have received and assure you that you shall not receive any in the future from me. I cannot speak for others unfortunately, but would urge them to do the same too. This is the second time in eight years I have done this and hope it is the last too. I do not expect you to forgive me, but I am genuine in my contrition and would also like to say that I am now more aware and open minded on all matters feminist than I was before - yours - surreptitious57

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 432#p42432

He even gave his real name, which I deleted for the purposes of this post. The priests and priestesses are grooming their flock well.

[welch]

To Watson, these studies revealed less about the sex-drives of women and more about the gullibility of men: “A beautiful stranger approaches you on the street and asks you for sex and you don’t think it’s a scam?!?”

(my bold)

Which begs the question: "Why are men more susceptible than women to scams offering sex?"

Besides, if Twatson is qualified - intellectually, not necessarily academically - to rebut those scientific studies, why hasn't she published it on journal already?
And, holy fuck, I have known since elevator non-troversy that she has a massive delusion of grandeur, but this really takes a whole new level of arrogance.

It's interesting she thinks the only possible reason it could happen is a scam, or that men must be gullible.

[dustbubble]

She's openly flaunting self-mutilating behaviour, which is a clear symptom of a one or multiple severe personality disorder(s), regardless of how one looks at it.
Who would want to be her patient in a life-or-death decision involving amputation?

She said in an earlier post that psychologically she has a hard time feeling like she's in her body. Just to feel more like she's in her body, she once did that thing where she was suspended from the ceiling being held up by dozens and dozens of piercings. She hoped that the pain, being a strong physical sensation would make her feel more like she's in her body or some such thing.

Personality disorder not so much. Something's up, though, by the looks of it.
I'd start poking around to see what other possible Autistic Spectrum tells she manifests. This one sounds like "hypotactility"

A child with hypotactility may look for opportunities to experience “touch” by banging their head against the wall, biting themselves, playing roughly with other children or toys, hugging tightly and wearing tight clothes. They may also love having lots of blankets on their bed, to give them a feeling of weight, and also love chewing or sucking on things. Parents and carers will need to be aware that such a child may hurt themselves, even breaking a bone, without feeling it.

which is often hooked up with proprioception and dyspraxia.
It's to do with developmental disorders and the nervous system, I believe.
Although as with most attempts at systematising these puzzling symptoms it mostly seems to be guessing (and highly dependent on the particular specialism of the investigator! Who'd a thunk it?)
(remember, IANAdoc, although I'm much better than any medic at chopping off stray wiggly bits of meat).

OTOH it might mean she's shit-hot at passing exams (of a certain format).
A flatmate described their sawbones finals to me as " like sitting a hundred O-levels, back-to-back ".
So prolly a very good medic, as she may well have a fantastic (syndromey) memory. [I guess, ofc.]

The "feelings" thing is only a danger to herself, as (naturally) it's All About Her. I wouldn't be too alarmed to find her on the ward inspecting the result of any particularly stupid act of clumsiness/tiredness I'd inflicted on myself.
I suspect she may have a hard time understanding that other people have "feelings" at all, and differing ones at that, if I've guessed right.. Poor sod.

I wonder if she's in the market for a nested set of french-polished, silk-lined mini-caskets?
Are there a lot of these people in the USinsania? Self-editors.
Nice figured hardwood, cute little engraved nameplate, silver or brass; aromatic cedar lining, or camphor-wood .. I'll even do lead (within reason). If they freeze-dry the offending member, no reason they couldn't stack them on the mantelshelf. Bring 'em out at Halloween, and give the neighbours' kids a traditional surprise ..

[Gumby]

This is the last post made by our new member "superhamzah85" before being banned from the A+ forum (posting as "posthuman"):

what do u say 2 a woman with 2 black eyes?

nothing, uve already told her twice

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 615#p42615

Looks like we've got a real winner here, folks....

http://chzderp.files.wordpress.com/2010 ... uuuurp.jpg

[mutleyeng]

Listening to Rebecca when she was in a non 'jokey panelist' role and you rapidly figured out a problem. Basically she doesn't know enough of the science she is covering. She came across as an amateur and even the humor, when she hasn't the Novellas to riff against, was very poor.
I suspect that Rebecca finally realized this same problem, hence last years switch to feminism rather than scientific skepticism.

very true.
If anyone listens to RW skepticon talk, just fast forward to the one question she took at the end. It said it all.
I have to paraphrase, but it was along the lines of:
Q - Is there any aspect of evolutionary psychology that can be taken as serious science
A - (exaggerated shrug) - I donno....maybe? ...if there is its probably really boring

all she did was conflate shitty pseudo science market research used by PR companies in mainstream media with evolutionary psychology so that should could dismiss anything it ever may have to say that might not fit with her world view.

[Gumby]

Q - Is there any aspect of evolutionary psychology that can be taken as serious science
A - (exaggerated shrug) - I donno....maybe? ...if there is its probably really boring

Rebecca Watson - dispelling myths about why women aren't good at or interested in science since... well, never.

[Katamari Damassi]

And just to be clear again, I am not criticising her decision to to the amputations (it's her body, she can do what she likes with it.) I am criticising the blog posts that are deliberately misleading, for reasons only stated at the end of the second comment section. The initial post seems to be describing the results of an accident or medical condition (as implied by the title "God smote my toes") and many of the commenters respond thinking just that - only to receive an evasive snarky reply in return.

Well, mate, I am criticising it. I am also loudly questioning her psychological fitness to "work in the field as a clinician" and to perform in a professional and deontological manner.

She's openly flaunting self-mutilating behaviour, which is a clear symptom of a one or multiple severe personality disorder(s), regardless of how one looks at it.

Who would want to be her patient in a life-or-death decision involving amputation?

She said in an earlier post that psychologically she has a hard time feeling like she's in her body. Just to feel more like she's in her body, she once did that thing where she was suspended from the ceiling being held up by dozens and dozens of piercings. She hoped that the pain, being a strong physical sensation would make her feel more like she's in her body or some such thing.

But was she able feel JT in her body?

[d4m10n]

Which begs the question: "Why are men more susceptible than women to scams offering sex?"

Could be that men (until very recently) took on relatively little risk in a casual sexual encounter, whereas women risked a massive investment in time and resources. Oh, wait that's evo-psy. Must cast about for an explanation rooted in the far more scientifically grounded Patriarchy Theory.

[superhamzah85]

This is the last post made by our new member "superhamzah85" before being banned from the A+ forum (posting as "posthuman"):

No that post was after my 24 hour ban was over, then I posted that to get permanent ban on purpose. My way of asking to be to be removed.

I was banned 24h because a moderator wasn't going to back until a few days later, so to be safe, I was banned. I thought that was ridiculous.

[Gumby]

Gotta love it:

http://i50.tinypic.com/o9fp12.jpg

Hey, who let those two lowlife scum non-moderators post?

[Lsuoma]

This isn't a safe place for anybody. You live or die by your own words and (in)ability to support them. Personally, I'd be hard pressed to write an intro that reeked any more of being a baboon mole or a drive-by attention whore, but hey, I won't rush to judgement just yet.

My immediate impression too...

[Ape+lust]

I've always wondered the same thing about really religious people - fundies, Ken Ham-level creationists, that type. Can they really be so oblivious? Can they be that ignorant of simple reality and facts? Are they really that devoid of reasoning skills? Do they really believe what they say as much as they try to convince others they do? Is cognitive dissonance really that powerful? I've never really been able to make up my mind, but in general, I think that the followers - the rabble, the sheep, the mindless sycophants - tend to be more sucked in to the True Believer mentality... whereas the movers and shakers, the Ken Hams and Pat Robertsons et al, are more savvy and educated, tend to know at a much more conscious level that their beliefs are bullshit. At their level, it's all about the power and money, and it becomes fraud and charlatanry. Feel free to apply those observations to the atheist/skeptic community and the FtB/Skepchick/A+ types that are trying to commandeer it.

I dunno what goes on in their heads, but it seems to me that if you make faith the paramount virtue, you're pretty well armored against dissonance. It'll happen, but so what. And if you can't quite muster the certainty of faith, faith in faith is just as good. Which makes the religious mindset a hall of mirrors with no exit. So, a Pat Robertson might not believe most of what he says, might know he's a devious shit, as long as he wants to believe, or wants to want to believe, he can be certain what he's doing is divinely blessed. That's my guess, anyway.

I wince when I hear PZ Myers assert that progressivism is the inevitable result of atheist rationalism. That's just faith. It'd be nice if it were true, since I'm on the left, but PZ is only mirroring what Objectivists have been saying for as long as they've been around. He should call Francis Fukuyama and ask how he's doing nowadays.

[Git]

I used to be a regular listener to the 'Skeptics Guide to the Universe' and had got used to Watson as one of the jokey sidekicks on the panel. In the first few years of SGU she had little or no interest in her current brand of feminism. Indeed the 'skepchicks' gained their fame in the skeptic community not for anything scientific they managed to produce but for their organization of conference parties that attracted big name skeptics, like Penn.
It's rather ironic that they are leading the attack on 'chill girls' when their own behavior is about the best example of such activities you can imagine (a fancy dress party at TAM where the women are meant to dress as prostitutes...? Really?)
Anyway, I had no problem with Rebecca prior to elevatorgate and even followed her activities when she went to live in England and had some involvement with podcasts based there (both the 'Little Atoms' podcast and her own one whose name I forget)
Listening to Rebecca when she was in a non 'jokey panelist' role and you rapidly figured out a problem. Basically she doesn't know enough of the science she is covering. She came across as an amateur and even the humor, when she hasn't the Novellas to riff against, was very poor.
I suspect that Rebecca finally realized this same problem, hence last years switch to feminism rather than scientific skepticism.
Now that she has a platform for speaking this problem is only going to become more apparent when she starts talking about her own area of genuine expertise (which seems to be "why I hate dorks trying to chat me up".)

Pretty much my trajectory with Twatson too, Dick.

[Ape+lust]

This is the last post made by our new member "superhamzah85" before being banned from the A+ forum (posting as "posthuman"):

what do u say 2 a woman with 2 black eyes?

nothing, uve already told her twice

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 615#p42615

Looks like we've got a real winner here, folks....

Trigger warning? Doesn't "really vile sexist 'joke'" tell you everything you need to know?

Man, they're reeeally attached to their buzzwords.

[Jan Steen]

Jeez... patheic, mindless groveling hits a new low. Whoda thunkit, coming from that bastion of cold reason and skepticism that is the A+Theism forum?

Rebecca - I unreservedly apologise for all the hate that you have received and assure you that you shall not receive any in the future from me. I cannot speak for others unfortunately, but would urge them to do the same too. This is the second time in eight years I have done this and hope it is the last too. I do not expect you to forgive me, but I am genuine in my contrition and would also like to say that I am now more aware and open minded on all matters feminist than I was before - yours - surreptitious57

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 432#p42432

He even gave his real name, which I deleted for the purposes of this post. The priests and priestesses are grooming their flock well.

This is uncannily similar to the stalinist concept of self-criticism.

Self-criticism is a specific method, a Bolshevik method, of training the forces of the Party and of the working class generally in the spirit of revolutionary development.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /06/26.htm

[superhamzah85]

By the way, that joke was APPROVED first and THEN hidden. My posts were subject to review at this time. I don't get the trigger warnings thing :/ why approve it?

[Al Stefanelli]

I updated the links page on my website. In addition to a spot on the link block for AVfM and TGMP, I added adding a nice, big, linked banner ad for the Slymepit.

http://www.alstefanelli.com/slymelink.jpg

[Candyguitar]

To Watson, these studies revealed less about the sex-drives of women and more about the gullibility of men: “A beautiful stranger approaches you on the street and asks you for sex and you don’t think it’s a scam?!?”

(my bold)

Which begs the question: "Why are men more susceptible than women to scams offering sex?"

Besides, if Twatson is qualified - intellectually, not necessarily academically - to rebut those scientific studies, why hasn't she published it on journal already?
And, holy fuck, I have known since elevator non-troversy that she has a massive delusion of grandeur, but this really takes a whole new level of arrogance.

It's interesting she thinks the only possible reason it could happen is a scam, or that men must be gullible.

TBH, it would've never occurred to me to view it as a potential scam; there's not much risk aside from some wasted time.

[real horrorshow]

It seems like the American Atheism/Scepticism conference scene is just one big frat party.

