Why should we be okay with psuedoscience? It’s the same mentality that promotes anti-vaxx rhetoric and belief. To allow one form of psuedoscience because it’s “not a big deal” (says whom? and why?) is not okay. It just helps promote yet more anti-intellectualism and lazy thinking.

Accurate science is necessary, not optional.

Care to cite your sources, rather than relay third hand knowledge? Thanks.

(“She said” and “I know some one” doesn’t really cut it.)

He essentially believes that teenage girls have evolved to sexually service grown men, dude.

“and social theory ”

And now his social theory work has been tainted. He is no longer credible. Because he is a pedophile apologist and defender. He doesn’t know shit about social theory, obviously.

“These are tactics used by anti-GMO, anti-vax, and other promoters of pseudoscience, not a rational freethinker’s blog.”

Oh for fuck’s sake, it’s not the same thing at all. You’re grasping at straws all because you want to defend a pedophile and the pedophile’s defenders. WHY?

What is “mob justice”? Define your terms.

Also “It disgusts me almost as much as rape. ”

Your priorities are FUCKED UP.

He is an ******ADMITTED PEDOPHILE******

Jesus. Even when we know for *sure* that someone is a terrible human being who has done terrible things to other people, we have to handle them with kid gloves.

Yeah, rape…[Read more]

3. I don’t think either of you have a strong hold on what free speech is, to be perfectly honest. That’s not really the point here, anyway.

“Formalized research” — that’s what Joshua Smith called his “challenge”. LOL

but-but-but! he observed some anecdotal evidence! no confirmation bias here, no sir.

Here is a really good outline of why so many women are excited about this. In a way that men have been able to get excited about stuff since, well, the dawn of movies, but we haven’t:

View story at Medium.com

My claim is that I observed empirically significant evidence (p < .01)

Second person asking: how was this measured?

Can you explain why this isn’t a good thing and why it doesn’t need to happen? People say this all the time but no one ever says why. I don’t get it, honestly. I don’t care if a movie is a reboot, as long as it’s done well.

I’m not sure how that’s any different from any other movie that’s ever been made, though.

I’m not sure why some people are like WHAT A REBOOT?! NOOOO!

There is a reason reboots happen: Because they are successful.

And why shouldn’t there be an all-female cast of a really popular sci-fi comedy? How is that not a good thing? I don’t see the…[Read more]

Lots of words have more than on meaning. Like this particular meaning that no one actually uses for this word. I’ve never heard it. Looks like I’m not the only one. IT’s fine.

9 years! That’s a huge accomplishment, especially considering the podcast format is still considered to be so new. Good luck on your new adventures, Rebecca!

I hope they get another woman to fill your spot.

But Paul! Reading the article is so haaaaaarrrrrddddd.

I understand the punch. I don’t know if I agree that the guy “deserved” it — a single punch can actually hurt someone pretty badly, even kill, — but I also understand why Aldrin punched the guy. People aren’t perfect, and we all have our limits.

Oh so yet another person who didn’t RTFA, eh?

I mean last I checked, harassment and threats were, oh, you know, CRIMES.

I suggest going back and re-reading the article. Slowly.

Nah, he’s just repeating what Rebecca already stated.

“I’m just saying – the concept of ‘doxxing’, while it can be used for good, can also be used for malicious purposes”

You’re “just saying”? Why? I thought Rebecca already stated all this in her article, except less wordy and better written?

Why did you feel the need to explain what she’s already written pretty clearly?