ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , Atheism Plus , Free Thought Blogs

Reply
Old 13th November 2013, 03:02 AM   #81
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
Take a look at the "general science blogs" category at Steven Novella's blog. You find two links there. However, there used to be three links there, as is evident from an archieved version of the blog. The link that has gone missing as of recently is to Pharyngula.

Any ideas as to why?
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:36 AM   #82
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,564
Okay, so, a little more on that meta-analysis.

I'd say that there are two major problems that leap out straight away. The first is that it includes unpublished papers and other sources, "book chapters, dissertations, conference papers, and unpublished manuscripts", but doesn't outline what the inclusion criteria are. The second is that they make a big noise about this being the largest meta-analysis out there, but then create a two-tier system whereby they exclude studies which don't conform to what they determine to be "best practices" - again without actually defining what they are.

That's a couple of serious flaws, I would say, and I would say that even if I trusted the author not to be working to an agenda. However, the earlier meta-analysis by the same author, coupled with the fact that his research has historically been funded by an advocacy group against violent video games, leads me to question the purity of his motives.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:43 AM   #83
s_pepys
Muse
 
s_pepys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Take a look at the "general science blogs" category at Steven Novella's blog. You find two links there. However, there used to be three links there, as is evident from an archieved version of the blog. The link that has gone missing as of recently is to Pharyngula.

Any ideas as to why?
Maybe it's because it's more of a politics blog than science these days. Also they had a minor spat a while back when pzzz had novella in his crosshairs briefly.

I don't think Dr novella would remove the link over that though. He's a tad less fiery and more thoughtful than pzzz tends to be.
s_pepys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 05:17 AM   #84
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,009
Does anyone still want to be associated with PZ Myers?
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 05:57 AM   #85
Diogenes
Muse
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
...."book chapters, dissertations, conference papers, and unpublished manuscripts"....
If I could get away with that I'd have this dissertation knocked-out pretty fast.
Diogenes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 02:24 PM   #86
Meed
boundless constraint
 
Meed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Because it's more likely that people will actually see it if they don't have to go looking for it.
True, but the people who want to find it will have no trouble finding it. So it seems a relatively unimportant point to me even though I tend to agree that allowing comments is better than not allowing comments.

Quote:
Let's say that there's a major methodological flaw with the study, but it's not one that's readily apparent to the layperson. If that methodological flaw is pointed out in the top-voted comment, then there's a fair chance that Layperson A watching the video will read that comment and might think "oh, that's a good point, actually. I didn't think of that." On the other hand, they're unlikely to google for it, because people tend to just accept what's put in front of them, especially if it concurs with what they already believe, or what they would like to be true.
Not a situation that is going to arise every time, or even in a majority of cases, but fair enough.

Quote:
Equally, if they see some criticisms of the video in the comments, then they may be inspired to do the googling you suggest where they otherwise might not have been.
True.

Quote:
I haven't said anybody is obligated to do anything, and nor have I said that I'm annoyed by anything that anybody has done.
Okay.

Quote:
Although you can, of course, ban individual commenters on your own blog.
Moderation can be time consuming, however. Whether one wishes to go through the trouble is up to them.

For someone being payed to engage in research by donors, I do agree that avoiding dealing with criticism is not a great way to handle things (I don't know if Sarkeesian actual does avoid responding to criticism or not because I haven't followed her work very closely--just speaking hypothetically). If I donated money to someone to make some sort of educational/advocacy video series, I would be annoyed if they didn't respond to criticisms, so long as the criticisms did not seem to be ridiculous, trollish or petty and were in regard to the actual subject matter of the videos. However, I think one can do this with or without allowing comments on their personal youtube channel and/or blog. Allowing blog comments is best though, IMO. If you're being payed a lot of money to reserach/advocate for some topic then you can probably find the time to do a bit of moderating or to ask for volunteers to help with that business.

But like I said, I don't know if Sarkeesian has addressed criticisms and I haven't donated money to her, so I don't care much about how she does things.

Quote:
Would a person watching the film be more likely to do independent research if the comments suggested that the film was full of inaccuracies or not?
Fair enough.

