A Feminist on Rolling Stone and UVA

It wasn’t Jackie’s job to get the details of her rape correct. It was Rolling Stone’s

Winess to crime has no responsibility to be accurate.

Uhn hunh

76 thoughts on “A Feminist on Rolling Stone and UVA”

  1. So Much for Subtlety

    She was not merely a witness. She was claiming to be a victim.

    But notice that quote goes up the feeding chain until it hits a man. It is not the woman’s job to report her rape honestly. It is not the woman’s job to follow up a story competently. It is, however, a man’s job to check that none of the women have screwed up.

    As they did.

    As I have said before, places with an over-representation of women are almost always dysfunctional. I offer no explanation of why that should be. But in this case, I can leave it as an exercise for the reader.

  2. That headline is written as though she really was raped (or sexually assualted), and it was just the details that she got wrong. But she wasn’t raped or sexually assaulted at all. She made it all up.

    It isn’t a matter of the details. It’s a matter of blatant lying.

    (That doesn’t mean that RS aren’t also to blame, of course.)

  3. Actually, because of the crap reporting, we don’t know (and by this point I no longer actually care) whether Jackie was raped or, as she originally claimed, forced to give several guys oral sex*, or any other form of sexual assault**. We know she made the story up. Whether there was any event that triggered her creative instincts will probably never be known.

    * Given US dentition and the probable lack of guns or knives, forcing somebody to give you a blow job is putting a rather delicate bit of your anatomy directly in the way of the most forceful and sharpest natural weapon remaining to the human animal. This strikes me as a really, really bad idea?

    ** Given the way “sexual assault” has been diminished to the level that trying to get around a girl on a crowded nightclub floor, on your way to a hideously overpriced round almost certainly counts. As well as a lot of other stuff.

  4. I left this comment on JuliaM’s blog on another matter, but I think it bears repeating:

    “Because the basic credo that runs right to the core of all such government bodies is that men are fundamentally evil, and women are fundamentally good. Therefore things must be done to prevent evil men doing the evil things the authorities KNOW they will do given even the tiniest opportunity, whereas women are to be given every benefit of the doubt, because their fundamental goodness is not in question.

    And if by any chance a woman does do something wrong it isn’t their fault, there will be some outside force (usually attributed to a man) that made her do it, and she is not to be blamed at all.”

    I think that just about covers everything in this case too.

  5. SMFS: ‘As I have said before, places with an over-representation of women are almost always dysfunctional. I offer no explanation of why that should be. ‘

    I think it’s because they have an over representation of women.

  6. >Actually, because of the crap reporting, we don’t know (and by this point I no longer actually care) whether Jackie was raped or, as she originally claimed, forced to give several guys oral sex*, or any other form of sexual assault**

    If you’d follow the story on Instapundit, which linked to some real reporting, you’d know that there was no incident of any sort. She made the whole thing up in order to gain the sympathy of a guy she fancied. The rapist was also an invention of hers — she was sending herself texts pretending they were from this guy.

  7. “As I have said before, places with an over-representation of women are almost always dysfunctional. I offer no explanation of why that should be”

    Indeed you don’t.

    And so an extremely serious false accusation becomes the property of a Thick. Racist. And Sexist. Prick.

  8. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “And so an extremely serious false accusation becomes the property of a Thick. Racist. And Sexist. Prick.”

    And yet I am not destroying lives. You are faced with people who are – and you’re not annoyed at them. I wonder why.

  9. JuliaM

    Do try to keep up please. He has long since acknowledged his racism, we are now adding sexism to his portfolio. And I note you for one are not disputing that.

    SMFS

    ” – and you’re not annoyed at them. I wonder why”

    What the fuck do you think “an extremely serious false accusation” implies?

  10. So Much for Subtlety

    Frances Coppola (@Frances_Coppola) – “Correlation does not imply causation.”

    That is certainly true. But here we have a possible cause – a lack of accountability. A male journalist would have been fired. We are not even allowed to criticise the victim or the journalist. I won’t even mention the ban on clapping in case it triggers modern feminists.

    I am sure they mean well, but having your boss come down on your like a ton of bricks for poor work is probably a good thing. In the long run.

    Ironman – “Do try to keep up please. He has long since acknowledged his racism, we are now adding sexism to his portfolio. And I note you for one are not disputing that.”

    I have never asknowledged any racism. On the grounds I have not said or done anything racist. What I have said is I don’t give a sh!t ab out your childish name calling.

    “What the fuck do you think “an extremely serious false accusation” implies?”

    Not that you are all that upset about it. But that is par for the course from the Guardian Tendency.

  11. Frances Coppola

    Well, I would have disputed there was any evidence of correlation. So I suppose I now stand corrected thanks to you.

    Are you sure that is what you wanted to say?

  12. SMFS

    Sorry, buy you are on record as saying our laws discriminate against white men. You did try to use ‘indigenous’ but finally acknowledged you meant white.

  13. The law on discrimination is next to impossible to seek “help” from if you are a white male. Lots of other laws may not be written to discriminate against white males but that is how they are interpreted.

  14. > Correlation does not imply causation.

    This is one of those set phrases that everyone thinks is true because it gets endlessly repeated on the Internet. But it is not. Correlation does imply causation. That’s the basis of almost all human inquiry, including science. Correlation does not prove causation.

  15. Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS

    You write comments to the effect thay female – heavy organisations are disfunction al, you write posts on muslims (sorry, muzzies), you complain the world discriminates against white men. But if I call you racist you reach for the smelling salts.

  16. “You write comments to the effect thay female – heavy organisations are disfunction al, you write posts on muslims (sorry, muzzies), you complain the world discriminates against white men”

    Have you ever considered that what he writes may be true? That female centric organisations are indeed inherently chaotic, that Muslims do tend towards violence and that if you are a white heterosexual man in Western society you have less rights of redress for grievance than any other section of society?

    Or can you not accept the fact that your long cherished notions might in fact be utterly wrong, so you’re just going to call people names instead?

  17. Squander2,

    Correlation does imply causation. That’s the basis of almost all human inquiry, including science.

    Correlation does not imply causation. It indicates that there may be a more significant relationship and that relationship may, indeed, be causal. “Implication” is both too strong, and unfortunately anthropomorphic.

  18. Jim

    Did you ever consider consider that those opinions may be based upon nothing more than blind bigotry?

    Certainly I would say that, if you want to argue that 50% of human beings are collectively inclined to disfunction, that 20% or so are instinctively violent or that people of a specified gender and skin colour in our society are discriminated against then the onus is on you to make your case and not to assume that others will simply accept your claims.

  19. Correlation may *in some circumstances* imply causation, but does not, per se, imply the direct of causation without further evidence. It is often used/misused to *infer* causation whether or not causation exists in that instance.
    Please can you all (except GlenDorran, who may be able to phrase it better) take note.

  20. bloke (not) in spain

    @ironman

    ” if you want to argue that 50% of human beings are collectively inclined to disfunction, that 20% or so are instinctively violent or that people of a specified gender and skin colour in our society are discriminated against then the onus is on you to make your case and not to assume that others will simply accept your claims.”

    Some variation of this has been the accepted paradigm for what, the last 5000 years or so? Based on 5000 years of experience. The notion we are all, in fact, equal has around 30 years worth of currency. Based on very little data at all.

    I’d reckon the onus of proof is very much on the latecomers.

  21. @ Jim
    You sound like a Guardianista lefty when you systematically misquote Ironman instead arguing against what he actually says.
    “the world discriminates against white men” is not the same as “white heterosexual man in Western society you have less rights of redress for grievance than any other section of society?” – women may not drive cars in Saudi Arabia.
    Not all female-centric organisations are chaotic – I have mentioned before some that are not and, being old enough to remember the NHS when matrons ran teams of female nurses before “professional management” was introduced and charities/voluntary organisations run by middle-class ladies while their husbands were at work I can assure you that this is not automatic. It may be that the very few organisations that are female-centric *because the leader/organiser discriminates in favour of incompetent females* are chaotic, but that is not the same as “female-heavy organisations are dysfunctional”.
    “the world discriminates against white men”

  22. B (n) in S

    Really! Women being collectively disfunctional has been the accepted paradigm for 5000 years has it? Muslims being violent is based upon 5000 years of experience is it? 5000 years of white males facing discrimination before the law?

    I have obviously missed all that. So no, the onus is indeed on you.

    I haven’t missed learning of 5000 years of migration of tribes, distrust between peoples, wars, physical labour having a higher relative value than it does today so the male of the species has a higher economic value. In short that’s what our history actually is.

  23. I have before and I’ll ask again: is this really where free – market liberalism has sunk? Misanthropy and a genre dislike based upon race, creed or gender?

    Or have we just got arsehole refugees from the EDL over here?

  24. @ b(n)is
    “The notion we are all, in fact, equal has around 30 years worth of currency. Based on very little data at all.”
    It has 239 years of currency based on no data whatsoever: it was political propaganda.
    On the other hand, that we are all equal before God and “love your neighbour as a man like yourself” goes back thousands of years.

  25. bloke (not) in spain

    @Ironman
    As I said, some variation.

    You’ve been using what is a common debating trick amongst a certain sort of progressive: making a presumption, that you prefer to be true, then requiring from your opponents the job of disproving it – meanwhile shouting over them as hard as you can.
    As john77 says, all men are equal has a legal history of 269 years. In the US at least. Although they were pretty choosy about who they regarded as equal men. Had a war on the topic.. But I shouldn’t think the concept has much more than 3 decades of common currency, either side of the pond. Wouldn’t have needed the civil rights movement, otherwise. Laws being a reflection of legislators rather than the legislated. As we’re constantly reminded.

  26. bloke (not) in spain

    @john77
    if God would like to comment on the subject, I’m sure TimW wouldn’t object. Providing he has an e-mail address, of course.

  27. @ b(n)is
    The proposal to abolish slavery in the southern States was launched as a propaganda weapon part-way through the American Civil War when a lot of “black” men were fighting for the Confederacy. It was *not* the issue over which the war was fought.
    If you want to point out the hypocrisy of the American “Founding Fathers” you should mention the indigenous peoples (the Canadians describe them as “First Nations”).

  28. bloke (not) in spain

    @john77
    There’s rather a good book on aspects of American history we all accept but….
    No the War Between the States wasn’t prosecuted on the issue of slavery. But it wouldn’t be true to say that it wasn’t either. It wasn’t a popular war & whether it occurred at all was a very close run thing. There were abolitionists in the North ( there were in the South, as well). So it’s whether their influence might have tipped the balance. But you’re right.The war was initially about other matters & it was those matters were of the concern of most in favour of it..

    As an incidental.
    My issue with ironman isn’t his thesis but his crap way of presenting it. Slinging around accusations of EDL sympathies doesn’t advance his case.

  29. @John77: I’m not quoting Ironman because he purposely misrepresents SMFS’s arguments himself. Ask SMFS if my three statements misrepresent his views, as that was who I was trying to paraphrase.

    The matron’s in hospitals thing is indeed interesting. I have pondered on that one myself. My conclusion was that in the days of the traditional Matron, nursing was one of the few careers that a more masculine minded woman (ie one who had little interest in having children, and/or wanted a career other than housewife) could pursue. Most other careers were not open to women. So nursing ended up with a disproportionate number of woman who have more male type brains – ones that are highly structured, rather than empathetic. These were the women who ended up becoming matrons, the archetypal ‘dragon’ of popular myth. They were women who were prepared to be unpopular with other women in pursuit of a certain goal (that of an efficiently run ward), which is a quite non-female attitude, especially these days.

    However once female emancipation occurred, and careers opened up for such women across society, nursing no longer had access to its former concentration of suitable battle-axe type women, and they were replaced with more ‘normal’ women, who did not possess the same qualities, with the consequences we see today in the NHS.

  30. SE,

    > Correlation does not imply causation. It indicates that there may be …

    “Indicate that there may be” is practically a dictionary definition of “imply”.

    > … a more significant relationship and that relationship may, indeed, be causal. “Implication” is both too strong …

    Well, you’re giving “imply” a far stricter meaning than it has in normal English usage there. Phrases such as “very subtly implied” and “an extremely weak implication” are not nonsense: implication is not inherently strong.

    > … and unfortunately anthropomorphic.

    Well, of course, if we’re going to construct a snappy sentence in which correlation does something, it’s going to be anthropomorphic unless it’s “Correlation starts with C” — at which point “Correlation does not imply causation” becomes as trivially and uninterestingly true as “Correlation can’t swim.” For instance, you say that correlation indicates. What does it do? Point with its finger?

  31. Ironman is terribly stupid and conceited, and very probably a drunk. I think he starts drinking early in the day and then it all goes to ratshit.

  32. Mr INTERESTED-ECKS-SMFS

    Oh good argument. Why don’t you tell me I smell as well.

    Let’s see then Brain box, I’m stupid because I don’t accept without evidence (and you dispute that evidence is necessary):-

    1. That women collectively tend to disfunction .
    2. That Muslims (would you prefer muzzies? ) are violent.
    3. That white males suffer discrimination.

    Meanwhile anybody not of an extremely narrow mindset is looking on (if they haven’t long since departed) and is wondering who these neanderthal are. He’s called Interested-Ecks-SMFS.

  33. @ Jim
    ” My conclusion was that in the days of the traditional Matron, nursing was one of the few careers that a more masculine minded woman (ie one who had little interest in having children, and/or wanted a career other than housewife) could pursue.”
    Such as my mother-in-law, who was a nurse and/or midwife until my wife’s elder sister was born and has, since my father-in-law died, repeatedly expressed her gratitude to her various sons-in-law for various minor tasks (that reflect the gender-orientation of jobs when she was young) that we can help with.

  34. Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS

    What a brilliant line of argument: make a wild claim like “places with an over- representation of women are nearly always disfunctional”, fail to offer a scrap of evidence and then, when this is pointed out, reply by calling that observation “a trick”.

  35. bloke (not) in spain

    I must say, i do have my suspicions on the personas some commentators adopt. Although, where i come from, “iron” would not be a characteristic one would wish to claim.

  36. “make a wild claim like “places with an over- representation of women are nearly always disfunctional”, fail to offer a scrap of evidence”

    As evidence I offer the entire State sector, specifically the welfare/education/healthcare/local government areas thereof, which have massive over representation of women, and (as we repeatedly see) are incapable of functioning in even a basic manner, in the case of the NHS resulting in thousands of deaths, despite additional billions of resources put in.

    As a counter example I offer you the Armed forces, still State funded, owned and run, but still predominantly a male sphere of influence (despite the usual suspects attempts to change that – note that we see lots of ‘Lets have more women soldiers’ campaigns, not so many ‘Lets have more men in the NHS’ campaigns, funny that). The Armed Forces, despite repeated cuts in their cash budgets (not an inflation proofed increase in spending, which is what the NHS calls ‘cuts’), still manage to complete the tasks asked of them, often at the cost of many (mens) lives because the right equipment is not always available. They don’t complain, don’t go on strike, just get on with it.

    Your turn – lets have some evidence of your proposition, examples of these massive corporations built from the ground up by women and staffed predominantly by women, or the State bodies that are female dominated, and universally considered to be the sine qua non of efficient State administration. I mean there must be lots of them, because my proposition is so obviously wrong.

  37. Squander, mathematically, implies has a strict definition.

    A implies B means if A is true B must be true. If A is false, B can be either true or false

  38. @Ironman

    I’ve got no idea what you are on about, you massive dickhead.

    You’re a classic narcissist – our very own Sabrina. You can’t find what you want to find so you make it up. Weirdo.

  39. Rustman: “Mr INTERESTED-ECKS-SMFS

    Oh good argument. Why don’t you tell me I smell as well.

    Let’s see then Brain box, I’m stupid because I don’t accept without evidence (and you dispute that evidence is necessary):-

    1. That women collectively tend to disfunction .
    2. That Muslims (would you prefer muzzies? ) are violent.
    3. That white males suffer discrimination.

    Meanwhile anybody not of an extremely narrow mindset is looking on (if they haven’t long since departed) and is wondering who these neanderthal are. He’s called Interested-Ecks-SMFS.”

    Alrighty then Numbnuts

    Women tend to dysfunction–define dysfunction . Women are different than men. I see no evidence that women built the pyramids–apart from prob doing the cooking–or the great cathedrals of Europe. I see little evidence that women are doing all that much science and engineering wise today. Yes there are very good female scientists and engineers. But not that many compared to the numbers of men. Because sexism? Because most women aren’t interested. If you –in your obnoxiousness– want to label that dysfunction that’s up to you.

    Muslims history is filled with massive amounts of violence. Muslim scripture preaches –as Pat Condell observed–“death, death and more death”. Esp death to all your beloved leftist client groups and your fellow Christians (its fortunate you hang about with those commanded to forgive–it must save you from being a total pariah). Contemporary muslim “extremists” engage in mass beheading and individual burning alive while most of the “non-extremists” in polls taken –if not endorse, certainly refuse to condemn the “death, death, death” line. They must be amongst the extremely narrow minded as well.

    White men–across the West–are arrested for domestic violence even if they have the black eye, are told they can’t sit next to kids on planes, are robbed and ruined on a daily basis by divorce and family court scum. Men have no rights in fatherhood–she can abort his child/ she can go to a sperm bank and then demand to know who he is and extort money from him. She can still rip him off for a lifetime even if DNA shows its not his kid. And in there are circs in which he can’t even get a DNA test as it would be illegal. Men get longer sentences for the same crimes, make up 97% of the out-on-the-street homeless and commit suicide at 4 times the rate of females. Men are just as likely to die from prostate cancer as women are from breast but about a tenth of the cash is spent on that because nobody much gives a shit about men dying.

    Yeah–you stink. You have some small glimmer–at least in economic terms- of how freedom matters but you are some sort of bucket that echoes back hollow leftist cant whenever it gets pissed in. Living proof of how far PC horseshit has now seized the Western mind.

  40. @BNIS

    ‘I must say, i do have my suspicions on the personas some commentators adopt.’

    There’s only one person here pretending to be a superhero…

    One of this very dense man’s complaints seems to be that myself, Ecks and SMFS are one and the same. I imagine he will soon be roping in Jim and others to the same mad conspiracy – that’s what happens when egomaniacs are contradicted.

    I’ve argued with both Ecks and SMFS, a lot, though I suppose in the bizarro world this idiot inhabits that may be normal enough.

    Presumably – in the unlikely event that he gives a shit – Tim can confirm that we have internet locations a fair distance apart. I’m good, but I’m not that good.

  41. See as per Ecks above, I think that’s largely bonkers. (White men are told they can’t sit next to kids on planes? Eh?)

    Ironically, it’s more bonkers than what our friend Ironman has to say.

    Anyway, off to the pub now to enjoy my gilded life!

  42. Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS

    Very well done. You followed the thread of the argument without getting lost at all and managed to avoid ad hominem even though you.must have been so sorely tempted.

  43. The ridiculous irony is you might actually have inadvertently proved your point. You seem to be knuckle – dragging proof that all men are not created equal.

  44. “Squander, mathematically, implies has a strict definition.” A good point, but in commonplace English doesn’t it have a weaker meaning? “A implied that B was drunk” doesn’t mean that A outright accused B of being drunk, does it?

  45. “What proposition would that be?”

    That men and women have equal skills to create, run and manage large organisations. If its true there should be plenty of examples of such female created, staffed and run bodies that are shining lights in their areas of expertise, that you can point me to. Evidence, see? You asked for it, I provided some for my case, how about you stump some up for yours?

    Or are you struggling to find any decent examples?

  46. dearieme – I always assume when people are talking about correlation and causation (using those exact words) they are talking about it in the statistical (i.e. strict mathematical) sense.

  47. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “Sorry, buy you are on record as saying our laws discriminate against white men. You did try to use ‘indigenous’ but finally acknowledged you meant white.”

    Sorry for what my little Stalinista-wannbe? Our laws do, in practice discriminate against White males. And by definition the indigenous population of Britain is White.

    Neither of those statements is racist.

    What you mean is that 10 hours of frantic googling and going over everything I have said, and I have said a lot, failed to produce a shred of evidence to back up your claims. You are in fact committing the same error that Rolling Stone did – you need to smear so badly, you smear without regard to the facts.

    If your religion was anything more than pose you would apologise. But that would take away the self righteous anger you enjoy so much wouldn’t it?

  48. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “You write comments to the effect thay female – heavy organisations are disfunction al, you write posts on muslims (sorry, muzzies), you complain the world discriminates against white men. But if I call you racist you reach for the smelling salts.”

    Actually I don’t give a sh!t if you think I am racist or not. It is a standard Stalinist tactic – no surprise from someone who adopts his name. It means nothing except you have no arguments.

  49. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “Women being collectively disfunctional has been the accepted paradigm for 5000 years has it?”

    I have not claimed that women are collective dysfunctional. I have said that organisations they dominate tend to be. On another thread people are pointing out that women tend to prefer security over salary in their careers. Which means a preference for government jobs and large, established companies. Women do not much like start ups. That alone would prove my point given the government is incapable of doing much these days.

    As for the length of time, well, Aristotle was the basis for most Christian and Muslim philosophy. He claimed women were deficient in logic ans general mental abilities. Not quite 5000 years but I doubt the period before that was a general laugh-fest for women.

    “I haven’t missed learning of 5000 years of migration of tribes, distrust between peoples, wars, physical labour having a higher relative value than it does today so the male of the species has a higher economic value. In short that’s what our history actually is.”

    And yet Silicon Valley requires very little in the way of physical strength. But it is still almost entirely male. There is something else going on here.

    Ironman – “I have before and I’ll ask again: is this really where free – market liberalism has sunk? Misanthropy and a genre dislike based upon race, creed or gender?”

    Yep. Adam Smith would be hounded out of academia these days. As for Charles Darwin, he couldn’t find a home in any political party short of the BNP.

    Ironman – “Let’s see then Brain box, I’m stupid because I don’t accept without evidence (and you dispute that evidence is necessary):-”

    No, you are an ar$e because you behave like an ar$e. No one has asked you to accept a single one of those propositions. Nor have you attempted to dispute a single one of them either. All you do is throw childish temper tantrums.

    “1. That women collectively tend to disfunction .”

    And no one has even said that.

    “2. That Muslims (would you prefer muzzies? ) are violent.”

    I have not said that. Although Muslim populations do show higher rates of violent crime than equivalent non-Muslim ones.

    “3. That white males suffer discrimination.”

    As they do. Not consistently, not all across the board, but in highly specific ways, our legal system discriminates against men, especially White men.

  50. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “Very well done. You followed the thread of the argument without getting lost at all and managed to avoid ad hominem even though you.must have been so sorely tempted.”

    You see? You know what appropriate behaviour is, and yet you cannot do it. The irony of commending anyone for avoiding the ad hominem is amusing, especially given your insistence that everyone else prove what they have not claimed, while you continue to claim what you cannot prove.

    Why is it you hold everyone else to a higher standard than you hold yourself, my hypocritical little Stalinist?

  51. > I always assume when people are talking about correlation and causation (using those exact words) they are talking about it in the statistical (i.e. strict mathematical) sense.

    That’s the sense in which the sentence was originally intended. I think the linguistically weaker sense has become standard usage in Net arguments. Would be a fascinating question for Language Log to address.

  52. So Much for Subtlety

    Squander Two – “That’s the sense in which the sentence was originally intended. I think the linguistically weaker sense has become standard usage in Net arguments.”

    We should fight it and insist on the stricter version. Net arguments are not helped by weak inferences.

    The more interesting question is whether the stricter mathematical sense has any meaning. Marginal Revolution pointed out at least one social science journal has rejected statistical confidence tests. Given that most of them are utter rubbish – anyone can torture data until they get a result they want – and no one really understands them anyway, how confident should we be about anything?

  53. Jessica Valentini is currently going through the 5 stages of grief live on Twitter.

    Denial: “Rolling Stone blaming their errors on a sensitivity to rape victims isn’t just incorrect (not what the report found) it’s irresponsible”

    Anger: “If you only write/tweet about rape when a woman’s story is questioned there is a 100% chance I will ignore you. Because you are terrible.”

    Bargaining: “If writers only report on rape survivors who agree to be named, the only stories we’ll hear are those from “perfect victims””

    Two more to go!

  54. Marginal Revolution pointed out at least one social science journal has rejected statistical confidence tests. Given that most of them are utter rubbish – anyone can torture data until they get a result they want – and no one really understands them anyway, how confident should we be about anything?

    That is a whole other ballgame with many insisting that Bayensian methods would be better suited to a lot of what passes for science nowadays. Most social “science” graduates can have post graduate degrees in their field and still not be able to explain what a null hypothesis test is.

  55. Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS

    You say you don’t give a shit what I think but you write endless disertations in response; Hmmmmm.

    Jim

    Sorry again old boy; what proposition did I make? And where? I’ll give you a clue: you won’t find it; you made it up.
    As for your evidence; no, it was ASSERTION. You have no idea what he gender, ethbic or religiius make-up of senior positions in the civil srvice is.

  56. Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS

    It really won’t do you know, if you agree with each other, to be offended by comparisons and start to call each other whack – jobs.

  57. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “You say you don’t give a shit what I think but you write endless disertations in response; Hmmmmm.”

    I still don’t give a sh!t what some blow in from CiF thinks of me. And I am not writing endless dissertations on anything. You need some justification, I guess, for your self righteous dishonesty.

    Ironman – “It really won’t do you know, if you agree with each other, to be offended by comparisons and start to call each other whack – jobs.”

    So this week I have been accused of being Mr Ecks, Interested, GlenDorran and Van_Patten.

    I don’t mind that actually. Keep it up old boy.

    I notice that yet again you have provided no evidence of any of your smears. What religion allows you to libel people in such a arrogant, self-regarding way? Not a good advertisement for it whatever it is.

  58. > We should fight it and insist on the stricter version.

    Oo, yes, let’s do that. I’ll start:

    Correlation does imply causation. Correlation does not prove causation.

  59. “Sorry again old boy; what proposition did I make? And where? I’ll give you a clue: you won’t find it; you made it up.As for your evidence; no, it was ASSERTION.”

    Are you going down the usual Ironman arguing technique of avoiding the issue entirely, while picking on some minor grammatical error? Assertion, proposition, whatever. I made a case for X, you called me (and others) names, and demanded evidence of my assertion. I gave some. You so far have given zero evidence that counters my evidence. So I assume you have none, beyond your usual statements that all the people who hold contrary positions to yours are nasty evil people.

  60. No Jim, you haven’t offered evidence; you have simply asserted that our claim is true.
    And I haven’t offered any proposition and you can’t find offering any proposition.
    And you haben’t offered any evidence to support the basic contentions; you have made assertions about the gender make-up of the public sector.
    And I don’t call you evil, although I am beginning to question some other aspects.

  61. Squander – at the risk of pendantry, you have it wrong. Correlation does not imply causation in a strict mathematical sense.A implies B means if A is true, B must be true.

  62. “you have made assertions about the gender make-up of the public sector.”

    For fucks sake.

    NHS: 65-70% female: http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/nationaled_surveys_V8-2013-12-06.pdf

    Education: anywhere from 70 to 90% of teachers are female: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223587/SFR15_2013_Text_withPTR.pdf

    Social workers: 80%+ of social workers/mental health workers are female: http://mic.com/articles/30974/almost-82-percent-of-social-workers-are-female-and-this-is-hurting-men

    Local government: 75% of local government employees are female: http://www.lgps.org.uk/lge/aio/18618151

    Enough for you?

  63. Their managers aren’t. And anyway, you then need to show that these organisations definitively are less efficient than all others. That is evidential rather than your neanderthal prejudice.
    And then you still run up against the fact that, no, I.still don’t think I need to provide any evidence to any cretin who genuinely wants to claim that men are better than women or white people are discriminated against or muslims are violent. And yes, I do think I’m better than you; just am. Goodbye.

  64. ‘And yes, I do think I’m better than you; just am. Goodbye.’

    Ironman is Richard Murphy, deep under cover, and I claim my £5.

  65. See, now you’re just making things up again. I (and no-one else as far as I can see) said ‘men are better than women’. What I said was that men are better than women AT SOME THINGS, one of which is the ability to structure and theorise, and hold their actions to a specific path, regardless of the emotional costs thereof. They are less in thrall to emotions, and more to objective principles. This results in a greater propensity to build, develop and manage complex structures, either physical or economic. If you bothered to read a little, you’d realise that these differences between male and female brains are well documented by people considerably cleverer than you ( and me too of course). I’m open to new ideas that go against the received wisdom, you obviously less so. I would suggest you read ‘The Essential Difference’ by Simon Baron-Cohen (a professor of developmental psychopathology at Cambridge University) but given your propensity to shout names at people who provide you with information you don’t like, perhaps not.

    “And yes, I do think I’m better than you; just am.” – what a stunning argument 🙂

  66. @Jim

    Weird thing is, when he first popped up on this blog a couple of years ago he seemed a decent cove – I ‘engaged’ with him a fair bit.

    I have said before that I think he’s had some sort of breakdown – lost his job, had a drink relapse, missus has finally got tired of his ranting non sequiturs and left him for a white supremacist, whatever – and if he has, it’s a shame. But lately I’ve come to the view that it’s more likely he’s just a cunt, and a stupid cunt at that.

    Anyway, moving on, this is interesting, from the guy who first cast doubt on the Rolling Stone piece:

    http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/2015/04/07/in-the-end-its-all-about-rape-culture-or-the-lack-thereof/

  67. Gunker,

    > Squander – at the risk of pendantry, you have it wrong. Correlation does not imply causation in a strict mathematical sense.A implies B means if A is true, B must be true.

    I’m all for pendantry, but, if the idea is to oppose a muddle-headed idea that has gained currency amongst the non-mathematically minded on the Net, which will be more effective? Insisting that they use mathematical terminology correctly or expressing the mathematical idea correctly using normal English usage? If you want to try the former, good luck with “exponentially”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *