Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Ickle Magoo · 27-09-2012 01:37AM

King Mob wrote: »

No, they are both serious. But one is worse than the other.
If the content of the threats were the important factor, then the threats recieved by Watson et al would more concerning to the authorities as the threats made by Mabus.

I'm still not following how when looking at two threats of killing someone, one is worse than the other...? It should also be noted that neither were concerning to the authorities - and in the Mabus case, despite being known, a man who posted millions of times over a decade and also turned up in person at a conference it STILL took thousands of people bombarding the police and sending in a petition to trigger an investigation. I just cannot get my head around your logic here at all, it seems to be utterly blinded by your dislike for one set of the people involved.

King Mob wrote: »

But not every single person who makes threats like these as a troll is going to go through with them, or even graduate to stuff like physical stalking (or online stalking etc).

And? Not everyone who torments small animals becomes a serial killer, it's still a known first rung of the ladder red-flag behaviour tho..

King Mob wrote: »

You are accusing me of saying that it's ok to threaten some people.
Please explain what I said that would possibly indicate I believe this?
I don't think you do believe that I do and it was just a rhetoric point. One that is not helpful.

Because I think you are trying to pigeonhole me and attribute to me thinks I did not say or believe.

I don't mean to be pigeonholing you and frankly I'd be delighted if you didn't seem to be intent on suggesting that making threats to peoples persons or life online should not be considered as serious regardless of the [clearly unknown] intentions, just as it is in real life...or peddling that there is some magic way of knowing that one troll is just being a douche-bag while another should be cause for concern...

King Mob wrote: »

Trolls send threats, racist and sexist bile and other disgusting things to bloggers of all races and genders. It's all equally vile.
And to be super clear, none of it is excusable.

But it's non-threatening why? I'm not following your logic here either...because some trolls are racist and others are misogynisticly violent women can't find the misogynistic ones threatening? Even if we'd discovered an equal opportunity troll who was equally racist, homophobic, misogynistic and whatever else, it still doesn't strip anyone of their right to feel threatened by being contacted by such a person, in such a manner...

King Mob wrote: »

How am I defending it?
By saying it is not the same as stalking and physical abuse?

It can be viewed differently as people on the internet will say things purely to provoke a reaction, but have no intention, inclination or ability to back those threats up. But there are people who might.

Surely people in real life make hollow threats, post threatening letters just to provoke a reaction, make threatening phone calls, etc, etc..what makes posting online sacrosanct?

King Mob wrote: »

One group is worth tackling more than the other. And while sending threats in either case is bad, one is more serious than the other.
Some people are claiming that they are as serious as the other, yet still not taking one of them seriously at all.

I'll ask you again and hope I won't just be fobbed off with accusations of rhetoric again, how do you tell which group is worth tackling and which isn't?

King Mob wrote: »

Why are the trolls not being actively pursued and reported in the same way that Mabus was?
The ability to tackle at least some of the most prolific of the trolls is clearly there, yet it is not happening as if people realise the difference between people who are a threat and people who are trying to provoke a reaction.

I've responded to that question at least three times now as well, are you reading my posts at all? Hell you answer it yourself "at least some of the most prolific"...so the ability to tackle at least some of the most prolific doesn't give you a clue as to why some trolls aren't reported? The scale of badgering police required to investigate even someone with Mabus's history doesn't give any hints at all?

It makes no statement on level of threat, anyway. As if when they hit their 1000th threatening tweet they become a threat as opposed to "merely" provoking a reaction at 999...ignoring the fact that we don't know how prolific most trolls are, how much of a threat they actually are and we can't legally find out who any but the sloppiest and least technically minded trolls even are...

27-09-2012 02:06AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm still not following how when looking at two threats of killing someone, one is worse than the other...? It should also be noted that neither were concerning to the authorities - and in the Mabus case, despite being known, a man who posted millions of times over a decade and also turned up in person at a conference it STILL took thousands of people bombarding the police and sending in a petition to trigger an investigation. I just cannot get my head around your logic here at all, it seems to be utterly blinded by your dislike for one set of the people involved.

So we are actually in agreement that the content of the posts is not the issue and that based on that alone, the threats reported by Watson et al are like the ones made by Mabus?
So why was Mabus treated differently? (not by the authorities, but the community.)

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And? Not everyone who torments small animals becomes a serial killer, it's still a known first rung of the ladder red-flag behaviour tho..

But you recognise that they are different, and that one does not imply the other.
So threatening emails do not imply that there actually is a danger?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't mean to be pigeonholing you and frankly I'd be delighted if you didn't seem to be intent on suggesting that making threats to peoples persons or life online should not be considered as serious regardless of the [clearly unknown] intentions, just as it is in real life...or peddling that there is some magic way of knowing that one troll is just being a douche-bag while another should be cause for concern...

But then you pigeon hole me by making a strawman argument...?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But it's non-threatening why? I'm not following your logic here either...because some trolls are racist and others are misogynisticly violent women can't find the misogynistic ones threatening?

Didn't say that. But if this is the case, why aren't they being reported as they would be in other media, or why are there no calls to share information that might lead to these trolls being weeded out so that they can be reported?
Why did this happen to Mabus?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely people in real life make hollow threats, post threatening letters just to provoke a reaction, make threatening phone calls, etc, etc..what makes posting online sacrosanct?

Anonymity, an audience, and the ability to watch the person react.
The reasons why people send threatening letters or phone calls are different to the reasons why people might troll online.
Further, if a person is sending you letters or phone calls this means that they have personal information about you, and could be more of a threat than someone who is emailing to your public blog or public email address etc.
Which do you think is more worrying, some one who might send you a horrible threatening PM here, or one who does it to your phone or home address? Which would freak you out more?
If you think that one is more worrying/serious than the other, you are as guilty as me of "trying to say it's not serious"...

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'll ask you again and hope I won't just be fobbed off with accusations of rhetoric again, how do you tell which group is worth tackling and which isn't?

Again, stuff like constant, obsessive posting. Repeatedly trying to gain personal information about you and posting it. Physically stalking you.
Are these things more or less serious than sending an anonymous death threat to a public email?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I've responded to that question at least three times now as well, are you reading my posts at all? Hell you answer it yourself "at least some of the most prolific"...so the ability to tackle at least some of the most prolific doesn't give you a clue as to why some trolls aren't reported? The scale of badgering police required to investigate even someone with Mabus's history doesn't give any hints at all?

It makes no statement on level of threat, anyway. As if when they hit their 1000th threatening tweet they become a threat as opposed to "merely" provoking a reaction at 999...ignoring the fact that we don't know how prolific most trolls are, how much of a threat they actually are and we can't legally find out who any but the sloppiest and least technically minded trolls even are...

But the above does not explain why people are not rallying to do the same thing they did with Mabus: banding together to gather useful information to pass onto the authorities.
If Watson et al believed that the threats they were getting were as worrying as Mabus, then why are they not doing the same or similar?
I believe that this is because they realise that the vast majority of the threats they are getting are not as worrying as what Mabus did and are in fact just hot air to provoke a reaction.
But it is more convient for them to pretend that they are worse then they are.

Ickle Magoo · 27-09-2012 02:28AM

King Mob wrote: »

So we are actually in agreement that the content of the posts is not the issue and that based on that alone, the threats reported by Watson et al are like the ones made by Mabus?
So why was Mabus treated differently? (not by the authorities, but the community.)

I don't know - contrary to the belief some posters here seem to have, I have absolutely no knowledge or affilliation to Atheism+...what I would do is hazard a guess that if it takes that much effort to get an investigation going over someone who makes millions of threats over a decade when you know his name and address, it's surealy a bit of no brainer why every troll/troll post is not tackled...

King Mob wrote: »

But you recognise that they are different, and that one does not imply the other.
So threatening emails do not imply that there actually is a danger?

It doesn't mean there is no danger either - I'm still waiting for the nugget that will let me know how to tell...

King Mob wrote: »

But then you pigeon hole me by making a strawman argument...?

It's not a strawman if that's the actual case you are making...

King Mob wrote: »

Didn't say that. But if this is the case, why aren't they being reported as they would be in other media, or why are there no calls to share information that might lead to these trolls being weeded out so that they can be reported?
Why did this happen to Mabus?

Which part of millions of posts over a decade and they had his name and address is not getting through here?

There are calls to share information, there are calls to make information more freely available, there are calls to criminalise threatening and bullying behaviour online and there has certainly been enormous strides towards how sites deal with trolls and bullies, has that all been missed?

