Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[WillyWonka]

I would like to be fair to Rebecca Watson. My first encounter of her was at SGU. At that time, to be charitable, the Novella's presentation on the show were let's say "stiff". She was quite endearing by being a good colour commentator and provide funny quotes to support the programme. It is likely that SGU would not be as popular without Rebecca. Having a B.A. in communication from Boston College, she should be adept in using TV and radio as well, social medias, and understand what makes good scientific communication. She is flexible, smart and is quite capable to use medias to project herself in a good light. She is attractive without being fake and would be good on TV.

Had she kept with this line of work, I certainly could of seen her as a good science communication specialist for networks, etc. For this type of work, you do not need to be a scientist, just a good communicator. I certainly could see her in TV shows like "Mythbusters", or other similar shows.

Unfortunately, as we know, she joined the dark side. She is not the first, and the last one, to believe in her our story and hoist her own petard; she had such potential.

One of the most irritating stories for me that she brought up on SGU was on episode #362 on June 23, 2012.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=362


She talked about testosterone testing should not be done on female athletes because it makes them "feel bad". (start at the 25m50s mark). Terrible story from her especially since that there was a book called "Run, Swim, Throw, Cheat: The science behind drugs in sport", published in April 22, 2012, which document the increase performance from testosterone on female athletes. For me, this is when the show jumped the shark.

 

[qayak]

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.

That has always been my thinking. She had an agenda that she needed facts for so she made up "Elevator Guy." She needed him to have been in the bar and heard her sermon so that she could make the claim that he was aware of her feelings on the issue and because he was a man, ignored them. Her details are that of convenience, not fact.

Unfortunately, being so egocentric, it never crossed her mind that anyone could ever doubt "super smart, and sweet," Rebecca Watson. When they did she came up with the claim that she didn't recognize faces and yet, she had recognized his face . . . twice.

She is responsible for her own derail in the skeptic community. The community didn't need her before, there was nothing she did that anyone else couldn't do, and it doesn't need her now. She turned herself into a self-righteous joke.

YMMV. I was never a fan.

 

[RandFan]

I would like to be fair to Rebecca Watson. My first encounter of her was at SGU. At that time, to be charitable, the Novella's presentation on the show were let's say "stiff". She was quite endearing by being a good colour commentator and provide funny quotes to support the programme. It is likely that SGU would not be as popular without Rebecca.

I was a big fan of Watson's. I listened to SGU religiously and I liked her input. I liked her posts on JREF and I was very excited to see the women of skepticism emerging and RW played a major part in that.

I don't hate her. I don't bear her ill will. I'm deeply disappointed in her. Not that her opinion differs from mine. I'm disappointed in her boorish actions and her escalating this entire affair beyond anything approaching reasonable. No, it's not all her fault but she could have done so much to keep this from blowing out of proportion. She chose her narcissism over her better nature.

I'll be frank, I don't know if I would have been any better than her. I'm hot headed and my buttons are easily pushed. I would like to think that I would have eventually come to my senses and sought some resolutions but I don't know that for a fact. So I why do I criticize her? As one who as come to be a leader in this movement if she cannot behave as an adult then she damn well deserves criticism. She most certainly deserves to be criticized for the imbecilic and asinine things she has said since.

 

[Horatius]

It just doesn't make sense, assuming it all happened as RW said it happened, for the Elevator Guy to remain a nameless phantom. ....


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?

You're assuming he is a well-known member, or at least a regular member, of that community. There's no reason to think that.

I've just come from our Ottawa Skepticamp. I'm a regular member of the Ottawa Skeptics group, and have attended many functions in the last several years, but at this Skepticamp, there were at least 15 people that I've never met before, out of maybe 50 in attendance. Were I required to identify one of them after the fact, based on hearing a story about their behavior following the event, I'd be completely unable to.

To be fair, while name calling is indeed superfluous and probably at least partially infantile when used to debate, to say it "hurts the case" is a tone argument.

I'd say that, in this case, not only does it "hurt his case", I'd say that it actually supports Rebecca Watson's case. Seriously, how does using a fake name like "Twatson" to address a person complaining about sexist behavior in our community not raise a huge red flag? He's essentially dismissing her as being a twat. It's stupid crap like that that has led us to this point.

 

[Zelenius]

You're assuming he is a well-known member, or at least a regular member, of that community. There's no reason to think that.

I've just come from our Ottawa Skepticamp. I'm a regular member of the Ottawa Skeptics group, and have attended many functions in the last several years, but at this Skepticamp, there were at least 15 people that I've never met before, out of maybe 50 in attendance. Were I required to identify one of them after the fact, based on hearing a story about their behavior following the event, I'd be completely unable to.

But he need not be well-known or a regular to be identifiable if he was there long enough, interacted with a lot of people and exchanged names(unless he used a false one), and possibly appeared in a photo(and RW herself said she saw him in the audience and later at the bar area). I suggested one possibility of some fictional person he might have been, but that need not imply I think or assume he is particularly well-known, just known to some people at the conference, bar, or the organizers.