Quote:
And let's not forget that to the average, non-involved layperson that a slew of comments saying " F U #%()# feminazi" are actually going to speak for themselves, and it's not the author of the video that it's going to be making look bad. If those are the only counter-arguments on offer, then most people are only likely to think that the video has a better case than they otherwise would. So, again, I don't see why they're anything to be afraid of.
Who said anything about being afraid or looking bad? That isn't the only reason one might not want to see ugly comments under their videos/blogs.



Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Since the creator of the video series is making an attempt to turn it into something that could be used in an educational situation and not allowing any debate over the content (and purposefully walling herself off from anyone but her echo-chamber), then yes the discussions we have on the periphery isn't really a discussion because the one who made the points and trying to sell the material isn't here.
Apparently discussing the writings of Thomas Paine isn't really a discussion unless Thomas Paine is participating or listening in?

Quote:
And no, she can't be engaging in discussion and debate if she has control over both sides of the floor.
I've no idea what this means in the context of what you were responding to.

Quote:
Yet you still posted here and not via telegraph, smoke signal, or messenger pigeon. Why is that? With all sorts of alternative means of communications, why haven't you carved it into a block of ice in the hopes that I might read it. Does it have anything to do with the fact that I am here?
Again, I don't understand this in the context of what you were responding to.

I said, to me, the most appropriate way of expressing disagreement with a research/advocacy video, such as the type made by Sarkeesian would be to make a video critique or critique via blog article or something similar.

I don't see how that implies I shouldn't respond to a post with a post. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you were here. If my intention were for you, specifically, to read it then I would have PMed you instead of posting in a public discussion thread.

Quote:
Can't prove a negative. Prove that she has. Find the revised, improved or expanded argument. Find anywhere that there is criticism that she has refined her message. Given she has refused to permit any discussion or feedback where she posts or expresses her ideas, specifically her youtube and blog, find anything that shows she is responding to any sorts of feedback.
I think you must have misread what I wrote. I said "Do you really believe that Tropes vs. Women in Videogames did not receive any feedback?" I didn't ask whether you believe Sarkeesian has read the feedback or not.
Meed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 02:26 PM   #87
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,919
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
Does anyone still want to be associated with PZ Myers?
Only if he's buying beer.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 02:56 PM   #88
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,564
cornsail, it seems like we're pretty much in agreement, simply putting a slightly different amount of emphasis on different things. And I do think it's only a slight amount.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:03 PM   #89
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
Does anyone still want to be associated with PZ Myers?
Not anyone reasonable I'd think.

Still, it's sad that he has declined so badly as he has.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 05:52 PM   #90
Leftus
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 820
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
I've no idea what this means in the context of what you were responding to.
I'm shocked. I mean, I wrote a long, detailed, point by point explanation of this point and tied it to a balloon with your name on it. I even took the extra step of putting a note in a bottle, sealed it and tossed it into the ocean for the waves to deliver. Perhaps it just hasn't arrived. Well, when it does, I'll look forward to your rebuttal in the form of a letter to the editor in USA Today.

(as an aside, the idea of a letter to the editor starting, "Dear Editor, I would like to correct a misunderstanding published on JREF forums ..." hits my absurd funny bone)

Quote:
Again, I don't understand this in the context of what you were responding to.

I said, to me, the most appropriate way of expressing disagreement with a research/advocacy video, such as the type made by Sarkeesian would be to make a video critique or critique via blog article or something similar.

I don't see how that implies I shouldn't respond to a post with a post. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you were here. If my intention were for you, specifically, to read it then I would have PMed you instead of posting in a public discussion thread.

If all forms of communication were equal, you could send your response to me by an alternative method and I would get them. The fact that you have used this very forum to communicate directly with me speaks in direct contrast to that claim. You've not chosen another form of communication partly due to the fact you would have no way of knowing that I would see it. Partly because I posted it here too.

Put another way, what value to the forum is someone who would post while having everyone else on ignore? What value is a forum where discussions can't take place. And, yes, Youtube is a forum.

