|
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. |
4th December 2012, 01:11 PM | #41 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,900
|
Just a wild guess (probably wrong; however, wth): I notice this thread, "PETA asks Obama to spare the pardon on turkeys", was started Nov 20th (13 days ago), wherein PETA has come in for some pretty rough criticism and satire, including this pith award finalist:
|
__________________
"Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny |
|
4th December 2012, 02:25 PM | #42 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,668
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
4th December 2012, 02:42 PM | #43 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
Still off-topic, but another reason for making a post rather than just subscribing is if you use the Tapatalk app to read the forum. The app will show "Participated" threads, but AFAIK there is no option (at least on iPhone) to include subscribed threads that you haven't posted to in that view. |
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities. - Voltaire. |
|
5th January 2013, 12:58 PM | #44 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
5th January 2013, 01:24 PM | #45 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
|
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb |
|
5th January 2013, 01:56 PM | #46 |
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,395
|
Well she's still listed on the JREF site staff list with her email & phone contact etc
Perhaps they need a Director of Communications so someone can direct a new communication to update the page. |
5th January 2013, 02:09 PM | #47 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
|
|
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan |
|
6th January 2013, 04:08 PM | #48 |
Published Author
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Elon, NC
Posts: 7,276
|
|
6th January 2013, 05:22 PM | #49 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
I would think that whatever Carrie's reason for resigning, it would be private.
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
6th January 2013, 07:11 PM | #50 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,092
|
|
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
6th January 2013, 09:22 PM | #51 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
7th January 2013, 12:41 AM | #52 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,092
|
She no longer mentions JREF in the tweet but the words resigned and protest are still there. Or rather here https://twitter.com/CarriePoppyYES/s...02255708250112
|
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
7th January 2013, 03:52 PM | #53 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
7th January 2013, 04:47 PM | #54 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
7th January 2013, 04:56 PM | #55 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
It is, a little, yes. But speculating about her motives will do more to mislead and little to enlighten. She protested, which means that she was not happy with something. We know that the JREF has some... shall we say "management issues" right now. I'm content with knowing as much as I know now - I don't think we'll learn much more from the source. Anything else is just gossip.
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
7th January 2013, 05:19 PM | #56 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
19th May 2013, 06:57 AM | #57 |
One Damn Dirty Ape
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 808
|
Reviewing the twitters this morning, it appears that Ms. Poppy is speaking at an event called "Women In Secularism II" in Washington.
Per a number of Twitter posts, she said something along the lines of (per a tweet from Justin Vacula):
Quote:
Quote:
What conclusion should be drawn from this? In my opinion, it shows that Ms. Poppy was upset that the JREF refused to take up every pet "social justice" issue that she believed to be important. Thus, in Poppy's mind (apparently), secular groups should be part of a larger movement that could be labeled "social justice" or more likely "progressivism." In other words, apparently, if the JREF did not wholeheartedly take up all the talking points of a radical left-wing ideology, they were not an organization that she could be associated with. I think that it is a reasonable supposition that this is why she quit "in protest." There must have been some pet issue or issues that she wanted the JREF to espouse (perhaps booking the head of PETA as a TAM speaker, who knows), and when they quite reasonably said "that's not our mission, our mission is scientific skepticism, and as an organization we need to avoid mission creep," she was out the door. If so, I say good riddance. And bravo to the JREF for continuing to realize that skepticism does not demand a particular ideology, and that you can actually be a skeptic if you disagree with Carrie Poppy on issues like tax policy, welfare spending, defense policy, and animal welfare. If people like Ms. Poppy had their way (in my opinion), organizations like the JREF would have to submit all members or attendees at conferences with a long checklist of ideological positions, and unless you scored a 100%, meaning complete agreement, you are not welome. Bravo JREF. |
__________________
Signature line? I don't need no stinking signature line! |
|
19th May 2013, 08:05 AM | #58 |
King of the Pod People
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,628
|
TB, you're inferring an awful lot from very, very little.
|
19th May 2013, 09:20 AM | #59 |
One Damn Dirty Ape
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 808
|
|
__________________
Signature line? I don't need no stinking signature line! |
|
19th May 2013, 02:23 PM | #60 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,385
|
Well, if it's on Freethoughtblogs, consider the source.
Here's a link to the comment in context. It was a meaningless dig regardless, having zero to do with any discussion of 'mission creep'.
Quote:
|
19th May 2013, 06:11 PM | #61 |
You may call me Heather
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 322
|
|
__________________
Formerly known as DundeeGirl |
|
28th May 2013, 07:08 AM | #62 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
A source this weekend told me it was because they wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and she balked. Seems odd. Those are pretty standard these days.
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
28th May 2013, 07:16 AM | #63 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
28th May 2013, 07:26 AM | #64 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 908
|
It's all part of a vast conspiracy.
|
28th May 2013, 07:44 AM | #65 |
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,395
|
|
28th May 2013, 07:52 AM | #66 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
1st June 2013, 03:29 PM | #67 |
This title intentionally left blank
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,126
|
There's a lot of potential donations to be had by copying the donor list of a non-profit group and using it at other non-profits in order to increase their donations. One might even be given a job at another non-profit group based on bringing a large donor list.
Another thought that comes to mind is that it's because James Randi is a celebrity. Granted, he's a minor celebrity, but the people who hate him really, really hate him, and would love to have any ammunition to use against him. Perhaps Poppy was going to be working more closely with Randi had she not resigned. The third thought that comes to mind (I think this one is unlikely) is that Randi is preparing to do another skeptical stunt, such as the pet psychic expose that he did many years ago. It would really ruin the whole thing if the details of the stunt were leaked to the public prior to the stunt running its course. My reason for thinking that this is unlikely is due to Randi's health. |
1st June 2013, 04:16 PM | #68 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
Hrm. Between the mission creep thing and this last thing, if all of that is accurate, suggests that maybe the issue was she wanted to use her place at JREF to try to solicit JREF donors for other causes. Hence the "mission creep" remark. As in, wandering off target.
#EDIT: This is, of course, pure speculation, founded on very little. |
7th August 2013, 01:07 PM | #69 |
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,395
|
|
7th August 2013, 02:19 PM | #70 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
|
10th August 2013, 01:56 PM | #71 |
Metaphorical Anomaly
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 8,054
|
It appears to me that the JREF has been criticized quite a bit for their failure to participate in as much drama as feminists would like to have created.
Meh. Sorry, not interested. I'm quite comfortable with The JREF declining to become a feminist mouthpiece every time some guy decides to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate. I'm all for treating women appropriately, but trying to play power publicity games with these situations is disgusting. The second I get the impression that feminism is one of JREF's purposes for existing, I will no longer be interested in supporting it. The way I see it, most feminists don't want equal treatment for women. They want superior treatment. They are more anti-man than pro-woman nowadays. |
10th August 2013, 08:06 PM | #72 |
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 13,414
|
As this is a skeptical forum for an organization that promotes skepticism, allow me to respond:
1) It is fair and reasonable to be skeptical of the claims being made about inappropriate behavior; but it is also fair and reasonable to be skeptical of claims of innocence. You do not (so far as I'm aware) know any of the actual details of the events in question...yet you are more than ready to conclude that they are just "some guy deciding to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". If it's a case that the guy just hit on her, I might agree; but if it's a case that he was drunkenly groping her, then I'd very much disagree. I don't know what happened. Neither, so far as I can tell, do you. It is rather telling about your own perspective that you simply seem to assume that the actions in question were minor and not worthy of complaint or action. 2) There are lots of guys out there who feel that grabbing a woman's ass, or making blatantly sexual overtures, fall within the range of "some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". So for the sake of rational debate/discussion, could you please actually define where you'd draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior? 3) This should go without saying, but your apparent attempt to lump all feminists together, based on the actions of a few, are rather lacking in skeptical foundation, also. There are quite a few feminists who take issue with and disagree with some of the more 'radical' voices within the feminist movement. 4) Feminism belongs firmly within the purview of the JREF's mission, where feminist issues coincide with skeptical issues. If feminist issues that had nothing to do with skepticism were to become a focus of the JREF, then you might have a point...but considering that I don't see this happening at all, this seems to be a pure straw man argument. 