I learned on the Friendly Atheist that Sylvia Brown has died at 77 instead of 88 as she predicted. This was followed up with the expected handwringing over the appropriateness of celebrating someone's death.
Sylvia Brown was evil. She offered nothing of value, except, maybe, to her immediate family. She is dead, YIPEE!!
The question to ask is; "Is the world a better place with her in it or out of it?". For most of us the question is too close to the margins to decide. In her case it is clearly not. She defrauded thousands out of their money and lied to parents about the fate of missing children. The world is better off without her.
I'm not advocating doing the happy dance in front of children who might have cared for the deceased. They are innocent. But any adult who chose to continue a relationship while looking past someones evil deserves no such concern. Her sons are somewhere between 41 and 54. If they continued a relationship with her it was out of greed or indifference to the harm she does to strangers. Fuck their feelings.
A picture that comes up frequently in r/atheism is that of a man carrying his little girl on his back. The caption reads something to the effect of If she remembers me fondly after I'm gone I well consider it a life well lived. I am assuming that the person who made the picture was using his daughter as a proxy for the world in general.
This is why I don't merely defend celebrating her death but advocate it. Most of us care how we will be remembered after we die. When we see others celebrating the death of an evil turd bucket we are reminded that we might want to consider our actions will be remembered after we die.
2013-11-23
2013-09-28
Five Words That Will Make Me Cease to Take You Seriously.
Ok. They're not all words, but "parts of speech" doesn't work it a title. Nevertheless some terms are so devoid of meaning, deliberately obfuscatory, overused and misapplied, or have such negative implications about the person using them that once I hear them used, I'm finished listening. This list is comprised of terms that Lefties like to use. I'm sure the the Right has a similar set, but I don't even listen to them any more, and consequently, haven't heard them. So, here it goes.
The ism suffix: Far too many people think that simply calling someone a (parameter)ist suddenly makes the parameter under question an invalid one to use when forming expectations about someone.
The one most often egregiously used is "classism". Class matters. When one looks at the social mobility of the children of immigrants versus that of the native populations in first world countries, it becomes apparent that after a couple of generations in a mostly free society, most families have reached their natural level. A lot of immigrants are poor, or working in well paid but low status businesses. Their children rarely are. This is because most immigrants are intelligent ambitious people form countries where that wasn't rewarded. Once they're in a country where those traits are rewarded, they reap those rewards.
When you meet someone whose family has been in the slums or trailer parks for generations you can make reasonable assumptions about their ability, work ethic and ambitions.
Yes that is classism and it is valid.
I've also heard ridiculous terms such as "speciesism", "heightism", "sizeism", and the most ridiculous of them all "ableism". Somehow not hiring someone because they aren't able to do the job is bad.
Of course this is all a rhetorical trick to get people to think of those judgments as equivalent to racism. See, they are all "isms", therefore all bad.
Denialism/Denialist: This term was first applied to those who question the fact or the degree of the holocaust. And at the time I didn't object to this because it was clearly being applied only to nut-bars. But then I saw the term being applied to Norman Finkelstein. My cursory examination of his position leads me to believe that his arguments regarding people hijacking the holocaust for current personal or political gain are worth considering. But he doesn't deny it happened. I don't know if he is correct or not, but he doesn't belong in the same class as those who denied it happened.
Then it was applied to those who question the degree of, and the degree of human contribution to global warming. It is used to imply that they are corrupt, just working to make the case for "big oil", because that who funds their grants. Funny how those who support the alarmist position are never considered to be corrupt, just making the case for "big regulatory bureaucracy". Nevertheless, it is used to impugn the men rather than refute their augments.
Now it has been used against anyone who waits for evidence in support of a rape accusation. They are now "rape denialists".
Social Justice: An action or situation, where the concept of justice even applies is either just or it isn't. "Social Justice" is just a term of art used to evade the fact that someone is being denied proper justice, to further some purported greater justice. If frequently comes in the form of "It's OK to deny you this position in favor of this less qualified candidate because someone who looks like you did something bad to someone who looks like him in the distant past.".
When the wronged party and the party perpetrating the wrong or both are dead before the situation can be remedied, the sad fact is that justice will be eternally denied. Further injustice is just that. It's not remedial. It just adds to the amount of injustice in the world.
Progressive: This may just be applicable to American political discourse. It is usually applied to small 's' socialists, those who tolerate a free economy to the degree that it provides the wealth for them to redistribute and the actors in the productive portions of that economy do as they are told. Some time between the wars those with these beliefs hijacked the term "liberal" form those who support liberty. To see how liberal they really are, ask them how many laws and regulations they want repealed. If they name anything beyond the narrowly personal, I'll eat a vegetable.
Once the hijacked form of the term became recognized as referring to those who support the banning of sodas beyond a certain size and the exhalation of water vapor they needed a new term and the settled on "progressive".
It's clever rhetoric. Who could be against progress in a world that has benefited greatly from progress in manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, medicine, communications, hell, damn near every field of human endeavor, including politics. Of course they gloss over the fact that those advances came about because of proper liberalism.
They use the term "progressive" to imply that their policies will bring forth more of what has happened in the past. Of course progress is really just change, it doesn't specify the nature of change. If you're in a car speeding towards a cliff, progress is the last thing you want. If your country is progressing towards the states of Britain or the U.S. in the seventies, you want a Thatcher or a Reagan to hit the brakes and throw it in reverse.
The Masses: Has this term ever come from someone who is not a smug douche? When it comes to manga, sports, video games, kangaroo racing and a lot of other things, I'm the masses. I don't give these thing s much attention. That doesn't mean I can't recognize a bad story, a dropped ball, a boring game, or a poor jump, if kangaroo racing is even a real thing.
Referring to people as "the masses" is probably the most dismissive piece of rhetoric ever invented. When you hear it, you won't have to look far to find someone in a fedora with a beard or a curly mustache, who studied comm or literature.
The ism suffix: Far too many people think that simply calling someone a (parameter)ist suddenly makes the parameter under question an invalid one to use when forming expectations about someone.
The one most often egregiously used is "classism". Class matters. When one looks at the social mobility of the children of immigrants versus that of the native populations in first world countries, it becomes apparent that after a couple of generations in a mostly free society, most families have reached their natural level. A lot of immigrants are poor, or working in well paid but low status businesses. Their children rarely are. This is because most immigrants are intelligent ambitious people form countries where that wasn't rewarded. Once they're in a country where those traits are rewarded, they reap those rewards.
When you meet someone whose family has been in the slums or trailer parks for generations you can make reasonable assumptions about their ability, work ethic and ambitions.
Yes that is classism and it is valid.
I've also heard ridiculous terms such as "speciesism", "heightism", "sizeism", and the most ridiculous of them all "ableism". Somehow not hiring someone because they aren't able to do the job is bad.
Of course this is all a rhetorical trick to get people to think of those judgments as equivalent to racism. See, they are all "isms", therefore all bad.
Denialism/Denialist: This term was first applied to those who question the fact or the degree of the holocaust. And at the time I didn't object to this because it was clearly being applied only to nut-bars. But then I saw the term being applied to Norman Finkelstein. My cursory examination of his position leads me to believe that his arguments regarding people hijacking the holocaust for current personal or political gain are worth considering. But he doesn't deny it happened. I don't know if he is correct or not, but he doesn't belong in the same class as those who denied it happened.
Then it was applied to those who question the degree of, and the degree of human contribution to global warming. It is used to imply that they are corrupt, just working to make the case for "big oil", because that who funds their grants. Funny how those who support the alarmist position are never considered to be corrupt, just making the case for "big regulatory bureaucracy". Nevertheless, it is used to impugn the men rather than refute their augments.
Now it has been used against anyone who waits for evidence in support of a rape accusation. They are now "rape denialists".
Social Justice: An action or situation, where the concept of justice even applies is either just or it isn't. "Social Justice" is just a term of art used to evade the fact that someone is being denied proper justice, to further some purported greater justice. If frequently comes in the form of "It's OK to deny you this position in favor of this less qualified candidate because someone who looks like you did something bad to someone who looks like him in the distant past.".
When the wronged party and the party perpetrating the wrong or both are dead before the situation can be remedied, the sad fact is that justice will be eternally denied. Further injustice is just that. It's not remedial. It just adds to the amount of injustice in the world.
Progressive: This may just be applicable to American political discourse. It is usually applied to small 's' socialists, those who tolerate a free economy to the degree that it provides the wealth for them to redistribute and the actors in the productive portions of that economy do as they are told. Some time between the wars those with these beliefs hijacked the term "liberal" form those who support liberty. To see how liberal they really are, ask them how many laws and regulations they want repealed. If they name anything beyond the narrowly personal, I'll eat a vegetable.
As an aside, I think we should take the term back, instead of using clumsy terms like "libertarian". Maybe the Australians can help with this since their Liberal party is actually a liberal party.
Once the hijacked form of the term became recognized as referring to those who support the banning of sodas beyond a certain size and the exhalation of water vapor they needed a new term and the settled on "progressive".
It's clever rhetoric. Who could be against progress in a world that has benefited greatly from progress in manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, medicine, communications, hell, damn near every field of human endeavor, including politics. Of course they gloss over the fact that those advances came about because of proper liberalism.
They use the term "progressive" to imply that their policies will bring forth more of what has happened in the past. Of course progress is really just change, it doesn't specify the nature of change. If you're in a car speeding towards a cliff, progress is the last thing you want. If your country is progressing towards the states of Britain or the U.S. in the seventies, you want a Thatcher or a Reagan to hit the brakes and throw it in reverse.
The Masses: Has this term ever come from someone who is not a smug douche? When it comes to manga, sports, video games, kangaroo racing and a lot of other things, I'm the masses. I don't give these thing s much attention. That doesn't mean I can't recognize a bad story, a dropped ball, a boring game, or a poor jump, if kangaroo racing is even a real thing.
Referring to people as "the masses" is probably the most dismissive piece of rhetoric ever invented. When you hear it, you won't have to look far to find someone in a fedora with a beard or a curly mustache, who studied comm or literature.
2013-09-12
Can Authortarians Even Attempt an Honest Argument against Liberty
So, if you think Salon is a neutral journalistic blog, think again. They're reprinting Alternet articles. I wonder how many they've reprinted from Reason or The Freeman.
This article is the usual attack on straw libertarians, so I'm not going to address the whole thing here. Fortunately the author, someone called R.J. Eskow, probably a lit or comm major, offered eleven questions and I'm going to answer them.
Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of "spontaneous order"—and if not, why not?
The answer to most of these is "sometimes", so I'll address them one by one.
Of course. In a free economy production is recognized by allowing the producers to keep or sell what they produce and by allowing them to pay for the assistance they may need in producing. Everyone places different values on all the goods produced and consequently the value of the work used to produce them. The way to aggregate this is through prices in a free market.
Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?
Duh, as long as they aren't using force, themselves or through agents.
Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?
Too nebulous to answer. Laws against mislabeling products, sure. Laws preventing someone from offering a shuttle service because the taxi companies and bus driver unions own the politicians, fuck no.
Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate.
Yes, it is the best way to protect liberty. Clearly, it's not perfect. The problem with regulation is that it is preventing otherwise free individuals form making mutually beneficial exchanges. It also drives the misapplication of resources by distorting the information contained in prices.
Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?
Of course. When the government sets itself up as a monopoly, or takes your money to provide its option, leaving you to use it or pay double, you have little choice.
Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?
This is a huge point of contention among Libertarians, and I haven't resolved my position yet.
Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?
That is just an empty assertion. Camping stores opperate in a market place, competing for customers, inventory and facilities. I don't camp. What happens in that market is a null factor in my life and I am a null factor in their business. That is a market. Whether or not I vote, the state is still negating a large portion of my working life by taking a portion of my wages/profits against my will.
Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms?
Not nearly to the same degree as big government. Avoiding large corperations is difficult. Avoiding the government is impossible. Then, when the corporations buy the government, we are really fucked.
