• 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.
I dont see why we should assume that this childish insult is an innocent transatlantic misunderstanding.

It's not at all a misunderstanding, it was a delibertate provocation, hitting back at whomever originally coined the 'Dear Dick' meme. As per usual, both sides will say that the other guys started it, they were just retaliating in kind.

Here is a relevant excerpt from James Onen:
Throughout this ordeal, many of Dawkins’ critics have used the epithet “dick” to deride him – using it as a convenient slur that happened to coincide with the shortened form of the name Richard. The word “dick” is vulgar slang for penis – and is also used to describe a man who is regarded as obnoxious or stupid. Many of these critics using this epithet have been feminists, which is significant, given their negative reaction when the sexual epithet “twat”, and its associated pormanteau, Twatson, would be used to deride Rebecca Watson. The word “twat” is vulgar slang for vagina – and is also used to describe a a foolish or despicable person.
 
Last edited:
How to deal with hate mail.

I like how Scott Mills does it. He's got a feature on his radio show called "Loving The Trolls". He takes the hate mail that he and his team get, and cut-and-pastes it in here: http://www.cepstral.com/en/demos

Select the voice "Lawrence", put the pitch up to its highest setting, then hit "Say It". When listening imagine that that's the person's real voice and that they talk like that all the time.

There's nothing anybody can say that can possibly hurt if you do that.
 
fair play. steve novella should start working on watson and myers now.....

(maybe not myers)

Unfortunately, the T-shirt incident is only one small (ridiculous) issue. The schism has more to do with the wish of some people to transform atheism in a political movement, and the so numerous line-in-the-sand, such as asking Grothe to resign, calling Ed Clint and Justin Vacula rapists, boycotting Dawkins, etc.
 
I like how Scott Mills does it. He's got a feature on his radio show called "Loving The Trolls". He takes the hate mail that he and his team get, and cut-and-pastes it in here: http://www.cepstral.com/en/demos

Select the voice "Lawrence", put the pitch up to its highest setting, then hit "Say It". When listening imagine that that's the person's real voice and that they talk like that all the time.

There's nothing anybody can say that can possibly hurt if you do that.
:cool: Cool. I like that.
 
Going back to the science thread, I have an idea for why the consistent unreasonable rejection of the "science can't choose values" position championed by Mr. Samsa.

Sure, that forum's bog-standard uncharitability is part of it.

But I think another part of it is an instinctive unwillingness to give up "the science is settled!" as an argument. It's easy to find studies that seem to support conclusions, and once you have one, you can produce it to refute opposing claims. "My values are objectively better because science."

Take away science, and what's left? You can't really investigoogle preconception-supporting philosophical arguments the way you can media reports about science results. You actually have to grovel through Hume, and Pascal, and all the rest for yourself. You have to follow the arguments and figure out for yourself what values to adopt.

You have to make the arguments yourself, to explain your values and convince others to adopt them.

And all along, you have to deal with the uncomfortable fact that philosophy can't determine values with the same certainty that science can determine facts. At the end of the day, even well-informed persons can reasonably disagree in good faith.

If science can't determine values, then Setar, ceepolk, and all the rest can no longer say, "my values are objectively better". What's worse, they can no longer cite someone else's science as having done their thinking for them. They'd actually have to think it through for themselves. Which, as ceepolk has made abundantly clear, is too hard.
 
Since we're not in Britain your apologetic falls flat.

In any case it's an insult, so unless you're saying that argument by insult is OK you shouldn't be defending it's use.

I'm sorry, who is "we"? Do you mean "The Internet"? "The Skeptical community"? Who is this "we" you're referring to here?

Me, I live in Canada but I am British and spent most of my life there including all of my schooling. But of course "we" aren't in Britain so therefore there must be cultural homogeneity in all the language "we" use lest somebody in North America be forced to acknowledge the existence of other cultures and differing cultural mores.

My post was an attempt to explain that while I think that the silly pun "Twatson" was idiotic, I didn't consider it to indicate anything more sinister than the immaturity of whoever coined it. But apparently acknowledging that there are different standards for the offensiveness of specific words in different English-speaking cultures was so difficult for you it makes much more sense to label me as a misogynist apologetic.

In the UK 99% of the use of the word "twat" and the c-bomb has absolutely nothing to do with anybody's anatomy. Do not presume to impose the niceties of your culture on everybody else.

Where did you grow up ? As a Brit schoolkid in London in the 70s , twat was a relatively immature way of referring to female genitalia, when we boys had no idea specifically what we were talking about, rather than say the (more taboo among children) C word. Later twat did also come to mean a stupid person.

Later on as in... now? As in about the time when people started using "Twatson" as an insult?