King Mob wrote: »

Anonymity, an audience, and the ability to watch the person react.
The reasons why people send threatening letters or phone calls are different to the reasons why people might troll online.
If a person is sending you letters or phone calls this means that they have personal information about you, and could be more of a threat than someone who is emailing to your public blog or public email address etc.
Which do you think is more worrying, some one who might send you a horrible threatening PM here, or one who does it to your phone or home address? Which would freak you out more?
If you think that one is more worrying/serious than the other, you are as guilty as me of "trying to say it's not serious"...

Seems like more presumptions to me, lots of mights and could be's when actually we have no idea.

I'd view someone threatening my person or my life as equally serious regardless of the medium. How do I know they haven't randomly picked a number or door to post a letter through for the lol's but someone who threatens me online does know who I am and where I live and they are a complete nut-job? Goodness knows the internet is home to enough of them.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, stuff like constant, obsessive posting. Repeatedly trying to gain personal information about you and posting it. Physically stalking you.
Are these thinks more or less serious than sending an anonymous death threat to a public email?

How do you know? How do you know it isn't the same nutjob signed up with 200 different handles through a proxy server? Is threatening someone life or suggesting you are going to rape them not sufficient to raise red flags? I guess that's the question I don't understand I even have to ask...

King Mob wrote: »

But the above does not explain why people are not rallying to do the same thing they did with Mabus: banding together to gather useful information to pass onto the authorities.
If Watson et al believed that the threats they were getting were as worrying as Mabus, then why are they not doing the same or similar?
I believe that this is because they realise that the vast majority of the threats they are getting are not as worrying as what Mabus did and are in fact just hot air to provoke a reaction.
But it is more convient for them to pretend that they are worse then they are.

I don't know why posters have/haven't behaved in a certain way, you could well be right. However, I have received threats and I haven't reported them to the police, I just reported them to admin in order to get the poster banned because I've grown up (thus far) thinking that was the kind of behaviour one just has to learn to live with to be a known entity (of sorts) on the interweb...but I'm aware that tide is turning. I also think it patently obvious what an uphill struggle it was to get someone even with Mabus' history investigated - add that to the historical general acceptance that threatening to rape and murder (as long as it's done online, mind) shouldn't be taken seriously then I don't think not having taken civil/criminal action against posters or trolls tells as big a story as perhaps you'd like it to...

27-09-2012 03:18AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't know - contrary to the belief some posters here seem to have, I have absolutely no knowledge or affilliation to Atheism+...what I would do is hazard a guess that if it takes that much effort to get an investigation going over someone who makes millions of threats over a decade when you know his name and address, it's surealy a bit of no brainer why every troll/troll post is not tackled...

But I specifically mentioned that I was referring to the response of the community. For my point it is irrelevant whether or not the authorities would take the case serious.
If the content of the messages was the only deciding factor, then people in the community would be calling for petitions to have other serial trolls to be prosecuted for the exact same thing. Or failing that, at least attempts to gather information about them.
But we don't see that. We didn't even see that sort of action with Mabus until after he made a physical appearance at a convention.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It doesn't mean there is no danger either - I'm still waiting for the nugget that will let me know how to tell...

I supplied a list of behaviours.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not a strawman if that's the actual case you are making...

It's not the case I am making and I do not see how you could infer it.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There are calls to share information, there are calls to make information more freely available, there are calls to criminalise threatening and bullying behaviour online and there has certainly been enormous strides towards how sites deal with trolls and bullies, has that all been missed?

If these exist, you're welcome to share. Especially ones form Watson et al.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Seems like more presumptions to me, lots of mights and could be's when actually we have no idea.

This is a really silly point you've made. Which you then contradict immediately by using a lot of mights and could be's in the next point.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'd view someone threatening my person or my life as equally serious regardless of the medium. How do I know they haven't randomly picked a number or door to post a letter through for the lol's but someone who threatens me online does know who I am and where I live and they are a complete nut-job? Goodness knows the internet is home to enough of them.

And again, a rather silly point.
Lets try a more specific scenario.
Imagine a troll here took a dislike to you and started threatening you via PM.
Would you be more or less worried if that troll kept reregging and continually PMing you?
Would you be more or less worried if that troll started posting your personal details?

Again, unless you react and worry the same about all of those scenarios from the beginning, your point is moot.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How do you know? How do you know it isn't the same nutjob signed up with 200 different handles through a proxy server? Is threatening someone life or suggesting you are going to rape them not sufficient to raise red flags? I guess that's the question I don't understand I even have to ask...

