Periodic Table of Swearing

#31621

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:There's "quote mining", and there's "accidentally-revealing insights into a person's real thoughts". Here's the fat Canadian Brownian, aka Mr Ian Brown, aka Ohmygodthatguyissuchacuntohandwhateverhappenedtomeyerssgoogledebatesthtwasfuckinghilariousifonlybecausewegottoseethefuckingmutantswhoslaveroverhisscriptures:

I remember when this blog was about science, not â€˜maybesâ€™.
Yeah? Well blame yourself, lardboy. Yourself and the other ghostwits who slaver over Meyers's turn towards radfem, the soulless little prick.

My stints with Brownian have been brief, but the one thing I remember was after he and some other goons totally trashed Edwin Kagin on his blog after he made a post criticising A+ and then when Edwin says he doesn't want to heavily moderate his blog, Brownian quips in with something along the lines of, this is exactly why bloggers moderate. Hello? You were among the ones who trashed his fucking blog to begin with, dickhead, and if you and goons like you hadn't done what you did, there wouldn't be a reason to moderate. Think!

I'll see if I can find it. Shouldn't be hard to find.

Found it.

Also, haha, I now see one thing I forgot. The context of the comment why bloggers should moderate was said in conjunction to echochambers, so in response to my comment about how Kagin's blog isn't an echochamber, he quotes Kagin when he said morons trashes his blog and says this why bloggers moderate, essentially arguing for Kagin to create his own echochamber. It's mindboggling. He doubles down after that. The exchange starts here. (I'm PG, if you're wondering.) You notice Brownian gets more and more frothing as time passes. FTB sure has some winners on their roster, don't they? (By which I mean, among other things, raging hypocrites.)

#31622

http://www.londononline.co.uk/graphics/ ... nry_ii.jpg

Of course I meant this Henry II, not that French pretender Henry II

#31623

justinvacula wrote: *image snip*

That Tony guy is a recent arrival at FfTB, specifically Meyers's place. He's of medium intelligence, just repeats the bullshit rote without any meaningful additions. One of a few such weeds which have sprung up since the hardcore Meyers commenters have slunk back into their moldy basements (which I proudly believe is largely due to our efforts in exposing their lack of substance. Yay us.).

#31624

Because we all know certain bloggers at FTB enjoy editing, banning, and deleting comments, I've saved the thread I commented in up to #94. This includes Spokesgay calling me a piece of shit and saying "fuck you." This is perhaps an improvement over the time he told me to fuck off and die....and this gem:

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

LISTEN TO THE WOMEN!!!!1ONEONEONE111*

The thread, archived:

*men don't matter

#31625

Dilurk wrote:
Al Stefanelli wrote:Since we were posting musical shit, I thought I'd share this with you all:

youtube IGsY-z7RkIA /youtube
Four to a bar. My dad liked to play boogie woogie as well.

Wonder how well a classic, redheaded bombshell in sexy red dress, sitting on top of a bluesman's piano, softly speaking with a sultry voice, mouth almost getting personal with the microphone, "Beat me, Daddy. Eight to the bar" would go over?

#31626

real horrorshow wrote:
bhoytony wrote:Wait a fucking minute......

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/4757 ... 96bf7d.png
The uniform of a full Colonel in the Thought Police!

Just don't refer to them as Full Bird Colonels.

#31627

justinvacula wrote:Because we all know certain bloggers at FTB enjoy editing, banning, and deleting comments, I've saved the thread I commented in up to #94. This includes Spokesgay calling me a piece of shit and saying "fuck you." This is perhaps an improvement over the time he told me to fuck off and die....and this gem:

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

LISTEN TO THE WOMEN!!!!1ONEONEONE111*

The thread, archived:

*men don't matter

As a suitably qualified practitioner of internet psychology, it is my professional opinion that Nerd of Redhead went off the deep end some time ago.

#31628

From
http://www.whoneedsfeminism.org/

http://i.imgur.com/z9ib3.jpg

...kind of the impression I got from that interaction with PZ's commenters.

#31629

http://i.imgur.com/B8fy4.jpg

This too.

#31630

Mykeru wrote:I know this has already been posted, but really:

iARHCxAMAO0

The hysteria, and that is the right word, is appalling.

At the end, the woman pretty much spitting "scum" in that guys face for the outrage of wanting to hear Farrell speak and make up his own mind, is a nightmare. Mostly because she would no doubt scream harassment for the most mild of criticism.

Meanwhile, over at the Atheism+ Forum, we learn that man-hating feminists don't exist; that they are an invention of "unthinking mainstream turds". That at least some A-plussers are "actually fairly convinced they don't exist at this point, and a straw-figure created by the media and by those threatened by the advancement of women's rights."

Also, more generally, we learn that "[f]eminism is held to an impossible standard that other movements are not." And that "...feminism is also very much concerned with gender as a whole..."

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3094

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up. :whistle:

#31631

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

Priceless.

#31632

justinvacula wrote:http://i.imgur.com/WqHsz.jpg

Priceless.

Phayrngula a safe space???? Only if you agree with all other regular commenters. Otherwise, you are scum and will be told that repeatedly.

#31633

Skep tickle wrote: Meanwhile, over at the Atheism+ Forum, we learn that man-hating feminists don't exist; that they are an invention of "unthinking mainstream turds". That at least some A-plussers are "actually fairly convinced they don't exist at this point, and a straw-figure created by the media and by those threatened by the advancement of women's rights."

The First Fundamental Law of Bigotry
For any two large groups A and B , there are members of A that hate everyone in B.

The Second Fundamental Law of Bigotry
The First Law is true even in the case A = B.

#31634

Reap wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Ed Clint sent out a tweet w/ exciting news about upcoming NZ Skeptics events, and a link to the schedule at Skepchick ... Do you think the organizers of those events will have heard of, and read, Edward Clint's detailed analysis of that talk, by then? :think:
They will if someone posts a link on the meetup pages for all the events.....Oh! Someone just did that. What a coincidence, life sure is funny idn't it?

Now, how 'bout that. Such a coincidence. Well, you know - these things happen!

It's currently ~8:25pm in Auckland. The meetup there with RW speaking was to begin at 7pm. It'll probably go on for a while. Possible that some comments from attendees may be posted here afterwards: http://auckland.skepticsinthepub.net.nz/

RW in reply #1 at SZ's "Science Denialism..." said "I saw Clintâ€™s post but as Iâ€™m traveling, I have no time to write anything up, so Iâ€™m very glad that youâ€™ve done a great job of it. Iâ€™m actually giving this talk again tomorrow and Iâ€™m quite thankful to people who have given me notes and corrections. I even got a few good ones from Clint!"

It seems possible that one of the contributing factors to her having "no time to write anything up" is that she was busy saying "SHIT SHIT FUCK FUCK" and having a couple of drinks and frantically trying to revamp the talk, considering all the while whether she could get away with a bait-and-switch where she didn't say a word about Evo Psych or Edward Clint and talked instead about the awful things people have said to her online over the past 1+ years.

#31635

HoneyWagon wrote:
justinvacula wrote:http://i.imgur.com/WqHsz.jpg

Priceless.
Phayrngula a safe space???? Only if you agree with all other regular commenters. Otherwise, you are scum and will be told that repeatedly.

That, and told which particular rusty sharp device will be inserted sideways into your anus.

In a tone that simply does not make one feel safe, no sirree.

Guest · #31636

Gumby wrote:I have noticed, often on FtB but especially in the A+ forum, that the more devout of the cultists just draw a blank when someone relates experiences or viewpoints different than the ones they have, or at least different than the experiences or viewpoints the plussers expect them to have.

This is quite common behaviour among the loony left. The way it works is this.

"I have a social theory," says our great thinker; "it involves a certain set of ideas about what is good for my chosen Oppressed Group, and also says that all members of that Oppressed Group ought therefore to support me."

"But," say many members of that Group, "we don't support you at all."

What happens next depends on whether the thinker is a sceptic, or a socialist.

Sceptic: "Oh. Many members of the Oppressed Group do not behave as my theory says they should. There must be something wrong with my theory."

Socialist: "Oh. Many members of the Oppressed Group do not behave as my theory says they should. There must be something wrong with them."

In the case of Feminists, this immediately leads to denouncing their critics as either (a) Failing Feminism 101, which allows for the possibility that they may come around to support the agenda once they get it, or else (b) being Chill Girls, who know full well that Feminism is best but betray the cause for their own selfish interests in being popular with men.

This is much the same as the way Socialists respond in the same situation: their opposition among the working class is either due to False Consciousness, or to Class Treason. If they have the power to do so, Socialists will send the first to re-education camps, and the second to death camps. Fortunately, nowadays in most countries they are restricted to ineffectual angry tweeting.

#31637

My favourite part from the Pharyngula thread (emphasis mine):

Until you renounce your antifeminist ways-
Until you stop supporting mens rights-
Until you recognize the harm that you are causing and apologize to all the people youâ€™ve slighted-

You.
Are.
The Enemy.

Has the FTB credo ever been so succinctly expressed?

#31638

Guest wrote: If they have the power to do so, Socialists will send the first to re-education camps, and the second to death camps. Fortunately, nowadays in most countries they are restricted to ineffectual angry tweeting.

I assume by 'socialists' you mean Leninists/Maoists, and not, say, the current governments of Norway, Sweden, and France.

Guest · #31639

Are the current governments of Norway, Sweden and France committed to common ownership of the means of production?

#31640

justinvacula wrote:From
http://www.whoneedsfeminism.org/

http://i.imgur.com/z9ib3.jpg

...kind of the impression I got from that interaction with PZ's commenters.

This was A+ boiled down to the simplest scentence I could come up with.

#31641

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
fascination wrote:So does anyone know what Svan's day job is? Or what her educational background is?
In Franc's absence, allow me to say: "Would you like me to pre-chew your fucking dinner for you as well? Try the top right of her blog here:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds

And allow me to say, with all due fucking respect: Quite a few here, me included, have decided to never give that cesspool another hit ever again. So screencap or citation, or let someone else do it. No need to jump at someone's throat.

#31642

@Reap. Great podcast.

#31643

Guest wrote:Are the current governments of Norway, Sweden and France committed to common ownership of the means of production?

Many socialists are what is called Social Democratic. I am one of them.
Nonetheless, some call themselves socialists, hence the clarification.

#31644

Tony Parsehole wrote:@Reap. Great podcast.

Fucking thank me for not degenerating into an incoherent mess. Broad topics, the bane of pseudo-aspies.

#31645

From Skepsheik
http://skepsheik.blogspot.se/2012/12/pz ... onary.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aXtZh-86UnA/U ... 00/psy.jpg

Pinker looks just about as worried as the situation demands.

#31646

^ LULZ!

#31647

Any respect for James Croft is lost from me (doubt he cares, but just sayin)
Pure apologetics
More responsibility on him for lording her amazing knowledge and research - but no he blames the reader for listening to people like him that people like her are worth listening to in the first place (go with me on this)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofth ... e-reading/

#31648

How to make a Pharyngula comment in six easy steps. An instruction manual for the commentariat. Published by decree of the Central Committee of FTB

1. Deposit the full collection of FTB-sanctioned memes (available on request) in a bag.
2. Wait for a commenter to appear who is not one of us.
3. If possible, check hir privilege and commenting history.
4. If xe is a known blasphemer against our dear Leader PZ Myers (his name be blessed) or our Guru Rebecca Watson (her name be blessed), tell hir to fuck off/die in a fire* and accuse hir of misogyny or racism. Otherwise:
5. Draw at random a meme from the meme-bag and incorporate it in your comment. Accuse hir of sexism/misogyny/racism or of abusing hir privilege.
6. In the ensuing dialogue repeat step 5, until the commenter becomes exasperated, then tell hir to fuck off/die in a fire and accuse hir of misogyny or racism.

* You may be creative in your wording. In this way you may even draw the attention of our dear Leader PZ Myers (his name be blessed) and he may start recognising your name. However, whatever you say, do not question the officially sanctioned memes or you may be expelled from the commentariat.