Does he think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were “parasites”?
You realize the King and Gandhi were fighting government coercion, don't you? Although not perfectly. I'm sure that if they lived to achieve power themselves they would have introduced a different batch of state control into peoples lives.
If you believe in the free market, why weren’t you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas?
Hey dumbfuck, "free marketplace of ideas" is a metaphor. Whose final judgment? You and your yuppy friends, who spend more time polishing your rhetorical skills than actually learning anything.
I'm livid. I'm not even going to edit this one beyond eliminating the squiggly red lines.
Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of "spontaneous order"—and if not, why not?
The answer to most of these is "sometimes", so I'll address them one by one.
- Unions
- Sometimes, When there is no state regulation forcing employers to negotiate with them, when workers are free to decide themselves whether or not to join, when they aren't bribing politicians for their benefit, when they aren't using force against people, when they aren't vandalizing property, when they aren't using mob action to physically impede people who are just going about their business, then they are an example of spontaneous order.
It's not that hard. - Political Parties
- They are when the state recognizes them and singles them out for special benefits/regulations
- social movements like Occupy
- The name itself gives it a way. They are physically placing themselves in spaces that belong to others against the owners wishes.
It's the force thing again. Are you beginning to understand?
Of course. In a free economy production is recognized by allowing the producers to keep or sell what they produce and by allowing them to pay for the assistance they may need in producing. Everyone places different values on all the goods produced and consequently the value of the work used to produce them. The way to aggregate this is through prices in a free market.
Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?
Duh, as long as they aren't using force, themselves or through agents.
Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?
Too nebulous to answer. Laws against mislabeling products, sure. Laws preventing someone from offering a shuttle service because the taxi companies and bus driver unions own the politicians, fuck no.
Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate.
Yes, it is the best way to protect liberty. Clearly, it's not perfect. The problem with regulation is that it is preventing otherwise free individuals form making mutually beneficial exchanges. It also drives the misapplication of resources by distorting the information contained in prices.
Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?
Of course. When the government sets itself up as a monopoly, or takes your money to provide its option, leaving you to use it or pay double, you have little choice.
Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?
This is a huge point of contention among Libertarians, and I haven't resolved my position yet.
Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?
That is just an empty assertion. Camping stores opperate in a market place, competing for customers, inventory and facilities. I don't camp. What happens in that market is a null factor in my life and I am a null factor in their business. That is a market. Whether or not I vote, the state is still negating a large portion of my working life by taking a portion of my wages/profits against my will.
Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms?
Not nearly to the same degree as big government. Avoiding large corperations is difficult. Avoiding the government is impossible. Then, when the corporations buy the government, we are really fucked.
Does he think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were “parasites”?
You realize the King and Gandhi were fighting government coercion, don't you? Although not perfectly. I'm sure that if they lived to achieve power themselves they would have introduced a different batch of state control into peoples lives.
If you believe in the free market, why weren’t you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas?
Hey dumbfuck, "free marketplace of ideas" is a metaphor. Whose final judgment? You and your yuppy friends, who spend more time polishing your rhetorical skills than actually learning anything.
I'm livid. I'm not even going to edit this one beyond eliminating the squiggly red lines.
2013-09-10
FTB: Dawkins Bad, Blah Blah Blah.
So FreeThoughtBlogs has launched another attack at Richard Dawkins. There is also a bullshit petition up as well. This time it is for failing to conflate different types of molestation. Unfortunately the whole interview is behind a paywall but the offending statement seems to be this:
Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.
Is this so horrible? All he is doing is recognizing that social moral development is something that happens over generations. Each generation figures sees one to a few things wrong and corrects them. Is it fair to disdain those earlier beliefs? Yes. Is it fair to condemn those who held and lived their lives according to those beliefs, rarely or never hearing any different. No. It is no more fair to blame some 15th century guy for thinking that semen contained little people, or a 19th century guy for believing that time was constant.
PZ Meyers then tries to compare Dawkins to William Lane Craig, "As for that excuse about not judging behavior of an earlier era by our modern standards…I've heard that before. From William Lane Craig, to justify biblical murders." Apparently, Meyers doesn't seem to recognize justifying the actions of a putative omnipotent, omniscient being with fallible real people, another example of their usual conflation.
In and excerpt form later in the interview (I don't know how close it is to the above quote.), Dawkins says:
I think we should acknowledge it ... But the other point is that because the most notorious cases of paedophilia involve rape and even murder, and because we attach the label 'paedophilia' to the same things when they’re just mild touching up, we must beware of lumping all paedophiles into the same bracket.
It's clear that Dawkins is saying that it is also important recognize degrees of molestation. We don't treat the guy who pockets a bag of Skittles in the 7-Eleven the same way we treat someone who holds it up with a gun. Of course these are the people who equate an invitation to coffee to an attempted rape.
Greta Christina and Alex Gabrien have echoed Meyers' position.
They're just going after another target on their enemies list. If one of their allies made the same statements they would be making the same arguments I just did.
2013-08-14
A Prediction about Rhetoric from Feminist 'Skeptics'
Mr. Deity just posted one of his great skits. In what is usually the begging segment he made some thinly veiled references to the sexual assault accusations against a number of prominent skeptics. He used the term "gossip". As far as I know he is the first person of any prominence to do so. I and a few other zero prominence commenters have, but only in comments.
Now that it has happened, I predict that Greta Christina, Stephanie Zvan, Rebecca Watson, HealthyAddict, SulkyAmy, BlagHag or someone of their ilk will come out with something to the effect of 'blah blah blah...gendered insult...blah blah blah...misoginy...blah blah blah...silencing tactic...blah blah blah...patriarchy...dismissal...'
Now I'm going to have to follow them to see what happens...Shit!
Now that it has happened, I predict that Greta Christina, Stephanie Zvan, Rebecca Watson, HealthyAddict, SulkyAmy, BlagHag or someone of their ilk will come out with something to the effect of 'blah blah blah...gendered insult...blah blah blah...misoginy...blah blah blah...silencing tactic...blah blah blah...patriarchy...dismissal...'
Now I'm going to have to follow them to see what happens...Shit!
2013-07-22
The List.
Some years ago, when I was naming a group of people who are going to the camps when I'm king (None of this modern European powerless monarchy crap, I'm talking Louis XIV absolute monarchy.) to my boss, he suggested that I should just build a fence around myself and call the rest of the world "the camps". That's not entirely unfair.
Nevertheless, I've decided to keep a list, as people are added, and link to articles where the reasons are given. So here it is:
Nevertheless, I've decided to keep a list, as people are added, and link to articles where the reasons are given. So here it is:
- The people at the DMV and auto insurance companies who determined the dimensions of the forms I have to carry around to drive. Forms Form Factors.
- The people who wrote the Flash player at Adobe.
2013-06-18
Rebecca Watson further marginalizes herself.
As usual, no links to ad revenue generating sites.*
Her piece opens with a link to her attack of Ron Lindsay's speech. Note that she doesn't link to his speech, but to her ad revenue generating page that talks about it. This is a woman who has already bragged about directing her detractors to pages that generate money for her (If anyone should read this and remember in what video she did this please tell me and I'll add a link). Here is the actual text of the speech.
She then links to his repsonse to the criticism he recieved where he likens her mendacity to that of the dictatorship of North Korea. To be fair that was a bit of rhetorical excess, for which he later apologized. It is more akin to that of a marketer for a homeopathic medecine company (Wait, didn't she major in the techniques of marketing bullshit, y'know Comm?). Which is immediately followed by her usual name calling ("male supremecist") and victim posturing which is furthher followed by another link to another ad revenue generating page, the threat page that has no threats. She then links to the above mentioned apology while still complaining that he stands by pointing out her dishonesty regarding the crux his talk.
The next paragraph is just a link to the ad revenue generating page of a crony that pretty much echoes her.
It the next paragraph she links to yet another ad revenue generating page of another one of her cronies containing a letter from those whose behavior Lindsay was calling out, demanding an apology for, y'know, calling out the behavior, and mentioning others that she claims exist. In that very same sentence she resorts some "yer either fer us or yer agin", type rhetoric by claiming that CFI now needs to "restore their reputation as "...a humanist organization that cares about women...". Apparently she doesn't understand that feminists != women.
Then some bland committee-speak tweets from CFI about them discussing the matter.
The then posts' CFI's board's bland, say-nothing statement and rightly criticizes them for that. I'm sure she would have been satisfied with nothing less than Lindsay being fired, tarred and feathered and put up in a pillory with a "misogynist" sign. I am disapointed with them as well. Were I in charge I'd probably say something like: "We value open discussion, censuring those who disagree with the opinions of a few hysterics and strategic grievance mongers does not further that. Fuck you. If disagreement and holding you to high standards of honesty in debate hurt your precious fee-fees go to A+". But, that's probably why I'm not in charge of anything.
We then see more of the usual accusations of hate as evidenced by disagreement and the usual attacks on dissenters of radical feminism.
For some reason she then puts up a twitter exchange between two people I'v never heard of about an entirely different matter.
Now for what I think she believes is a great kick in the nuts. She is "...finished supporting Center for Inquiry.". This statement is followed by a list of what she has done to support it and making similar claims about TAM. I have no idea how much of what her efforts brought to these events and organizations. But is readily apparent that the people who run these things have found that the price is too high, in terms of division, diversion and detraction (alliterave fun time) and they are no longer inviting her. I wonder if it is really just revenge because she isn't getting any paid speaking gigs from these people any more.
She is now unambiguously calling for a boycott of JREF and CFI. Good. I hope the Freethought Blogs and A+ crowd follow suit. These are not appropriate venues for interest group politics. Having that crowd gone would make these conferences safe spaces for those who wish to hold and express their own opinions.
In her penultimate paragraph she again conflates feminists with women and has come up with a new way phrase bifurcate the world. "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.", which is just more "Yer either fur us or yer agin us.".
Good riddance. People who apply skepticism when it suits their narrative and resort to all the rhetorical tricks employed by creationists, scientologists and the various truther groups when it doesn't, really aren't skeptics. They can have their marginal junior conferences where the triple ouroboros of FTB/Skepchick/A+ can consume itself into oblivion.
*at least until I can figure out how to embed scripts that detect ad blocking software into my blogger pages. Then those who have it installed will get links and the rest will be redirected to the ad blocker sites.
Her piece opens with a link to her attack of Ron Lindsay's speech. Note that she doesn't link to his speech, but to her ad revenue generating page that talks about it. This is a woman who has already bragged about directing her detractors to pages that generate money for her (If anyone should read this and remember in what video she did this please tell me and I'll add a link). Here is the actual text of the speech.
She then links to his repsonse to the criticism he recieved where he likens her mendacity to that of the dictatorship of North Korea. To be fair that was a bit of rhetorical excess, for which he later apologized. It is more akin to that of a marketer for a homeopathic medecine company (Wait, didn't she major in the techniques of marketing bullshit, y'know Comm?). Which is immediately followed by her usual name calling ("male supremecist") and victim posturing which is furthher followed by another link to another ad revenue generating page, the threat page that has no threats. She then links to the above mentioned apology while still complaining that he stands by pointing out her dishonesty regarding the crux his talk.
The next paragraph is just a link to the ad revenue generating page of a crony that pretty much echoes her.
It the next paragraph she links to yet another ad revenue generating page of another one of her cronies containing a letter from those whose behavior Lindsay was calling out, demanding an apology for, y'know, calling out the behavior, and mentioning others that she claims exist. In that very same sentence she resorts some "yer either fer us or yer agin", type rhetoric by claiming that CFI now needs to "restore their reputation as "...a humanist organization that cares about women...". Apparently she doesn't understand that feminists != women.
Then some bland committee-speak tweets from CFI about them discussing the matter.
The then posts' CFI's board's bland, say-nothing statement and rightly criticizes them for that. I'm sure she would have been satisfied with nothing less than Lindsay being fired, tarred and feathered and put up in a pillory with a "misogynist" sign. I am disapointed with them as well. Were I in charge I'd probably say something like: "We value open discussion, censuring those who disagree with the opinions of a few hysterics and strategic grievance mongers does not further that. Fuck you. If disagreement and holding you to high standards of honesty in debate hurt your precious fee-fees go to A+". But, that's probably why I'm not in charge of anything.
We then see more of the usual accusations of hate as evidenced by disagreement and the usual attacks on dissenters of radical feminism.
For some reason she then puts up a twitter exchange between two people I'v never heard of about an entirely different matter.
Now for what I think she believes is a great kick in the nuts. She is "...finished supporting Center for Inquiry.". This statement is followed by a list of what she has done to support it and making similar claims about TAM. I have no idea how much of what her efforts brought to these events and organizations. But is readily apparent that the people who run these things have found that the price is too high, in terms of division, diversion and detraction (alliterave fun time) and they are no longer inviting her. I wonder if it is really just revenge because she isn't getting any paid speaking gigs from these people any more.
She is now unambiguously calling for a boycott of JREF and CFI. Good. I hope the Freethought Blogs and A+ crowd follow suit. These are not appropriate venues for interest group politics. Having that crowd gone would make these conferences safe spaces for those who wish to hold and express their own opinions.
In her penultimate paragraph she again conflates feminists with women and has come up with a new way phrase bifurcate the world. "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.", which is just more "Yer either fur us or yer agin us.".
Good riddance. People who apply skepticism when it suits their narrative and resort to all the rhetorical tricks employed by creationists, scientologists and the various truther groups when it doesn't, really aren't skeptics. They can have their marginal junior conferences where the triple ouroboros of FTB/Skepchick/A+ can consume itself into oblivion.
*at least until I can figure out how to embed scripts that detect ad blocking software into my blogger pages. Then those who have it installed will get links and the rest will be redirected to the ad blocker sites.
The Tale of rebecca Watson and a Woozle.
Rebecca Watson is now claiming that 1/3 of all women in the U.S. military are raped. Her source is an article in a small town newspaper called the Battleboro Reformer. The writer of the 'article' isn't even a person it is an activist group called '
2013-06-12
More evidence that Stephanie Zvan dosn't get skepticism.
Apparently, she thinks gathering statements that support your narrative is how you do it. People point out that there is no evidence that the feminist whining is anything more than a few hyper-sensitive or strategic complainers. Her response: to gather a bunch of whines from years back from people who are whining about trivialities.
2013-05-21
I guess it is time for me to chime in on the Ron Lindsay's comments at 'skeptic' conference for feminists. Basically he said that the 'privilege' argument is a silencing technique, and this is wrong. It is a rhetorical trick used to dismiss an argument or demand for evidence for a claim, when the one using the term 'privilege' can't do so. It's not silencing, it's evasion. It is a hybrid of the ad homenim attack and a claim of special knowledge. After all only a Clear can see your Thetans. Silencing is shouting down those with whom you disagree. It is creating speech codes that define disagreement with the orthodoxy as hate speech. It is vandalizing the posters of the heretics. It is removing their papers from distribution boxes. And a whole slew of other things. That's what he should have said.
I can only guess why he chose to speak in the terms he did. Aaannnd I'm going to do so now. When you are dealing with people whose favorite tool is rhetorical shenanigans, the temptation to give them back some of their own is huge, and I doubt any of us can completely resist it. But it is short sighted to do so. Ultimately it detracts from any future credibility you might have and alienates potential allies. After all, is there a reasonable person who takes Rebecca Watson or P.Z. Meyers seriously left, or are all they have left listening to them nothing but fellow ideologues?
BTW this is why I only listen to and read the MRA's, in spite of the fact that I agree with them on almost every point. Maybe I'll elaborate on that later.
I can only guess why he chose to speak in the terms he did. Aaannnd I'm going to do so now. When you are dealing with people whose favorite tool is rhetorical shenanigans, the temptation to give them back some of their own is huge, and I doubt any of us can completely resist it. But it is short sighted to do so. Ultimately it detracts from any future credibility you might have and alienates potential allies. After all, is there a reasonable person who takes Rebecca Watson or P.Z. Meyers seriously left, or are all they have left listening to them nothing but fellow ideologues?
