Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

d4m10n said:
According to Skeptic Ginger, Rebecca "told the rest of us we should have her reaction."

I ask which particular event she is talking about, I am told to go look it up. This is a terrible form of argumentation, since we have no way to know which particular event is being referenced. Hundreds of people were arguing and moralizing in the wake of what happened in that lift, countless hypotheticals and counterfactuals were thrown around.

(And of course I'm aware of what happened to Stef, I linked to it at the end of post #2524.)

I dispute the claim that Skeptic Ginger (and others) did not have any problem with Watson until after what she did to McGraw, based on my reading of the contemporary thread elsewhere in this forum. If you want to find those details, just look them up yourself.
Click to expand...
Since you claim to be aware of McGraw, what was that situation? Watson made her video, McGraw disagreed with Watson about how to react to that situation, so Watson used her position as a speaker at an event McGraw was at to publicly call McGraw a failure at feminism, and a parrot of misogynistic thought.

Does this tell us that Watson believes anyone has a right to their own reaction? Or will you now claim ignorance of some other information you have already posted?
 
wareyin said:
Watson made her video, McGraw disagreed with Watson about how to react to that situation, so Watson used her position as a speaker at an event McGraw was at to publicly call McGraw a failure at feminism, and a parrot of misogynistic thought.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Does this tell us that Watson believes anyone has a right to their own reaction?
Click to expand...
It tells us that McGraw thought Watson's reaction was incorrect, and that she started a public discussion about it.
 
d4m10n said:
Yup.

It tells us that McGraw thought Watson's reaction was incorrect, and that she started a public discussion about it.
Click to expand...
What a dishonest representation. Obviously, as Watson made the video, Watson started the public discussion. Obviously, as Watson used her power as speaker to insult and belittle an audience member for making a blog comment about how to react, Watson is telling us that her reaction is the one all should have.
 
wareyin said:
What a dishonest representation. Obviously, as Watson made the video, Watson started the public discussion.
Click to expand...

She started a public discussion about the circumstances under which she would personally prefer not to be sexualized. I saw nothing wrong with that video. You seem to think she made the story up as part of a nefarious feminist scheme, which sounds awfully conspiratorial to me.

The conversation taken up by Rose, Stef, and Alison was not about Rebecca's personal reaction so much as the general norms for flirtation and sexual propositions which they would like to see socially adopted.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
She started a public discussion about the circumstances under which she would personally prefer not to be sexualized. I saw nothing wrong with that video. You seem to think she made the story up as part of a nefarious feminist scheme, which sounds awfully conspiratorial to me.
Click to expand...

I have asked you about this before. How is one person making up a story a conspiracy?

Eta: a story that no other person has corroborated in any way.

The conversation taken up by Rose, Stef, and Alison was not about Rebecca's personal reaction so much as the general norms for flirtation and sexual propositions which they would like to see socially adopted.
Click to expand...

And Watson's insulting and belittling from on stage is to be construed as accepting general norms, or other reactions, in what way, exactly?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Excellent point, but it elides a number of relevant details. The problem in the elevator wasn't merely a thinly veiled sexual proposition, or a proposition at 4am in a foreign country, or a proposition prior to any flirtatious signals, or a proposition to a stranger in an elevator, or a proposition to a feminist who just explained at the bar how she hates being “objectified” i.e. treated as a sexual being. It was all that rolled into one event, at least according to the only eyewitness.
Click to expand...

I would not trust that eyewitness at all, given that she spent the evening in the bar and given that I have been with her in bars on more than a few occasions, I question her ability to remember the incident under the influence of alcohol.
 
wareyin said:
I have asked you about this before. How is one person making up a story a conspiracy?

Eta: a story that no other person has corroborated in any way.
Click to expand...

What sort of corroboration do you expect for a story in which one person has cornered happily come across someone else in an enclosed and completely private space?

Rorschach claims to have spent the weekend with Elevator Guy, whereas you claim that Elevator Guy may be a fictional character created by Rebecca Watson to further an political agenda. One of you two sounds awfully conspiratorial about this, and it sure as **** isn't Martin.

wareyin said:
And Watson's insulting and belittling from on stage is to be construed as accepting general norms, or other reactions, in what way, exactly?
Click to expand...

Where has anyone (in this thread) attempted to defend Watson's behavior on stage at CFI's Student Leadership Conference?
 
d4m10n said:
What sort of corroboration do you expect for a story in which one person has cornered happily come across someone else in an enclosed and completely private space?

Rorschach claims to have spent the weekend with Elevator Guy, whereas you claim that Elevator Guy may be a fictional character created by Rebecca Watson to further an political agenda. One of you two sounds awfully conspiratorial about this, and it sure as **** isn't Martin.
Click to expand...

Oh, look, more dishonest misrepresentation. Martin( Rorschach?) did not claim to see EG, or have any knowledge of EG other than that provided by Watson.

You do know multiple people spent hours in that relatively small hotel bar together, taking multiple group pictures, right? Yet, even though Watson claims EG was there the whole time (how does she know that when she is faceblind?), not one other person saw him, spoke to him, or got a picture of him? Not one person saw him follow Watson to the elevator?

Eta: you still haven't answered my question of how one person humble-bragging about how she is so irresistible to men is a conspiracy. Doesn't a conspiracy require a group, while Watson was doing her 'I'm so hot guys even hit on me after I give talks on feminism' schtick solo?

Where has anyone (in this thread) attempted to defend Watson's behavior on stage at CFI's Student Leadership Conference?
Click to expand...

Other than you? Or are you now admitting that Watson did not respect that other people have different reactions?
 
Last edited:
Didn't we do this to death a few years ago? It's not really on topic for this thread. Try here or one of the many other threads that covered it if you're still in the dark about it.
 
d4m10n said:
Yup.

It tells us that McGraw thought Watson's reaction was incorrect, and that she started a public discussion about it.
Click to expand...
She commented that elevator guy's actions didn't sound that bad.

It was RW who then made the spectacle over the comment.
 
d4m10n said:
How can he claim to have spent a weekend with someone if he had no idea who it was?
Click to expand...
Is this an honest question? What was the weekend in question? Where was Martin that weekend? Where is the only place EG was ever claimed to have existed? Hint: the last 3 questions have the same answer, and I think the answer to number one is "no".
 
zooterkin said:
Didn't we do this to death a few years ago? It's not really on topic for this thread. Try here or one of the many other threads that covered it if you're still in the dark about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and then some. Apparently someone wants it spoon-fed back to him rather than taking a look.
 
d4m10n said:
I've never defended what RW said on that stage.

Talk about dishonest misrepresentation.
Click to expand...
You have denied what Watson said on that stage, then when that didn't work, you misrepresented it as "public discussion". Yes, we are talking about dishonest misrepresentation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom