25 replies to this topic

[Lt. Free Market Asperger's]

Link.  Lengthy takedown of Watson's recent speech denigrating evolutionary roots of gender.  It's very thorough and in-depth, and it exposes just how intellectually bankrupt the "skeptics" movement is, particularly those skeptics who have fully embraced liberal ideology and egalitarianism.  He notes such things as Watson encouraging others to read Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender, an undoubtedly unpleasant woman who seeks "to justify a radical social constructionist view of gender differences."  She also pushes Greg Laden, a "scientist" who writes things like:

Quote

The problem with men, as a group, as a type of organism, as a subset of humans, is that at various points along the way on their journey from the female template on which all humans are built biologically, they have been altered in ways that make them dangerous assholes. Even when we try to reduce the male-female difference as a society, men who do not willingly participate in that often end up being fairly nasty, dangerous beasts; they may be rapists, they may be batterers, they may be some other thing. They break our efforts to have an egalitarian peaceful world. In a way, they are broken. They are damaged, if you will. Some of that damage is facilitated by what you may know of as testosterone

Watson also says that evolutionary psychologists "never tell us what genes," which sounds suspiciously like something you'd hear from a creationist than a self-identified skeptic.  It's just a hair shy of "modern synthesis can't answer all questions; therefore, it is wrong," and yet this shapeless nerdette makes the claim with a straight face.  The author goes on to debunk twenty-five statements that are false or misleading from Watson.  Personally, I'm more interested in the comments section as the skeptic community reacts to Watson being raped by male privilege (lawgic trap edition).



Now, we just need them to accept that niggers are stupid and Jews aren't human.

[Who Runs Barter Town?!?]

I cant keep up with this boring pseudo nerd drama (do any of these people even have degrees?), but didn't Dawkins tell that cunt to shut up back in the day?

[Negrito Eichmann]

post terrible nerd titties or...not  I keep forgetting who this bitch is.

[Saucer-Lord of the Illuminati]

A lot of more serious-minded "skeptics" have wondered why this woman is so in demand at conferences - I saw one refer to her as the "Paris Hilton of atheism", famous simply for being famous in those circles, despite having no real discernable skills, talents or qualifications to speak or lecture on anything.

[PLEASUREMAN]

"Greg Laden"...hmm, sounds familiar...oh yes, we know him here as "Tits" Laden

[Choad of Micro Hall]

None of these people appear to be qualified to write or talk about the things they go on about. It's a bunch of losers pea cocking their intelligence to each other while actual scientists go out and achieve things in the fields they only have a laymans grasp of.

[PLEASUREMAN]

I read parts of the article linked in the OP, it's somewhat grueling reading.  The writer argues from a prone position:

Quote

Lastly, Watson notes a Stanford social psychology study which shows that “stereotype threat” can be a powerful force in demotivating people. I couldn’t agree more. I have often argued for 50% female representation at secularist and skeptical events for this exact reason, even knowing that it is likely that fewer than 50% of available speakers at any one time are female. I am not sure what this point has to do with evolutionary psychology, however. I’m familiar with no research or researcher who maintains that stereotypes aren’t capable of being very harmful to society.

I suppose his critique of Watson has some value as the type of thing that people in that community will respond to, so it has to be written this way, although I myself have little patience with the mannered, passive-aggressive nature of academic critique.  When you let feminists, leftists, and other intellectual frauds roam freely, any critique no matter how verbose will be pointless.  They're not interested in reasoned discussion, so why do you think it will stop them?  The problem is in having such low intellectual standards for academia in general, which gives uneducated narcissists like Skepchick the idea that they deserve to be listened to.  (Imagine a five year old holding up class because learning the alphabet was "poopy".)

So he doesn't attack the root cause, he instead engages in this pathetic debate with her nonexistent arguments like the weak, ineffectual profnerd he is.  Sorry, Clint, Dawkins, Pinker, did you really expect that you could allow leftist identity politics to run rampant on campus and it would never come back on you?  Academia has been in a sorry state for decades, and you've all let it happen because you flattered yourselves that your liberal credentials were sufficient.  Well good luck with this new breed of attention-whoring academic jester, who doesn't give a damn for your standards of discussion and evidence.  Maybe it will dawn on you that this is what unopposed liberalism leads to.

Still, Clint soldiers on and puts together a long list of errors, which is like writing a book length critique of The Daily Show's liberal bias.  Clowns don't care, Clint, they just want to clown!  If you're going to bother with them, you should be briefer and more scathing.  Those are the only cuts they feel.

[PLEASUREMAN]

I should add that when evo psych and other disciplines study sexual differences while failing to account for factors such as population density and other environmental conditions, they lay themselves open to easy ridicule and to specious counter-argument from the likes of Rebecca Watson (just as when a clueless Republican muses on the viability of rape babies, he lays himself open to ridicule from the likes of Jon Stewart).

One of my issues with evo psych is the tendency of many (though not all) proponents to over-emphasize gene level selection, ignoring what one might lump together as "sociological" factors (for example, the effects of baby booms on political behavior by creating generational imbalance).

[Alex]

This is the penultimate post by Clint:

Quote

Boycott the Boy Scouts of America

If you just arrived in America today, you might assume the  all-male youth organization dedicated to snappy, highly accessorized uniforms and manly woodland excursions would be a fun, tolerant group of people. Instead, like a gay delusional Christian on their wedding night, you just wind up frustrated and confused.

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is symbolic of America’s tortured conscience, its delusional self-image problem. That is why an organization which says that its goal is to help boys become young men of character and virtue kicks out ones that not only have scrupulously demonstrated their worth for years, but displayed true moral courage as few people that age will ever do. The BSA can and will boot you for being gay or for not believing in a god— two things that have nothing to do with character or virtue. It’s not exactly the hallmark of patriotism either. The BSA bills itself as deeply patriotic, but kicking out people for being different? Where is respect for freedom in that? How can you good ol’ American liberty while persecuting people?

[Peer Reviewed Study]

I'm having a hard time summoning up any give-a-shit for atheist faggots getting eaten alive by their godless genderqueer shemales


Gender doesnt exist...

but theres a biological basis for men being evil

[PLEASUREMAN]

I don't know who Muhammad is, but...

[Who Runs Barter Town?!?]

Fucking lol

[Official SPLC Representative]

Ah, Rebecca Watson, endlessly whining about sexism while failing to acknowledge if she wasn't a girl she wouldn't have her parasitic career at all.

Nerds are the most susceptible group to this endless SWPL libthink because the basic state for a nerd is relentless insecure self-analysis.

Also PMan is right engaging with these people just plays right into their hands because you're letting them frame the debate.

[Who Runs Barter Town?!?]

Official SPLC Representative, on 05 December 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

Ah, Rebecca Watson, endlessly whining about sexism while failing to acknowledge if she wasn't a girl she wouldn't have her parasitic career at all.

Thread end.

[Rob S.]

Quote

I cant keep up with this boring pseudo nerd drama (do any of these people even have degrees?), but didn't Dawkins tell that cunt to shut up back in the day?

Yes he didn't fancy her jib, so he devictimized her by naming some species of vitctims even worse-used than herself -- by far.  A inimitable master move by one of the great bioevolutionary game theorists of his generation.  The crowd went insane.  The verdict was clear: Richard Dawkins prevailed by 3:2 among neurodiverse aspie virgins who care about combatting creationism, and it was a very good day indeed for extremely advanced mathematical analysis.

[Penzer]

PLEASUREMAN, on 04 December 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

(for example, the effects of baby booms on political behavior by creating generational imbalance).

This sounds more like political sociology than evolutionary psychology.

[PLEASUREMAN]

JDrozen, on 06 December 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

PLEASUREMAN, on 04 December 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

(for example, the effects of baby booms on political behavior by creating generational imbalance).

This sounds more like political sociology than evolutionary psychology.

it's not evolutionary psychology, that's my point

[tommy]

It takes a measure of spergishness to never guess that the lack of female atheist convention speakers may not have something to do with the inherent inclinations and interests of females.  That's especially so when the only other explanation progs allow themselves is the one where a lack of females can only be due to the chauvinism of progressive atheists who mull proposals like mandatory female representation among speakers of atheist conventions.

Quote

Edward Clint:

This is certainly a point that can be debated.  My view is that the playing field is far from level, and that we can make short-term positive gains that are worth more than the short-term losses you described.

I love this kind of talk that sounds important but says nothing.  Solway argues that he wants quality speakers rather than speakers of a certain sex.  Clint says something about short-term positive gains outweighing the losses, but what is the short-term positive gain other than a higher proportion of female speakers of which Clint speaks because that clearly isn't impressive in and of itself to Solway?  He doesn't say.  He leaves it in the abstract talking right around Solway while seeming to address his point.  That muddiness is typical of progs and that includes atheists who constantly fancy themselves as possessing Vulcan-like rationality.

Still, I wish Mr. Solway luck in his quest for atheist convention gender equity!  And may Watson be the ruin of Myers among skeptics!

[tommy]

Quote

The naturalistic fallacy. One can hardly find a more pristine example of this fallacy than in criticism of evolutionary psychology, and Watson’s remarks were  no exception. She spelled it out clearly at 38:30 “men evolved to rape… it was used as a well it’s natural for men to rape”. The problem to Watson is that some evolutionary psychologists study the phenomena of rape as a potential adaptation, or a product of adaptations such as the use of violence to obtain what one wants. Watson assumes that if rape is about sex, and sex is good because sex is natural, then rape must be natural and therefore good. This is an absurdity of course; it’s every shade of wrong from the rainbow of ultimate wrongness.

For any feminist atheist who may have accidentally visited MPC and would insist, as many have, that rape is just too dangerous to ever be evolutionarily adaptive, I present to you one among several documentaries from Kyrgyzstan on the phenomenon of bride abduction that's rampant in the country and appears to carry minimal repercussions:

[Negrito Eichmann]

I'd like to strike R. Twats again