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 »

I tend to sexualize women. It is a premade decision. It's reflexive. It might even be a result of evolution.

However, maybe not every guy is like that. Maybe this guy honestly wanted to have coffee with this conference speaker that he was perhaps even gushing over. When I was an awkward teenage virgin I still had those sorts of thoughts.

Rebecca's assertion that she was sexualized was a safe assumption but not the result of skeptical inquiry.

It is one thing to say "hitting on me on an elevator creeps me out" on your webcam. But asserting that the person is a creep is a different thing based on subjective notions.
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 »

Any two or maybe even three of the factors (elevator, room invite, little prior contact, time of day) in isolation I'd be in agreement--which is why I've hated the overgeneralization inherent in focusing on any one factor.

But I'm still convinced that the combination of factors makes EG kind of an outlier. I don't mean that to be an extreme statement, but just that I think there was a valid point before everyone started magnifying it, even the person that initiated it.
"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
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by DrMatt »

So.
Has anybody tracked this back to the guy?
Has he lost his virginity?
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
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 »

DrMatt wrote:So.
Has anybody tracked this back to the guy?
Has he lost his virginity?
Are you volunteering?
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:
DrMatt wrote:So.
Has anybody tracked this back to the guy?
Has he lost his virginity?
Are you volunteering?
Dr. Matt would probably be kinder and a more tender lover. :twisted:
ta-
DAVE!!!
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 »

specious_reasons wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
DrMatt wrote:So.
Has anybody tracked this back to the guy?
Has he lost his virginity?
Are you volunteering?
Dr. Matt would probably be kinder and a more tender lover. :twisted:
WTF?
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
User avatar
corplinx
Posts: 23787
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by corplinx »

Matt shave your beard and put on some lipstick. We have some skeptical inquiry to do. Someone find the elevator nerd....
User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by EvilYeti »

specious_reasons wrote: "Guys don't do that." How outrageous! That Rebecca is such a bitch.
That's absolutely not what this is about (and why the reaction to her has been so vitriolic).

This is about the simple fact that the *only* reason she has any audience at all is because...

A. She has a vagina.
B. She is only mildly hideous (a 4 on a good day, maybe).

Other than that she is indistinguishable from any of the other zeroes over @TOP. She blogs about shit like this because it's all she's got. What else is she going to talk about, the book she didn't write because she's a moron?

Beyond that there is also the ugly reality (that most men unfortunately have experience dealing with) that homely girls will happily destroy a nice guy if they perceive he is lower/equal to them in order to raise their perceived status. The PUA community actually warns guys about this; its the fuglies that are the most dangerous to ones self-esteem. Beautiful women are more often nice than not. The don't need to destroy men in order to feel attractive (though I admit some do anyway).

Watch her video again and pay attention to her tone and body language. It absolutely *drips* venom and condescension. "Don't do that. Don't you *dare* think you get to have coffee with someone like *me*. Don't you know who I am?"

The narcissism. Pitiful.

Read this quote on one of the blogs that I think really nailed it:
They are internalizing the things that happen to other more attractive women in order to raise their status. Living vicariously through attractive women, they combine their hatred of men with how they believe attractive women should respond to their many come-ons.
She and her supporters deserve to be called out and shamed.
User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Mentat »

genralisashuns, i haz em

geezus fuggin christ. The first obvious issue was that a should-have-been private problem got treated as a public problem. The second issue was that it is still treated like a public problem. Was the elevator guy wrong? Was Rebecca wrong? I don't know - this stuff ain't my specialty - and why is it anybody else's bloody business strikes me as off. I want to say the argument over this devolved to a pissing contest over who is right (including certain parties jumping in later), but "devolved" implies that there was a better argument to begin with.

Sounds like some egos getting hurt, that's all I hear.
Last edited by Mentat on Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?
User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by EvilYeti »

Mentat wrote:genralisashuns, i haz em
You don't think fugly women will reject men in the most brutal means possible in a misguided attempt to raise their perceived value? Really?

Or are you such a troglodyte you haven't even gotten that far and they just run away screaming?

The real *problem* here is that there were no witnesses to her epic crushing of the "ElevatorGuy" so she had a second round via YouTube (with an audience).
Last edited by EvilYeti on Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Mentat »

EvilYeti wrote:
Mentat wrote:genralisashuns, i haz em
You don't think fugly women will reject men in the most brutal means possible in a misguided attempt to raise their perceived value? Really?
Given that you are attributing motivation and action for a very large and ambiguously defined set of people, I can safely say that assertion is wrong. No matter the action or motivation. It's the nature of living in a non black-and-white world.
Or are you such a troglodyte you haven't even gotten that far and they just run away screaming?
Would it even matter either way? No.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?
User avatar
corplinx
Posts: 23787
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by corplinx »

EvilYeti wrote:What else is she going to talk about, the book she didn't write because she's a moron?

:lol:

At my job, I am one of the few "producers". I make things and make things happen. However on a given project there will be a capacity planner, a project manager, an environment coordinator, a network project manager, and any number of layers of "business analaysts" and other project people who will actually have status calls where all the non-producers (and non-facilitators) get together and discuss things without any of the people actually making it happen on.

I have a deep suspicion of non-producer/spectators. Especially ones that try to make a name for themselves at the expense of the people actually making things happen.

The internet has facilitated the ability of non-producers to be raging twats. Some of us realize our opinions about topics outside our professional abilities are worthless, and we post on crappy forums about those topics ::cough::. Others, like Rebecca Watson, make a blog based on the gimmick of gender and try to gather a "following" through the novelty of being first asshole to the niche.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAFO
User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by EvilYeti »

Mentat wrote: Given that you are attributing motivation and action for a very large and ambiguously defined set of people, I can safely say that assertion is wrong. No matter the action or motivation. It's the nature of living in a non black-and-white world.
Jesus Fucking Christ. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here sometimes.

You don't think at least *some* ugly/fat girls are man-haters because they don't get the kind of attention they want from the men they desire? I know you are young and naive, but really.

And do any of you tools know who Richard Dawkins actually is? Have you read any of his books, like The Selfish Gene?

Which makes a pretty compelling case that we are simply wired to behave the way we do based on billions of years of evolution. For example, wanting to mate with high-value females and nurture their children. Or reject potential mates we perceive as low value. The only difference is now the whores can tell the world via YouTube.

Hey SKEPCHICKS.... men are programmed to want to stick their wieners in you (after the coffee). Apparently even if you have a face like a plate of mashed potatoes. Deal with it.
Would it even matter either way? No.
If you have no experience at all with women, yes it would.

I've had great successes and brutal rejections from all sorts of women. I know how they "work" (if you could even call it that). I've as an adult (and more than once) had psychotic women try to "troll" me into situations where they could tear me to pieces in front of their friends. One even gave me a drink spiked with MDMA. Women are just as fucked up and predatory (moreso even) then men.

It's this idea that somehow the woman is the "victim" by default that is so irksome. It trivializes both actual sexual assault and the emotional "rape" that so many women delight in putting weak men through. I can't even imagine what the "ElevatorGuy" thinks of himself now. And for what, being a little too enthusiastic? Maybe he was a little inebriated.

For the record, last time I was in Vegas a black girl followed me onto an elevator and was very pushy about propositioning me for (paid) sex. Can you imagine the reaction if I (or any guy for that matter) made a YouTube video saying "Girls, don't do that!".

(But to be honest it did make me somewhat uncomfortable/embarrassed)
User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by EvilYeti »

corplinx wrote: At my job, I am one of the few "producers". I make things and make things happen. However on a given project there will be a capacity planner, a project manager, an environment coordinator, a network project manager, and any number of layers of "business analaysts" and other project people who will actually have status calls where all the non-producers (and non-facilitators) get together and discuss things without any of the people actually making it happen on.
Dude do you work in my department? The "project managers" outnumber engineers about 3 to 1.

My running joke when somebody is looking for one of them is that they are at a "meeting to form the committee for future committee meetings". Of course the joke is everyone thinks I'm serious. And that it absolutely doesn't matter regardless.

I've even instituted a rule that I won't go to future meetings until the action items from the previous one were completed by the people that said they would. Needless to say I don't go to many meetings.
I have a deep suspicion of non-producer/spectators. Especially ones that try to make a name for themselves at the expense of the people actually making things happen.
They also tend to be drama queens and make mountains out of molehills because they have no real problems.
The internet has facilitated the ability of non-producers to be raging twats. Some of us realize our opinions about topics outside our professional abilities are worthless, and we post on crappy forums about those topics ::cough::. Others, like Rebecca Watson, make a blog based on the gimmick of gender and try to gather a "following" through the novelty of being first asshole to the niche.
That's the thing!!!! Leave that shit at home. Have an outlet. Troll people @TOP or here. Be anonymous. But don't make a career out of it!
Sounds like 'lazy/stupids'. It can get worse:
The German World War II general Erich von Manstein is said to have categorized his officers into four types. The first type, he said, is lazy and stupid. His advice was to leave them alone because they don’t do any harm. The second type is hard-working and clever. He said that they make great officers because they ensure everything runs smoothly. The third group is composed of hardworking idiots. Von Manstein claims that you must immediately get rid of these, as they force everyone around them to perform pointless tasks. The fourth category are officers who are lazy and clever. These, he says, should be your generals. Discovering this information set me to wondering how General von Manstein’s categories might apply to business organizations today.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifeha ... diots.html
User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Mentat »

. . . and people wonder why I have such a strong distrust of those who have "the answers", and "the answers" themselves. Self professed authority and self disillusionment are very close in my book.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?
User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by EvilYeti »

Mentat wrote:. . . and people wonder why I have such a strong distrust of those who have "the answers", and "the answers" themselves. Self professed authority and self disillusionment are very close in my book.
Have you considered that someone that I'm guessing is close to 15 years older than you just *might* have a little more experience with women than you?
User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Mentat »

EvilYeti wrote:
Mentat wrote: Given that you are attributing motivation and action for a very large and ambiguously defined set of people, I can safely say that assertion is wrong. No matter the action or motivation. It's the nature of living in a non black-and-white world.
Jesus Fucking Christ. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here sometimes.

