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

So, who's going to Dragon*Con this year?! (not me :( )

According to Mayhew's account, they DID ask her to remove the books. Rebecca decided to pack up and leave, on her own.

I wasn't there to witness any of this. But, if anyone can make a case against that account, I would like to see it.

Mayhew wasn't there, either. She was not a witness to any of this, and AFAIK has not revealed the source of her information.

Considering that not a day goes by where she finds some reason to tweet some bizarre condemnation/insult* at Skepchicks/A+ers/"FTBullies" and so on, I question her objectivity and honesty.


* My favorite is "Naval gassing."
 
Last edited:
Mayhew wasn't there, either. She was not a witness to any of this, and AFAIK has not revealed the source of her information.

Second-hand accusations based on unnamed sources are only good enough for uncontroversial claims like accusations of being a serial rapist, I guess. Not for major stuff like whether or not a blogger knew about a convention rule before they packed up a table over it. Funny how skepticism works sometimes.

(I'm not attributing any hypocrisy to you, by the way, it's just rather sad that so many "skeptics" are going to be forming their views on these matters based on such flimsy data).

Considering that not a day goes by where she finds some reason to tweet some bizarre condemnation/insult* at Skepchicks/A+ers/"FTBullies" and so on, I question her objectivity and honesty.

This seems like the fallacious heuristic that if there is controversy, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. FTB and A+ tolerate a reasonable number of horrible, stupid people posting horrible, stupid things, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone trawling their communities for things to be outraged about could find constant sources of outrage.

That isn't proof that the entire community is like that, of course, although it's not entirely unfair to judge a community by the worst that it tolerates, and they are much more of an ideological monoculture than other skeptical organisations.
 
Mayhew wasn't there, either. She was not a witness to any of this, and AFAIK has not revealed the source of her information.
Those are fair points to make, I guess. Though, if someone was going to refute her claims, I would hope they would have more specific evidences to offer.

For example: Sara offers evidence that the rule Rebecca claimed ignorance on was, in fact, a rule she knew about. Any evidence this is not accurate?

Considering that not a day goes by where she finds some reason to tweet some bizarre condemnation/insult* at Skepchicks/A+ers/"FTBullies" and so on, I question her objectivity and honesty.
This, however, is largely irrelevant. I don't question points people make based on the quality of points they make in the past. Even a broken analog clock is right twice a day, and even the most trustworthy person in the world (assuming such a person exists) can get certain things wrong, every now and then.
 
I've been away from the whole skeptical movement for quite awhile but I've gotten myself up to speed and it sure has become exciting.
I'm eagerly awaiting the next "_____gate".

Perhaps it will involve a mixup with Rebecaa Watson's convention parking pass and she'll end up getting towed.
 
I thoroughly enjoyed Dragon Con and the Skeptrack this year. Congratulations and thanks to Derek and the rest of the team for putting on a terrific con.

Except for the usual Skepchicks drama. They apparently enjoy making a big fuss in departing early. Thankfully, no t-shirts were involved this time, or it could have been even uglier.

Here's to hoping they decide to stay away in the first place the next time, or change their usual MO. It's getting extremely tiresome.
 
Last edited:
Well why didn't they just ask her to remove the books rather than shut the whole table down? I would have been hollering sexist abuse, or whatever nazi feminism insult applies in this situation, if they pulled this on me.
I wouldn't.

I would have first ensured I had bothered to read the requirements before attending.

I would have argued my case with the staff member (as Rebecca says she did), but would not have waited for them to say that their boss could be contacted. I would have already have been demanding to speak to them myself - if I still felt I was in the right. I would not have cared how the staff member worded it, really.

If I was going to accuse the staff of behaving in an intimidating fashion, I would have supported this with my reasons for feeling so (e.g., he poked my shoulder with his finger, or he stood with his nose about 1cm away from mine while shouting in my face ...)

I would have checked if anyone else was doing the same as me at their stalls, and if so, photographed it, and asked management what the difference was. If no one was doing the same, I might reflect on that. I would have asked for a calm, private meeting with management to discuss the situation and understand how to resolve it for the future.

I might have tweeted/facebooked it, but I definitely would not have blogged it while still raw and angry. I may have typed it up, but would probably have waited until the next day and reviewed it when feeling calmer; particularly to see if the situation could be resolved before then by a discussion with the management.