That is what she has done. She has prevented you from directly responding to her. Even in the case of support, she has squelched you. You seem to be OK with that and pretending that alternative means of responding to an idea is equally effective. But when I point out that you don't respond to my ideas by any other means than posting here somehow the dissonance doesn't resonate.

If responding to a Youtube video by means of totally unconnected blog, video or JREF posting is perfectly acceptably, then responding to this post by standing on a roof waving semaphore flags is also equally acceptable because the intended audience (IE - the creator of the video and the audience who saw it) are as equally likely to receive it.


[/quote]I think you must have misread what I wrote. I said "Do you really believe that Tropes vs. Women in Videogames did not receive any feedback?" I didn't ask whether you believe Sarkeesian has read the feedback or not.[/quote]

Inanimate objects can't receive feedback in this context. The video did not close the comments. The video did not disable the voting buttons. The video did not disallow video response links. A person did. So while people certainly did respond to it, the person who is trying to make this into some sort of educational video to be used in classrooms is intentionally walling themselves off from criticism.

When presenting an idea and you disallow, to the best of your ability, any and all feedback then you are wrong twice.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 07:26 PM   #91
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
Violent video games, along with other media, do normalize violence. Playing violent video games increases aggression.. Ask a hard one.
Pay attention. The claim was that violent video games do not increase real life violence, but does cause people to be sexist towards women. I was saying this is contradictory logic.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 07:28 PM   #92
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Btw its not that she blocks comments thats the biggest problem, its the characterisation that her critics are merely hateful trolls and that no one has ever given her legitimate criticisms.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 09:48 PM   #93
Meed
boundless constraint
 
Meed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
cornsail, it seems like we're pretty much in agreement, simply putting a slightly different amount of emphasis on different things. And I do think it's only a slight amount.
That seems about right.



Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
I'm shocked. I mean, I wrote a long, detailed, point by point explanation of this point and tied it to a balloon with your name on it. I even took the extra step of putting a note in a bottle, sealed it and tossed it into the ocean for the waves to deliver. Perhaps it just hasn't arrived. Well, when it does, I'll look forward to your rebuttal in the form of a letter to the editor in USA Today.

(as an aside, the idea of a letter to the editor starting, "Dear Editor, I would like to correct a misunderstanding published on JREF forums ..." hits my absurd funny bone)

If all forms of communication were equal, you could send your response to me by an alternative method and I would get them. The fact that you have used this very forum to communicate directly with me speaks in direct contrast to that claim.
I don't know who made this claim you're critiquing, but it wasn't me.

Quote:
You've not chosen another form of communication partly due to the fact you would have no way of knowing that I would see it. Partly because I posted it here too.

Put another way, what value to the forum is someone who would post while having everyone else on ignore? What value is a forum where discussions can't take place. And, yes, Youtube is a forum.
I still have no way of knowing. Nor do I have a way of knowing that when I comment on a video, the uploader will see it.

Generally, when my primary concern is to be read by one person specifically, I will PM or email them.

When I write on a public forum, I'm writing for the thread in general and for lurkers, because that's who the audience is. And yes, for the person I'm responding to as well, but them reading what I write is not necessarily essential.

Quote:
That is what she has done. She has prevented you from directly responding to her.
Sure doesn't seem like she has...

http://www.youtube.com/inbox?to_user...tion_compose=1



http://www.feministfrequency.com/contact/



Quote:
Even in the case of support, she has squelched you. You seem to be OK with that and pretending that alternative means of responding to an idea is equally effective. But when I point out that you don't respond to my ideas by any other means than posting here somehow the dissonance doesn't resonate.

If responding to a Youtube video by means of totally unconnected blog, video or JREF posting is perfectly acceptably, then responding to this post by standing on a roof waving semaphore flags is also equally acceptable because the intended audience (IE - the creator of the video and the audience who saw it) are as equally likely to receive it.


Quote:
I think you must have misread what I wrote. I said "Do you really believe that Tropes vs. Women in Videogames did not receive any feedback?" I didn't ask whether you believe Sarkeesian has read the feedback or not.
Inanimate objects can't receive feedback in this context. The video did not close the comments. The video did not disable the voting buttons. The video did not disallow video response links. A person did. So while people certainly did respond to it, the person who is trying to make this into some sort of educational video to be used in classrooms is intentionally walling themselves off from criticism.

When presenting an idea and you disallow, to the best of your ability, any and all feedback then you are wrong twice.
Well now I'm finally starting to half-understand some of your more confusing statements. I gather that, for example, when you said "she's curtailing debate" you meant that she's preventing people from debating with her. Except as I pointed out, one could allow youtube comments and then ignore them completely, so it seems a moot point to me. Plus, people can simply contact her directly. There is no "immunity from criticism" going on here. If she chooses to ignore all criticism then that's foolish on her part, but it's not contingent on disabling comments.

And to clarify, when I was talking about what would come to mind as far as appropriate avenues of critique go, I was neither assuming nor implying that the goal of such critiques would be to have them be read by Sarkeesian herself. That seems to be another source of the miscommunication between us... In most cases I don't see the goal of critique to be to bring about some sort of change in the author of the piece of work in question.
Meed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:04 PM   #94
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
Well now I'm finally starting to half-understand some of your more confusing statements. I gather that, for example, when you said "she's curtailing debate" you meant that she's preventing people from debating with her. Except as I pointed out, one could allow youtube comments and then ignore them completely, so it seems a moot point to me. Plus, people can simply contact her directly. There is no "immunity from criticism" going on here. If she chooses to ignore all criticism then that's foolish on her part, but it's not contingent on disabling comments.
Not just her, but with each other, which is very important. Discussion isn't always with the person who starts the discussion and everyone else. It's ok if a person brings up a topic and then walks away to let an audience discuss an issue. I suppose then, my opinion is that you can't just bring something up and refuse anyone everyone a venue to discuss it. Its a bit rude.
kid meatball is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:06 PM   #95
Meed
boundless constraint
 
Meed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
Discussion isn't always with the person who starts the discussion and everyone else.
My point exactly. Leftus and I were apparently interpreting the term differently.
Meed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2013, 09:04 AM   #96
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Btw its not that she blocks comments thats the biggest problem, its the characterisation that her critics are merely hateful trolls and that no one has ever given her legitimate criticisms.
Actually let me just continue with an example. Its kind of like a Creationist or 911 Truther blocking comments on their videos etc, not bad in itself necessarily, but if they then went on to act like the only criticism they receive are people saying things like "you're just a brain dead Creationist/conspiracy theorist!" thats going to piss people off.

There's also good reason to think Anita S actually intentionally baited people to come and send her nasty comments. Spamming 4chan with her own Kickstarter page for example, and randomly allowing comments all of a sudden on her videos - correction - video, she enabled comments for her Kickstarter video. This way she could gain lots of delicious trolls and mean quotes from people, so she can then tour the world complaining about bad it all is and lil old her just wants to bring light to the discrimination in gaming.

Anyway, there's so much more to this than that if you've been paying attention. The point is its not the "blocking comments" thats the problem on its own, its the complete denial and handwaving that anyone has ever giving her any legitimate criticism other than that. I even read an ABC news article about the mens rights movement, and how A Voice For Men was to be featured on 20/20 (that they decided not to air after this article went out for whatever reason), where it was characterised as all the people saying mean things to her were all "MRAs" (mens rights advocates). How in the world did she know that? Thats even more of a stretch than Rebecca Watson characterising all the hate mail she got was from disgruntled white male atheists that just hate women, which was therefore just further evidence of how sexist the atheist community was!
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2013, 10:19 AM   #97
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,353
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Anyway, there's so much more to this than that if you've been paying attention. The point is its not the "blocking comments" thats the problem on its own, its the complete denial and handwaving that anyone has ever giving her any legitimate criticism other than that. I even read an ABC news article about the mens rights movement, and how A Voice For Men was to be featured on 20/20 (that they decided not to air after this article went out for whatever reason), where it was characterised as all the people saying mean things to her were all "MRAs" (mens rights advocates). How in the world did she know that? Thats even more of a stretch than Rebecca Watson characterising all the hate mail she got was from disgruntled white male atheists that just hate women, which was therefore just further evidence of how sexist the atheist community was!
I wonder if the failure to run that segment about AVFM was related to this article ?

