[Edit: Jennifer McCreight (rhymes with wrong) has responded, sort of. And, as indicated in what follows below, the ability of people to disagree with her has been forestalled by, yet again, another silencing campaign. I love irony.]
[Edit 2: Jennifer McCreight (rhymes with wrong) has decided to discuss it anyway - well, sort of. She's still locked the topic on her blog, but it's spilled over on Pharyngula now; I've been quote-mined! That didn't take long at all. Side by side pictures at bottom - I used to love playing that game in Highlights. Now you can too! Find what's missing and circle it!]
. . . exclusively. Nor do I support black equality or gay equality or women's rights or black rights or gay rights. I support human rights which, of necessity, covers everyone's petty ass. Mine included. As a gay male, of course I want the option available for gay men to marry. Perhaps, I'll even be able to trick one of them into marrying me - after all, why should straight people be the only ones to suffer? But I'm not a gay rights activist. I'm a human rights activist. Raise the floor for all people, and it seems to me that some matters just take care of themselves.
But I'm not so provincial. Nor am I so narrowly focused that my individual concerns outweigh those of everyone else; that's a bit of a dick move. Or cunt move if you prefer. Speaking of which, this brings me to Blaghag's Jennifer McCreight (rhymes with wrong). She's a woman. She's an outspoken
woman. She's also a graduate student near me. And this is discomforting for me to know. You see, she escaped the square states and came to Seattle to study in a more sophisticated, metropolitan-blend of "we don't give a fuck that you're a special little tortured artist" or whatever pet label someone might want to have kind of environment. Follow the laws, don't hurt people and we don't care here.
Read the article on her blog to which I earlier linked so that we might together enjoy the brain-rot, and lack of integrity Jen has on this particular issue. I am not in a position to say if this generalizes. I take on faith that she's a competent student and honest in her reporting and research. If not, we'll find out about it soon enough I suppose. But, if this were the first time I'd come across her, I'd be worried. If I were one of her thesis advisers/professors and I read her blog, I would have spent the last week (and perhaps the next months depending on her throughput) examining every bit of data she's touched, reported on, thought about, walked near, overseen or, for that matter, had her aura in the vicinity of. Why? She'll lie, publicly, when it's convenient. Now, you might call it a mistake, and you'd have been right. Except that when she got called on it, well, the decision wasn't to admit and correct error. It was to ignore the correction, and banish the one pointing it out.
Now, I'm blocked on blaghag because of two primary things: 1.) I called her bullshit out on twitter, and 2.) what I've written about Rebecca Twatson. One thing I don't do, unlike either of those two pillars of free thought (for some) is comment moderate. I have a spam filter to keep the porn sites from advertising, and stuff like that. But you can come here and call me a faggot all day long and your stupidity will remain for as long as I keep open this blog. Why? Free expression is not something I fuck with. You're free to sit here and espouse the most repugnant views you'd like, it stays. I unequivocally support everyone's right to present their views as to how the world should work, without caveat. To do otherwise sets the following as a precept: there exists someone who can decide in advance which thoughts are sufficiently meritorious to be permitted to be said, and which ideas are sufficiently bad that no one else is allowed to hear them. To whom do you bestow the honor of deciding, in advance, for you which ideas you're allowed to have, or know about? Blaghag has spoken - for her readers, she has that privilege. Oh sure, you can disagree. Sometimes.
Enter Jennifer McCreight (rhymes with wrong) into the Richard Dawkins affair. From the blog post to which I earlier linked, you'll find this statement of fact:
Words matter. You don't get that because you've never been called a cunt, a faggot, a nigger, a kike. You don't have people constantly explaining that you're subhuman, or have the intellect of an animal. You don't have people saying you shouldn't have rights. You don't have people constantly sexually harassing you. You don't live in fear of rape, knowing that one wrong misinterpretation of a couple words could lead down that road.No harm, no foul so far really. It's an assertion of facts and is therefore amenable to a little something called research. Indeed, even before she wrote in her Help! Richard Dawkins Is Privileged and Oppressing Wimmen! emotional reply. She chose to do no due diligence. This isn't science; it's a blog, so the standards of evidence are somewhat more relaxed. But there is some burden on a blog author to at least be in the vicinity of honest. She feels no such obligation so long as she's angry enough. That's her privilege as a pissed off woman - she can make abject assertions of patent falsehood and some other angry and oppressed wimminz will uncritically accept it.
I called her out on this bullshit on Twitter, first for pressing me, as a faggot, into service of a point. I was, along with the niggers and kikes, caught up merely as convenient examples of an oppressed group of people. Without our consent. And in the service of a lie. This is, to put it mildly, rude. It's also a breach of ethics. But let's take this in turn.
You good people decide if she's being honest, or playing blindly in service of a cause. Also, it would be lovely if you charming people would direct her to this post and press her to defend these outright false claims. I tried it, and well, I've been excised. However, I'm not important really - I'm only a human with thoughts different than hers on at least one issue. So, maybe it's not that big an affront to her claims of respect for free exchange of ideas and open, honest inquiry. After all, we already know she'll lie if necessary.
1.) Words matter:
I agree; that's why I find her arrangement of them to say things she should know are false to be such an offense against the values she professes to hold. What a cunt.
2.) Richard Dawkins has never been called a cunt.
These are all worth the read for the lulz. These aren't just his being called a cunt; this is the public press about him. This explains why you see Dawkins complaining a lot about it - because he's a whiner unlike some other people.
3.) Dawkins isn't called a faggot.
The last link there isn't exactly his being called a faggot; it's just showing him fucking one up the ass. So, I might have to concede that this isn't technically calling him a faggot. Of course, I can't wait to see how they dismiss all of these as unimportant. Not that they would dismiss things that have actually happened to him as not relevant.
4.) Dawkins isn't called a nigger.
I conceded this one out of the gate. Even though it's technically not true that he hasn't been called a nigger, it is 4-chan. But still. Her claim is false, demonstrably so.
5.) Dawkins isn't called a kike.
Well, I'll concede this one for the sake of time, and researching this claim is difficult now because of all of the entries that came as a result for the relevant keywords. But no matter on that, being wrong about 75% of the (first four) things you cite as examples isn't exactly an honest broker's deal. Plus, I don't concede that Dawkins isn't called a kike; I am only conceding that I'm not contesting this for logistical reasons. Her correctness does not materially improve as we go along.
She continues to entreat Richard Dawkins with the comfort of knowing he's not called stupid, that he's not treated as though he has the intellect of an animal. What? She's a graduate student in biology and thinks no one treats Richard Dawkins as the animal that he is? Oh, maybe she's Lamarckian and Dawkins has reached that state of perfection. Not an animal? Way to ignore the conversations, Jen. Richard even admits, no doubt out of disgrace, that he's an animal. He teaches the world that we're animals. But, apparently, he's 100% ineffective. Yes, I'm being persnickety here. Remember, these are the things she's setting up as arguments to exclude Richard Dawkins' from having even a putatively correct estimation here. It is just impossible for him to be right because of - all of this shit she makes up.
We continue to read her rebuke of Dawkins noting he doesn't suffer sexual harassment (being harassed about his being male makes him too stupid to understand or "get it" is apparently dismissible. I'll note this with respect to this particular woman), and doesn't know what it's to live in fear of being raped.
I'll take these in reverse order. No, Dawkins doesn't live in fear of being raped. That's kind of the point he's made to Rebecca Twatson. Indeed, for this to be relevant at all, we have to assume Jen means Twatson was in that elevator in fear of being raped. Dawkins is saying that there isn't a reason to be afeared ya'll. The supposed EG asked someone to coffee at a place Twatson didn't like. That's not a cause to cry and bitch about, well, anything. Tell the guy to go fuck himself and get on with your life.
But no, Richard Dawkins isn't in fear of being raped. Or murdered. Or mugged. Or dying in a car carsh Or being sent to hell. These are all possible. Some of them represent things that can actually happen even. But that doesn't rise to the level of being a good cause for fear.
And why it this last bit relevant? Dawkins himself is a survivor of sexual abuse. He wrote about it four years ago.
In light of all of this "reality" with its "facts", has Jen apologized to Dawkins? No. She's just saying he shouldn't be boycotted . . . yet. And, you know, that she's willing to grant he's not a misogynist; he's just stupid.
Here's the edit:
So, an individual by the usename Rystefn has, um, had a conversation with Jennifer McCreight (rhymes with wrong) on her blog. In it, he linked her to this. She has responded on her blog, before being cornered into having to either lie or admit error. So, she chose the reasonable course of locking the thread to prevent the refutation of her chicanery.
Please go read what she's written. Read what I've written. Compare what she says against what I say and see if I've done, as she alleges, nothing more than to attack a strawman. Err, person. Don't want strawwomen feeling neglected or anything.
Let's take a look at the salient features:
I'm crazy; therefore you should disbelieve what I write.
I abused and stalked her on Twitter; despite there being a 1:1 tweet ratio (from memory. I suppose we could count them up, but, alas, Jen isn't interested in facts or truth; she has a religious cause to fulfill!) I started first, she finished last (blocking has a way of doing that - getting the last word in is apparently important to her).
I fail to appreciate context of what she wrote, and that can change how things are read.
In short, she hasn't argued that I'm wrong. She's only implying that no one should believe what I've written because of reasons not relating to whether what I've said is correct or incorrect. If you feel strongly enough, after all, the data change!
For the sake of drawing out the important inability she has to concede error, I'll just post the picture of the initial exchange she had with Rystefn:
Note. He asked her if she cared to defend her statements against the refutation I've written in this post.
Note also: her defense is centered entirely on accusations unrelated to the truth or falsity of any claim I've herein made. They are exclusively about me. And not even honest at that! I have made precisely 1 video to her, which she was aware was going to happen anyway. Well, she should have been at least; I did notify her in advance that I was going to make that one video. I don't have another video "to" her, let alone do I submit videos to people - how would that work? I just try to smuggle in on the comment's section? E-mail a video? Skype it to her? Anyone else have the ability to "spam" people with videos on a site you don't control? If so, how does that work?
Also note she says that I am saying she falsifies her data. I said that If I were adviser or one of her professors, I would go over her work with a fine toothed comb because she is demonstrating she will not let a mere inconvenience of facts get in the way, at least not in one situation. In particular, I said:
I take on faith that she's a competent student and honest in her reporting and research.And
But, if this were the first time I'd come across her, I'd be worried.Followed by
If I were one of her thesis advisers/professors and I read her blog, I would have spent the last week (and perhaps the next months depending on her throughput) examining every bit of data she's touched, reported on, thought about, walked near, overseen or, for that matter, had her aura in the vicinity of. Why? She'll lie, publicly, when it's convenient.Ending with
Now, you might call it a mistake, and you'd have been right. Except that when she got called on it, well, the decision wasn't to admit and correct error. It was to ignore the correction, and banish the one pointing it out.Now, please show me in there where I suggest that she is creaming her data. It can't be the one sentence left out
But, if this were the first time I'd come across her, I'd be worried.That seems to be a fairly obvious statement related to my saying if my faith that she is an honest researcher is misplaced, we'll find out about it in short order.
Indeed, as was the case with her lying in her post to Dawkins, she was given ample opportunity to correct what then were just mistakes. After being told of the mistakes is where it became a lie; she ignored that they are false, banned the person who pointed it out, and now labels pointing it out the result of mental instability on my part.
Yet she doesn't take any step to show that her claims are true. She just says I'm wrong, don't get it, am crazy, and that somehow there's a context that changes what she said into something else other than what she said. For instance, it wouldn't matter because Richard knows he's not a nigger. How does that all relate to her claiming he can't understand because it's never happened to him?
How does her post hoc rationalization that because Richard doesn't publicly cry about the unfairnesses of life change what she said?
It's nn the same way that finding out Richard Dawkins was sexually assaulted doesn't matter either. His actual sexual assault and response to it by not being a lifelong victim to it still means he doesn't get it. He doesn't get it because of the list of things she said. Prove that list factually wrong, and it changes nothing.
Her response has no feature distinguishable from the religious: bring up as many countervailing facts as you'd like, and their beliefs remain unchanged. Why? Their beliefs were never about facts in the first place; it's purely emotional.
Apparently, though, I'm just butthurt. It's not that you're a lying douche and ideologue, Jennifer McCreight (rhymes with wrong). No. It's never that, is it? It's always people who don't agree with you who are wrong and have ulterior motives.
You are not a promising example of the next generation of scientists; you have no respect for the truth. I hope you improve in your integrity before we wind up with another Kurt Wise in our midst. Cunt.