And if some one did start doing that, it would be more worrying than a guy who sends off a few threatening emails.
They are both bad, but one is more concerning than the other because one is going to be more of a hassle and is more likely to be possibly dangerous.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't know why posters have/haven't behaved in a certain way, you could well be right. However, I have received threats and I haven't reported them to the police, I just reported them to admin in order to get the poster banned because I've grown up (thus far) thinking that was the kind of behaviour one just has to learn to live with to be a known entity (of sorts) on the interweb...but I'm aware that tide is turning.

And this is an issue with all users of the internet, not just women or feminist bloggers.
There is a much more compelling argument to be made that women attract more of these trolls by virtue of being seen as "different" by the trolls, but again, this is an issue of the internet, not just the sub-sub section of atheists and skeptics on the internet.
And if you could solve this problem you would basically be the Internet Jesus.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I also think it patently obvious what an uphill struggle it was to get someone even with Mabus' history investigated - add that to the historical general acceptance that threatening to rape and murder (as long as it's done online, mind) shouldn't be taken seriously then I don't think not having taken civil/criminal action against posters or trolls tells as big a story as perhaps you'd like it to...

Again you are not fairly representing my points.
I did not say that threatening people was acceptable in any form. Nor did I say that it is something that just had to be accepted. I am saying that there is a difference between the stuff trolls post to get reactions and people who might be an actual threat. I made the point that most users on the internet, including yourself and especially those on skepchick etc can generally tell the difference.
However, some are conflating trolls with people who actually do stalk and harass (along with conflating this problem with others, real and/or exaggerated into one issue) for "political" gain.

Ickle Magoo · 27-09-2012 10:58AM

I don't think you are fairly representing your own points, tbh. Your insistence that one threat of murder is different to another, that some people should be considered a threat while others ignored despite behaving in the same way belays an irrational determination to find Watson & co doing something, doesn't matter what, "wrong"...

If I'm sent five threatening PM's, barring matching international locations narrowing the possibilities, a ream of matching IP's/a very unpopular IP, stupidly signing up using the same email address or having some kind of distinctive or identifiable writing style/consistent spelling error, I have no way of knowing if it is the same poster sending them or not...I have no way of knowing if that person knows me in real life or whether that person means me actual harm - whether they are so emotionally retarded not just to think making threats of rape or murder isn't bizarre and worrisome behaviour in itself but to also be as antisocial/socially inept/angry/violent/unhinged in real life as they are online to then escalate to actual harm.

Up until fairly recently, everyone in that same boat really only had two options, well, three if you include avoiding using the net and discussion forums/chat sites. They could deal with the troll themselves via moderation/administration and just (sometimes only very temporarily) remove the troll from their online life and/or they can ignore and just cross their fingers it was some douche/weirdo with clear issues that weren't going to spill over into real life. Now, legislation is being pushed/enacted worldwide to prevent douches/weirdos from hiding behind their anonymous online handles in order to indulge in behaviour that would land their actual identities both in the papers and the courts if done in real life. The police/media authorities can now get/request details from IPS's and sites and in extreme cases, investigate or even prosecute those involved...but by your own admission, it's still only the extreme cases & those in which the troll make it easy for them in which that is happening.

However far we've come in making the internet more of an extension of real life in terms of consequences, by far the easiest option is to find a relatively safe space which deals with trolls efficiently and removes from that space those who indulge in bullying, threatening and generally unpleasant behaviour/that which contradicts the rules/ethos of that particular space...so while if the consequences of posting to harass/threaten/cause offence were being able to expose and prosecute the cowards that indulge easily and effectively I think that would meet with many peoples approval and I haven't seen been given anything other than speculation that Atheist+ think differently. As things stand, I think it's fairly obvious why people don't prosecute, don't try to get a 3000 name petition for every IP that sends a troll post...and the point I was making was ironically the link you provided is a very good example of why. :cool:

27-09-2012 05:58PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think you are fairly representing your own points, tbh. Your insistence that one threat of murder is different to another, that some people should be considered a threat while others ignored despite behaving in the same way belays an irrational determination to find Watson & co doing something, doesn't matter what, "wrong"...