The same as the c word (don't think the forum censors will allow , doesn't matter) has come to mean a stupid or obnoxious (usually male) person.

-

Exactly. In the UK and Ireland (and possibly Australia and NZ but one of our Antipodean compatriots could probably correct me) those words have developed a meaning that has relatively little to do with a vulgar reference to a part of a lady.

There again in the UK the word "pussy" still mainly means cat.

It doesn't work as a Brit insult given the difference in the pronunciation between the uk and the us. In the US the a in twat and watson are pronounced the same, in the uk they ate very different.

I don't think anyone making a childish pun would say "Hey if we add a letter 'T' to the front of her name it'll say 'Twatson' and then... no. No, that won't work, the 'A' sound in 'Watson' is different to the 'A'sound in 'twat'. We'll have to think of something else'."

I think it's worth pointing out again how infantile this sort of insult is. I think that the FTB crowd are trying to make it more sinister than it is so that they can continue to do the exact same thing when referring to "Blunderf00t" or "Justin Vacuous".

Given the vile misogynistic abuse which rebecca has suffered (alongside legitimate criticism) I dont see why we should assume that this childish insult is an innocent transatlantic misunderstanding.

No, I think we should assume it's a childish insult.
 
I don't think anyone making a childish pun would say "Hey if we add a letter 'T' to the front of her name it'll say 'Twatson' and then... no. No, that won't work, the 'A' sound in 'Watson' is different to the 'A'sound in 'twat'. We'll have to think of something else'."
Um, exactly. Because it's not merely a childish pun; it's a childish pun with a nuanced subversive element. And since he's not a Brit, the sad attempt to salvage it from any relation to misogynistic notes is even more ridiculous. He went with "Twatson" because of the phonetic awareness of her last name being pronounced with an "ah" not an "a" as in quack.

Or he's just a brainless twit with absolutely no intellectual capacity to understand selective linguistic context despite having an otherwise good argument.
 
Last edited:
Um, exactly. Because it's not merely a childish pun; it's a childish pun with a nuanced subversive element. And since he's not a Brit, the sad attempt to salvage it from any relation to misogynistic notes is even more ridiculous. He went with "Twatson" because of the phonetic awareness of her last name being pronounced with an "ah" not an "a" as in quack.

It's probably more to do with the fact that he's communicating in a written medium, where pronunciation is largely irrelevant.

Or he's just a brainless twit with absolutely no intellectual capacity to understand selective linguistic context despite having an otherwise good argument.

He doesn't have a good argument. See my post a couple of pages back.
 
Credit is due to Amy for this blog post where she resolves her issues with Dr Hall's T-shirt. Thumbs up to Steve Novella and Harriet, too, of course.

Someone attempting to end unnecessary controversy? And on the Skepchick side as well?

I would hope that turns into a trend.
 
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 for posting this Zoot. One of the most rational comments about the 'your right of free speech ends where my feelings may be hurt by it begins' idea proposed by A+. What is amazing to me is they can't see how this can lead to a small group arbitrarily silencing a much larger one. You can see this process at work at the A+ forum.
 
One of the most rational comments about the 'your right of free speech ends where my feelings may be hurt by it begins' idea proposed by A+. What is amazing to me is they can't see how this can lead to a small group arbitrarily silencing a much larger one.

On the contrary, I think they understand and welcome that aspect. In their worldview, they're the small group struggling with the oppressive, patriarchichal, status-quo majority that is constantly trying to silence and ignore them. From that perspective, momentarily silencing the larger group is just a little, tiny speck of fairness.

Of course, my personal perspective would be very, very different.

You can see this process at work at the A+ forum.

And it's working about as well as you'd expect.

<sigh>
 
So, you are saying you aren't psychic but you can read the author's intent . . . that makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:

Hey, intent ain't magic, ya know. :rolleyes: But it is something we all perceive differently. TBH I had actually forgotten twat was also american slang for female genitalia. I'm old, and haven't heard this word used in that way for many years.

I correspond extensively via voice mail with a friend in UK, and a while back we got into a discussion on the word twat and how it was pronounced. Here's the very funny picture that brought on that exchange. http://weknowmemes.com/2012/12/twat-christmas-lights/

I think 'horrible person' is incorrect. More of a clueless doofus than evil in any way. Yes it's an insult and such will loose you ad/hom points in any debate. It doesn't refute your argument, but it does weaken it to some degree. This said, I'm afraid PZ and the A+ forum have reached a point where you either have to laugh or cry. Perhaps a little humorous parody is appropriate? ;)
 
Um, exactly. Because it's not merely a childish pun; it's a childish pun with a nuanced subversive element. .

Call me naive but when somebody changes the name "Watson" to "Twatson" I'm not really thinking "nuance".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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