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:

• 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.

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.

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 'The WOMEN'S FREEDOM CENTER'.  Does the article even cite a source?  Sort of, but it is conveniently behind a pay wall, so it can't be evaluated.  Every other claim the 'article' makes in unsourced.

If there isn't any conflation in the research or between the research and the reporting, of actual rape and any of the usual things feminist like to conflate with rape, I'll eat a vegetable.

The funniest thing is that the article Becky cites doesn't even claim what she claims.  The research was among women who use the V.A. for medical care.  This is something less than 10% of veterans do (for very good reasons), so it is hardly very good sample selection.

This is an example of cherry picking data and modifying it just enough to claim it was an error if and when called out on it.  Later someone can cite her and do the same.  This is done recursively and before long you have a convenient woozle, the stock-in-trade of feminism.

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.

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.

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.

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.