Sunday, July 31, 2011

I Love Church and Prayer

[edit: transcript of the relevant part of Twatson's video is found here; caveat emptor]
I was praying this morning for a miracle, governed by the principles in the Special Theory of Prayerism (STOP). My research on this field continues. Anyway, I wasn't too specific about the miracle, so practically anything could count.  Taking into account the fact that prayers exceed the speed of light, I thought perhaps that maybe time was reversible for them as well.  Then it hit me, last night I watched a video on youtube. And today I woke up to find a new article at grey lining.

So, my prayer about 4 this morning got me a miracle from before then, and one from after then. It's helpful to understand how prayer really works so as to exploit it to one's advantage.

The CFI talk Twatson gave is now available to the public. (But comments are heavily moderated and pre-screened by CFI. What is it with all these fucking retards and their censorship? PZ does it. Twatson does it. CFI does it. Why is it that all of the people who are "right" are the ones having to fucking censor everyone and their mother? Why are the evil people like me censoring no one?)

Anyway, Twatson goes on to tell us just how ignorant Stef McGraw is.  Yes, stupid young girl. The video link which I was originally given starts a little too late in the game to catch Twatson's gambit.  I've explained this before, but apparently, some people are slow on the uptake.

Twatson is a communications major. She knows how to say what needs to be said without saying it, or spreading it out over just long enough a period of time that the contradictions she necessarily has to have aren't noticed.  Her work relies extremely heavily on contradiction; she has a different standard to be judged by than she demands you use to judge whoever this week's enemy is - always.   Plus, a lot of people who listen to her are idiots.  The link I was sent starts at about 12:30 or something. This is minutes too late for the set up that ruins her point to start off with.

Scroll back to about 9:35. The man broke away from the group she was in (but they'd never spoken to one another, and this group was all of like 5 or 6 people according to pictures!), and gets on the elevator with her and then says, "don't take this the wrong way."  Twatson has some commentary on what that really means, like when your friends starts off with saying, "I'm not a racist, but . . ."

So, listen to that. Then zip ahead to the 12:30ish mark where she starts off saying that she's calling Stef McGraw out, "[Twatson] wanted to use this as an example not to embarrass this person, but to point out that we have a serious problem when young women are this ignorant about feminism."

So, when other people say "don't take this as . . ." it's to be taken as a lie. When Twatson says it though, you should take it as truth. How does this work? How is one justifiable and the other not? What distinguishes one from the other? Oh, right. She's honest and men aren't.



As a bonus, here are some videos on our research into prayerism!

Original theory proposed:
My rebuttal:
Stay tuned for the debate! Contact DPRJones and remind him of it. =P

[Edit for some ruminations and wanderings of my addled mind]
I thought it fitting to edit in a quote from Sophocles' immortal Oedipus Rex. Why? Well, the Greeks had a keen sense of irony, and it's befitting this whole litany of bullshit. I remember studying the Greeks as a child, and reading them to help flesh out my Latin lessons. Some of it's kind of lost to the vicissitudes of time from when I studied and today, but certain phrases from my youth have modeled my life in large fashion.  Notably, it influenced Babblical writers as well, "pride cometh before a great fall" and that kind of fortune cookie rendering of the better written aphorisms the Greeks beforehand had written.

The tyrant is the child of pride
he drinks from his great sickening cup
recklessness and vanity
until from his high crest headlong
he plummets to the dust of hope
This was written along the times of Peleponnisian War, a war of antiquity starting around 431 BCE. Oedipus was written and originally performed in about 429 BCE. Well, it was performed then, so we can imagine that it was written before its first performance.  I'm no scholar in this field, but I'm sure production time in a period before e-mail took a bit, but I'll just for the sake of ease say 429.  2500ish years of Sophocles' future has faded into our past since he penned those words. The counsel remains as wise today as it did back then, and people would do well to stop forgetting it. It is proved true generation upon generation, era upon era, epoch upon epoch.

9 comments:

Phil Giordana said...

Holy fucking mother of A.afarensis!!!

