Sunday, July 17, 2011

Skeptics Guide to the Nonsense

So, I've finally gotten around to listening to the Rebecca Twatson elevatorgate performance on Skeptics Guide to the Universe. I've never before listened to this podcast, and based on the lot of what they cover, I am none the poorer for it.  But, you know, I'm taking one here for the team and subjecting my ear holes to the unwanted nonsense these people want to cram inside them.

Sorry that I don't know the two guys on there, so I can't properly cite which load of stupidity belongs to whom. So, I'll just refer to them as one guy, and the other guy, or maybe just dude. Whatever.

So, they were going to talk about some robotic heads Rebecca Twatson happened upon, but instead this provides a segue into the three part harmony song and dance about how Twatson really said nothing else other than people should consider what they say to other people.  Mind you, it's important to note that Rebecca Twatson isn't remotely suggesting that EG was an actual threat. She doesn't need to do as much; she sets it up, and her fans do the work for her.  Kind of like how back in the day where I grew up, a white lady didn't have to accuse a black guy of actually doing anything to get him hanged. No, she just had to stress that she wasn't saying anything about him, or accusing him, but, you know, he spoke to her in a way she didn't like.  And the town would fill in the blanks, and make the proper conclusion to hang the black guy. If it turned out to be in err, no worries, our Lady in question always had, "Well, I never said he did anything to me."

One dude said that this situation could have easily turned into a sexual assault (a proposition with which Rebecca Twatson immediately agreed, but she didn't need to say. There was one of her retards to say it for her and then she gets to agree in that "oh, I hadn't thought of that" kind of way). Except that it didn't. And it therefore could not have done so because the probability it wasn't an assault of any variety is 1. And being in that kind of situation is naturally fearful for women.  Yes, ladies, you'll be happy to that you're almost required to be in fear of men if you're alone with one. And he talks. Without permission. In your direction.  Fuck, I'm scared just writing this part.

Indeed, there are a lot of things, apparently, that you women think about that make you feel vulnerable. Like when a man tells you to smile. This should strike fear into your soul I suppose.  This comes from a list on skepchick written by one of the regulars there. Amy something another. And there are, rumor has it, many things you women have to worry about before leaving the house.  Say, footwear. You have to actually choose your own footwear in part, at least, on whether or not you can run in them.  Men, as you'll know, don't have to choose their footwear because men aren't the victims of violence and thus need never escape danger.  That's something you women have to deal with, being all vulnerable and weak and shit from having to confront the "scary things" you confront.  One of which, we are invited to imagine, is being raped. Or sexually assaulted. And, of course, the ever enlightening "or something".

Random dude asks: Would you like to be beaten, raped, donkey punched or something?
Those first three sound kind of shitty. I guess I'll take my chances with an or something. Or something please.
But her audience is a smart audience and they'll fill the "or something" with appropriate scenarios she can she is now twice removed from.  1.) she's never said any of that, and 2.) the invitation to imagine other outcomes isn't hers.  See? She manages to get the audience to think what she wants without doing any of the work at all - she has some menz who'll make it up for her. All she has to do is not disagree.

And, apparently, Rebecca Twatson takes umbrage with the concept that women are supposed to be responsible for making decisions that reduces their chances of being raped. It is odd that this gives her heartburn as I note my house has locks on the doors. Apparently, I should be offended personally that I have some responsibility to secure my home.  Of course it follows that if my home is broken into, I share the blame. How she reasons this stupidity out isn't quite clear.  So, I'm sorry that you ladies have to make reasoned choices about your safety when you leave the house in the way that no men do; after all, my privilege is a coat of armor.

This is repugnant. One does share in his/her own safety.  We lock our doors, we have alarms on our houses, we carry phones for emergency contact, we spend extraordinary sums of money on fire departments, hospitals, police services, court systems, a military to protect us, a legislature to enact laws for our general welfare, school programs to teach our children about the dangers in the world, and the list goes on an on.   When a child gets kidnapped though no one goes,"well, we told him. Stupid fuck deserved it."  No, the victim is not responsible for someone else preying upon them. That is never excusable.  That isn't to say that you are immunized, or am I immunized, from taking steps in my life to protect myself on, you know, the off chance that someone, somewhere might not be as polite as I am polite and given that, I'd still like to wake up alive tomorrow.

You and your false dichotomies, and accusation that anyone who dares think wearing shoes on function and not flash is somehow blaming you for choosing flash over function is retarded. Then again, it is you saying it so I'm unsurprised.

Anyway, there's a lot stupidity and sexism in this one. But we can confirm from the horse's mouth that the man whom she ran into in the elevator did indeed follow her out of the bar. This means that the picture taken just before she left almost certainly has elevator guy in it. Why won't she name names? Or does that only count if you're attacking an audience member?

Sigh. What a shithead.

Show us on the picture who the big man who didn't touch is, Twatson.


AllStevie said...

The guy who hosts SGU, Steven Novella, has a blog that I've always kinda liked. By "kinda" I mean I'm not always interested in the subject, but I like the way he explains things. It's here if you want to check it out:
Yes he gives Rebecca Watson an outlet for her nonsense (and not for any sane reason that I can fathom), but I do recommend his blog.

Cockmaster said...

I had typed a 500 word comment and it got lost. Fuck it. Men and women's differences are not due to socialization. Feminists want to believe that because they think it means "women can be smart and scientifically minded too". Just like many "anti-racists", in order to make a certain demographic feel better about themselves, they dismiss all evidence that points to innate differences in cognitive abilities between men and women. Just like pseudoscience they begin with their conclusion and try to find evidence to fit in with it (this is why they completely dismiss evolutionary psychology--because it says that men and women OBVIOUSLY evolved brain differences). Hell, some feminists reject all real science. Ever notice how often physicists and chemists become virulent feminists? Yeah, almost never. Because they're used to doing real science where they can't afford to start with a conclusion and fish for evidence to support it.

Anybody who has half a brain and has had experiences with both men and women know that women, on average, are just dumber when it comes to technical and scientific things. It is not fucking sexist to say this is due to evolution. It might be sexist to assign greater Innate value to male traits, but stating facts can never be bad--whether or not they might hurt someone's feelings.

And guys, we can't be like the feminists and only apply principles to certain demographics. This must apply to races as well. TRUTH OVER FEELINGS!