I wouldn't be making any claims about sexist abuse unless I could see that men were clearly getting treated differently - not just from me, but from other women there. I don't see any point in using feminazi insults, really.

*shrug* ... that's just me.
 
Mayhew wasn't there, either. She was not a witness to any of this, and AFAIK has not revealed the source of her information.

Considering that not a day goes by where she finds some reason to tweet some bizarre condemnation/insult* at Skepchicks/A+ers/"FTBullies" and so on, I question her objectivity and honesty.


* My favorite is "Naval gassing."

I think she's taking a page from the A+/FTBully play book. As many will recall, they continuously tweeted how awful TAM was last year, even though none of the tweeters were there.
 
If I was going to accuse the staff of behaving in an intimidating fashion, I would have supported this with my reasons for feeling so (e.g., he poked my shoulder with his finger, or he stood with his nose about 1cm away from mine while shouting in my face ...)

In SJW-land, "intimidating" means "an old white man spoke to me".


I might have tweeted/facebooked it, but I definitely would not have blogged it while still raw and angry. I may have typed it up, but would probably have waited until the next day and reviewed it when feeling calmer; particularly to see if the situation could be resolved before then by a discussion with the management.

I wouldn't be making any claims about sexist abuse unless I could see that men were clearly getting treated differently - not just from me, but from other women there. I don't see any point in using feminazi insults, really.

*shrug* ... that's just me.

You will never have a successful SJW blog.
 
I wouldn't.

I would have first ensured I had bothered to read the requirements before attending.

I would have argued my case with the staff member (as Rebecca says she did), but would not have waited for them to say that their boss could be contacted. I would have already have been demanding to speak to them myself - if I still felt I was in the right. I would not have cared how the staff member worded it, really.

If I was going to accuse the staff of behaving in an intimidating fashion, I would have supported this with my reasons for feeling so (e.g., he poked my shoulder with his finger, or he stood with his nose about 1cm away from mine while shouting in my face ...)

I would have checked if anyone else was doing the same as me at their stalls, and if so, photographed it, and asked management what the difference was. If no one was doing the same, I might reflect on that. I would have asked for a calm, private meeting with management to discuss the situation and understand how to resolve it for the future.

I might have tweeted/facebooked it, but I definitely would not have blogged it while still raw and angry. I may have typed it up, but would probably have waited until the next day and reviewed it when feeling calmer; particularly to see if the situation could be resolved before then by a discussion with the management.

I wouldn't be making any claims about sexist abuse unless I could see that men were clearly getting treated differently - not just from me, but from other women there. I don't see any point in using feminazi insults, really.

*shrug* ... that's just me.

But then you wouldn't have been able to do the dramatic exit flounce, wouldn't have gotten to play victim and claim a huge financial loss on your blog, wouldn't have gotten your dwindling army of supporters all buzzed up again, and wouldn't have made it all about ME ME ME ME!!!!
 
<wise words snipped>
Jodie, here's hoping you will contemplate these wise words, and maybe come to realize there are alternatives to dealing with stressful situations that don't involve throwing a hysterical tantrum.
 
Jodie, here's hoping you will contemplate these wise words, and maybe come to realize there are alternatives to dealing with stressful situations that don't involve throwing a hysterical tantrum.

TRIGGER WARNING - SEXISM AND MYSOGENY

I believe "hysterical" is a sexist, mysoginist term. I need to check my SJW play book to be certain.
 
Misspelling "misogyny" is misogynist.

Probably.

Correcting another person's spelling is just reenforcing patriarchal language norms, and also shows a disrespect to those who aren't able to spell.

Stopping grammar-splaining and check your language privilege.

(am I doing it right?)
 
Correcting another person's spelling is just reenforcing patriarchal language norms, and also shows a disrespect to those who aren't able to spell.

Stopping grammar-splaining and check your language privilege.

(am I doing it right?)

I believe you want to ask " Am I doing it correctly?".
 
Well why didn't they just ask her to remove the books rather than shut the whole table down? I would have been hollering sexist abuse, or whatever nazi feminism insult applies in this situation, if they pulled this on me.

According to Derek, who told me he was standing there when it happened, that's exactly what they did. They offered to let them remove the non-conforming merchandise and continue to operate the table. But Rebecca and Amy refused to do that. At that point there was no other resolution but to shut the table down.
 

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