I hadn't seen the video segment yet. This is even worse than I would have thought. Bitch move? Hell, that's bitch move 5000!

Disgusting!

Justicar said...

Yeah, she's a real piece of work.

All hail the new queen. Same as the old one.

rystefn said...

Yeah, she's a special kind of cuntwaffle, isn't she?

Also, Sophocles FTW, yo.

Justicar said...

You've managed to combine in one word two nouns with which I have little to no experience. Grats?

Greek literature in general.

As a habit, I don't lace my speech or writings with quotes, but I do enjoy a lot of the quotes from Greek literature.

When I was younger, I must confess, I'd have quotation Tuesdays. I'd only speak in quotes to no matter what was said to me. My coworkers used to come up with some really bizarre sets of topics to trip me up.

I found it highly amusing, and they apparently did too.

Spence said...

Another observation in how she changes the story. In the original elevatorgate youtube video, EG's commentary was "I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more". In the CFI example, the words "like to talk more" disappear.

In berating Stef, she pulls up a list of things that make "sexual objectification" rather than "sexual attraction" must be primarily physical. Of course, the fact that EG said he wanted to talk more shows that the attraction was not just physical.

The second thing on the list is that in objectification the persons desires are not considered. Watson insists that EG did not take her desires into account (i.e. going to sleep). But she also states that they had not talked prior to that - if so, how could he not know her desires? And, more to the point, once those desires were explained, he accepted them and did not try to get in the way of Watson's desire to go to bed. So it seems her desires did have some priority to him, after all.

So the definition that Watson came up with differentiating sexual attraction vs. sexual objectification was pretty much an utter fail from Watson's perspective, even though she got to choose the list after the fact. That's a pretty bad critical thinking fail. Her list pretty much proves Stef was right in her assessment.

Oh, PZ says the video proves we're all wrong. He just asserts it, of course. He didn't feel the need to mansplain anything to us with, y'know, evidence or logic.

dustbubble said...

Twatson is a communications major. She knows how to say what needs to be said without saying it, or spreading it out over just long enough a period of time that the contradictions she necessarily has to have aren't noticed Is this a (half-arsed) example of the famous "dog-whistling" we hear so much about (over here, off the right-hand edge of the map)?
Do they actually teach these tricks, in the journo course or whatever it was she did?
Up till now I'd assumed the hypnotically rambling and incoherent style was unintended.

Justicar said...

"Some women get hit on a lot and are relatively private people and don't like it. Some women get hit on a lot and have been raised to enjoy the attention. Other women don't get hit on. The only point of discrepancy is whether the ones who don't mind it notice that the others do."

Lawl. This is the wisdom one finds at PZ's place.

Either women hate it, or they've been brainwashed to enjoy being hit on.

It's nigh impossible that some subset of women might just, you know, enjoy empty attention. It's like cheap flattery ever works on people, now is it?

Brad said...

Slightly off topic but maybe not.

The "No means no" argument is often treated trivially, is specifically spoken of as the minimum one should expect.

Here in Korea, however, that is not the case. I've had a Korean woman specifically tell me that she's angry at her Italian husband for not pursuing sex further after she said no. It's a way of showing true desire of course.

Then the Italian husband comes up to me and asks what he's supposed to do in that situation.

How am I supposed to respond to that?

Further, last week we had a discussion with two Americans and a Korean. The Korean guy, a great guy, could not grasp the idea that a husband could rape his wife.

Korea is not Ireland but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that everybody gets at least that much.

Objectification, as RW defines it, is culturally specific. A good rule of thumb generally is "No means no".

But let's not pretend that we can speculate much beyond that.

Justicar said...

I'm in no position to comment on what it is Boston University teaches its communications majors. I am, however, in a position to evaluate what it is that Twatson actually says and does . . .

And the style she uses is fairly not sophisticated. Hell, I have no expertise in "communications" other than, you know, reading and speaking for 30 some odd years. If I can pick it out on the first go, I'm sure that any "expert" in the field can spot more than I.

Of course, having studied logic extensively, and rhetoric and maths, I'm fairly adept at breaking things down and seeing what the actual information content is.

Bleh.