But you agree that some trolls do not behave in the same way. I've listed behaviours that show the difference between some asshole blowing hot air and someone who is a concern.
I'm not determined to find Watson or anyone wrong, I'm just commenting on something that they say and do that I find hypocritical.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If I'm sent five threatening PM's, barring matching international locations narrowing the possibilities, a ream of matching IP's/a very unpopular IP, stupidly signing up using the same email address or having some kind of distinctive or identifiable writing style/consistent spelling error, I have no way of knowing if it is the same poster sending them or not...I have no way of knowing if that person knows me in real life or whether that person means me actual harm - whether they are so emotionally retarded not just to think making threats of rape or murder isn't bizarre and worrisome behaviour in itself but to also be as antisocial/socially inept/angry/violent/unhinged in real life as they are online to then escalate to actual harm.

But you're avoiding the question I've asked you.
In my scenario you know it's the same troll sending you PMs then sending stuff to your house.
It's not an implausible scenario.
To me it's obvious that some behaviour is more concerning than others, one you are more likely to ignore (a few abusive PMs) one you'd get the mods to deal with (a whole lot more PMs) and one you'd go a whole lot further with (a troll posting your personal information).
And I think this is obvious to you and everyone else as well, you just don't want to directly address the question.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Up until fairly recently, everyone in that same boat really only had two options, well, three if you include avoiding using the net and discussion forums/chat sites. They could deal with the troll themselves via moderation/administration and just (sometimes only very temporarily) remove the troll from their online life and/or they can ignore and just cross their fingers it was some douche/weirdo with clear issues that weren't going to spill over into real life. Now, legislation is being pushed/enacted worldwide to prevent douches/weirdos from hiding behind their anonymous online handles in order to indulge in behaviour that would land their actual identities both in the papers and the courts if done in real life. The police/media authorities can now get/request details from IPS's and sites and in extreme cases, investigate or even prosecute those involved...but by your own admission, it's still only the extreme cases & those in which the troll make it easy for them in which that is happening.

And this is all great, but again it is not a solution being pushed or trumpted by Watson et al.
If they are getting the abusive emails they claim to be, and they are as worrying as they claim they are to them, they should be at the very least screaming for more legislation like this as well as trying to organise campaigns like those against Mabus.
But they don't because they realise that the vast vast majority of the hate mail they get are trolls looking for a reaction and aren't worth chasing down.
However, the problem is that Watson et al then turn around and pretend that these trolls are more serious (despite not taking them seriously) and are lumping them in with other separate problems.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As things stand, I think it's fairly obvious why people don't prosecute, don't try to get a 3000 name petition for every IP that sends a troll post...and the point I was making was ironically the link you provided is a very good example of why. :cool:

Because everyone recognised that Mabus wasn't just a troll looking to provoke reactions for the lulz but a potentially dangerous stalker?

decimatio · 28-09-2012 02:37AM

I've devoted a bit of time to reading more about this and I think I have misunderstood some of what skepchick/ftb/a+ people have being saying.

Regarding online threats; I think its past time that authorities and websites start to take these trolls and abusers just as seriously as irl. Im fully aware that 90%+ of the abuse and trolling that occurs is simply people acting that way because they think they can or for laughs. I was involved in online gaming from the very beginning to I'm well used to the kind of idiotic language used in such situations but many factors have made me realise that its no longer acceptable:

1. The abuse and bullying prevalent on social media sometimes resulting in suicide.

2. The abusive nonsense people will write about celebrities in some cases causing suicide.

3. The actual physical danger that happens in a small minority of these cases.

I suppose one of the reasons I didn't think it was so important before is that I have a particularly thick skin so such abuse wouldn't affect me but I've seen enough people, especially young teenagers, being badly effected by this to change my mind.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Perhaps law changes are required.

The next thing I've learned is that PZ Myers is so fanatically biased that its laughable he calls himself a sceptic. I can't understand how anyone has any respect for him anymore beyond his scientific career. (Is that abuse?)

Another thing I've learned is that many of the skepchick/ftb people are so misandrist as to be almost comical. I refuse to call it feminist because feminist to me is support for equal rights for women, not imposition of ideologies on men and women based on some women's feelings.

I'm truly sorry if you are so frightened of men that you leave a guys phone number and name on your desk everytime you go on a date so the cops can find him if you don't return home and you're welcome to do so if you feel you must but when you try to dictate how people should act towards eachother based on your feelings the line must be drawn.

No its not right for women to consider every man a potential rapist until proven otherwise and it certainly isnt right to tell men to assume the woman thinks so and act accordingly to try to quell such feelings.

robindch · 01-10-2012 02:11PM

Maryam Namazie, another FTB'r, has produced another [url=http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/files/2012/03/NudeRevolutionary_Calendar_2012-13.pdf
]nude calendar[/url].

But the purpose is quite different from Watson's principal aim of being "edgy, interesting, or clever":

Maryam Namazie wrote:

What with Islamism and the religious right being obsessed with women’s bodies and demanding that we be veiled, bound, and gagged, nudity breaks taboos and is an important form of resistance.

In terms of resistance against a coercive and regressive bunch of religious fanatics, it seems far more useful than Watson's nudie outings. Still won't be hanging it up in my bathroom though.

robindch · 02-10-2012 11:49AM

Apropos of nothing in particular, here's Watson undergoing the ultimate pick-up at a conference. Cringeworthiness = infinite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yi2KTaieDs

Dades · 02-10-2012 11:56AM

sonicthebadger* · 02-10-2012 06:39PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't think that is the point, no reasonable action the part of the people running the conference will make her feel safe. Thus they would have to enact unreasonable measures.

This is an assertion without any evidence whatsoever. Pure nonsense.

Nodin · 02-10-2012 08:20PM

robindch wrote: »

Apropos of nothing in particular, here's Watson undergoing the ultimate pick-up at a conference. Cringeworthiness = infinite.

....

Some cynical cads - yes, they're out there - would be amazed at the sheer attention whoring gall of it all.

robindch · 24-10-2012 04:52PM

Watson continues to sound off, this time on slate.com which I really thought had higher standards than this kind of inflammatory rubbish:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html

Doctor DooM · 24-10-2012 05:06PM

Watson should start naming and shaming these people who send her these over the top tweets et al. All the evidence I see in that article is a parody twitter account, an anti Watson website (which she seems to think is a crime itself) and a poor taste tweet which is turned into a threat of assault.

If people are saying the scummy things she says they are, they should be outted.

UDP · 24-10-2012 05:13PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Watson should start naming and shaming these people who send her these over the top tweets et al. All the evidence I see in that article is a parody twitter account, an anti Watson website (which she seems to think is a crime itself) and a poor taste tweet which is turned into a threat of assault.

If people are saying the scummy things she says they are, they should be outted.

Even more important is she should be reporting the assaults she was subject to at some events to the police and she should be encouraging the others who were assaulted to do likewise. Being assaulted at events is a very serious allegation to be making - she hasn't mentioned anything about reporting it.

Nodin · 24-10-2012 05:14PM

Christ, shes whinging about the feckin lift again.......

(Is "boot up the hole" a rape threat, btw?)

robindch · 24-10-2012 06:12PM

Nodin wrote: »

Christ, shes whinging [...]

On the plus(*) side, she's now number three on slate.com -- the chatshow offers can't be far away.

(*) only joking about the plus of course.

robindch · 24-10-2012 09:10PM

robindch wrote: »

On the plus(*) side, she's now number three one on slate.com

FMP! The comments are worth looking at very briefly -- nobody seems aware of any background at all.

At this stage, Watson would be well advise to tone down her rhetoric. The slate article is so over the top, so nasty and so dishonest, that I think there's a fair chance that somebody's going to take a swipe at her.

Doctor DooM · 24-10-2012 09:13PM

robindch wrote: »

FMP! The comments are worth looking at very briefly -- nobody seems aware of any background at all.

At this stage, Watson would be well advise to tone down her rhetoric. The slate article is so over the top, so nasty and so dishonest, that I think there's a fair chance that somebody's going to take a swipe at her.

Yes but when someone does, she can just say "LOOK- I was telling the truth- they're angry because I am speaking out!"

robindch · 25-10-2012 01:11AM

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS_1bzaj2fw

robindch · 04-12-2012 06:10PM

Watson, who has no training in Evolutionary Psychology, recently gave a talk at a skeptic conference on Evolutionary Psychology. She believes it's used to legitimate anti-female prejudice, that it's basically a useless pseudo-science and that media reports can't be trusted, but backs up her points with, er, media reports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9SvQ29-gk8

Two evolutionary biologists are unimpressed and finds her tactics similar to those of creationists and PCT-heads. I'm inclined to agree with them.

http://skepticink.com/incredulous/2012/12/01/science-denialism-at-a-skeptic-conference/
http://skepticink.com/tippling/2012/12/04/evolutionary-psychology-clint-watson-pz-meyers-and-going-about-things-properly/

She sounds to me like she might have had a few beers before stepping up and delivering the talk.

