Audi0 – Butthole Surfers, from Locust Abortion Technician
October 21, 2011
The Watsonista Song
Posted by franc under great idiots of the world, hyperreality, misandry, new new atheism, pseudo-skepticism, puritanism, toilet slaves, yellow journalism | Tags: baboon board, baboons, Butterflies and Wheels, career victims, freethoughtblogs, Naked Emperor, ophelia benson, Pharyngula, slave morality, veronika moser, victim feminism |[34] Comments
grey lining 
October 21, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Hoho… a great way to end the night. Drinking my gimlet, watching King Arthur and listening to this musical masterpiece. Thank you. Life is good.
October 21, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Very entertaining vid.
Franc, there is one thing I do not understand completely — I get a sense of it, but not the totality. Why do you have such a hate-on for Phil Plait? He’s a good astronomer, and he posts quite a fairt amount of quite reasonable sutff. Yes, I understand that he expresses support for Watson, and I know you are hostile to his “don;t be a dick” thing, but he’s not militant and stupid about that; perhaps naive, but not hostile.
Anyway, I would be most grateful if you could post an extensive essay about why he is one of the, erm, enemy, ’cause I don’t really understand his inclusion in the pantheon of nasties.
October 21, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Ooops. Please excuse all the spelling mistakes. It’s movie on the couch night and I’m a bottle of wine down.
October 21, 2011 at 4:11 pm
There’s this huge double standard now. The Pharongoloids for example can go anywhere they want and spew all sorts of bile and garbage in the name of moral outrage, but anyone who calls them out on their bullshit are the real “dicks” who end up with deleted comments and site blocks. Okay, yeah, I try to defend the decent folks over at Friendly Atheist, but I am a little bitter about that…
October 24, 2011 at 6:28 am
Pharongoloids
hahaha
October 21, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Why? Because his “niceness” and “wholesomeness” makes him the most insidious of the lot of them. The “don’t be a dick” sermon on the mount has become a manifesto for silencing dissent and purging undesirables throughout secular communities everywhere. It is a complete kit that enables and justifies a kinder, gentler Stalinism. http://wp.me/p1hBgT-aD
It is raw fucking evil. That tastes nicer the stupider you are.
And really, he’s another guy that doesn’t just want to be a toilet, he wants to be the whole sewage works –
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/05/richard-dawkins-and-male-privilege/
October 24, 2011 at 6:16 am
I was in the audience when Phil made his DBAD speech (lecture). I turned to my friend and we immediately gave each other a horrified look.
Many in the audience felt the same way, many others gave him a standing ovation.
Regardless, I know he is chick-whipped, and I know his position on the Shaftagate fiasco.
I just read the link to the article he posted, that Franc provided above and he is worse than I thought. I did not realise that was possible.
The nice thing is that he posted Dawkins’ Comments in full, so that any rational person who has not consumed the fembot/RW Koolaid can clearly see that it is Phil who is ridiculous here, not Richard Dawkins. It even annoys me when those who agree that Becky cried wolf, but still think that Dawkins went too far. No he did not. He is the only person of influence who has spoken up against the idea that SG was an issue at all.
Other than Mr. Deity making that video about it, can anyone think of another person who is well known in the skeptic and atheist communities who has had the balls to disagree?
October 21, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Phil Plait lost the little respect I had left for him in the aftermath of the DBAD fiasco. He called out Matt Dillahunty in a blog post, accusing him (without a hint of irony) of constructing a straw man. Matt replies at comment #30 and attempts to establish a dialogue with Phil. So what does Phil do?
In true Watsonista fashion, Phil ignores him. Despite Matts continued efforts in subsequent threads to have a discussion, Phil sticks to his guns and makes no effort to even acknowledge Matts rebuttal. Some critical thinker.
This seems to be the M.O. of the Watsonistas. Claim that you are just trying to “start a discussion of the issues”, then ignore or shout down anyone who actually tries to have a meaningful discussion. Fuck you, Phil.
October 21, 2011 at 11:19 pm
The Bad Ass-Trollonomer vociferously asserted the Watson line that sexism, especially misogyny, was RIFE in the so-called skeptical movement, and proceeded to to spew forth edicts from upon high as to how ALL MALES must behave.
When rational enquirers requested “evidence” for his multiple claims of rampant misogyny, he resorted to the Watson defence. (Vis: LIE THROUGH ONE’S TEETH!)
He has yet to stump-up with even a single case of even vague misogyny!
He implied that Dawkins was one of the offenders, but of course, because he was following Beccy’s prompting, went off less than half-cocked.
Oh, sorry “half-cocked” has been deemed by the very Official and Royal Committee on Atheist Terminology** to be “doubleplus-ungood”, by virtue of the “half”, which employs one of the letters in “dwarf”, an offensive term for the height challenged.
**ORCAT Committee: Ass. Prof. PZ Myers; Ass. Greta Christina; Prof. Phil Plait, the Bad Ass Tronomer; Prof. Watson, OBE and front bar; Dame Ophelia Benson, (censored); Sir Joe Nickell, OTPP.
After scores of requests, demands, and so-on.
Dr? Plait has yet to even admit that he might have been at fault. Has yet to admit that he might be panty-whipped by Rebecca, or PZ.
Not a skerrik of evidence. No sir!
He don’t need no steenkin’ evidence, he’s a GNU SKEPTIC!
Watson’s say-so is more than enough to convince him to drop all and every pretense at logic.
Seven Novella has succumbed to this harpy harridan SUCCUBUS psiren as well as has PZ; hook, line and stinker.
Good FSM, why can I not see what hold that semi-repellent female has over otherwise intelligent, educated, mostly-rational adults?
Whenever I am puzzled, it is usually because I do not possess a key bit of knowledge.
Come on Prof. Hoggle, I beg you to tell me what I have missed! 😉
She either has profound blackmail over them, or I dread to imagine what they feel might await for them in her afterlife.
Something ain’t right with with either their libidos, or Watson has collected some powerful juju curses over these, these… can a biologist out there give me the term for when a parasite takes control of its host’s behaviour, causing it to destroy itself in favour of the parasite, please?
October 21, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Come on Prof. Hoggle, I beg you to tell me what I have missed!
What it is is just good old fashioned sexism. Watson is not scrutinised or criticised in any manner whatsoever because she has a pussy. It’s really that simple – let entirely off the hook and given free reign purely on the basis of gender. She’s too dainty to risk hurting her feelings by expecting accountability or responsibility from her. She’s precious.
That is the sexism that is rampant within our communities – and it is entirely unrelated to what they whine about.
October 21, 2011 at 11:54 pm
I have a theory about the motivation of the new new atheist moralists. I think the power Beckie uses is simple guilt. Trace a thread through the long and disgusting string of ethical “thinkers”. What is it that ethics is about really? It is about creating a set of behavioral rules that will make you a “better” more “virtuous” and “higher” being.
This virtue ethic idea is what drives the moralizing atheist. This type of person is easy prey to those who use guilt as an argument. Look deep into the feelings of a new new atheist and you will find Plato perhaps, or some other character, who believes that people can elevate themselves be controlling their social actions.
These moralizers place high regard on the feelings of their allies. At the same time, since they value hurt/unhurt feelings, they use it as a weapon to try to secure their own social power and fight their enemies.
Basically, they are “populars”.
October 22, 2011 at 12:02 am
Surely it cannot be so.
If it is, then please provide me with the formula, so that I might scam and parasitise the globe with ease!
(I s’pose it works for the Pope)
October 22, 2011 at 12:33 am
Michael – Most modern liberal men feel guilty about their basic human drives. They have been trained by philosophers, preachers, and most women to feel that their impulses are wicked. This induces a strong sense of guilt. Drinking, cursing, farting, and most of all sex, are base and are behaviors that should be avoided… or at least managed in a polite way. These things are just animal urges that we must tamp down.
I have never been religious, but I was raised a Christian. It took me years to realize that many women really liked sex and some of them even wanted to have sex with me. I was taught that sex was a wicked behavior and that you needed to be forgiven for it. Sex almost always ends in a apology for many liberal or sensitive thinking men.
This guilt is preyed upon by psedo-intellecual feminists who do crazy shit like equate all sex to rape or push the idea that every man is a potential rapist. This makes sensitive liberal thinking men feel pity and sorrow for all the womez and it makes them feel guilty that they ever have even the least little fantasy about anal sex with Megan Fox (or Brad Pitt or whomever).
October 22, 2011 at 12:48 am
JohnD: Drinking, cursing, farting, and most of all sex, are base and are behaviors that should be avoided… or at least managed in a polite way.
Enter Diogenes – “Socrates gone mad”. This is precisely the point that lies at the backbone of Cynicism – the denial of nature. Polite society has always dismissed the Cynics as lunatics because of their shamelessness in public – when quite the contrary, they seek only to reclaim a state which is natural and human and free of guilt, and restore sanity and value to life. Yes, there WAS wisdom in Diogenes jerking off on Main St. in broad daylight during business hours, it’s just not immediately apparent to those that have not ruminated on the deeper Cynic philosophy – which is the pursuit of clarity over typhos – and putting the “human” back into humanism.
October 22, 2011 at 12:55 am
John, well if they can’t take simple pleasure out of life, then neither can we… b-but they’re not against sex or pleasure because it would be too religious if they were, and all religion hates women, and we can’t have that! …b-but you can’t have fun unless you follow this long list of whimsical rules, subject to change at the next convenience!
October 22, 2011 at 12:58 am
Good, seems my idea of Watsonista as neo-puritan is beginning to stir cobwebs in people’s minds.
October 21, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Darren:
Even the venerable Matt has fallen under the spell of Greta Christina.
And that brings me to a substantive point:
Why is it that most folks “listen” to a person who has once been under the thrall of a noxious delusion, but whom has now “grown up”, whereas they do NOT take in far higher regard the opinion of those individuals who have NEVER believed in such crap?
As one of the latter, I feel more than annoyed by folk who will take the word of one who once believed in demons versus one has been rational enough since birth to not have believed in djinns.
Matt, as a supposed “adult”, actually believed in the ludicrously insane, and pushed such a notion upon other humans.
Bloody annoying from several viewpoints. Mainly that those born sane are not listened to adequately.
Only the recovering addicts’ stories are given credence.
Bloody annoying.
October 22, 2011 at 11:35 am
Yes, I have noticed Matt has lately been influenced by Greta, Watson & co. It is a shame, especially given stances he has taken in the past (“why can’t people just accept that men and women are different?” – in an old Non-Prophets ep.), but at least it gives me something to disagree with the guy about.
As for the religious de-convert thing, I don’t think it’s fair to imply that Matt’s standing in the atheist community is due solely, or even largely due to, his religious past. It has more to do with him being an eloquent speaker and formidable debater. Note that there are others within the ACA, such as Jeff Dee, who have a religious past yet are not held in the same esteem as Matt. Jeff does take the points for being a sheer funny bastard, though.
One thing you can say for Matt, is that he has at least earned his status in the community by letting his work speak for itself; he has no need (nor, it seems, desire) for self-promotion.
October 22, 2011 at 11:47 am
Just two points –
* One person has a past as a fundie indoctrinee. Another lost a leg in a car accident. Why are the two considered different? Shit happens. It’s not like either were deliberate or asked for.
* Greta Christina is a master sophist. Of all the Watsonista, her skills at deception have no equal. The sheer amount of waffle and absolute absence of substantiation is superhuman. She is a semantic hypnotist. It is not as easy as you think to see through her bullshit for the very first time unassisted.
October 22, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Greta – Few humans can use more words to say so little.
October 21, 2011 at 11:56 pm
I am tempted to posit that it could not be so simple as sexism, which after all, boils down to social pressure to conform.
But, then I think: Franc seems to be aware of social interactions, as proven by his track-record of successes in that arena.
I also think: I have experienced an abject failure of judgement in said arena; trusting people based on what they claim. Classic Aspie attitude.
I also have judged that Mr. Hoggle is not classifiable as an autism spectrum candidate, but vaguely “normal” in terms of emotional interactions, but quite above normal in terms of analytical perspicacity.
Anyhoo… I shall take your sage-like advice on-board.
It can’t be that simple, surely?
But maybe not.
Every single one of my girlfriends has complained “Michael! You THINK too much!”
But I s’pose that is their problem, not mine.
I like thinking.
October 22, 2011 at 12:35 am
MKG – there are numerous factors at play here. First and foremost, all of the main players here in the Watsonista camp just seem so emotionally and socially naive as to beggar belief that they are 21st century western citizens. They are basically social retards. While most have probably had would would classify as biological “sex”, I doubt any have ever had just a raw bestial fuck. As one commentator has described it “blobs lying in bed asking each other an endless string of ‘is it OK if I do this?’ questions”.
I think sex itself terrifies them – on any primal level. This is the neo-puritanism. They compensate by creating ridiculous and elaborate ritual and courtier protocol – like some bizarre oriental tea ceremony – and anything that deviates is barbarity. Look at the Big Baboon’s views on courtship – it’s like out of a Victorian novel. Not that that there is anything wrong with it – but it DOES NOT entitle you to lecture to the rest of us when you basically know nothing about it beyond Little House on the Prairie “niceness”.
This “sexism” I raise is a strange artifact of this ritualised “tea ceremony” interaction they seek to bring into all of our lives – where there are no surprises about behaviour and no risks of accidental offense. Their eagerness to not be “sexist” and upset the becunted ones creates a perverse exceptionalism that actually is a sexist bias.
I don’t know. They are fucking insane. That’s about all I know after all of this.
October 22, 2011 at 1:06 am
I agree Franc – Not that I am smart enough to psychoanalyze anyone, but I can attest that I was trapped by male guilt for years. Fortunately, my wife and I have learned how to have quite the rough and rowdy time. She was actually less guilt ridden than I was… haha. I was lucky to have met the right partner.
I recovered from my guilt and she recovered from her porn jealousy. It’s all good now. Maybe I should become a counselor for hung up atheists.
October 24, 2011 at 6:37 am
Every single one of my girlfriends has complained “Michael! You THINK too much!”
you need a new girlfriend, Michael.
October 24, 2011 at 11:07 am
He is also a full-on religious accomodationist. His ridiculous misgyninst white-knight support of poor Pamela Gay proves that he quarantines religion from skepticism.
October 22, 2011 at 12:48 pm
I laughed waaay too hard at that. Damn you are all misogynists.
Keep up the good work.
October 22, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Is that Ophelia on the bicycle?
October 26, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Ha ha ha ha ! That was a great movie, enjoyed it immensely. As for Watson I still think I’d do her. Something about her looks sort of hot, maybe I’m just crazy or something. As for Plait I was really disappointed in him – I enjoy his blog because I’m really into astronomy but his “potential rapist” nonsense was really sad to see. Myers can go suck a big one. Anyway I forgive Plait I guess. Glad to see you people with blogs standing up to the Watson faction. Good day.
October 26, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Ha ha ha ha ! That was a great movie, enjoyed it immensely. As for Watson I still think I’d do her.
Thanks, and I commend your candor. You may want to check your local bestiality laws. And double check you don’t lose your lunch with the reality of it all –
October 27, 2011 at 5:58 am
Hmmm, perhaps I am thinking wrongly. I thought she looked pretty good in her nudie skepchick calendar pictures but I guess she’s kind of like Julia roberts – sometimes hot, sometimes not. Well she’s no Abbie Smith, that’s for sure. Not sure about the bestiality laws here in Georgia, though I imagine they are quite weak. Good day.
P.S. – PZ can go suck a big one.
October 26, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Methinks the “Watson faction” is more correctly called the “Watson fiction”! 😉
November 4, 2011 at 11:26 am
Thats some pretty good theory John. I have also wondered why some women instinctively felt one way and some felt another way as far as the simple elevator interaction is concerned. i.e why there are even some gender traitors. I am reading Colin Wilson’s A criminal history of mankind, and found this gem there. See the bolded portion for the bottomline.
Since dominance behaviour seemed to be the key to monkey psychology, Maslow wondered how far this applied to human beings. He decided to study dominance behaviour in human beings and, since he was a young and heterosexual male, decided that he would prefer to study women rather than men. Besides, he felt that women were usually more honest when it came to talking about their private lives. In 1936, he began a series of interviews with college women; his aim was to find out whether sex and dominance are related. He quickly concluded that they were.
The women tended to fall into three distinct groups: high dominance, medium dominance and low dominance, the high dominance group being the smallest of the three. High dominance women tended to be promiscuous and to enjoy sex for its own sake -in a manner we tend to regard as distinctly masculine. They were more likely to masturbate, sleep with different men, and have lesbian experiences. Medium dominance women were basically romantics; they might have a strong sex drive, but their sexual experience was usually limited. They were looking for ‘Mr Right’, the kind of man who would bring them flowers and take them out for dinner in restaurants with soft lights and sweet music. Low dominance women seemed actively to dislike sex, or to think of it as an unfortunate necessity for producing children. One low dominance woman with a high sex-drive refused to permit her husband sexual intercourse because she disliked children. Low dominance women tended to be prudes who were shocked at nudity and regarded the male sexual organ as disgusting. (High dominance women thought it beautiful.)
Their choice of males was dictated by the dominance group. High dominance women liked high dominance males, the kind who would grab them and hurl them on a bed. They seemed to like their lovers to be athletic, rough and unsentimental. Medium dominance women liked kindly, homeloving males, the kind who smoke a pipe and look calm and reflective. They would prefer a romantic male, but were prepared to settle for a hard worker of reliable habits. Low dominance women were distrustful of all males, although they usually wanted children and recognised that a
man had to be pressed into service for this purpose. They preferred the kind of gentle, shy man who would admire them from a distance for years without daring to speak.
But Maslow’s most interesting observation was that all the women, in all dominance groups, preferred a male who was slightly more dominant than themselves. One very high dominance woman spent years looking for a man of superior dominance – meanwhile having many affairs; and once she found him, married him and lived happily ever after. However, she enjoyed picking fights with him, provoking him to violence that ended in virtual rape; and this sexual experience she found the most satisfying of all. Clearly, even this man was not quite dominant enough, and she
was provoking him to an artificially high level of dominance.
The rule seemed to be that, for a permanent relationship, a man and woman needed to be in the same dominance group. Medium dominance women were nervous of high dominance males, and low dominance women were terrified of medium dominance males. As to the males, they might well show a sexual interest in a woman of a lower dominance group, but it would not survive the act of seduction. A medium dominance woman might be superficially attracted by a high dominance male; but on closer acquaintance she would find him brutal and unromantic. A high dominance male might find a medium dominance female ‘beddable’, but closer acquaintance would reveal her as rather uninteresting, like an unseasoned meal. To achieve a personal relationship, the two would need to be in the same dominance group. Maslow even devised psychological tests to discover whether the ‘dominance gap’ between a man and a woman was of the right size to form the basis of a permanent relationship.
November 4, 2011 at 11:44 am
Interesting stuff Astro – It makes sense to me. I think it is interesting to ponder if people can shift their dominance behavior with time and changing experience. I suspect they do.
November 4, 2011 at 1:55 pm
John,
This whole fiasco makes me want to read up psychology. Somebody at ERV mentioned how the self-esteem movement created a bunch of narcissistic wrecks (self-esteem gone awry), and interestingly this psychologist Abraham Maslow’s theory on ‘Motivation and Personality’ seems to explain some of the stuff.
http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm
Not to brag or anything, but I have a feeling that people on this side of the debate, who stubbornly refuse to groupthink and accept that its a tough world, are well described by the below.
Characteristics of Self-Actualized People:
In addition to describing what is meant by self-actualization in his theory, Maslow also identified some of the key characteristics of self-actualized people:
Acceptance and Realism: Self-actualized people have realistic perceptions of themselves, others and the world around them.
Problem-centering: Self-actualized individuals are concerned with solving problems outside of themselves, including helping others and finding solutions to problems in the external world. These people are often motivated by a sense of personal responsibility and ethics.
Spontaneity: Self-actualized people are spontaneous in their internal thoughts and outward behavior. While they can conform to rules and social expectations, they also tend to be open and unconventional.
Autonomy and Solitude: Another characteristics of self-actualized people is the need for independence and privacy. While they enjoy the company of others, these individuals need time to focus on developing their own individual potential.
…
PS: Franc,
Is there any way you can WIDEN the commenting space, so that comments dont get so skinny? There seems to so much unused space taken up by the ‘Archived Entry’ column at top, as well as the LHS and RHS columns in light-green.