BTW this is why I only listen to and read the MRA's, in spite of the fact that I agree with them on almost every point. Maybe I'll elaborate on that later.
2013-03-26
My take on the oral arguments on prop 8.
I just read the transcript of the oral arguments in the Prop 8 case before the Supreme Court. The arguments on the merits of the law itself were predictable and therefore, boring, so I'm not going to address them here beyond this: Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The initiative is out. Next!.
What I did find interesting is the issue of standing. Prop 8 being a referendum (to use the more international term for such things) came about because the elected officials didn't do what their constituencies wanted them to do, as is the case with most referenda in the U.S. (Jeez, I hope I'm pluralizing that correctly. I dropped Latin in the first week.).
Now here's the problem. It is left to the executives of the state governments to defend legal challenges to the law. Now we have a case where they decided that they don't like the law and wouldn't defend it. In other words, they wouldn't do their jobs. Who is to defend the law when those whose job it is refuse to do so. In this case, the lower courts have recognized standing for those who put forth the initiative. but apparently this is the first time for such a thing. I think it's reasonable.
If they prevail I think that the state should have to reimburse their expenses as well, but those aren't legal arguments and I have no idea if there is any law that comes close to addressing this. If any Stanford Law constitutional scholars should see this, pass it around with your buddies and have then chime in. I'll even entertain the opinions form those who went to east coast bible colleges, Harvard, Yale, whatever.
What I did find interesting is the issue of standing. Prop 8 being a referendum (to use the more international term for such things) came about because the elected officials didn't do what their constituencies wanted them to do, as is the case with most referenda in the U.S. (Jeez, I hope I'm pluralizing that correctly. I dropped Latin in the first week.).
Now here's the problem. It is left to the executives of the state governments to defend legal challenges to the law. Now we have a case where they decided that they don't like the law and wouldn't defend it. In other words, they wouldn't do their jobs. Who is to defend the law when those whose job it is refuse to do so. In this case, the lower courts have recognized standing for those who put forth the initiative. but apparently this is the first time for such a thing. I think it's reasonable.
If they prevail I think that the state should have to reimburse their expenses as well, but those aren't legal arguments and I have no idea if there is any law that comes close to addressing this. If any Stanford Law constitutional scholars should see this, pass it around with your buddies and have then chime in. I'll even entertain the opinions form those who went to east coast bible colleges, Harvard, Yale, whatever.
2013-01-12
Some Thoughts on On-line Petitions.
I've never 'signed' an on-line petition and probably will never do so. There are several reasons.
I think that they are primarily for gathering information to sell. Their psuedo privacy policies have the usual comm major rhetorical tricks to give the impression that they have one but obfuscate the fact that it has no teeth, such as using 'do not' which can be changed at any time and not 'will not' which is an actual commitment.
I've never come across one I agree with.
I'm lazy.
And finally the most important one. They're bullshit. None of them have an option to state that one has read and rejected or is indifferent to the petition. Without this feature they mean nothing more than that a small group of highly motivated and gullible people agree with the petitioner.
Polls are better, but only marginally. As a PZ Myers has shown they are easily manipulated by the same motivated and gullible people that sign the petitions. Without proper samples they are meaningless as well.
I think that they are primarily for gathering information to sell. Their psuedo privacy policies have the usual comm major rhetorical tricks to give the impression that they have one but obfuscate the fact that it has no teeth, such as using 'do not' which can be changed at any time and not 'will not' which is an actual commitment.
I've never come across one I agree with.
I'm lazy.
And finally the most important one. They're bullshit. None of them have an option to state that one has read and rejected or is indifferent to the petition. Without this feature they mean nothing more than that a small group of highly motivated and gullible people agree with the petitioner.
Polls are better, but only marginally. As a PZ Myers has shown they are easily manipulated by the same motivated and gullible people that sign the petitions. Without proper samples they are meaningless as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)