5) There is no doubt whatsoever that the "skeptical movement" in North America is still a predominantly white male's movement. Go to any skeptical conference, or check out the membership of the JREF forums, and you'll find that the ratio of male to female is grossly skewed. And representation of non-whites is even more grossly skewed. It would seem to me to be incumbent upon any organization dedicated to skepticism to take a skeptical look at why these numbers are so disproportional, and to take action to address them. As such, taking action to make women feel both more included, and more safe, wouldn't implicitly be "feminist". Seeking more balanced representation of different groups should, in fact, be a main focus of an organization like the JREF, and where events take place that make women feel uncomfortable to participate, such concerns should be looked at and addressed very seriously. And it is in that regard -- based purely on the correspondence revealed with DJ, and acknowledging that I may not have all the necessary info -- that I feel the JREF failed in this case. Not just in this case, but in others as well, there does seem to be a rather dismissive attitude taken towards women. Again, I'm more than ready (and in fact would be very happy) to amend that attitude based on other, more complete information. But in Carrie's case, I think that she brings a lot of credibility to this debate through merit of the fact that A) when she left the JREF, she did not publicly comment on the reasons for doing so, did not seek to draw attention to herself, and did nothing that I'm aware of to hurt or tarnish the JREF's reputation, B) she made this issue public only after more quiet behind-the-scenes efforts had been made to address it in a reasonable manner, and C) she still shows what I'd consider significant restraint in discussing her own complaints and problems with the JREF, instead bringing someone else's more serious allegations to light. There's a whole bunch of information missing here. We don't know the exact nature of the allegations involved; we don't know exactly what discussions took place behind closed doors, or the reasons for the various decisions made. We're in no position whatsoever to be rendering conclusions either for or against the JREF, DJ, or any of the other people involved. But nor is it fair, or in the nature of a proper skeptical approach, to use straw man arguments and sweeping inaccurate generalizations to simply dismiss everything. Should we support the JREF? If it were to become a militant feminist organization, perhaps not (but as I mentioned above, I don't see that happening at all). If it were to ignore, justify, or cover up sexually aggressive behavior towards women in their organization, or at their events, also perhaps not. There isn't enough info yet to make any decision; but there's more than enough info to raise legitimate questions, and put pressure on the JREF and any other related ,to be accountable to their membership, and provide full, detailed answers as to what has actually happened. However, posts like yours above will have little or nothing to do with such a discussion. ETA: I wan to clarify that I do not intend to state that I think DJ or the JREF has done anything wrong; only that the evidence we currently have, if true, would indicate a potentially serious problem. I hope that more detailed information will be forthcoming, from all parties, so that a more informed conclusion can be reached. |
__________________
Please check out my business, The Language of Culture |
|
10th August 2013, 08:36 PM | #73 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,385
|
I, for one, am waiting for Grothe and/or someone else in an official JREF capacity to respond to Poppy's additional information and some of the other charges that Grothe was less than respectful with casual remarks to certain community members.
I hope the response is sooner rather than later. |
11th August 2013, 09:50 PM | #74 |
Metaphorical Anomaly
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 8,054
|
As you said, I don't know what actually happened. Only those who were actually there at the time know what actually happened. I am not downplaying the situation... I am mostly regarding the nitpicking and back and forth on the subject an example of meaningless drama quite intentionally aimed at making some sort of feminist point.
From what I read, they were not merely asking the JREF to refrain from inviting this gentleman to future events. They were asking the JREF to make a public statement saying that he would not be welcome at future events. There is a distinct difference here, and the organization is being asked to take sides on an issue where there is likely some disagreement on what actually happened. I do not suspect that the participants were unaware of the ramifications involved here. Such a public statement could be regarded as a passive-aggressive form of character assassination, and cannot be justified without significant proof of wrongdoing, which I suspect may be lacking.
Quote:
I regard the complete abolishment of sexual behavior in the human male to be as much of an extreme, untenable position as being permissive towards random groping by strangers out of context. There are all sorts of positions in between, and I suppose the best policy for anyone is to start subtle and be attentive to any reaction. Some men are comfortable with more risk than others... and some women appreciate that sort of risk taking more than others. The only specific instance where I can say that it is absolutely wrong in all cases is when a guy has been asked to cease certain behaviors and has failed to do so. The rest depends upon context, and is quite often a matter of debate.
Quote:
Quote:
|
12th August 2013, 01:11 PM | #75 |
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
|
Here's the primary problem when it comes to the schism. "Feminist" is as subjective a term as "God" and no two people define these concepts the same way. Are the vast majority of us "feminist" in the sense that they believe qualified women should be allowed to be accountants? Sure! Those on the other side of the schism are not using this definition of "feminism" and equality is not their goal. They are adhering to dogma. The entire point of skepticism is that we ignore dogmas and instead allow EVIDENCE to guide our decisionmaking.
Do you honestly think that those on the other side of the schism are benefiting the community? Instead of bashing pseudoscience, we're all debating feminist dogma. |
14th August 2013, 06:06 AM | #76 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,357
|
|
14th August 2013, 09:46 AM | #77 |
Metaphorical Anomaly
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 8,054
|
It's quite readily observable in the media they tend to consume.
If you want a study I'm quite sure that there's a few out there (and this notion probably came from an actual source at some point), but you can probably google it a bit easier than I can. I'm also pretty sure that the verbal vs spacial difference in the sexes has been publicized often enough to be common knowledge. It is only a small jump from there. But yeah... the statement seemed obvious to me, and I haven't actually done any actual research on the matter, if that's what you're asking. Feel free to actively and honestly disagree with it, rather than role playing your "I'm an in-group personality on a skeptical forum" song and dance. Perhaps then we could actually have an honest conversation (No offense, but sometimes overused behaviors get a bit tedious on this forum). I can also state my opinion (theory) that a random sampling of women who are NOT involved in skeptical groups will NOT tend to select "I fear being groped" or some such as a reason why they are not involved in such things. I feel no need to do this experiment in order to prove the theory, since I'm quite sure of my conclusion without it, and feel no need to prove it to anyone absurd enough to disagree. Any cries for evidence will tend to fall on deaf ears, as I am merely stating an opinion that I suspect a majority of people will agree with. If it makes you feel any better, just look at the way it was intended: I posited a likely alternative to the notion that more men than women are active in the organization due to rampant sexism. I may have not have expressed it in quite that way (I tend to overstate things), but that was the intent. And yeah, I know there's a bit of a straw man in this bit. Just don't go thinkin' I'm ignorant just because I enjoy a little exaggeration now and then. Such practices make my life more interesting, and my words more colorful. The exaggeration isn't meant to be a sly, hidden thing used to "win" the argument unfairly, but a silly absurdity hanging out for everyone to see. Right or wrong, I think it adds character. |
14th August 2013, 11:09 AM | #78 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,357
|
None of that seems solid enough to say that women are more likely than men to be concerned with feelings over facts.
Yeah...I don't think I'm in any in groups around JREF. Just a single person pointing out (honestly, BTW) a comment that I thought you might want to think about a little bit more. Questioning our assumptions is a good thing, right? |
14th August 2013, 11:48 AM | #79 |
Metaphorical Anomaly
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 8,054
|
Not definitively, no. I'm not even sure if that's the correct way to say it. Perhaps a better assessment would be that they are more interested in questions of unquantifiable social relationships (does he really love you? Take our survey and find out!) than they are of observable facts and material challenges (Is it possible to kill an elephant with a firecracker?). Again, relatively speaking, and without applying general trends to individuals.
I suspect that few readers will have difficulty identifying which sex will be more likely to be interested in each example given. To the final question: absolutely! I do it all the time. However, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Freud) (OK, one more point and I'll stop editing...) I would tend to suggest that if JREF wants to attract more female attention, they should take a close look at market research and find ways to improve their appeal to the demographic (overvaluing female speakers alone doesn't really do it to any great degree... that's actually more effective in attracting single men, particularly if the speakers are comely). I suppose some amount of drama played out with these feminist types COULD attract more female attention, but I doubt it is good attention, and I suspect that it is unintentional. I don't think that being a minority in the organization is a major factor, either, but I will take into consideration any arguments to this effect, if I see a well supported one (which I have yet to see). |
22nd August 2013, 03:45 PM | #80 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
|
It doesn't seem like you've done anything here besides reiterating your initial assertion. I recommend instead that you provide readers with a link to empirical research that supports your claim.
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|