You don't think at least *some* ugly/fat girls are man-haters because they don't get the kind of attention they want from the men they desire? I know you are young and naive, but really.
And I said or implied that where? In fact, I said the opposite, which you obvious didn't get. My claim is that most assertions made of any sufficiently large group of people is bound to fail. If you assert in a phrase " . . .men are . . .", ". . . republicans assume . . .", ". . . protestants seem to think that . . .", then I can almost immediately come to the conclusion that the statement is false.
And do any of you tools know who Richard Dawkins actually is? Have you read any of his books, like The Selfish Gene?
Tools? Who the fuck am I tooling for? I've not defending either side of the debate. And yes, I read the bloody book.
Which makes a pretty compelling case that we are simply wired to behave the way we do based on billions of years of evolution. For example, wanting to mate with high-value females and nurture their children. Or reject potential mates we perceive as low value. The only difference is now the whores can tell the world via YouTube.

Hey SKEPCHICKS.... men are programmed to want to stick their wieners in you (after the coffee). Apparently even if you have a face like a plate of mashed potatoes. Deal with it.
Those issues are between her and those she has issue with. Not you. Not the media. Not "producers" (who doesn't think they're valuable?)
Would it even matter either way? No.
If you have no experience at all with women, yes it would.
But I have common sense and experience with enough people to know basic things like ascribing overreaching generalities is quite fallible. We could be talking about martians and it still wouldn't matter. Of course, personally experiences does not make a good qualitative or quantitative description of any sizable population.
I've had great successes and brutal rejections from all sorts of women. I know how they "work" (if you could even call it that). I've as an adult (and more than once) had psychotic women try to "troll" me into situations where they could tear me to pieces in front of their friends. One even gave me a drink spiked with MDMA. Women are just as fucked up and predatory (moreso even) then men.
You're telling somebody as likely to trust another person as Genghis Khan is as likely to reanimate and spread flowers around to world leaders in friendship that he shouldn't trust other people?
It's this idea that somehow the woman is the "victim" by default that is so irksome.
"Deal with it."?
If somebody is at the receiving end of any action, they're by default the victim. Rebecca was at the receiving end of the dude's inopportune request. The dude was at the receiving end of this all becoming public, a manifestation of a strong rebuttal. Who's right, who's wrong, who's really the victim? I'll admit my lack of social experience, and I don't claim to have the answer to those questions. IMO quite a few people made fools of themselves in this whole debate. And people making fools of themselves is as noteworthy as watching rain fall. Cast the first stone, 'n all.


It trivializes both actual sexual assault and the emotional "rape" that so many women delight in putting weak men through. I can't even imagine what the "ElevatorGuy" thinks of himself now. And for what, being a little too enthusiastic? Maybe he was a little inebriated.
How does being inebriated or being intoxicated period make one any less responsible for one's actions?
For the record, last time I was in Vegas a black girl followed me onto an elevator and was very pushy about propositioning me for (paid) sex. Can you imagine the reaction if I (or any guy for that matter) made a YouTube video saying "Girls, don't do that!".

(But to be honest it did make me somewhat uncomfortable/embarrassed)
Worst comes to worst, some nasty comments are thrown and the world keeps spinning. And it's internet as usual.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?
User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by Mentat »

EvilYeti wrote:
Mentat wrote:. . . and people wonder why I have such a strong distrust of those who have "the answers", and "the answers" themselves. Self professed authority and self disillusionment are very close in my book.
Have you considered that someone that I'm guessing is close to 15 years older than you just *might* have a little more experience with women than you?
I could easily turn that around with 15 years ahead of you in not being rigidly (and "unskeptically") being set in my ways of thinking. The ways of thinking that form bias, prejudice, and an unwillingness to reexamine one's views of others. That's a two way street, playing the age game.

Of course, to get to know a significant sample of people, age doesn't cut it. Who's to say a certain subset of females choose to be near you (or you choose to be near them) and you only see desired specified attributes? Kinda does not allow for making any decent conclusions.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?
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 »

I take exception to the title of the thread.
Elevatorgate and News are mutually exclusive terms.
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Skeptics in the News

Post by EvilYeti »

Mentat wrote: But I have common sense and experience with enough people to know basic things like ascribing overreaching generalities is quite fallible. We could be talking about martians and it still wouldn't matter. Of course, personally experiences does not make a good qualitative or quantitative description of any sizable population.
"Overreaching generalities"? Have you seen how many people described the situation as a "potential sexual assault". How fucking "overreaching" is that?

Where do you draw the line? When is it ok to ask a woman for coffee? And what situation is "not" a "potential" anything?
How does being inebriated or being intoxicated period make one any less responsible for one's actions?
It doesn't, but it might explain why a guy might miss some social cues.

Here's another. Maybe the dude was a fellow troll and did this deliberately to get a reaction. I find that more believable than that someone would (ugh) want to have sex with that thing.