Quote:
Anita Sarkeesian, a media critic and blogger, learned this the hard way after campaigning on Kickstarter to raise funds for a web series on the roles of women in video games. The attacks from the Manosphere were swift.

"It was ... thousands of people coming after me," Sarkeesian told "20/20." "Threats of rape, threats of death, threats of violence," she said.
The thing is..those death threats are traceable, here's an example of a threat being tracked down and the sender publicly identified so we know it's possible. Yet, we hear nothing about Anita's tormenters, curious.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2013, 12:09 PM   #98
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
I wonder if the failure to run that segment about AVFM was related to this article ?
Yes thats the one I was referring to.

I love this section...

Quote:
Protected by the anonymity of the Internet, men feel free to post hateful and violent comments. Posts such as "I really wouldn't mind shooting a [expletive] dead in the face, they are evil, all of them," and "Women are the natural enemies of men" are commonplace on sites like "A Voice for Men," a Manosphere blog run by Paul Elam.

Elam told ABC News' "20/20" that while he may not agree with some of the comments that are made on his site, he believes men are society's victims and need a forum to vent.
Its like the quality of your average Creationist quote mine. They never found that comment on AVFM. That comment was found in an article by Paul Elam on AVFM years ago who said he just deleted the comment and that he wouldn't tolerate such things on AVFM. And yet how do they present this on ABC? That not only is a "common" post/comment on AVFM but that Paul says that he is okay with it because he thinks men need a forum to vent. Riiight....

ABC got a lot of backlash about that article, I wouldn't be surprised if they realised they'd constructed a story around a easily provably dishonest presentation of AVFM and the mens movement. I always find it interesting when I've seen journalists for news stories like for this ABC thing, and another couple of print news articles that have been written about AVFM, that they only seem to want to interview the male's. A recent article in The Daily Beast did a decent job considering, the writer actually took the time to interview several people and try and understand the issues. I cant help but wonder why they don't seem to want to talk to the female staff, including the founder of the modern womens shelter movement Erin Pizzey. The writer for The Daily Beast called John Hembling a "superstar" in the making and yet he has less than 6,000 subscribers on YT, whereas Karen Straughan is quickly approaching 50,000! Diana Davidson also a woman on staff in 3 weeks on her new YT channel with only 4 videos has got nearly 1.5k subscribers already. And then theres the weekly radio show they call "Honey Badger Radio" hosted by 3 or 4 female contributors, which gets over double the listeners the other shows get. But I guess they don't want to give the impression that its not just men and that the female contributors are actually more popular than the males ones.



Quote:
The thing is..those death threats are traceable, here's an example of a threat being tracked down and the sender publicly identified so we know it's possible. Yet, we hear nothing about Anita's tormenters, curious.
hahah yea I remember that story. I seem to recall its not actually the first time. Rather ironic. And what can you do except shake you head... Sarkeesian and Watson Im not sure are even this bad, I've seen them calling this rape and death threats that arent even rape and death threats. Interestingly, if a woman says something feminists don't like, then apparently its olay if she's going to get rape and death threats. Men actually get far more abuse than women do, just less sexual in tone. And if you're a feminist who likes to go around talking about rape all day long obviously people who are intending to say something that will push your buttons will use that.

Its so ridiculous though, why is Anita Sarkeesian even mentioned? Oh yes thats right they want to claim all her hateful trolls that she wanted and baited and then act like a "damsel" to sit herself on top of to make her career, were coming from the "manosphere". Even though Paul distanced themselves from those other groups a long time ago, what an insane leap anyway to start claiming that her personal attacks were coming from one particular corner of the internet. At LEAST with Rebecca Watson you could say that most people who are intentionally watching Rebecca Watson would probably identify as part of the atheist community, but Sarkeesian is dealing with the gaming community, thats a helleva lot larger.

