Silence “Works”

Visitors: Still don’t like your site: Please take me to the formal complaint section.

WATSON & DAWKINS SILENCE JOURNAL ON TWITTER 

Sept 17

Sep 19

Wohoo! We got banned again!!! Supression is better than a realistic ego!  Where is their critical thinking?! Every time they flag each account they just confirm the point!

Here is some of the mail sent to leading skeptics/audience. Still waiting for them to answer…

Hello Rebecca Watson, Richard Dawkins,

This invitation is being sent to both you for the 4th time. It is fully expected you will ignore out of convenience but not logic.

The purpose of not letting your circus die down is that both of your to issue a mutual public apology, honest and believable not halfhearted. You know, what we all learn as teenagers.

Neither you Watson/Dawkins is really selling the “silence” approach well enough because you got the timing wrong i.e. It should have been BEFORE GAWKER picked the story up.

So if you ask the media n& the skeptics “Be quiet let it die down…” it is not going to work out with all of us.

You both are a perfect example of what is wrong in Academia, too much ego to face the music of reality.

Both of you shared this absurd & vulgar display of low impulse control.

Your knee jerk reactions paved the way for what happened: NEITHER OF YOU LEADING THINKERS saw that Gawker would pick the story up.

Really? This is a sublime contradiction: LEADING THINKERS THAT DO NOT THINK BEFORE ACTING.

*Let’s cut the crap: Where is your credibility?

It already was a hard sell to ask people to stop believing in charismatic theological lies then you both throw your respective sexually dimorphic bag to the fan and make it in orders of magnitude more difficult to believe the movement as a whole? Wanna know why? Creationists do not avoid fallacies as selling points, you became part of their selling team.

*Lets cut the crap: Where is your Integrity?

It already was a hard sell to make both of you likeable and or at least relatable then you both found a way to make yourselves even more “dis-likeable” by allowing the sexual dimorphism of our species dictate your actions. How can you sell your credibility to an audience that already dislike you if you take your cues for credibility from teenage gender-based high-school conflicts? Fashionable immature is still immature. Fashionably stupid is still stupid. Critical thinkers that failed to think is still failure.

*Lets cut the crap , why the cowardice?

Surreptitious silence is the soul of Skeptic self defeat, I am tired of the compromise: We are Skeptics, we do not take prisoners because making concessions erodes integrity. You both fucked up, you cannot ask the privilege of being held prisoners. Do not ask me for silence, silence means giving you a pass.

THAT IS THE HARDEST SELL: Bypassing critical thinking and give you a pass and let it “die down” just because you represent us all. There is no nice way to say it: You both failed.

I do not want to be represented any of you. you both cannot have forgotten that

intelligence is a human quality independent from gender. Did you really need a dummy like me to come and tell you that you fucked up the basic math of human interaction? That you could not put 2 and 2 together ahead of time before the circus started?

OCCAM’S RAZOR: BETWEEN AMNESIA OR AN INFLATED EGO MY MONEY IS ON YOUR EGOS.

I AM THE LOWEST OF THE LOW, I GET NO CAMERA TIME NO MEDIA EXPOSURE AND NO DEGREE BUT EVEN I GET THAT PLACING MY NEEDS AFTER SOMEONE ELSE’S IS MORE IMPORTANT. THE NEEDS OF THIS DWINDLING COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE YOURS BUT YOU BOTH PLACED YOUR EGO FIRST. YOU FAILED US ALL.

I STATE IT NOW, I WILL NOT GIVE IN AND COMPROMISE MY OWN CRITICAL THINKING UNLESS YOU BOTH APOLOGIZE TO EACH OTHER PUBLICLY, I WILL NOT STOP NAGGING YOU AND THE COMMUNITY WITH MY DISSENT. RULES ARE UNIVERSAL, EVERYBODY IS INCLUDED.

AND YES I WAS YELLING, TOO LATE, YOU CAN’T UNREAD IT.

You wanna know why I started this? It was all because of a damn creationist who said this On September 08 2011 during a debate:

“Oh you are an “Atheist”? Like Dawkins and the girl with the glasses? That is such a joke, you guys can’t even get along…boy, you guys can’t be trusted you can’t agree on anything…that is perfect critical thinking…kudos to your public credibility…”

A damn creationist, who cannot possibly get reality any more wrong, suddenly has the gall to tell me something…correct.

That my fellow Skeptics is a sublime defeat.

Why do I have to bend logic and and excuse two leaders who behaved so immaturely in the worst possible public scenario and harm the credibility of this dwindling community?

Why do I have to ignore logic and try to excuse them?

Why do I have to give them a concession to try to justify their immature behavior?

Why do I have to excuse both because of their body of work and pretend they did not fail the test of thinking ahead of time, of deferred gratification, that they should have placed the needs of this community BEFORE the apocryphal gratification of publicly showing what gender was better?

That is all it comes down to brothers and sisters in arms, neither Watson nor Dawkins could wait a test even toddlers pass, they are given two extra cookies if they wait long enough before eating the first, Watson and Dawkins’ cookies were made of common cheap dough made of fictitious gender supremacy and personal gratification, same principle but in orders of magnitude more complex and in orders of magnitude more damaging in its consequences. That gigantic cookie they had to wait for was this movement’s credibility.

I started the blog fully intending not to let the issue die down & shame them both (as they started it so well) for as long as it takes, and the appeal to emotion is is full disclosure it is an analogy and it was chosen because it would draw the most fervent ones to comment and to highlight the issue itself: Impulse & pride instead of logic

Come on, “appeal to emotion”, brothers and sisters in arms, it was written all over and some of you still fell for it (I am looking at you Brian). You were NOT supposed to imitate & react like your garden variety fervent theist (I am looking at you PZMyers) unlike them, dear brothers and sisters and sisters in arms we are supposed TO KNOW BETTER THAT REASON COMES BEFORE EMOTION (ha! nice caps ). Wanna test it?

Take any math problem & yell at it, it will not solve itself. (yeah not impossible but you would be trolling if you tried to come up with anything)

Everything is a throwaway: The Facebook, Twitter & WordPress accounts were conceived as a provocation piece to make a point: The failure of two leaders due to their inflated egos & their coward avoidance. The site is not going away.

(it is backed up daily, if it gets shut down will pop back up, do not deal with it, get very, very upset)

WHY DO I HAVE TO EXERCISE THAT WHICH I KNOW CREATIONISTS DO ALL THE TIME, ONLY APPLYING LOGIC WHERE IS CONVENIENT?

THAT IS COMPROMISE AND I WILL NOT ACQUIESCE TO IT BECAUSE IT DEFIES LOGIC.

Go on, shoot the messenger, take sides, go on nitpick it all, give them a pass, downplay it, bring the logical fallacy list to the table dear brothers and sisters in arms, we are no strangers, neither of us has the right to be offended nor bypass logic.

Go over the math first. Watson and Dawkins immature decisions helped the creationists. All of this could have been prevented.

I await you all:

http://dysfunctionalwatsondawkins.Wordpress.com/

PS

MESSAGE TO THE AUDIENCE:

As I said, I am the lowest of the low, no degree, no media exposure, no microphone, no budget, (I’m even on WordPress.)

I also have the moral obligation of telling you: I will not compromise logic to excuse neither Dawkins nor Watson, I have no right to be offended & neither do you.

I defy you all. First to civil discourse then, if you throw a tantrum/bring up fallacies, I have the moral obligation of NOT taking you seriously and taking you to parody town, intelligence is universal to both genders if you choose not to use it, do not expect any respect, just parody.

In other words, if you wanna play chess do not throw a tantrum & throw away your pieces (leave pride & your Disney book at home).

Get upset, very, very upset, call me troll, crack your best yo-mama jokes at me. But if you take sides (defending either Watson or Dawkins) you are either delusional, a creationist, a troll or a combo. Face the music: This started because Watson and Dawkins took sides: their own, not the community’s . BTW I answer your hate filled comments with great pleasure

Because of wisdom from people like this woman who endured tremendous hostility and succeeded:

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
Margaret Thatcher

and a certain thinker that never gave a fuck about personal attacks and laughed them off …

Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things… one of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority.”

