Skeptics in the News

This is our lounge area. Feel free to come in and get acquainted!
User avatar
corplinx
Posts: 23787
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by corplinx »

Mentat wrote: The best thing for "free thought" to apply is first to yourself. Then worry about bitching about movements and what not. And sorry to disappoint you, but "free thought" doesn't mean "my way or the highway".

I'm sorry Mentat. It will be the highway for you. I hereby with the powers invested in me from having a JREF membership and autographed copy "Demon Haunted World" banish you from the free thought movement for thoughts disagreeing with my own.
User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 35236
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Grammatron »

Nyarlathotep wrote:This was the third or fourth thread on this subject on this forum alone. How you could have missed it is beyond me.
You know, I missed it as well somehow.
User avatar
Churchill
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:09 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Churchill »

specious_reasons wrote:
corplinx wrote:Dear blogospherians, Don't fuck with Dawkins.
Sorry, Dawkins was acting like a douchey old man who doesn't get it. He deserved all the shit he got.
I disagree. Dawkins used satire to point out that Rebecca went over the top herself, by comparing her plight with those in the 3rd world who really do have something to complain about. It might have been odd for him to comment about it in the first place, but the point he was trying to make is that she was making it out to be more than it was and he continued in the same fashion to prove a point.

As Corp and many others have said, a geek meekly asking a girl for coffee does not make a feminist martyr out of the girl.

Although through this whole episode, I have gained a better understanding of how the modern left ticks, especially reading entire discussions on the word "privilege', its meaning, usage and nuances. Very interesting if you have the time.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."

John Stuart Mill
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 49386
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Nyarlathotep »

corplinx wrote: Chick who made a cause out of a guy who had the audacity to ask her over for coffee.
Thing is, she didn't make a "cause" out of it. She made one (1) mention of it in video about the conference, sandwiched between a bunch of other stuff. It was the people who were butthurt by her statement that made a "Cause" of it. I.e. as I said, this is at least the third thread on the subject and not one has been made by someone saying "YEAH, REBECCA IS RIGHT!"

As for Dawkins, he didn't put her in her place so much as argue a giant strawman. She never even came close to comparing her incident to the plight of women in Islamic countries. She did a minor amount of bitching about an incident that she found vaguely creepy. It would be like if I complained about some asshole in a Volvo cutting me off in traffic and someone else saying "What are you bitching about? think of all the starving children in Africa you selfish jerk". Now whether one strawmannish argument is worth boycotting him forever is an arguable point, but he way overreacted and made a bad, bad argument.
User avatar
Churchill
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:09 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Churchill »

Sure, but to my knowledge, she did not counter all of the folks who were making it a big deal, but was basking in it. The bigger story IMO is how so many people think this categorises Dawkins as some misogynist and want to divest from him, and that so many of these folks are 'skeptics'.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."

John Stuart Mill
User avatar
specious_reasons
Posts: 6694
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:58 pm

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by specious_reasons »

Churchill wrote:
specious_reasons wrote:
corplinx wrote:Dear blogospherians, Don't fuck with Dawkins.
Sorry, Dawkins was acting like a douchey old man who doesn't get it. He deserved all the shit he got.
I disagree. Dawkins used satire to point out that Rebecca went over the top herself
"Guys don't do that." How outrageous! That Rebecca is such a bitch.
ta-
DAVE!!!
User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 35236
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Grammatron »

specious_reasons wrote:
Churchill wrote:
specious_reasons wrote:
corplinx wrote:Dear blogospherians, Don't fuck with Dawkins.
Sorry, Dawkins was acting like a douchey old man who doesn't get it. He deserved all the shit he got.
I disagree. Dawkins used satire to point out that Rebecca went over the top herself
"Guys don't do that." How outrageous! That Rebecca is such a bitch.
You know, I was going to agree with you until I read that blog entree and replies.