Nodin · 04-12-2012 07:35PM

Hubris...there's a word for ye now.

Obliq · 04-12-2012 07:49PM

robindch wrote: »

She sounds to me like she might have had a few beers before stepping up and delivering the talk.

Ok, 4 mins in is enough. I haven't had enough beers to be entertained by her.

Doctor DooM · 04-12-2012 08:10PM

On this topic I just wanted to post this here.

The background: A youtuber copyright claimed some of his video game footage in a video by another.

The second youtuber has now said he won't do a series based on other people's footage anymore.

Here's a genuine post from a fan of the second youtuber on the firsts channel.

I hope you get hit by a car, if I could get my hand personally on you, I will beat you with a basebat bat until your skull crack and at the hospital, I will continue beating your lifeless body.
You are a waste of human flesh.

as far as I know, youtuber A has not began touring the states giving talks about the abuse he has received.

It's in the comments here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS6VGUy3uCo

Delirium · 04-12-2012 09:14PM

robindch wrote: »

Watson, who has no training in Evolutionary Psychology, recently gave a talk at a skeptic conference on Evolutionary Psychology. She believes it's used to legitimate anti-female prejudice, that it's basically a useless pseudo-science and that media reports can't be trusted, but backs up her points with, er, media reports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9SvQ29-gk8

Two evolutionary biologists are unimpressed and finds her tactics similar to those of creationists and PCT-heads. I'm inclined to agree with them.

http://skepticink.com/incredulous/2012/12/01/science-denialism-at-a-skeptic-conference/
http://skepticink.com/tippling/2012/12/04/evolutionary-psychology-clint-watson-pz-meyers-and-going-about-things-properly/

She sounds to me like she might have had a few beers before stepping up and delivering the talk.

At least she prefaced the video by stating she isn't a scientist.

The video is about "fluff pieces"/"marketing disguised as articles", at least that's how it seemed to me. She read some newspaper articles, not scientific documents, which annoyed her as they were perpetuating some sort of stereotype. She manages to respond to some of the articles in the video, but I can't understand why she went after evolutionary biology other than it was referred to in the articles she disliked.

It would be equivalent of someone dismissing biology because some creationist website/magazine referred to some study in an attempt to bolster their argument.

The correct response to reading the articles would have been to roll your eyes and find better reading material.

carlmango11 · 04-12-2012 10:41PM

"We don't generally inherit traits that are learned behaviours."

So if dogs are taken away from their mothers at birth they won't behave like dogs?

04-12-2012 10:53PM

carlmango11 wrote: »

"We don't generally inherit traits that are learned behaviours."

So if dogs are taken away from their mothers at birth they won't behave like dogs?

I look nothing like my dad, my neck is a very different size and jaw/mouth are completely different shape yet no-one can tell the difference between our voices. Obviously a coincidence.

Zombrex · 05-12-2012 09:36PM

The defense of Watson's piece has been depressingly predictable

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/03/oh-gob-evo-psych-again/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/12/03/science-denialism-the-role-of-criticism/

Basically: She wasn't attacking evolutionary psychology, just pop-evo-psy and the media, but if she was attacking evolutionary psychology that's ok because evolutionary psychology is junk science, of course when we say evoluationary-psychology is junk science we don't me the good bits, we mean the bad bits. Of which all of it is bad.

Watson and Meyers (and Zvan to a lesser extend) use "evolutionary psychology" and "evolutionary psychologists" (the field and scientists they are apparently not attacking) interchangeably with "pop-evolutionary psychology" and "pop-evolutionary psychologists" (the field and scientists they are supposed to be attacking).

It is only when pressed to justify their dismissals that they attempt to qualify that they are talking about pop-psychology. But then go right back to using the terms interchangeably.

Groan. :rolleyes:

bipedalhumanoid · 07-12-2012 10:03AM

I figured it was only a matter of time before the anti-science feminism made an appearance.

E=MCC is sexist you know. So is mathematics.

robindch · 07-12-2012 11:17AM

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

E=MCC is sexist you know.

I assume you're referring to Luce Irigaray's claim that E=mc^2 is a "sexed" equation. Thusly:

Luce Irigaray wrote:

Is E=Mc² a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged that which goes faster.

Further deep, sensual probings lead Irigaray to the conclusion that fluid mechanics is also "sexed", as Alan Sokol noted:

Alan Sokol wrote:

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments