Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I watched it twice and didn't catch that. How different is planning to gaslight her handler, compared to actually doing it, in so far as her mindset is concerned? So, she needed someone who was not a sociopath to dissuade her. Conceding this minor revision, my point stands. I rest my case.

So you've never pranked someone? Really?

 

[d4m10n]

When I went to the 9/11 truther forum it struck me as juvenile with all the childish insults. I've no illusions that JREF is without pettiness and I would be dishonest if I claimed to always be above it. But I think we are better without it.

Agreed. There is always a whole forum where childish insults and toilet humour directed against FtB / A+ are the order of the day.

 

[zooterkin]

Someone being a douche while also being entirely correct doesn't have the latter nullified because of the former. But, yes, it also doesn't mean the former is at all necessary, reasonable, or useful.

You're right, logically, of course. But it will make some people less inclined to listen to the logical arguments.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe, but it seems a sound case to me. The unnecessary and tactically foolish name-calling aside, there is a clear logical argument and considerable evidence supporting each step.

I think "considerable evidence" is overstating it somewhat. The "Ha! Gotcha!" rather depends on that particular person being in that one photograph. Given that you can easily see in the photograph that the room is much larger than the confines of the frame, that there are people whose faces aren't in shot, people with their faces blurred beyond recognition, people who only have a very small part of their body in frame, and from which it's reasonable to extrapolate that there are people outside of the frame entirely, this isn't very strong evidence. Especially if you take into account the fact that Watson was supposedly there from the end of the conference at 6PM until 4AM and that that's plenty of time for people to come and go. And bear in mind that it looks like she is talking to someone off to the right of the photo.

That she can't point him out in this one photograph is not evidence that he doesn't exist.

Another point from the post isn't as strong as the blogger is making it out to be:

And ask it of her I did. She answered. Apparently, she has an extremely rare and yet proven-to-be-congenital brain defect which prevents her from being able to recognize faces, called prosopagnosia. I'm no expert on this, but let's do that thing that skeptics do: analyze public information.

He then spends the rest of the article (which is the vast majority of it) saying that she's lying about this, and implying that she has done so in order to get around having to identify the guy in the photo. However, there's another bit of public information which is relevant here - Watson claimed prosopagnosia back in 2007. If she really did make it up to avoid identifying ElevatorGuy in that photo, then you've got to give her credit for her groundwork and forward planning.

"Solid case" isn't the terminology I'd use.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I watched it twice and didn't catch that. How different is planning to gaslight her handler, compared to actually doing it, in so far as her mindset is concerned? So, she needed someone who was not a sociopath to dissuade her. Conceding this minor revision, my point stands. I rest my case.

You know, I think that even qualified psychiatrists would prefer to meet their clients for a few sessions before diagnosing them as a sociopath. Are you seriously claiming to have done so over the internet?

 

[tsig]

Maybe, but it seems a sound case to me. The unnecessary and tactically foolish name-calling aside, there is a clear logical argument and considerable evidence supporting each step.

Here's the link again. Perhaps you could point out a weakness in the actual argument, such as something they got wrong or overlooked.

http://integralmath.blogspot.com/2011/10/almost-skeptical.html


This is in contrast to the "PZ using up all the straw" essay linked a bit earlier, which is amusing but contains little or no actual argumentation.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: Apparently RW said somewhere on the internet that she had trouble recognizing faces and this whole blog post is a piss-take on that.

Still with the same high level of argumentation.

This is untrue. The 'reason' for my skepticism is that I'm being given a positive claim that obviates all need for Twatson to make any effort to identify her coffee-inviter. And it's a very, very rare condition that isn't demonstrated to be congenital. There's no information anywhere indicating she's taken a blow to the head.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

I remember reading about a minor crisis when a black boxer and a white boxer were about to fight and they both brought black trunks. There was panic as the commentators did not know how they would differentiate between the two of them.

I don't remember anything that could be described as a crisis, but I do remember Joe Rogan (UFC color commentator) making an offhand remark like "there are easier ways to differentiate the fighters" when Mike Goldberg (play by play announcer) was struggling to describe the differences in their shorts.

 

[tsig]

You know, I think that even qualified psychiatrists would prefer to meet their clients for a few sessions before diagnosing them as a sociopath. Are you seriously claiming to have done so over the internet?

It only takes one look to tell she's evil incarnate, her every word is designed for her ego satisfaction and she has gotten ahead over the bloody, beaten bodies of her rivals, she sucks up the creative lifeblood of all her associates and leaves a ruined, desolate landscape in her wake.

Or she could just be a blogger.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Nuke her from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[Zelenius]

It just doesn't make sense, assuming it all happened as RW said it happened, for the Elevator Guy to remain a nameless phantom. There were other people there, at the conference, at the bar, and he surely must have interacted with many people or at least had been seen by other people. And with all the photos taken at the convention(not just including those uploaded to Twitter, Facebook or blogs), he isn't in one of them? No one remembers this man following RW to the elevator? It can't be narrowed down to a handful of middle aged men at the conference and the bar? He has no friends, and no clique he belongs to?

His name wasn't revealed in conversation with RW and friends and conference organizers("hey, it was Ronan McWilly, the head of South-eastern Galway Atheists who followed you to the elevator!"), and eventually leaked out?

 

[tsig]

It just doesn't make sense, assuming it all happened as RW said it happened, for the Elevator Guy to remain a nameless phantom. There were other people there, at the conference, at the bar, and he surely must have interacted with many people or at least had been seen by other people. And with all the photos taken at the convention(not just including those uploaded to Twitter, Facebook or blogs), he isn't in one of them? No one remembers this man following RW to the elevator? It can't be narrowed down to a handful of middle aged men at the conference and the bar? He has no friends, and no clique he belongs to?

His name wasn't revealed in conversation with RW and friends and conference organizers("hey, it was Ronan McWilly, the head of South-eastern Galway Atheists who followed you to the elevator!"), and eventually leaked out?

Who was elevator guy? Truly the burning question of the age. Why this continual obsession with this incident to the point it's micro analyzed and scrutinized in exquisite detail?


Maybe RW has some magic power to keep otherwise rational people focusing on her all the while telling us how insignificant she is.

 

[jof]

Who was elevator guy? Truly the burning question of the age. Why this continual obsession with this incident to the point it's micro analyzed and scrutinized in exquisite detail?


Maybe RW has some magic power to keep otherwise rational people focusing on her all the while telling us how insignificant she is.

We have a lot to learn from the catolic church.

 

[recursive prophet]

Seems to me this thread just keeps getting better. So many posts that resonate with my own thinking. New insights on order with each visit.

Oh man. When you have a good case, present it straightforwardly. Don't try to punch it up with juvenile insults like adding a leading T to Watson's name. Not even once. That's just stupid. It doesn't make the argument more persuasive; in fact, it makes it about five times less so.

I totally agree with this point Myriad, and do hope you weren't including me in your retort. I also agree however, that most-including myself-are guilty of this behavior at times. It gets pretty out of hand in FM, and while I've never initiated insults I have responded in kind. The fact that you manage to avoid doing so is part of what makes you what I think of as a high value poster and the best mod at JREF.

I think "considerable evidence" is overstating it somewhat. [snip] "Solid case" isn't the terminology I'd use.

Nor would I, SB. But I do think it is a stronger case than can be made for RW's claim that all she recalled was that he was white and about fifty. That description probably fit about half the attendees. Remember, she has also stated this same guy was at her lecture and within hearing distance of her discussion in the bar. So that means he would have been in range of the camera. And if she was able to recall his face on the 2 occasions in bold, why would her mind go blank after his accosting her in an elevator? Apparently this encounter made quite an impression, yet she could provide no description beyond approximate age and race. For me it just doesn't add up, but then I'm one of the duller knives in this drawer.

Kudos to Nihilus, squealpiggy, tsig and others for making some comments that I found very useful in summing up my own thinking on this comic drama. Ironically in a way it doesn't really matter if EG is real or just a figure RW created to enhance her cause d'jour. It provided her a recent example she could use to justify a long segue in her talk that was somewhat antithetical to the conference theme. It has attained so much traction imho because it presents a rather radical elevation rolleyes of what constitutes 'sexualization.' This is not to say it isn't valid; just to explain why it has gone viral. It seems quite a few agree with her position.

Could we not all agree that what our hypothetical EG did was at least poor form? A woman alone in a confined space with a stronger male making a arguably suggestive request? Had he invited her for a coffee in the bar or nearby restaurant, I would say she was totally overreacting. But given the possible sexual overtones of his request made in a confined space, I can see how RW or any woman could have found it a bit threatening.

eta: This thread is really loading slow. Might I suggest splitting it off to a new one starting with the last 5 pages or so?

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

"Harlem Shake"? THAT'S NOT COOL.

I didn't realize it was offensive to nor properly perform a dance when dancing (or whatever) to an eponymous song.

Do the country and western folks complain every time The Electric Slide is brutalized at a wedding?

Are railroad engineers insulted when people don't correctly execute The Loco-Motion?

Are transvestites (sorry, cross dressing humans) morally outraged when The Time Warp gets poorly done again?

 

[Zelenius]

Who was elevator guy? Truly the burning question of the age. Why this continual obsession with this incident to the point it's micro analyzed and scrutinized in exquisite detail?


Maybe RW has some magic power to keep otherwise rational people focusing on her all the while telling us how insignificant she is.

I used to be of the "ignore it, and it will go away" approach to this issue. But I gave up. Now I am more like "if you can't beat em', join em'".

Also, with many prominent skeptics and very good, sexy friends getting accused of "misogyny" or "sexism" by RW and allies, I couldn't remain silent any longer. The accusation of "rampant misogyny" in the skeptic/atheist community also has to be countered.

If the elevator incident which lead to the divide was indeed a hoax, it would expose the Skepchicks/Atheism+/FTB/PZ Myers for the fraudsters and parasites that they are, although I doubt it would shut them up.

 

[d4m10n]

Could we not all agree that what our hypothetical EG did was at least poor form? A woman alone in a confined space with a stronger male making a arguably suggestive request? Had he invited her for a coffee in the bar or nearby restaurant, I would say she was totally overreacting. But given the possible sexual overtones of his request made in a confined space, I can see how RW or any woman could have found it a bit threatening.

Even if RW was a black-belt and EG was a 4'6" 99lbs. weakling, it's still pretty poor form to meet someone for the first time and invite them back to your hotel room for 'coffee' and what-have-you. Unless you're at a sex-with-strangers convention, of course, in which case maybe the unwritten ground rules are a bit different.

Then again, if the prosopagnosia story is to be believed, maybe she had already talked with this guy for awhile but still couldn't recognise him?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The latest article that seems to be getting canonised is this one. While it for once takes a non-positive view of a college class, it is basically a call for every ally to shut up. What weirdness.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Remember, she has also stated this same guy was at her lecture and within hearing distance of her discussion in the bar. So that means he would have been in range of the camera.

Within range of the camera? Sure. Within the frame of the photo? Not necessarily. Someone standing to the right of the frame could easily hear what she's saying. And, again, the photo is a snapshot of less than a second. She was in the bar for 10 hours. He could have not arrived yet, gone for a wee, or been stood at the right hand side of the bar at that particular moment. Or any number of other things. Her not recognising him in that photo is not good evidence that he doesn't exist.

And if she was able to recall his face on the 2 occasions in bold, why would her mind go blank after his accosting her in an elevator? Apparently this encounter made quite an impression, yet she could provide no description beyond approximate age and race. For me it just doesn't add up, but then I'm one of the duller knives in this drawer.

Perhaps it doesn't add up. But, then, it's an anecdote told by someone who had been drinking for 10 hours by the time of the events of the story. There are any number of reasons it could not add up that don't equate to Watson lying.

The absolute best we can say is that we don't know.

Could we not all agree that what our hypothetical EG did was at least poor form? A woman alone in a confined space with a stronger male making a arguably suggestive request? Had he invited her for a coffee in the bar or nearby restaurant, I would say she was totally overreacting. But given the possible sexual overtones of his request made in a confined space, I can see how RW or any woman could have found it a bit threatening.

To be honest, I kind of fall in the middle. I can completely understand how she could find that situation unwelcome and a little threatening. I can also understand how a shy guy could want to get her on her own before asking her to get together and for it not to occur to him that it could be seen as threatening. And, incidentally, you're assuming that he was stronger.

Anyway, I don't really have a problem with her original video. I'm not a fan of people who talk for other people. It's been a while since I watched the video, but IIRC she did seem to make the case that such an advance would be unwelcome to any woman. I can understand how people could find it presumptuous of her to speak for them in this manner, but I have no problem with her saying "guys, don't do that" as general advice - it's good advice.

The other part of the video that, again IIRC, I take issue with is the way she described what he did as sexualising her, in the sense of making her a sex object. Sure, he showed a sexual interest in her, but he also explicitly said that he was interested in her because of her brain and personality, rather than it being a "phwoar, look at the norks on that!"-type thing. So, while she's free to feel whatever way she wants about it, I think that that particular complaint seems a little OTT.

Where I think she behaved badly was in her responses to those who disagreed with her, most notably Stef McGraw.

As I said earlier in the thread McGraw is the only person I think came out of this debacle well. She originally wrote a blog about it. She was then excited to hear Watson speak, and then shocked and upset to see herself called out in public and being equated to those who send Watson death and rape threats. She didn't make a scene, as she decided it was neither the time nor the place but instead wrote another blog post in response. Then she moved on with her life and never looked back.

Other than McGraw, I think that a lot of people on both sides have constructed poor arguments, exhibited groupthink and bandwagon jumping, have shouted at each other rather than talking to each other, tried to shut down and belittle opposition rather than attempting dialogue, and just generally waved their penises at each other. It is, for the most part, utterly pathetic, no matter which side you fall on.

 

[jof]

Other than McGraw, I think that a lot of people on both sides have constructed poor arguments, exhibited groupthink and bandwagon jumping, have shouted at each other rather than talking to each other, tried to shut down and belittle opposition rather than attempting dialogue, and just generally waved their penises at each other. It is, for the most part, utterly pathetic, no matter which side you fall on.

a little A+ ish.

 

[RandFan]

Other than McGraw, I think that a lot of people on both sides have constructed poor arguments, exhibited groupthink and bandwagon jumping, have shouted at each other rather than talking to each other, tried to shut down and belittle opposition rather than attempting dialogue, and just generally waved their penises at each other. It is, for the most part, utterly pathetic, no matter which side you fall on.

I'm sorry but I reject this, at least as it equates to this forum. No one that I can see is shouting anyone down and few if any I know of are appealing to nonsense. There are no secret forums here. The mods are not biased against anyone.

You are engaging in false equivalency IMO. That's not to say that the arguments here on this forum are gold or that there isn't fallacy. Of course there is. Here the arguments get their day in the sun and the mods will move an uncivil post regardless of who posts it.