There was an interesting article in the Guardian a couple of days ago about the biological reasons for menopause. I have not read the studies that this story is based on, so commenters with more knowledge of this stuff please feel free to correct anything that I have misconstrued. Human females are one of three species currently known to undergo… Read more →
Those of you who are regular followers/lurkers of the atheoskeptosphere probably know about this fundraiser for Karen Stollznow’s legal costs by now, but I’m signal-boosting it for the record …
Debate is not inquiry. Argument is not skepticism. Fetishizing debate makes us less knowledgeable as a culture and even as a movement, not more.
Well, this got interesting fast. The floodgates appear to be opening in the atheoskeptosphere with regard to people deciding that keeping names out of the we-need-anti-harassment-policies discussion wasn’t doing much good for effecting change.
While we’re talking about workplace and convention harassment incidents (particularly amongst the groups for which conventions are also workplaces), I’ve been meaning to link to this excellent post from last month about why conventions are harassment hotspots (there’s Science! on this).
Sites aimed at rape prevention should do a better job of checking their facts if they really want to help women and other potential rape victims: parroting long-debunked factoids does more harm than good.
This is a repost: originally published in 2008. Over the last week it’s suddenly started getting first dozens and now hundreds of views per day. Since the original post’s comments were closed long ago, please comment here if you have something to say.
A fascinating long post from Clay Shirky on the information age’s transformation of the media landscape, via @Colvinius who referenced it as part of his 2012 Andrew Olle Media Lecture.
… under such duress, people confessed at length and in great detail to the fantastic and impossible, often also indicting others, in a spreading, spiraling cascade of fantasies. Remember also that terror regimes the world over use it delightedly to terrify and suppress dissidents within their populations. […] And they can do this only in an environment in which there are people naive enough to believe the absurd perjuries concocted under such conditions.
Don’t be one of those people.
A page on this blog is now titled “Critical Thinking” instead of its previous title “Skepticism”, because that name has become tarnished by the long-lasting and widespread ‘Skepchicks should STFU’ campaign being waged by so-called “skeptics” and “rationalists” who reject the utility of applying critical thinking to social structures, at least if that critical thinking is being done by feminists.
It would be nice to think that there weren’t still ignorant twerps repeating the idea that the lawsuit was unfounded/frivolous/a grave miscarriage against a poor defenceless megacorporation/harrumph/wharrgarbl, but sadly there still are.
In a truly rational world, it might be possible to substantively and productively explore the pros and cons of competing positions in good faith and reach a nuanced understanding and a mutually satisfying path forward. Unfortunately the “don’t give disproportionate emphasis to sexism” side has basically been hijacked by a bunch of bad faith contrarians…
Rebecca Watson won’t be going to TAM this year, and I think she’s absolutely right to take this stand after DJ Grothe’s statements.
“let’s pretend social interactions happen without social context”
Last week a casual anecdote in a conference speech by Jen McCreight started a whole lot of balls rolling.
OMSFSM totally NSFW. Link in clear text because I don’t want anybody to say that they weren’t warned.