Holly crap.
User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Mentat »

Why is the term "skeptic" thrown around to indicate somebody is right or wrong? Do you guys not see the inherent issues about terming others "skeptics" in these debates, especially when debating who was wronged?
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?
User avatar
gnome
Posts: 24323
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by gnome »

I take it as more of an example of how stupid people on both sides tend to get in an extended argument, than anything else.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2
User avatar
Churchill
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:09 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Churchill »

specious_reasons wrote:
Churchill wrote:
specious_reasons wrote:
corplinx wrote:Dear blogospherians, Don't fuck with Dawkins.
Sorry, Dawkins was acting like a douchey old man who doesn't get it. He deserved all the shit he got.
I disagree. Dawkins used satire to point out that Rebecca went over the top herself
"Guys don't do that." How outrageous! That Rebecca is such a bitch.
Didn't say that she was a bitch, strawman not withstanding. Don't know her, she may well be a nice person, who knows. Just not correct in this case, is all I'm saying.

Is a guy who asks a girl out for coffee a misogynist or some type of deviant predator? (Cause that dude should have checked his 'privilege'.)
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."

John Stuart Mill
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 49386
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Nyarlathotep »

Churchill wrote:
specious_reasons wrote:
Churchill wrote:
specious_reasons wrote:
corplinx wrote:Dear blogospherians, Don't fuck with Dawkins.
Sorry, Dawkins was acting like a douchey old man who doesn't get it. He deserved all the shit he got.
I disagree. Dawkins used satire to point out that Rebecca went over the top herself
"Guys don't do that." How outrageous! That Rebecca is such a bitch.
Didn't say that she was a bitch, strawman not withstanding. Don't know her, she may well be a nice person, who knows. Just not correct in this case, is all I'm saying.

Is a guy who asks a girl out for coffee a misogynist or some type of deviant predator? (Cause that dude should have checked his 'privilege'.)
Yeah but is the bitch comment any more of a strawman than claiming that saying that she was trying to make a feminist martyr out of herself and that she compared the incident to the plight of women in the third world when all she said was 'this incident happened, I found it kinda creepy, don't do that'

In fact, the problem with this whole fiasco is that everyone is making waaay more out of it than it warrants. Saying "I dislike being propositioned in the elevator at 4 AM and find it to be disturbing, so please don't do that' is hardly shrill feminist rhetoric calling for the domination of all men and a call to arms against the evil patriarchy. Saying 'Hey lady. Some guy just made a clumsy pass at you. Chill' isn't an attempt to tell all women to get back in the kitchen and make us menfolk some sammiches. Unfortunately, the internet, being the drama fueled machine that it is, has brought it to the point that everyone is convinced that it is.
User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 35236
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Grammatron »

Nyar, I think you are right, only if you do not include what she also added in the comment section of her blog in response to people.
User avatar
specious_reasons
Posts: 6694
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:58 pm

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by specious_reasons »

Churchill wrote:Is a guy who asks a girl out for coffee a misogynist or some type of deviant predator? (Cause that dude should have checked his 'privilege'.)
So, where in the original video did Rebecca state that?

I said this in one of the other threads:
I'm not into demonizing the guy. Wanting to have sex with a person is not bad. Nor is making a pass, or flirting. Really, at this point, his biggest mistake was the inappropriate time and place.
I find it funny that you assume Rebecca made this poor guy out to be a deviant predator. Who's biases are showing now?
ta-
DAVE!!!
User avatar
specious_reasons
Posts: 6694
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:58 pm

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by specious_reasons »

Grammatron wrote:
You know, I was going to agree with you until I read that blog entree and replies.

Holly crap.
Which one? Link?
ta-
DAVE!!!
User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 35236
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Grammatron »

I can see no one is going to read the blog or the comments.

Rebecca never said anything during the conference about this matter other than getting some emails. A guy asked her, while they were both in an elevator, if she cared to join him for coffee. She said no, he did not press the issue. Rebecca makes a point to note it, then makes an issue out of it in the comment section going so far as to say it's "pathetic" when men hit on her(bold for emphasis) at the conference.

No idea how any of this trickled to Dawkins. There has to be a conversation missing here.
User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 35236
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Grammatron »

specious_reasons wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
You know, I was going to agree with you until I read that blog entree and replies.

Holly crap.
Which one? Link?
It's in the article you lazy so-and-so. But, here you go anyways.

http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-myth ... and-jokes/
User avatar
specious_reasons
Posts: 6694
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:58 pm

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by specious_reasons »

Grammatron wrote:I can see no one is going to read the blog or the comments.

Rebecca never said anything during the conference about this matter other than getting some emails. A guy asked her, while they were both in an elevator, if she cared to join him for coffee. She said no, he did not press the issue. Rebecca makes a point to note it, then makes an issue out of it in the comment section going so far as to say it's "pathetic" when men hit on her(bold for emphasis) at the conference.

No idea how any of this trickled to Dawkins. There has to be a conversation missing here.
random skepchick fan wrote:Would it still have been a problem if he had hit on you in the bar at 2:00 AM and not suggested going back to his room?
Rebecca wrote:In that situation it would have been merely pathetic as opposed to threatening. And before a bunch of sad sacks start whining that I’m saying it’s always pathetic when a man hits on a woman: no. It’s pathetic when someone hits on a person (who has been talking nonstop about how much she loathes the sexual advances she’s subjected to at conferences) by saying absolutely nothing to her before inviting her to his hotel room.
Yeah, Rebecca is not necessarily a nice person. But her version of events differs from yours.
ta-
DAVE!!!
User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 35236
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Grammatron »

specious_reasons wrote:
Grammatron wrote:I can see no one is going to read the blog or the comments.

Rebecca never said anything during the conference about this matter other than getting some emails. A guy asked her, while they were both in an elevator, if she cared to join him for coffee. She said no, he did not press the issue. Rebecca makes a point to note it, then makes an issue out of it in the comment section going so far as to say it's "pathetic" when men hit on her(bold for emphasis) at the conference.

No idea how any of this trickled to Dawkins. There has to be a conversation missing here.
random skepchick fan wrote:Would it still have been a problem if he had hit on you in the bar at 2:00 AM and not suggested going back to his room?
Rebecca wrote:In that situation it would have been merely pathetic as opposed to threatening. And before a bunch of sad sacks start whining that I’m saying it’s always pathetic when a man hits on a woman: no. It’s pathetic when someone hits on a person (who has been talking nonstop about how much she loathes the sexual advances she’s subjected to at conferences) by saying absolutely nothing to her before inviting her to his hotel room.
Yeah, Rebecca is not necessarily a nice person. But her version of events differs from yours.
And her version is apparently disconnected from reality.
Okay folks, this is what is going on.

Rebecca Watson insists that she explicitly told guys not to sexualize her on the panel discussion with Richard Dawkins.



However the actual panel discussion which was uploaded by AronRa she never talks about being sexualized in the kind of way that she purports elevator guy is doing to her.



She doesn’t talk about being hit on at all she talks about getting crude emails.

Rebecca Watson distorts things and does not know how to distinguish between her feelings and reality.

That doesn’t make her a good feminist or a good skeptic.



So this is what people are referring to when they talk about how Rebecca had already told others that she didn’t like being “hit on” at conferences. Sadly that’s not what she said at all and the so called skeptics never bothered to check their sources.
User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by DrMatt »

One of the most targeted publicity stunts ever.
Outside of skeptics circles, the combination "coffee...elevator...4 AM" is greeted with "don't be cryptic."
It's a tremendous hullabaloo but is totally unknown outside its target. Most of Facebook's users have never heard of it. Most BadgerBadgerBadger fans have never heard of it. And that's a good thing. The only shame is that more than three people have heard of it.
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 49386
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Nyarlathotep »

DrMatt wrote:One of the most targeted publicity stunts ever.
Outside of skeptics circles, the combination "coffee...elevator...4 AM" is greeted with "don't be cryptic."
It's a tremendous hullabaloo but is totally unknown outside its target. Most of Facebook's users have never heard of it. Most BadgerBadgerBadger fans have never heard of it. And that's a good thing. The only shame is that more than three people have heard of it.
Probably the most sensible thing said on this subject to date.