• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
UnrepentantSinner said:
I particularly liked GG's refusal to mention the time when she got so drunk on the Alaska cruise that she vomited everywhere and embarassed her roommate[...]
Click to expand...

Isn't that the Rebecca Watson betting pool? Watch one of her speeches and whoever guesses the closest to the time she mentions the bar wins a prize.
 
Reading Geek Goddess' post led me to follow the link she gave to a use of the term "Skepchick" before Watson et. al adopted it. Which has informed me of the existence of Emily Rosa. How cool is she?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Reading Geek Goddess' post led me to follow the link she gave to a use of the term "Skepchick" before Watson et. al adopted it. Which has informed me of the existence of Emily Rosa. How cool is she?
Click to expand...

What a truly astounding young lady. If my son grows up to be even half as intelligent as that I would be ecstatic.
 
Originally Posted by zooterkin
Well, I notice that TAM 2013 features this:

Two live tapings of Skeptics Guide to the Universe, featuring Dr. Steve Novella, Jay Novella, Bob Novella, and Evan Bernstein.
Click to expand...

I assume Bernstein is the only one who can play the drums among them, so he's an adopted part of the group.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Where, on her version, do you see "cheating"?
Click to expand...
The part where she admits to "flirting" and then describes how her ex was pissed about it.

Unless we make a ridiculous presumption that her ex was just looking for a reason to dump her after choosing to be with her, we can determine that the construct of "cheating" that their relationship had included not being superficially sexually interactive with someone else.

Axiom_Blade said:
Wait...the only way the conclusion that you, and the person who "translated" the sign is anything but a ridiculous, unwarranted slur, is if you already have the mindset of villainizing anyone who deviates from some puritanical, prudish morality.
Click to expand...
Which would be odd, considering that I personally deviate from puritanical, prudish morality on a nearly daily basis.

The mistake I suspect you are making is to begin by treating "cheating" as an objective universal standard. It isn't; each relationship, via its partners, creates the parameters of what is and is not acceptable.

Based on the original lady's admission not only of her ex getting pissed, but her supposed friends finding her actions unacceptable, good ole Occam would lead us to the conclusion that she acted outside of the purview of things her ex would be okay with.

Again, this is unless we want to imagine her ex as just choosing to be with her so that he can dump her at an emotionally fragile moment, and that her friends were secretly in on that wild conspiracy theory as well.

Axiom_Blade said:
What this blogger did is create some alternate explanation for these events, based on his own sick and twisted imagination. There's no reason for him to believe things went down the way he says they did; it's all just his hatred for women, apparently.
Click to expand...
1) I've already pointed out where he filled in the gaps with mere guesses.
2) You're devolving his reasons for suspecting an omission of potentially damning facts from her sign as "hatred for women" is the very same type of act you are accusing him of when you say he was making unfounded presumptions about the in-between info in her story.


As mentioned-via-silence by other posters in this thread, though, this detour of the thread doesn't really deal with the original issues, so I'll let this particular topic be and move on to others.
 
Quinn said:
While it's a concept I wholly support, I think it's doomed to failure in the social justice world because it violates at least two of their most cherished axioms:

• INTENT IS NOT ****-ING MAGIC!!! It doesn't matter if a statement is intended charitably. If there's a non-charitable way to interpret it, then I am ***-ing well allowed to interpret it that way. You don't get to tell me how to feel about it.

• THE "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO" PRINCIPLE. Just like we shouldn't have to be mindful of of our environment, actions and appearance to minimize the chance of being attacked, we shouldn't have to consider the most charitable interpretation of someone else's words. They should simply be 100% clear and unmistakable at all times. Asking us to factor in the complexity and nuance of these topics is not okay.
Click to expand...
Beared repeating.
 
If Social Justice claims are unarguable because they've been proven scientifically, as A+ and FSB assure us, then where is the data, and how are dismissals of the conclusions from this data refuted, scientifically?
 
Last edited:
In general, in the fields of sociology, psychology and anthropology.

I'm not sure how one can refute a "dismissal" of a conclusion based on evidence. The way one validates a conclusion is to make testable predictions about what future data will show and then go out and get that data to test the conclusion. The fact that one should always test ones conclusions against future data doesn't mean one has to engage against anyone who wants to spout assertions denying the validity of that data.
 
Nihilus said:
The part where she admits to "flirting" and then describes how her ex was pissed about it.

Unless we make a ridiculous presumption that her ex was just looking for a reason to dump her after choosing to be with her, we can determine that the construct of "cheating" that their relationship had included not being superficially sexually interactive with someone else.
Click to expand...

Speaking of ridiculous assumptions.... why don't you re-read her sign and tell me that you know WITH CERTAINTY that she is referring to her boyfriend's anger as addressed to her flirting. I read it as being addressed to her, post-rape. Do you think he called her a slut and spit on her and all her friends called her trash... and then she went off with the other guy. Knowing the construct of these sorts of narratives, I'd say she's claiming that all happened AFTER the rape, the hint being "... it could have been them...".
 
qwints said:
In general, in the fields of sociology, psychology and anthropology.

I'm not sure how one can refute a "dismissal" of a conclusion based on evidence. The way one validates a conclusion is to make testable predictions about what future data will show and then go out and get that data to test the conclusion. The fact that one should always test ones conclusions against future data doesn't mean one has to engage against anyone who wants to spout assertions denying the validity of that data.
Click to expand...


"one has to engage against"? No, but one could and should engage with them. In fact one should be actively, just on their own, questioning the validity of ones data and particularly ones conclusions, otherwise one is just not always testing ones conclusions.

ETA: In order to "dismiss" a conclusion based on evidence one must show that data is either inconsistent with the conclusion, consistent with an alternate conclusion having more explanative power (explains other things the first conclusion does not or is inconsistent with), or show the data to be flawed or biased is some way relevant to the conclusion. To refute such a "dismissal" based on evidence one must address the actual claim made against the evidence or conclusion drawn and thus must directly engage those assertions.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I just like the fact that Watson made an effort to post on Hall's blog just in order to say "you're beneath my attention", and Hall didn't even bother to respond. It's the most sensible use of Hall's time, it's giving Watson the level attention she deserves, and it's an almighty bitch-slap, all rolled in to one. Watson has to make an effort to tell Hall she's beneath Watson's attention, and Hall...paid her no attention.
Click to expand...

Watson's response in that thread is best summed up by this song:

 
Okay, so can anyone tell me what Rebecca Watson's accomplishments actually are?

Other than being Internet-famous?

Her Wikipedia entry doesn't list anything particularly notable. The Skepchick movement, I guess? A pinup calendar. For a while she was a pretty face that was willing to sit in on SGU podcasts and not openly dissent from the NESS mainstream.

No mention of education, degrees, publications, significant contributions, etc.

From what little I've seen of her videos and postings, she's not a very good communicator, and not a very good thinker. Has she ever actually produced an interesting new idea that advanced the mainstream of skeptical thought or action?

I mean, I know General Hall has a few more decades of experience, but the difference between the two of them is like night and day.
 
theprestige said:
Okay, so can anyone tell me what Rebecca Watson's accomplishments actually are?

Other than being Internet-famous?

Her Wikipedia entry doesn't list anything particularly notable. The Skepchick movement, I guess? A pinup calendar. For a while she was a pretty face that was willing to sit in on SGU podcasts and not openly dissent from the NESS mainstream.

No mention of education, degrees, publications, significant contributions, etc.

From what little I've seen of her videos and postings, she's not a very good communicator, and not a very good thinker. Has she ever actually produced an interesting new idea that advanced the mainstream of skeptical thought or action?

I mean, I know General Hall has a few more decades of experience, but the difference between the two of them is like night and day.
Click to expand...

What?! I can't believe you are asking this. Are you that clueless? You actually think that exposing and then challenging the rampant misogyny within the skeptical/atheist movement is not an amazing accomplishment?
 
Zelenius said:
What?! I can't believe you are asking this. Are you that clueless? You actually think that exposing and then challenging the rampant misogyny within the skeptical/atheist movement is not an amazing accomplishment?
Click to expand...

You mean Elevatorgate?

Yeah, no. I've been a regular at annual conventions (BayCon, if anybody cares). I've been an enthusiastic producer, disseminator, and consumer of convention drama. Achievements in convention drama don't impress me.

Not to keep harping, but General Hall's t-shirt is the least of her accomplishments. RW's elevatorgate is her greatest?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom