Intro Vid

I love this:

In 2012:

Surly Amy get all emotional at TAM 2012, poor thing:

3 Comments on “Intro Vid”

Jimmy Rustle says:

June 20, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Is this “blasted goat” person the author of this trainwreck of an attack site? If you really want to be e-famous, try not eating a hotdog for a minute before actually saying anything.

Reply
- Jimmy Rustle's dad says:
  
  June 30, 2012 at 5:10 am
  
  Rustle, if I catch you posting from the office computer without my permission again you’ll find that documenting types of varnish used in wardrobe preservation will be the least of your worries. Now spook your prunes, you bespoke wretch.
  
  Reply
flowsnake says:

February 3, 2013 at 6:45 pm

I stumbled here, as a fan of the SGU podcast – but I have some /impartial/ comments regarding this introduction video (the top-most video on this page). I am largely unfamiliar with Rebecca Watson and her arguments or values, and I would recommend remaking this video – it’s incoherent in that many accusations are made without thorough explanation, and I am left wondering if there is any merit to these accusations or not:

What specifically did Rebecca say with regards to sexism or being objectified which gives rise to this reaction? Quotations? Context?

What specifically gave rise to the multiple responses in this video, for example, what has Watson said regarding a man walking up to her and finding her attractive?

I think you should thoroughly support each accusation based on precise quotation and work logically from Watson’s own words.

Finally, a defense of skepticism – “skepticism sounds like bullshit to me if you are meaning you can just refute anything you disagree with without proof or good reasoning” – I don’t know exactly how Watson describes skepticism, but I think the video unintentionally hit the nail. Skepticism isn’t about rejecting just any idea, and it isn’t about proving negatives either (a daunting task). It IS about /rejecting/ ideas that lack proof and good reasoning. The skeptics mantra is “show me the evidence”. It’s the notion that ideas without supporting evidence or logic are equally invalid until the time that one is supported by new evidence.

Reply