Here is a recent sample comment made according to these guidelines:

But, Justin Griffith supports Evo-Psych, so it must all be true! And heâ€™s not sexist because he said heâ€™s not! Right after talking about how funny it was to kick feminists in the cuntâ€¦

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-503329

Note the creative variations on the theme of misogyny in response to a comment about Evolutionary Psychology. Also note that one should never supply evidence for oneâ€™s accusations. Evidence is not necessary for things that are common knowledge (which includes all items in the meme-bag). This commenter has truly understood the spirit of our dear Leader.

#31649

HoneyWagon wrote:
justinvacula wrote:http://i.imgur.com/WqHsz.jpg

Priceless.
Phayrngula a safe space???? Only if you agree with all other regular commenters. Otherwise, you are scum and will be told that repeatedly.

So the only way to keep Pharyngula a "safe space" is to keep engaging the people they consider "unsafe"?

Do these people think before they type?*

*rhetorical; no need to answer.

#31650

franc wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:@Reap. Great podcast.
Fucking thank me for not degenerating into an incoherent mess. Broad topics, the bane of pseudo-aspies.

You were very chilled mate. Very chilled indeed.

#31651

Skep tickle wrote: It's currently ~8:25pm in Auckland. The meetup there with RW speaking was to begin at 7pm. It'll probably go on for a while. Possible that some comments from attendees may be posted here afterwards: http://auckland.skepticsinthepub.net.nz/

The commenters there all sounded like teenage girls leaving a Justin Bieber concert. "Oh, I can't believe I got to see one of the SGU cast in person! *swoon* Not a skeptic in the bunch, any mention of Watson's science denialism in that talk was met by boos.

#31652

Barael wrote:My favourite part from the Pharyngula thread (emphasis mine):

Until you renounce your antifeminist ways-
Until you stop supporting mens rights-
Until you recognize the harm that you are causing and apologize to all the people youâ€™ve slighted-

You.
Are.
The Enemy.
Has the FTB credo ever been so succinctly expressed?

One can almost hear the jackboots slamming the ground.

#31653

Yeah, I'm ashamed for my adopted country right now.

#31654

mutleyeng wrote:Any respect for James Croft is lost from me (doubt he cares, but just sayin)
Pure apologetics
More responsibility on him for lording her amazing knowledge and research - but no he blames the reader for listening to people like him that people like her are worth listening to in the first place (go with me on this)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofth ... e-reading/

Barbara Drescher is on fire in the comments.

http://i.imgur.com/wMov8.jpg

I think I'm in love! :romance-heartsthree:

This is EXACTLY the issue.
Rebecca Watson being asked to give a keynote presentation about a complicated scientific research topic is a symptom of the problem that faces the skepticism movement.
Croft's argument seemed to be that it was all OK because Rebecca is a comedian! :shock:

#31655

It does appear the speech has changed significantly though as it seems to be "what silly things people believe in news stories" (per carola's post on Auckland Skeptics) rather than lulz evopsych.

Those skeptics are failing at skepticism.

Really badly.

NZ has gone full retard.

#31656

rayshul wrote:It does appear the speech has changed significantly though as it seems to be "what silly things people believe in news stories" (per carola's post on Auckland Skeptics) rather than lulz evopsych.

O you silly boys! My talk wasn't, uh, about, evo psych. Ha ha. It was about, uh, um, how easy it is for, ah, media people to misquote some research for their own, ah, um, political ends. Ha ha. And my talk is showing exactly how to do this.

I think, ah, um, that's what I wanted to say. Never mind, my real friends will say it for me. I've already progressed toward the future.

Sucker.

Hahahahaha, umph - I inhaled my beer! - hur hur, I can't believe they keep paying me to front up and just burp the alphabet at them. Every fuckin' time! Loooooserrrs! BURP!

</Ms Watson>

#31657

rayshul wrote:It does appear the speech has changed significantly though as it seems to be "what silly things people believe in news stories" (per carola's post on Auckland Skeptics) rather than lulz evopsych.

Those skeptics are failing at skepticism.

Really badly.

NZ has gone full retard.

Yes, it looks like Rebecca had time to read the shitstorm of criticism and revamp her presentation. It would be great if someone videoed her NZ talk for comparison. But the real questions are, did she do it to make a better speech or did she do it to protect her BeckyBrand? Did she learn anything from her complete and utter embarrassment? Somehow, I doubt it.

This shit really annoys me, because as a science layman, I really appreciate when knowledgeable people give talks on interesting scientific subjects in a casual yet informative fashion that I can understand and learn from. Watson has the seed of that ability in her. She could do it, if she tried a lot harder. But instead of choosing to develop that into a real talent for informative and entertaining communication, she's taken the lazy way out. She's chosen instead to become a superficial and clumsy scientific/skeptic stand-up comedian more interested in promoting her personal brand of giggly, hung-over, and shallow glibness than imparting anything of value.

#31658

JAB wrote:BTW, I hope someone saved the youtube of RW's talk. If it's currently up on the tube in the account of someone who is one of her fans, it could dissappear. Once the backchannel of fftbs gets the story straight, those fftb posts may be changed too. Silly Zvan unfortunately made comments on other peoples blogs that she won't be able to edit, so that may bite. Rewriting history can be hard when everyone won't cooperate.

Downloading right now. Good idea. This one is memory-hole bait for sure! What an ass she made of herself, saying that science is boring unless you make stuff up. WTF?

#31659

rayshul wrote:It does appear the speech has changed significantly though as it seems to be "what silly things people believe in news stories" (per carola's post on Auckland Skeptics) rather than lulz evopsych.

Those skeptics are failing at skepticism.

Really badly.

NZ has gone full retard.

Well, others here predicted she'd modify her canned talk because of the blowback. Glad someone saved the original. Now I'd like to see the "revised" version, if it was captured....

#31660

Cunning Punt wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:I have a special dislike for separatists (who want to eliminate/greatly reduce males on earth). Krista has tried to trick me into making videos and articles about her, even under other names pretending to be a friend of hers betraying her. She faked her death months ago, then admitted it to me in a pm to try and get popular. She feels that bad publicity is just as good as good publicity. She tried reverse psychology (please don't make any videos about me), straightforward (you can even make a video about it or an article if you want), to insulting me in hopes that I'll make an angry article or video. Instead of making more videos about her or an article, I ignored her attempts, but I let her know that a bunch of us knew who she really is, etc. It freaked her out so much that she even asked an MRA, to ask me, to leave her alone (even though I was initially responding to her contacting me, not the other way around)!

I'm not sure if she is a poe, or if she really does feel that way despite that she hangs around with, and gets preggers by, a real life boyfriend. She's not living as a separatist, but if you look at her blog, she's got plans to castrate/kill/enslave-for-breeding men right now, and all future baby boys. She even goes so far as to say that women who like men too much should be killed too. She's causing harm by spreading the harmful ideology, even if she is a poe herself.
I read some of her blog. She talked about people being "removed". I don't know what kind of batshit crazy she is, but she's definitely in the genus.

Removed means killed, but, it's all ok, because it's all for the love of humanity (which are all women) *choke*. I don't like this shit being spread around. These fuckers are 'true believers' in killing their enemies every bit as much as the 'true believers' of religion going jihad all over the place. Solanas who wrote SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men - a book recommending to rid the world of men) actually did try to kill Andy Wharhol, seeing him as an evil man (he had to be doing the Patriarchy's dirty work, since he turned down some script she was hoping to sell him).

#31661

sacha wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: A case of protesting TOO much? Like, maybe she's actually horrified over her own interest in animal peckers? [ I'm getting old. Who calls them peckers any more? ]
hahhaha! I still use "Willie"
Scented Nectar wrote:Fits right in with the others. I mean, they have a cannibal and a pedophile. All they were missing were people who have a thing for animal dongs. [ does anyone call them dongs any more? I AM getting old! ]
haahaha! no, Nectar. No one calls them "dongs" anymore. hahahaha!

I use 'willie' too. But, no more 'dongs'? Well, I did just turn 50 a couple weeks ago. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! I was probably like 8 or something, when I used that word. Mind you, I was probably only 48 when I last laughed at an unfortunately worded Asian-English sign with the word 'dong' or something similar in it.

#31662

Semi wrote:
welch wrote: If she's a stock analyst, that explains *everything*.

Being a part of an industry that tells companies how they should run themselves with ZERO knowledge of fuck all anything, and the prime requisite for downgrading a stock is "THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME THE THINGS I MADE UP IN MY HEAD THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE ME" is the perfect, the fucking PERFECT place for her. The only way it would be more perfect is if she worked for Gene "APPLETV ANY DAY NOW" Munster.
There are many types of analysts. I wouldn't necessarily assume that she's a stock analyst.

She could even be one of the thousands of quacks who hang up a shingle with "Therapist - Feminist Psycho-Analysis" without needing any actual degree in Psychology or Psychiatry. She seems like one of those people who would really like to be thought of as advisers to others, but doesn't realize how fucking stupid others find her.

#31663

Does anyone remember at what timestamp, Twatson says that science is boring unless you make stuff up? There's this little devil on my shoulder saying I should run it through that "Songify" autotuning program. The little angel on the other side wants me to do it too.
Heheheh. :D

#31664

Scented Nectar wrote:Does anyone remember at what timestamp, Twatson says that science is boring unless you make stuff up? There's this little devil on my shoulder saying I should run it through that "Songify" autotuning program. The little angel on the other side wants me to do it too.
Heheheh. :D

It's at the very end, like the last 2 mins of the talk.

#31665

Scented Nectar wrote:Does anyone remember at what timestamp, Twatson says that science is boring unless you make stuff up? There's this little devil on my shoulder saying I should run it through that "Songify" autotuning program. The little angel on the other side wants me to do it too.
Heheheh. :D

Found it at Ed's article. 47:30

#31666

Dick Strawkins wrote: Barbara Drescher is on fire in the comments.

I think I'm in love! :romance-heartsthree:

This is EXACTLY the issue.
Rebecca Watson being asked to give a keynote presentation about a complicated scientific research topic is a symptom of the problem that faces the skepticism movement.
Croft's argument seemed to be that it was all OK because Rebecca is a comedian! :shock:

I think she has been watching Watson for some time

she is great - Reap, get that woman on your podcast.

#31667

acathode wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:Does anyone remember at what timestamp, Twatson says that science is boring unless you make stuff up? There's this little devil on my shoulder saying I should run it through that "Songify" autotuning program. The little angel on the other side wants me to do it too.
Heheheh. :D
It's at the very end, like the last 2 mins of the talk.

We both posted at the same time. :)

#31668

Scented Nectar wrote:Does anyone remember at what timestamp, Twatson says that science is boring unless you make stuff up? There's this little devil on my shoulder saying I should run it through that "Songify" autotuning program. The little angel on the other side wants me to do it too.
Heheheh. :D

It's at about 47.30, in the question and answer section.
It's blindingly obvious by the answer she gives that she is not a scientist and doesn't understand the profession of science.
To tell a scientist that they can only do interesting stuff if you make stuff up is the equivalent to telling a teacher that the only way they can get job satisfaction is by sleeping with their students.
It is that level of wrongness.

#31669

I'm a bit late with this, but that's what you people get for typing like maniacs.

http://dyingunderalienstars.files.wordp ... d_kiss.jpg

#31670

Scented Nectar wrote:
JAB wrote:BTW, I hope someone saved the youtube of RW's talk. If it's currently up on the tube in the account of someone who is one of her fans, it could dissappear. Once the backchannel of fftbs gets the story straight, those fftb posts may be changed too. Silly Zvan unfortunately made comments on other peoples blogs that she won't be able to edit, so that may bite. Rewriting history can be hard when everyone won't cooperate.
Downloading right now. Good idea. This one is memory-hole bait for sure! What an ass she made of herself, saying that science is boring unless you make stuff up. WTF?

Becky is nothing more than an Internet celebrity. Why, I can't comprehend. She used to do some short videos posted on her website that addressed woo, and some of those weren't bad. She addressed CAM, anti- vaccine types, and some feminist issues but in the last couple of years has become a purveyor of pure batshiitery.

I don't begrudge anyone making a living, and I believe that at least some of these talks given provide her with some income, but at least do some freaking research before you start talking about subjects you have absolutely no expertise in.

She really has become an embarrassment for the skeptical community.

#31671

Solidarity for TedDahlberg
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 265636.jpg

#31672

Outwest wrote:
Becky is nothing more than an Internet celebrity. Why, I can't comprehend. She used to do some short videos posted on her website that addressed woo, and some of those weren't bad. She addressed CAM, anti- vaccine types, and some feminist issues but in the last couple of years has become a purveyor of pure batshiitery.

I don't begrudge anyone making a living, and I believe that at least some of these talks given provide her with some income, but at least do some freaking research before you start talking about subjects you have absolutely no expertise in.

She really has become an embarrassment for the skeptical community.

http://i.imgur.com/lB58k.jpg

According to Justin Griffith

she should be treated with less expectations of rigorous study, and granted an amateur comedianâ€™s artistic license

Maybe so, but there do happen to be comedians around that have two advantages that Rebecca doesn't:

1. They are funny
and
2. They understand and support science - for example Dara (get in the sack) O'Briain, who has a degree in physics.

If a comedian must be on the bill of a Skeptics event, I'd much prefer it was the likes of Dara O'Briain than Rebecca O'Dear.

#31673

Scented Nectar wrote:
Semi wrote:
welch wrote: If she's a stock analyst, that explains *everything*.

Being a part of an industry that tells companies how they should run themselves with ZERO knowledge of fuck all anything, and the prime requisite for downgrading a stock is "THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME THE THINGS I MADE UP IN MY HEAD THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE ME" is the perfect, the fucking PERFECT place for her. The only way it would be more perfect is if she worked for Gene "APPLETV ANY DAY NOW" Munster.
There are many types of analysts. I wouldn't necessarily assume that she's a stock analyst.
She could even be one of the thousands of quacks who hang up a shingle with "Therapist - Feminist Psycho-Analysis" without needing any actual degree in Psychology or Psychiatry. She seems like one of those people who would really like to be thought of as advisers to others, but doesn't realize how fucking stupid others find her.

Actually, she does have a degree in Psychology.

#31674

Scented Nectar wrote:These fuckers are 'true believers' in killing their enemies every bit as much as the 'true believers' of religion going jihad all over the place. Solanas who wrote SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men - a book recommending to rid the world of men) actually did try to kill Andy Wharhol, seeing him as an evil man (he had to be doing the Patriarchy's dirty work, since he turned down some script she was hoping to sell him).

I gotta ask this question, since the way feminists deal with Solanas and SCUM was one of the things that really made me go "WTF?!" when I started looking closer at feminism. You used to be a pretty hardcore feminist if I remember it correctly from your earlier posts, right?

How did/does feminists "inside the movement" actually view Solanas? Officially, the most common way I've seen them defend their praise of SCUM whenever they get called out on it, is to call it ironic or a satire, but considering that Solanas was likely suffering from some severe mental disorders and tried to murder men she disliked, I'm having a seriously hard time buying that it's just supposed to be a joke. Sorry for going Godwin, but it kinda seems about as ridicilous as if a neo nazi tried explaining "Mein Kampf" by "Oh Hitler were just joking about the Jews."...

Especially when prized Swedish feminist author Sara Stridsberg write stuff like "We can read it literally. We should read it literally. That women punch back is completely logical" in the foreword for the recently published Swedish translation of SCUM .

#31675

Comment left on Croft's post, just in case:

James,

You canâ€™t have it multiple ways. For example, you keep going on about â€œintentâ€. Well, unless she clearly, using words like â€œit is my intent to showâ€¦â€ or similar, we *cannot know what her intent is*. Pretend for a moment that there are people in the audience who do not follow her from talk to talk or eagerly consume every piece of content she puts out. For those people, it would have been a lot of work to figure out if she was talking about:

1) Pop EP
2) Pop EP as presented by the media
3) EP the scientific discipline
4) EP the scientific discipline as represented by the media.
5) EP the scientific discipline as opposed to Pop EP

She swung between those like a hyper-brachiating gibbon on fire. At some point, at *some* point, the presenter of a talk is expected to do SOME work with regard to having a point and staying on it in a way the audience can follow sans a frigginâ€™ copy of Excel. She also doesnâ€™t get a bye for the non-academic nature of the talk or venue. She chose the topic, she could have at least done something besides cobble together a backing store for a comedy routine.

The kindest, the absolute kindest thing you can say about the talk is that it was both poorly put together and given, which given Rebeccaâ€™s degree, training, career, and causeâ€¦is kind of appalling. She is a professional speaker on things like skepticism, science in the media, feminism, and similar. It is not, too much to ask that her presentations show this by at least staying on the (clearly articulated) point If we are to believe that the sole purpose of this talk was, as you keep stating, to show how the media misrepresents EP, it was, by any and every measure a failure. She could not even come up with a single reference for learning about legitimate EP because itâ€™s â€œboringâ€.

Really.

She couldnâ€™t come up with links to legitimate informational sources.

Because they are â€œboringâ€.

She was presenting at a *skeptics* conference and she had no references to further information.

And you are OKAY with this?

It was not a good presentation. You can argue the specifics all you want, but the fact that there is *so* much disagreement over what she was trying to say shows that it simply was not a good talk.

#31676

Tony Parsehole wrote:Solidarity for TedDahlberg
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 265636.jpg

Frank Sidebottom!

I saw him once at the Reading Festival. He was doing a gig in one of the smaller tents at the same time Soundgarden were playing the main stage. Frank was more entertaining!

The really funny aspect was that there was another tent right beside the one where he was doing his usual Timperley songs and the band Geneva (a sort of plaintive emo type of group) were playing. Everytime one of their songs went into a quiet emotional section you could hear Frank squalking away in the background ("Oh, I do, I really do!, You know I do") with the result that the singer nearly had a fit!
He didn't seem to understand who was playing in the next tent nor the reaction of the audience who were laughing away while he was being sad and deep!

#31677

I'm not buying this "it was meant as stand-up comedy!" spin.
Watson was speaking at a fucking sceptic convention about evo-psych not doing a gig on Live At The Apollo. No matter how humorous the tone was it was meant as a serious speech.

Just another in a soon to be long list of mind-breaking mental gymnastics to defend Becky.
So far we have:

1) she was only criticising the pop aspect of evo-psych in tabloid media. (Steffuny Zwan)
2) All evo-psch is bollocks even though some isn't (Myers)
3) Yes it completely missed the point but I liked it and it made me feel nice so lay off (James Croft)
4) It was a stand up routine FFS!!!! Stop criticising her comedy!!! (Some arsehole commentator on FTB)

gumby on phone · #31678

Perfect comment, wench.

#31679

Dick Strawkins wrote:Barbara Drescher is on fire in the comments.

As always!

#31680

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:Solidarity for TedDahlberg
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 265636.jpg
Frank Sidebottom!

I saw him once at the Reading Festival. He was doing a gig in one of the smaller tents at the same time Soundgarden were playing the main stage. Frank was more entertaining!

The really funny aspect was that there was another tent right beside the one where he was doing his usual Timperley songs and the band Geneva (a sort of plaintive emo type of group) were playing. Everytime one of their songs went into a quiet emotional section you could hear Frank squalking away in the background ("Oh, I do, I really do!, You know I do") with the result that the singer nearly had a fit!
He didn't seem to understand who was playing in the next tent nor the reaction of the audience who were laughing away while he was being sad and deep!

I knew, KNEW you would mention Frank!
I would love to have seen him before he passed away. You're a lucky bugger. By "had a fit" do you mean the singer was laughing or getting pissed off?

Frank was an absolute comedy legend and so underrated too. I always remembered the bit where he went to an art gallery and critiqued the paintings. I was crying with laughter.

Anyway. I'll just leave this here:
[youtube]zwCwyjucoFk[/youtube]