That said, I understand your point about not remembering people, since I've been to various functions over the years and one skeptical event. I'm a nobody, and if I passed a fellow skeptic conference attendant the next day on the street, I doubt we would recognize each other(since I am not a regular), so I understand your point(unless it was that really hot Russian lady who sat near me, or one of the organizers, since we had a conversation about Michael Schermer just before I left).

 

[Daald]

I'd say that, in this case, not only does it "hurt his case", I'd say that it actually supports Rebecca Watson's case. Seriously, how does using a fake name like "Twatson" to address a person complaining about sexist behavior in our community not raise a huge red flag? He's essentially dismissing her as being a twat. It's stupid crap like that that has led us to this point.

While I agree with you that his argument did not need the colorful language I do not see how it makes her case.

Her case was never that there is sexist behavior in our community. That is trivially true. Her claim was that it is rampant. If that was the case then all of us should be jumping in and high fiving this person for his turn of phrase and calling her Twatson from with point forward. The fact that we do not and the fact that we call such a person out on it kinda proves the fact that it might not be as rampant as she says it is.

Also, just because he uses such language it says nothing about the facts of the matter. The facts are sourced appropriately and we as skeptics should be able to come to conclusions without his blog post.

 

[recursive prophet]

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.

Being relatively new to the RW phenomenon spin off from A+, (or was it vice-versa?) I can't trace McGraw mentally. Was he the one who wrote that article proposing both sides put down the flamethrowers for the good of the movement? I found that very impressive. If not, I'd appreciate a link to his comments.

Thanks WillyWonka, for fleshing out the positive attributes of RW. I remember thinking, watching some of her presentations, that if she can't make it as a SJW she might have a shot at stand up comedy. She's relaxed in front of an audience and comes up with some pretty funny lines. At any rate I suspect she'll dine out for years on elevatorgate. I just think it's a shame she has exacerbated the divide between m/f skeptics and atheists when-to be charitable in the extreme-she was ostensibly trying to suggest an example of how to help bridge it.

I'm kind of in agreement with several different, somewhat contrary positions itt, such as those posted by you and RF and those of gayak and Daald. I will say I think overall this thread represents the most rational, even handed discussion I have seen to date on A+ and RW. Looking forward to reading qwint's response.

Qwint, where are you!!? Get in here...NOW!!

 

[Nihilus]

I'd say that, in this case, not only does it "hurt his case", I'd say that it actually supports Rebecca Watson's case.

As much as Dawkins' perceived attitude towards theism supports the case for the rationality of the god concept.

The one exception here is that his unnecessary reduction to name calling, specifically because of the the type of wording he chose to use, proves a presence of misogynistic thinking; he resorted to a gender-based defamatory word which, I think, was incredibly stupid, regardless of the wordy cleverness of adding one letter to her name (which is, admittedly, not that clever anyhow).

So, I would agree with you if that's what you meant in terms of how it's a functional boon for the "privilege" side.

 

[Empress]

Being relatively new to the RW phenomenon spin off from A+, (or was it vice-versa?) I can't trace McGraw mentally. Was he the one who wrote that article proposing both sides put down the flamethrowers for the good of the movement? I found that very impressive. If not, I'd appreciate a link to his comments.

McGraw is Steph McGraw. IIRC, she's the one that wrote a blog critical of RW's characterization of ElevatorGuy, and then was in the audience at a conference where RW called her out personally. I think this is McGraw's blog.

 

[qayak]

As much as Dawkins' perceived attitude towards theism supports the case for the rationality of the god concept.

The one exception here is that his unnecessary reduction to name calling, specifically because of the the type of wording he chose to use, proves a presence of misogynistic thinking; he resorted to a gender-based defamatory word which, I think, was incredibly stupid, regardless of the wordy cleverness of adding one letter to her name (which is, admittedly, not that clever anyhow).

So, I would agree with you if that's what you meant in terms of how it's a functional boon for the "privilege" side.

Only because you want it to be. In modern usage a 'twat' is simply a stupid, incompetent, horrible person.

 

[Nihilus]

Only because you want it to be. In modern usage a 'twat' is simply a stupid, incompetent, horrible person.

Yes, the fourth potential colloquial usage for the term in urban dictionary allows for a non-gender-based interpretation for the word.

Either there's a good bit of special pleading here or we're playing selectively naive or there was a portion of the context intended to convey both meanings 4 and 1. In any case, it substantiates the counter-argument inasmuch as psychic ability to measure internal mental intent does not exist.

 

[zooterkin]

Apologies if it's been posted before, and I missed it, but I don't remember reading this before. Dr Hall has addressed the T-shirt issue - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/a-final-word-on-t-shirts-and-teapot-tempests/

 

[squealpiggy]

Yes, the fourth potential colloquial usage for the term in urban dictionary allows for a non-gender-based interpretation for the word.

Either there's a good bit of special pleading here or we're playing selectively naive or there was a portion of the context intended to convey both meanings 4 and 1. In any case, it substantiates the counter-argument inasmuch as psychic ability to measure internal mental intent does not exist.

If the term was coined by a Brit then it is almost certain to not be a reference to any body part. The term "twat" in Britain generally refers to a buffoon of a particular type: Pathetic, pretentious and arrogant. There is a meaning for the word that refers to female genitals but this would be the most vulgar and the least used definition.

Calling Watson "Twatson" is not a slur on her gender, it's a use of the other British colloquial meaning.

 

[Brainache]

If the term was coined by a Brit then it is almost certain to not be a reference to any body part. The term "twat" in Britain generally refers to a buffoon of a particular type: Pathetic, pretentious and arrogant. There is a meaning for the word that refers to female genitals but this would be the most vulgar and the least used definition.

Calling Watson "Twatson" is not a slur on her gender, it's a use of the other British colloquial meaning.

Either way it is a cheap shot and not productive. RW seems to spend a lot of time talking about herself and villifying people who disagree with her. I can't understand why people pay her to speak at conferences, but they do. Maybe the controversy she generates puts bums on seats, but I'd much rather watch Dawkins.

FSM save us all if she ever makes a documentary and sells it to PBS or someone...

 

[AdMan]

Apologies if it's been posted before, and I missed it, but I don't remember reading this before. Dr Hall has addressed the T-shirt issue - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/a-final-word-on-t-shirts-and-teapot-tempests/

Thanks--I hadn't seen that.

Wish she hadn't had to make that post, because who cares what your shirt says, but I'm glad she did in an eloquent way as is usual with Dr. Hall.

It won't silence her critics but it should bury the t-shirt issue for everybody else.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

I'm not talking about this forum, I'm talking about the kerfuffle that happened in the blogosphere at the time.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'd say that, in this case, not only does it "hurt his case", I'd say that it actually supports Rebecca Watson's case. Seriously, how does using a fake name like "Twatson" to address a person complaining about sexist behavior in our community not raise a huge red flag? He's essentially dismissing her as being a twat. It's stupid crap like that that has led us to this point.

I think it's crude and unnecessary, but I don't see how it's any more sexist than Watson calling herself a "dick" is.

 

[squealpiggy]

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.

Looks like it's all about maximising guilt levels. I think that this is the way social justice is the most like religion. This idea that we are all sinners, but some sinners are lesser sinners and can dictate penance.

Either way it is a cheap shot and not productive. .

I agree with you there. I just wanted to clear up the misconception that the word is exclusively or even mainly a misogynist term.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Being relatively new to the RW phenomenon spin off from A+, (or was it vice-versa?) I can't trace McGraw mentally. Was he the one who wrote that article proposing both sides put down the flamethrowers for the good of the movement? I found that very impressive. If not, I'd appreciate a link to his comments.

It's been quite a while since I read McGraw's comments and am on something of a time-limit here. A poster linked to something above. If that's it, then I won't come back later and find a link but, if it's not, I'll find the links and post them.

Anyway, the cliff-notes version is this:

Watson made her "guys, don't do that" video. Stef McGraw was the head of her university's sceptical society and made a couple of reasoned and civil¹ counter-arguments. Nothing more happened until the next week when Watson was making a speech that McGraw was attending. The beginning of Watson's speech was unrelated to the rest of the speech, and was Watson talking about the kinds of hate she receives online.² During this segment, she named McGraw, displayed some of her blog post out of context, said she had "failed feminism 101", and implicitly equated her comments with the threats of rape Watson receives.

McGraw was shocked that Watson would use her speech to do this but, as it was 5 minutes at the start of an hour-long speech the subject matter of which was completely different, and because she didn't want to make it all about her, McGraw declined to use the Q&A session afterwards to challenge Watson on this. She ignored it until Watson tweeted negatively about her post a couple of days later, so McGraw wrote another blog which, again, challenged Watson reasonably and point-by-point. And then the hoards descended on McGraw, and the other hoards descended on Watson, and Dawkins entered the already heated situation, and so on.

McGraw has, to my knowledge, never responded further to anybody on the subject, or made any kind of public statement. Which, I think, speaks well of her. She seems, to me, to be the only person involved in the whole stupid incident, who acted like an adult.

¹Although whether or not those arguments were correct is down to the reader.
²Again, it's been quite a while since I saw the speech myself, but if you want to hear it I'll see if I can find it online later.

 

[s_pepys]

pz myers on harriet hall. he really is a charmer!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/


this part caught my eye a bit.

I’m so over Harriet Hall’s t-shirt. She’s been going on and on, circling around the drain to somehow defend it. It’s simple: she wore it to spite some people she clearly doesn’t like, and to get praise from other people who don’t like Rebecca Watson and the Skepchicks. It’s really that easy. Just admit it and move on. I know it’s hard to admit that you’re that petty, but it would end all this nonsense, and it would be honest. Get over it; the wordy excuse-making is getting embarrassing. Besides, Amanda Marcotte has Hall’s number

(sorry if its been posted already)

lxxx