Last edited by Edx; 14th November 2013 at 12:17 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2013, 12:34 AM   #99
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,363


Elevatorgator
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2013, 04:04 PM   #100
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
Do you know what a problem with Carl Sagan was? C'mon, it's atheism plus and/or Pharyngula, what could it be?

That he was such a white male!

I should probably stop reading that blog. PZ Myers went crazy, and will probably remain so.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2013, 11:20 PM   #101
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
Imagine if atheists still held up Robert Ingersoll in the way some skeptics talk about Sagan. Kill your heroes.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2013, 01:14 AM   #102
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,564
No comment on the research you cited being fatally flawed?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2013, 03:07 AM   #103
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
Imagine if atheists still held up Robert Ingersoll in the way some skeptics talk about Sagan. Kill your heroes.
Sagan was a lot more recent than Ingersoll though.

But yes, some Sagan stuff, especially his political stuff, is rather dated. and sometimes he let his politics slip into his science in an unhealthy way, for example claiming that the Quwait war would lead to the end of the world, give or take.

Still overall great guy though. Much greater than anything that has come from the cesspit known as atheism plus.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2013, 06:28 AM   #104
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by colander View Post
If you're interested in going wilderness camping, then you have to be prepared for bear encounters, too.

Does that mean that it's not acceptable to bear-proof your encampments?

I note that you've chosen to post your argument on the JREF Forum, the moderation policy of which expressly forbids the use of insults and seeks to remove them whenever and wherever they appear. Does your choice to post on a forum where rules against incivility are aggressively enforced mean that you are not interested in honest and open discourse?

I don't think that actively seeking to circumvent the possibility of being subjected to personal insults is an action that is in any way inconsistent with "being prepared" for them.
Just out of curiosity, are you of the belief that this very civil discussion would be permitted to take place on the A+ board or in an FTB comment section?
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2013, 06:52 AM   #105
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post


Elevatorgator
hehehe.

Also I love how this video probably has nothing to do with Elevator Gate, but it makes be laugh every time.
I always find it funny how racism is typically seen as unacceptable but as soon as we change paranoia about race to just "men", suddenly people have a hard time noticing the sexism.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by Edx; 16th November 2013 at 06:55 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2013, 09:17 AM   #106
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This video can't be watched enough!
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2013, 11:42 AM   #107
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Do you know what a problem with Carl Sagan was? C'mon, it's atheism plus and/or Pharyngula, what could it be?

That he was such a white male!

I should probably stop reading that blog. PZ Myers went crazy, and will probably remain so.
I wish that people would take that advice and stop listening to boring old white guys.
Well, one boring old white guy, at least.

So racist. So sexist. So bigoted. So predictable.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2013, 02:25 PM   #108
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 40,731
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
I wish that people would take that advice and stop listening to boring old white guys.
I keep saying that, but no-one pays any attention...
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2013, 05:41 AM   #109
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,909
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Do you know what a problem with Carl Sagan was? C'mon, it's atheism plus and/or Pharyngula, what could it be?

That he was such a white male!

I should probably stop reading that blog. PZ Myers went crazy, and will probably remain so.
I don't see the issue here.

Myers doesn't see Sagan as a personal inspiration, and thinks that we shouldn't idolize people. Well, he's right. And it has nothing to do with anything Sagan did. If you find other people more inspiring, then...well, that's that.

The fact that Sagan was a white guy seems to be your problem, not Myers'.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2013, 05:49 AM   #110
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
I don't see the issue here.

Myers doesn't see Sagan as a personal inspiration, and thinks that we shouldn't idolize people. Well, he's right. And it has nothing to do with anything Sagan did. If you find other people more inspiring, then...well, that's that.

The fact that Sagan was a white guy seems to be your problem, not Myers'.
I'm not referring to what Myers wrote, but to the comment I linked to.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2013, 03:36 AM   #111
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,468
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Do you know what a problem with Carl Sagan was? C'mon, it's atheism plus and/or Pharyngula, what could it be?

That he was such a white male!

I should probably stop reading that blog. PZ Myers went crazy, and will probably remain so.
Brilliant!

"I don’t particularly think we should ever stop talking about him, or many of the other great old white guy popularizers of science, but I’d say that we need to have people doing that stuff who are not old, white, or male and we need to be spreading the word about them at least as much as we talk about the old white guys, as [old white guy] PZ does in this post."

Square parentheses mine.
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2013, 08:30 AM   #112
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
No comment on the research you cited being fatally flawed?
Nope, I was giving you the last word as I found your criticism persuasive. The lack of defined inclusion and exclusion criteria means a meta-analysis is simply cherry-picking. I can't find a comparable valid meta-analysis to cite, and I don't have the qualification, time or resources to conduct one myself. I think it's fair to say that there are numerous experimental and observational studies showing violent video games increase aggression while others show no result. My guess is that these studies are detecting a real effect, but I can understand how you might disagree.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2013, 11:55 AM   #113
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
Brilliant!

"I don’t particularly think we should ever stop talking about him, or many of the other great old white guy popularizers of science, but I’d say that we need to have people doing that stuff who are not old, white, or male and we need to be spreading the word about them at least as much as we talk about the old white guys, as [old white guy] PZ does in this post."

Square parentheses mine.
What's so funny? Don't you know that you can't be sexist or racist towards men or white people? Its like literally by definition impossible because of oppression institutional power dynamics privilege etc. Don't you even feminism 101?

Last edited by Edx; 18th November 2013 at 11:57 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2013, 12:26 PM   #114
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,564
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
Nope, I was giving you the last word as I found your criticism persuasive.
Fair enough.

Quote:
I think it's fair to say that there are numerous experimental and observational studies showing violent video games increase aggression while others show no result.
Increasing aggression short-term is trivial. What needs to be demonstrated is long-term causal effects. As yet there are no valid studies I know of which demonstrate this.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2013, 02:51 PM   #115
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
My guess is that these studies are detecting a real effect, but I can understand how you might disagree.
I differ because in my view, short-term responses to a stimulus are extremely poor markers for long-term social outcomes.

Studies of pornography show that men who have just watched porn are more likely to give responses to paper questionnaire's consistent with views sympathetic to rape, then men who have not just watched porn. Yet if anything, the free availability of porn decreases the sexual assault rate. What you need to do in order to get at the truth is look at the long-term, society-wide level and see what association there is between porn access and sexual assault victimisation.

In the same way we don't know what effect violent video games have on the actual rate of interpersonal violence until someone does a large-scale, long-term, apples-to-apples comparison of places that differ in access to violent video games to see what the association is between violent video game availability and assault victimisation.

However we do know that access to violent video games is trending up fast, and the video games are getting more and more realistic, while actual interpersonal violence rates keep falling. So if there's a positive link, it has to be a very weak one.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2013, 03:33 PM   #116
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,564
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
However we do know that access to violent video games is trending up fast, and the video games are getting more and more realistic, while actual interpersonal violence rates keep falling. So if there's a positive link, it has to be a very weak one.
Even the two meta-analyses, which were biased towards finding in favour of a causal link, only found an extremely weak correlation.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2013, 07:51 AM   #117
Diogenes
Muse
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Even the two meta-analyses, which were biased towards finding in favour of a causal link, only found an extremely weak correlation.
No kidding...I could never get away with such poor correlations in molecular work. Heck I have to hit about 98.5% identity just to say a 16s ribosomal RNA gene fragment gives a positive genus/species identification.
Diogenes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2013, 07:58 AM   #118
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
FWIW, I don't think the studies are evidence of increases in societal or personal levels of violence, I do think there are studies that show evidence of increases in aggression.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2013, 12:42 PM   #119
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,564
If you mean long-term, then could you link to some of these studies? Because I've never seen one which supported such a claim.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2013, 03:52 PM   #120
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,468
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
What's so funny? Don't you know that you can't be sexist or racist towards men or white people? Its like literally by definition impossible because of oppression institutional power dynamics privilege etc. Don't you even feminism 101?
Hey I only feminism 69 if you know what I'm saying

You're a chick, right?
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.