Christopher Hitchens

See? No need for sexism, No right to get offended and no need to respect senseless impulsive babble. Applies to me and everyone else. If you think rules do not apply to you, I am really sorry,it is my most sincere intention to inform you to fuck off. Effective immediately.

Lastly, I am gonna leave you with the easiest laugh of your day:

Ask both Rebecca Watson and Richard Dawkins this dumb question on their respective Twitter/Facebook accounts /their sites:

“Can both of you guys just to say sorry and hug it out?”

You will find the most amazing byzantine mountain of arguments & obstacles from them and their side-taking audience ranging from disbelief all the way to contempt & derision. But you wanna know a little “secret”? What really is on top of that tall tall mountain of elegant reasons, the real reason why that question is so laughable and “corny” and unthinkable?

Answer: Their egos. 

2. To Dr Steven Novella from the SGU podcast:


Hey Dr Novella,
Apparently, you have a conflict of interest regarding the Watson vs Dawkins mess. Are you on a surreptitious self-imposed silent embargo? 
I am not, I started the open letter to Dawkins & Watson at:
I hereby make an offer to you specifically for a discussion on the points contained in the letter , obviously I offer adherence to civil discourse, please do not “rage-quit” on me I know you have more brains than anger…or am I mistaken? No, you are not like Bryan Dunning whom I also contacted with a similar email, ask him he will tell you as angry as he usually is…that also happened at the open letter, If you throw away the chess pieces along with the board, well…you know the rules of parody, after someone throws a tantrum they cannot be taken seriously for the original chess game… right?
Now I would hypothesize that there will be a:
99% Chance you will fashionably curtail this offer by displaying your signature silence as you prefer to stick  to apocryphal safety. 
No, you are not a fake, your training allows you to save lives but your fabricated public integrity is, self evident and silent.
How coul you not? You have to make more concessions to two leading skeptics who have made this vulgar display of low impulse control available to the world. You need to stay away because your integrity is best expressed by silence. Right?
See, there are parallels between organizations that keep silence as a policy and as uncomfortable as it is, yours is analogous to the Roman Catholic church staying  quiet, very quiet every time one of their members does something publicly shameful. Silence works for you too right Dr Novella?
Concessions, concessions, concessions BTW is Beckie still banned?
I thought as much.

3.To Bryan Dunning from the site Skeptoid

Hey Bryan,

Apparently, you have a conflict of interest regarding the Watson vs Dawkins mess. Are you on a surreptitious silent embargo? 

I am not, I started the open letter to Dawkins & Watson at:


I hereby make an offer to YOU specifically for a discussion on the points contained in the letter , obviously I offer adherence to civil discourse, please do not “rage-quit” on me I know you have more brains than anger…or am I mistaken? If you throw away the chess pieces along with the board, well…you know the rules of parody, after someone throws a tantrum they cannot be taken seriously for the original chess game…It happens all the time in skeptoid, right?

Now I would hypothesize that there will be a:
1.9% Chance you will fashionably curtail this offer by displaying your signature short fuse through contempt/mockery
2.90% chance of avoidance and silence as Dawkins Novella Watson & you did with the other 2 throw away tweeter & facebook accounts used. 
Yes I did contact you but never replied shortly after both accounts were blocked. Should I take for granted you avoid questions on purpose? Does “integrity” matter for you? or I am not “worthy”?
 
3.1% chance you will seriously take up my challenge.

NOTE: Despite your short fuse character, please take into account Pzmyers’ mistakes detailed in the post (also by his followers).

Am I “worthy” of your wrath, dismissal and contempt: ie avoidance?

***************************************************************

To Jay Novella,
Hello Jay
Your brother has not replied: Any idea why? this is what he was sent:
referring to this one page:
All he did was stay silent while sending me this:
and immediately this
Then the old wise one sent this:
I gave up and just told both to go here:
Oh, the internet is a confuzing place….but… you can always follow me on twitter!
or
or
http://twitter.com/#!/magnusdasilva (buthurted! 😦  )
or
http://twitter.com/#!/watsonvsdawkins  (buthurted! 😦  )
or
or
or
and the others I do not remember….



Still waiting for them to answer…