168
169

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 -13 ポイント-12 ポイント  (33子コメント)

Why don't you read what actually happened.

[–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]Zalbuu 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (28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 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (17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?

        [–]screwgregg 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        My main objection isn't elevatorgate itself, but the huge wave of anti-intellectual non-discourse that it cultivated (or made more visible) in the Atheism and Skepticism communities.

        For example, it is for certain topics taboo to ask for evidence. You are instantly labeled a misogynist / rape apologist / MRA etc. Its the SRS style.

        People get pissed about Dawkins because he is "strident" or sounds condescending. SRS style communication is 100x worse than anything I've seen Dawkins, Hitchens, or Krauss do and with Krauss that's saying something!

        SRS is all about ad hominem, bullying, shouting people down. Avoid the actual issue at all costs and attempt to undermine anything they say. Quick, he is a man tell him we don't need his "mansplaining". Oh its a woman? Tell her she has internalized the patriarchy! Not even women are allowed to disagree!

        CH Sommers gets shit on as "not being a real feminist" or gets called an anti-feminist because she disagrees with some things. I'm pretty sure girlwriteswhat similarly gets shit on.

        You'd think that the thought "Oh, I have testicles so I can't comment on this let me go quote a woman just to be safe" should be an abhorrent thing to encourage, especially given that its the type of thing that SRS is so upset about. Its some kind of backwards "Lets see how you like it!" two wrongs make a right bullshit.

        [–]its_good 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I actually checked out of the "skeptic community" if such a thing existed after that. I thought her behavior was just indefensible, and the agree with me or you are a MRA was just the last straw for me.

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

        To be honest I wasn't even aware of MRAs until that and the snide "mansplaining" shit started happening.

        I think my first encounter with this was in the baconbits IRC where there were two people on there saying if you don't instantly agree with a rape accusation that you are a misogynistic shitlord that should check your privledge.

        They then instituted a "dont be a dick" rule. I never went back.

        Reddit LOVES calling people neckbeards and trotting out that picture of the fat guy with the fedora. Shaming based on perceived penis size is fine. Making snide comments about not being able to get laid or living in the basement (lack of financial independence) are also common. People can shame a man for not getting laid and then ask stupid questions about "Why is it that when a man sleeps around he is a stud?"

        Somehow, this is completely fine though and people act like the shitslinging doesn't go both ways.

        [–]firex726 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        certain topics taboo to ask for evidence.

        Which is of course borderline religious doctrine. Instead of the Pope and Pastor the SRS/SJW have replaced them with people like Sarkeesian and Quinn.

        [–]Zalbuu 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (12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 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (11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 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (9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.

        [–]firex726 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (6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.

        [–]JaNOMaly 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1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.

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

        I blame the people tossing around threats for that. What possible purpose does sending (usually anonymous) threats serve? It just gives the people you disagree with ammunition they can use that has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Don't blame the people receiving threats for reacting to those threats, especially when they often make up the bulk of the communications they have coming in.

        The problem with GamerGate, which I watched unfold, is that the people sending threats were not denounced and alienated by the people they were supporting. A blind eye was turned to the hate and vile they spewed. I didn't see ElevatorGate unfold, but from what I've read that was posted here about it, the same thing happened.

        You can not win a moral victory using immoral tactics, and it seems that very few people remember that these days.

        [–]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.

        [–][削除されました]  (9子コメント)

        [deleted]

          [–][削除されました]  (7子コメント)

          [deleted]

            [–][削除されました]  (6子コメント)

            [deleted]