107
108

Rebecca Watson leaves SGU (skepchick.org)

siebharinn が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]loogawa 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (84子コメント)

I'll be sad to see her leave. I know she received a lot of hate but I thought she was often a better skeptic than Jay or Evan.

Lately I've found myself less interested in SGU. It's sad because it was my entrance into both the world orb skepticism, as well as podcasts. Both of which are a big part of my life now. However they just focus on news now, and I know more about current events than I used to.

I really wish they would spend more time k conspiracy theories, which is what I'm more interested in. Or maybe spend time going over debunking things that aren't necessarily in the news.

Anyone who really believes that she came off badly with that whole stupid "elevatorgate" thing is either grossly misinformed, or an asshole.

[–]jayme0227 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I felt like she occasionally let herself be a little too non-skeptical regarding left-leaning issues (I'm specifically thinking of GMO's, but I recall feeling the same on other issues). Even so, she was a positive contributor to the show, and provided a strong female voice, of which the skeptic community has relatively few. She'll be missed on the show. Best of luck to her in the future.

[–]loogawa 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sometimes I would definitely agree. But I found Jay too be the worst for that sort of thing, being the least skeptical of sort of life-prolonging future stuff

[–]nacmar 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Just curious, was she anti GMO in some fashion? I never noticed.

[–]an7agonist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

IIRC she's not anti GMO, but against some of the corporations behind them, like monsanto.

[–]nacmar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah, thanks.

[–]spoleto 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (42子コメント)

I read the facebook comments and people are pretty pissed off. What did she do? I've always been a big fan, but only ever listened to her on SGU.

[–]toolverine 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Check out the whole Atheism + stuff that came after. Rebecca got into it with Richard Dawkins at some point and there was a lot of circling of wagons by various skeptical blogs.

[–]loogawa 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (37子コメント)

this

[–]spoleto 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (34子コメント)

That's IT!?? People seem so offended. People on FB are saying she's a terrible skeptic and a shit person etc etc.

[–]GoogleOgvorbis 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (26子コメント)

You forget about her multiple doxings and literally saying that men who don't want to talk about feminism are worse than rape threats.

[–]spoleto 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (25子コメント)

I didn't forget about anything. If you would like to leave a link so I can better informed, feel free.

[–]vibrunazo 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (5子コメント)

This is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8YSwB8AvWs

She says that she is less bothered by the rape threat she gets from all the haters, than she is bothered by people who pretend women aren't oppressed. Sounds like a fair opinion to have, right?

Except the haters took only the sentence "you are worse than rape threats" only from that video, taking it out of context to tell everyone that "Rebecca said skeptics are worse than rape!!!". Well, the video is up there, watch it yourself and take your own conclusion about what she said and meant. (edit: note the other guy pointing to the video while linking directly to that quote, on purpose to leave out the context in hope you don't notice it.. what does that tells you?)

As you can obviously tell from this thread. She's a women who is outspoken about threats that she and other women gets from some man. Turns out a lot of people hate her for it and will say everything she does is terrible regardless of merit.

[–]loogawa 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And I love how these people call themselves skeptics. Hell half of them just read the title in some /r/mensrights post, and didn't want can fact check the five minute video to see how it was being misconstrued. Or check their own biases.

Same with Elevatorgate, or all the other things.

[–]two_in_the_bush 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've noticed this on both sides. Very few people are doing their own examination, just hearing the spin put on by one side or the other.

Wish more people would take the time to check it out on their own.

[–]esigs -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly.

[–]GoogleOgvorbis 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (18子コメント)

I am wondering a little bit why you're commenting about a person you don't know much about, but here you go:

multiple doxing: https://archive.today/xtnwl

Men who don't want to talk about feminism are worse than rape threats:

http://youtu.be/O8YSwB8AvWs?t=2m

reddit thread about Watson's insanity: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/20rklj/a_feminist_said_what_rebecca_watson_thinks_that/

[–]spoleto 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I am wondering a little bit why you're commenting about a person you don't know much about

I'm asking about her BECAUSE I don't know much about her, you idiot. Jesus Christ. And I'm not going on /r/mensrights. That subreddit is pure sexism.

[–]loogawa -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Did you even read that thread on doxxing? Or are you doing what she specifically said people would do, and showing it as an example of her being shitty without taking context into play.

She has gotten into trouble before for not blocking out the email addresses, or Twitter handles of people who send her death and rape threats. Why should she have to protect their privacy? Why is their privacy the most important thing? It's not just black and white. Exposing who someone is on the Internet isn't the one evil thing that no one should do.

Why is doxxing even inherently that bad? Obviously some totally anonymous account on reddit, if I were to post their home address, phone number, and whole name, that would be bad. But what if they are slandering people anonymously all the time, and the information is out there of their name. Is it evil to just say, hey this is their name? Isn't that different than saying hey here is where Zoe Quinn lives, or something like that.

You can disagree with her assumptions. But that doesn't mean you should go on about how incredibly shitty she is.

Again the video, and how you describe it is just more willful misinterpretation. If you don't see how you are just twisting her words I can explain it for you like I did the doxxing thing. But you're parroting /r/mensrights anyway, so I'll doubt it will matter.

[–]JaNOMaly 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I watched what she said in the video, don't agree with you that he's misunderstanding what she said. Care to explain to me what you think she was saying?

[–]Lowbacca1977 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why is doxxing even inherently that bad? Obviously some totally anonymous account on reddit, if I were to post their home address, phone number, and whole name, that would be bad. But what if they are slandering people anonymously all the time, and the information is out there of their name. Is it evil to just say, hey this is their name? Isn't that different than saying hey here is where Zoe Quinn lives, or something like that.

It isn't different, and either case would be wrong. Both in the sense that threats online can easily be faked to appear to come from someone other than the actual sender, and misidentifications can be potentially quite harmful. (wrong address for Zimmerman, wrong person identified during Sandy Hook, etc)

[–]GoogleOgvorbis 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You have just asserted that "Skep Tickle," a woman Watson doxxed, was sending her "death and rape threats." Please provide proof for your assertion.

If you don't know why doxing is wrong, then no amount of explaining will make it clear to you. It's ironic that you mention Zoe Quinn, seeing as how she likes to dox people, too. Do you denounce Zoe Doxes?

.....And you break in with the guilt by association and you don't seem to be for equality between men and women.

Ew.

[–]loogawa 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I said that people also accused her of doxxing those people. I know that the doctor chick who was slandering wasn't threatening. Maybe she was in the wrong for saying her publicly available name, when she was slandering herself and PZ Myers.

I'm saying doxxing isn't something that should be done to every blow shmo. But there are degrees. I don't necessarily think that an anonymous username should make you immune to any criticism. Because there are shitty people on the Internet. But some people disagree.

[–]Clumpy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

With the way that the Right handles the "culture war" they've made up and are determined to perpetuate, mentioning something like racism/sexism in any context is grounds for immediate personal dismissal and summary un-personing. It can't be abided.

[–]two_in_the_bush 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's the video:

http://youtu.be/uKHwduG1Frk?t=4m30s

[–]Fairchild660 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

RationalWiki is very biased on everything involving politics and social issues. Many pages about those issues read like a left-wing Conservapedia.

[–]loogawa 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well what did it say that happened that you disagree with?

[–]no_en -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What did she do?

She complained about being sexually harassed at a skepticism convention. This brought out the latent bigotry in the emotionally stunted and socially retarded "men" in the skeptic movement.

Being obsessed with technology and science doesn't make you a well rounded human being. It makes you an emotionally stunted asshole. As the reaction of the skeptical community to a woman asserting her basic human right not to be treated as a sexual object demonstrated in spades.

[–]sensorih 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wow I can't believe you're openly this sexist. What made you hate men?

[–]no_en -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not and I don't. What you are doing is called projection. Stop that.

[–]TitoTheMidget 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I really wish they would spend more time k conspiracy theories, which is what I'm more interested in. Or maybe spend time going over debunking things that aren't necessarily in the news.

I do too, but they also covered quite a lot of those in the early episodes. There are only so many batty conspiracy theories - after a while you just kind of run out of steam and start talking about stuff to be skeptical about in the news.

[–]firex726 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That was my thinking too, short of going for the incredibly obscure and minor conspiracies you'd run out of material after a few years.

[–]ramblingnonsense 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I really wish they would spend more time k conspiracy theories, which is what I'm more interested in. Or maybe spend time going over debunking things that aren't necessarily in the news.

Try Skeptoid. Brian Dunning has not exactly covered himself with glory but the resource he created is extremely valuable. Most of the episodes focus on a conspiracy theory, quack medicine or urban legend. Great stuff, if you can stand his stuffy delivery and the occasional painfully bad novelty episode.

[–]loogawa 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I liked the subject matter. But I didn't like the delivery, or him for that matter.

[–]dkmdlb 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Is he still in jail?

[–]recoveringpsychopath 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

he is in jail? i wondered why there were only guest hosts speaking in the last few weeks.

[–]vibrunazo 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yup. I've been listening to the SGU much less often as well. When I first found out about it, I would binge on episodes one after the other. Now that I've gone through all of them, I only listen once a week. :P

[–]Zalbuu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Anyone who really believes that she came off badly with that whole stupid "elevatorgate" thing is either grossly misinformed, or an asshole.

The irony of this statement is staggering.

[–]loogawa -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (24子コメント)

Why don't you read what actually happened.

[–]Zalbuu 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (21子コメント)

I was actually there for it champ. I watched it unfold. But thanks for linking a wiki, you sure showed me!

[–]firex726 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (10子コメント)

And hell, half the objections aren't even about IT specifically but about what happened after.

Remember when Watson decried D. J. Grothe as a sexist for not bowing down to her demands at TAM '11 for having a female only safe space?

How could any Skeptic stand behind someone who actively campaigns for sexual discrimination?

[–]Zalbuu 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Because ideologues have taken over, as they always do.

Remember kids, asking all men to change their behavior to that of a convicted violent offender on strict probation so that you don't have to deal with your unhealthy views on men and masculinity isn't sexism, but criticizing that view sure is!

[–]firex726 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I've always found this idea of "feelings" being some sort of a protected right as weird.

Many skeptics and the like go into these things to be challenged and new views presented. The whole point is to step out of your echo chamber and well... get offended. Even if you do not agree with a particular view it can still be useful to know WHY that person arrived at that conclusion.

I find many of her positions offensive, which I would not object to if she could support them with logic, but often they seem to relay on broad generalizations and are counter to themselves. The reasoning for safe spaces just seems borderline offensive as though women cannot handle "the real world" and being mixed with men. It's not the 1850's when women would get the vapors from being in the same room with a man.

[–]Zalbuu 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm always a fan the Hitchens quote: “If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.”

Which is doubly hilarious because this all started when she said something both offensive and wrong, and then went on to claim there were no valid criticism of what she'd done because some people were mean about it.

[–]JaNOMaly 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

exactly! It's infuriating to me to see the word misogyny thrown about so fucking flippantly. They aren't aware of the meaning of the word but they hide behind it. Sarkeesian has successfully avoided addressing any criticism by playing the harrassment victim card. Gamergate got basically shut out of the media because they cried misogyny. I wish we could just talk about ideas and whether or not they are valid. Instead the valid criticism just gets lumped in a long with all the other harrassment.

[–]firex726 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well yea, becuase it's an entirely non-statement. What is it communicating?

Someone get's offended at the views of someone else while in a venue meant for the sharing of ideas.

No ones feelings are protected, if YOU are offended by something the onus is on YOU to remove yourself from that offense; short of the person actually breaking some kind of law. If I visit a bar and don't like the music, I leave; I do not demand the bar owner change the music. But with Watson she will demand conferences which she has no stake in to change their policies to maintain her echo chamber when they are purposely made to remove that. They wanted the views of an A+ supporter on panels so they invited her, in the interest of skepticism.

[–]no_en -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

What is it communicating?

All communication is the transfer of information. "You hurt my feelings" is information. What you choose to do with that information says everything about who you are and nothing about the other person. The fact that you consider another human being's feelings unimportant makes you a monster and the world would be a better place without you and people like you in it.

No ones feelings are protected

Actually there are. They are called friends, family, lovers. You know, human beings.

if YOU are offended by something the onus is on YOU to remove yourself from that offense

Not in this world. Try again.

If I visit a bar and don't like the music, I leave; I do not demand the bar owner change the music.

A human being is not a bar. It is not an object to be treated as a commodity, a thing. Another human being is a person and persons are to be accorded rights which you owe them because they are persons. On of those rights is not to be treated as a means to an end only but as an end in themselves.

People who treat other people as ends only are called sociopaths.

[–]GoogleOgvorbis 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The ironic thing is that, before elevatorgate, she hosted brothel parties where Skepchicks did simulated bj body shots and she released semi-nude Skepchicks calendars.

[–]GoogleOgvorbis 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

rationalwiki is notorious for its bias and unreliability. Here's a scrupulously sourced and unbiased look at elevatorgate:

https://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/elevatorgate/

[–]loogawa 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You don't even have to scroll down before that article gets biased as fuck. There are a couple sources yes, but they make giant claims as to what this whole "elevator-gate" was, and what was important about it.

[–]Saganomics 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

rationalwiki is notorious for its bias and unreliability.

Read: "Rationalwiki is notorious for disagreeing with me."

[–]GoogleOgvorbis -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Can you disprove anything in the link I provided, a link that is far more comprehensive than the rationalwiki entry?

[–]Saganomics -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I don't make a habit of wasting my time on angsty blogspot posts sent to me by biased, emotionally invested individuals. You'd be better off posting that in one of your MRA groups, they'd be more receptive to it and you'll probably get the discussion you seek that way.

[–]GoogleOgvorbis 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's an awful lot of words to say, "I simply can't refute what you've said. I apologize."

[–]ferulebezel 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

One thin I think you don't understand is that "Rational Wiki" is a brand, not a description, it is neither. Cherry picking evidence to support your chosen narrative is hardly the behavior of a rationalist. And wikis are traditionally community edited.

[–]loogawa 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Instead of blindly attacking the source and claiming your job finished. Please enlighten me to which aspects of it are inaccurate so I may provide further evidence. I was simply trying to explain what happened. Not prove it. Since you seem to know exactly what happened, please prove rational wiki wrong.