Yey, someone else is paying! Yey, I got drunk instead of preparing my talk! Yey [insert ignorant prejudice presented as fact for sycophants to applaud]! Grow the fuck up, there's real work to be done!

Well, I have to admit a certain bias. I'm a former falling-down drunk of 20+ years who has been 100% sober for the last 8 1/2. Mind you, I have no problem with people drinking alcohol in the normal sense. But I have developed a certain revulsion for people who think that getting drunk, acting like a total fool in public, and waking up in a pool of their own vomit wondering what the hell happened the night before is not only fun, cool and cute, but a lifestyle to be bragged about and promoted as the way to live. Frat party, as you say. People will drink, and people will get drunk. Human nature. My problem is with the promotion of boozing oneself into a coma by the main speakers on the (OK, American) atheist/skeptic conference circuit. PZ, Watson et al. are the ones who are constantly yammering about getting shitfaced and how great it is. They're the ones who dominate (and often organize) all the extracurricular activities, so all activities end up being about gin-swilling. No wonder that by the time the actual presentations start every day, everyone's either still drunk or hung over and don't really give a shit how on-point or concise the speeches are.

Let me clarify, I've no objection to drinking, or even drunkenness. "I've taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me." After many years, I stopped getting drunk in public because I was bored with the embarrassment. I still stick it away in a manner my doctor disapproves, in my free time.

My objection is to a juvenile piss-up and ego-wank being presented as 'activism'. There's real work to be done in the US where - as surveys have shown - atheists are less trusted than rapists (real ones) and open secularism renders political candidates un-electable. Real people are doing it too.

The conference circuit however, has apparently become a subsidised party circuit for intellectual feather-weights. In some respects, I don't blame Watson. When I was her age - or maybe younger - if I'd had the chance to jet-set around, be publicly applauded, and drink two-handed I'd have grabbed it, while grinning incredulously. But it's still a monumental waste of (other people's) money and effort.

[Jan Steen]

Well, I have to admit a certain bias. I'm a former falling-down drunk of 20+ years who has been 100% sober for the last 8 1/2.

I don't drink anymore because it's not how much you drink, it's what happens to you when you drink. Frankly, I don't miss it. I was always the sort if I had four beers I felt shitty the next day. I certainly don't miss hanging out with drunks, who are invariably tedious fuckers. The absolute worst reason to drink is so other people's annoying drunken antics are tolerable.

Of course, she benefits greatly from beer goggles, dumpy-frumpy fucker that she is.

Also, I dislike bars and the boozy phony pretense of it all. I wonder how much of Watson's socially retarded attitude towards gender issues is from her thinking everything she ever need to know about life she learned in bars?

And, as I say, it's all fun and games until detox, which is exactly where some of these people are heading. And if you've ever seen some guy strapped to a gurney, wearing a diaper and dick-tubes, dosed on enough Ativan to drop a rhino but still screaming, fucked beyond belief with "wet brain" (Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome) who should be shot out of mercy, it makes you appreciate how nasty alcohol can be. Especially as the people who accrue that much thiamine-deficient brain damage are invariably respectable "functional alcoholics".

Every now and then I pick up my copy of "Under the Influence, Myths and Realities of Alcoholism" to brush up.

I brought it up on Reap's show and brought it up here, but the subject never gets any traction, and that is the white elephant in the room of the community right now, isn't harassment, it's alcohol abuse. Either the purpose of skeptical conferences is to maintain the frat lifestyle among the cliquely, and the purpose of the over-the-shoulder policies is, perhaps on a subconscious level, is so irresponsible women-children can get completely fucking blotto in a consequence-free manner.

So these speakers are giving talks where they discuss how shit faced they were? Really?

How about some trigger warnings for alcoholics? You think there might be some alcoholics in recovery that might not want to be exposed to that shit?

It looks as if you are onto something.

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

[Ape+lust]

I updated the links page on my website. In addition to a spot on the link block for AVfM and TGMP, I added adding a nice, big, linked banner ad for the Slymepit.

One of those links is not like the others, like a single-wide trailer in Beverly Hills.

Check your link for Dangerous Talk, BTW. It's borked. The URL is doubled up with Skeptic Ink's.