Funny how your comments starts out as a straight forward and reasonable (though I dont’ agree with it) opinion. Then you mention that you went out of your way to silence Rebecca. Then as your comment continues it starts to get more and more hateful and finally you are telling me, the host of your attack-comment, that I’ve lost my mind.

So yeah, you’re an example of the hate, Glen. You almost held it in there for a while but it ate its way through your rather weak facade and spilled right out there onto your keyboard.

She also would introduce her politics into the discourse rather regularly, in a biased way. She wouldn’t say, “Hey, this is my political view” but would rather engage in the kind of weak polemic one finds on say HuffPo. She did do some interesting activism stuff, particularly on anti-vax and drumming up more women skeptics. But there are other women skeptics. And I never heard another one that I didn’t like. Just her because of lack of knowledge and politicization.

I made this complaint to Steve Novella intensely via email and I bet that I’m part of the “hate” you talk about. But I didn’t hate her, rather I simply didn’t enjoy her low quality skeptical work and overt politicization of topics

And then the elevator thing happened. And she’s revealed herself to be thuggish, willing to cause hysteria in others for now reason, to be very deceptive and divisive, and I’m not surprised. That’s all she’s got, don’t you understand? Without her “feminist” identity, she never gets on a skeptic panel to discuss anything.

And anyone who thinks her “talk” on evo psych approaches scientific or serious is truly stupid. Get a grip, you’ve lost your mind.

Her rhetoric is in fact not all that relevant to the overall field of evolutoinary psychology, if that is what you mean. But that is not what her talk is about and that is not whom she was speaking to.

No, do take her seriously. But be a little smarter about what it is … what this talk is and why she gave it.

Nor do I feel that I am overlooking the obvious when pointing out that her rhetoric is, at best, irrelevent to the subject she pretends criticism of and, at worst, simply misleading.

So yes, we agree that she should have prefixed her talk with “hey, I’m just riffing here, don’t take me seriously”. That might have spared me the effort. As is, she did not, and people have hailed her talk as saying something pertinent on the subject – which it does not.

I doubt, Dave, that anyone in that room did not realize that Rebecca was quoting from the newspaper article she was showing on the screen and referring to.

If anything, perhaps Rebecca should be more explicit and redundant in making that sort of thing clear for folks who are willing to overlook the obvious in order to manufacture a criticism.

http://psych0drama.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/why-i-think-rebecca-watson-seriously.html

Much more to come, would love any feedback people wish to give.

–bks

p.s. That’s not to say that the right doesn’t suffer problems in the way they talk about sex and gender and culture and evolution, just that they reject evolution which is even stupider.

Pieter, I mean hidden agenda behind Ed Clint’s essay about Watson’s attack on evo-Psych. It’s pretty clear that Stephanie has a “hidden” agenda (she may have grounds for it, but it’s certainly hidden).

–bks

“In fact, I warned a few people it was coming.”

Warned them? WARNED THEM? FFS Steph, this was a parody of your blogs not an incoming thermonuclear missile. Your comment here is a parody on equal footing with the bloody link itself.

Jim