A dangerous game. I picked up a copy of Learn fad language in 24 hours the other day. It turned out to be a touching story about a boy and his dog dealing with the illness and subsequent death of his sister-in-law.
League is competitive; if someone tells you to fuck your mother, then you're doing it right. Don't like it? Then fuck right off, faggot. You're obviously not prepared to handle actual social interaction.
Amazing. Someone actually believes this. I'll repeat the kicker:
You're obviously not prepared to handle actual social interaction.
From the guy who wrote:
if someone tells you to fuck your mother, then you're doing it right. Don't like it? Then fuck right off, faggot.
Seriously. It's right above this post. Read it for yourself. This actually happened. It makes me sad. The collectivist in me wants to know where we went wrong. How did we fail him so badly.
His justification for supporting this kind of adolescent behavior?
League is competitive;
This past spring, we gave a stupid amount of money (around 10k) to the local little league team. Why? Because we think learning things like teamwork and sportsmanship are important.
To One With Whisp, I'm sorry that you were not offered the same opportunity to learn about sportsmanship as the kids participating in those kinds of activities. I can only hope that you take this opportunity to learn a little more about it, develop some empathy, and learn how to play well with others.
While what you say is literally true, the problem is that "research that appears to confirm an expected answer" is frequently "useless." Anyone who has been following recent attempts to reproduce studies in various fields know that Ioannidis's claims that most published research findings are false [nih.gov] has been shown to be an accurate assessment again and again.
You see this pop up every time you see a study to which someone viscerally disagrees. It's mostly used as a bludgeon by extraordinarily lazy internet forum demagogues. The correlate, naturally, is the study which confirms someone's preexisting beliefs being touted as infallible truth handed down by the god of science.
It's this sort of ruthless irrationality from the self-described rationalists that is responsible to the public mistrust of science we've seen growing over the past few years. The science cheerleaders are actively working against their own interests.
They really need to stop. If they really want to public to trust science, leaving science to properly credentialed scientists is their best bet. The constant barrage of incoherent ramblings from those self-identified "champions of reason" posted to youtube, internet forums, or other social media has caused nothing but harm.
I think the complaint has never been bloat, but ridiculously high memory usage.
Only by idiots. Chrome has been the biggest memory hog for years now, using significantly more memory than FF. Yet the same yahoos that bash FF eagerly promote Chrome as a 'lightweight' alternative. It doesn't make any sense.
it does seem to be mindboggling how we've gone from browsers like Firefox 3.x, which I happily ran on a 128Mb (yes, megabyte) Slackware Linux laptop, with no apparent memory leakage and decent performance, to today's Firefox which seem to have added little in features, yet end up sucking gigabytes of memory on a regular basis.
As for memory usage and performance, you can thank modern web standards for a lot of that. Pages are heavier and more resource intensive than they were 10 years ago, and far more is expected of the browser. You'll want to include modern web standards when you're feature counting.
I find Firefox very difficult to use these days, and their debugger console is a total mess (especially when it was Firebug before, and now it isn't) especially when you compare it to Chrome's.
I completely disagree. It's a lot better than it was in the firebug days, and a bit better than what Chrome offers. What do you think is better and why?
Times haven't changed, <things> are exactly the same as they were previously. ><
It is a tradition for users, regardless of how long they've been here, to forget something simple like how to use < and > in a forum post. I don't know how many times I've seen someone complain that Slashdot ate this or that bit of their post. Should have used the preview button...
Just use < instead of typing a < and you'll be fine. You can also use > in place of simply typing a >, if you're a bit paranoid. Type &lt; to write out < should you need to explain this to someone else.
why did Twitter, Fark, Reddit, Polygon, Giant Bomb, BoingBoing, and a host of other sites just coincidentally synchronize on the same enemies and the same narrative?
Because they recognize that supporting the kind of abusive behavior we see from GG and similar groups is not socially acceptable. GG just hasn't figured out that they're no different than other hate groups, so when they see a bunch of large sites reaction exactly like a normal person would expect, they immediately assume that there is some secret conspiracy.
I'm glad that at least Slashdot has largely stayed immune
I'm glad to see that someone is paying attention. To hear most you folks talk, you'd think Slashdot is a bastion of liberalism, beholden to the whims of those evil SJW's. A fiction, as you're well aware. It's pretty obvious that the majority here, sadly, agree with you.
Why? There are countless example of denial in threads like these.
You, for example, believe total nonsense despite the near limitless evidence to the contrary. Your own rhetoric isn't even original, it's parroted nonsense from a group long discredited.
Even your example is weak. A hate group received bomb threats. Big surprise. Other hate groups face that every day. We don't want GG anymore than we want the KKK polluting our society. What group are you blaming for the threats here? You basically have the whole of society to pick from -- including the very group that organized the event, as threatening their own event is perfectly in line with other dishonest tactics they've used in the past.
What you want to do, of course, is normalize your own, now deviant, beliefs and behaviors. Worse, you know your attitudes are no longer socially acceptable, as evidenced by your explicit disassociation with the very group from which you draw your rhetoric. Yet you persist...
You want to talk about denial. It's pretty clear that you're moved beyond denial into paranoid delusion. You go around hiding your associations, looking for conspiracies, and spreading laughable propaganda on the few corners of the internet you think you'll find a receptive audience. You're a nut.
What's it like to be marginalized? A hero turned pariah? A self-described "champion of reason", abandoning those principles to garner a few more views on a content-free vlog? What's it like to spend your days manufacturing outrage, lying and laughably misrepresenting others just to keep the few idiots who still watch your channel engaged?
What's it like seeing someone far more popular than you elevated to celebrity status while you've stooped to posting on Slashdot?
The world has moved on. No one has time for your hate-mongering. Particularly the fact-free nonsense you've been posting for the past few years.
Sarkeesian has won both in the media and the public consciousness. You've lost your imaginary war on feminism, just like you lost your imaginary war on Islam.
Because what you say "she points out" is fictitious and don't stand up to any serious analysis.
That's funny. No one, so far, has actually addresses her points. Have a real example?
And she is apparently not merely wrong, but doing this for personal gain. Because she "dumps a boatload of hate" on anybody who disagrees with her. Because she is a sexist and a bigot.
You're thinking of hate-mongers like Thunderf00t. No one cares about him any more, which is why his second-rate screeds have somehow managed to dramatically drop in quality. I didn't think it was possible, but he's actually sunk lower.
What do you think the goal of all their activism is?
I'm far more interested in what you think it's all about. What paranoid conspiracy have you imagined?
She doesn't just "offer criticism", she pushes an ideological agenda
Okay... What would that be?
She engages in bigotry and hate mongering.
Citation needed.
She has complained about Thunderf00t's videos, and they are certainly "legitimate" (and accurate) criticism of her videos.
You're kidding, right? Phil isn't exactly known for his honest and accurate criticism. He lies, outright, habitually to motivate his fanbase, who he knows won't bother to check his facts. Remember his 'real threat' video? The one where every single 'point' was an outright lie, trivial to prove false? As for his replies to Sarkeesian, they're on par with the rest of his backwards, fact-free, rants.
A second problem is self-censorship by industry. Companies want to avoid controversy and bad publicity, and it's easier to water down products a bit than to fight people like her.
Here's a clue: YOU already self-censor. It's true. So does everyone else. Industry, obviously, does so as well and has since time immemorial. Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences. You have to face real social consequences for your speech.
As for fighting people like Sarkeesian, why would you? To what, specifically, do you object? I certainly couldn't find anything objectionable. She points out harmful tropes, sure, but has never called for their removal. She's never advocated censorship, just pointed out why she believes those unsavory elements are harmful.
Oh, congratulations on making her famous. Your misdirected outrage has elevated her from obscure vlogger to international celebrity. You built her a giant platform for her message. Consequently, your views have been marginalized, relegated to a few dark corners of the internet. In short, you shot yourself in the foot.
The public are seeing through the veil of media censorship and agenda pushing to try and write off GG as being about misogyny.
Don't be silly. The general understanding is that GG is all about misogyny and harassment. Probably because that's all you see come out of GG.
No one believes that it has anything to do with ethics, because GG has done absolutely nothing to address ethics in game journalism. They have, however, posted countless misogynistic screeds and threatened and harassed women.
As an independent observer I'm fucked off with the media labelling me as sexist for being a gamer
You're living in a fantasy land. The only time you hear that accusation, is when GG supporters tell each other that that's what the media/SJW's/evil monster's think.
Just stop harassing the rest of us for enjoying a broad range of games whether they fit worth your skewed world view or not.
What harassment? Care to share a single example? That'll be the first time in history a GG supporter had anything of merit to offer.
From what I've seen, the criticism she offers has been derided as an unforgivable assault on video games and the people who play them. I don't know if it's just cowardice or ignorance, but they certainly feel threatened by her videos. She has not, to my knowledge, complained about legitimate criticism of her videos.
It's not Sarkeesian that considers criticism to be harassment, but her detractors.
I just wonder what they're afraid will happen if her views are allowed to be heard. Do they think video games will be banned or censured by the government? Video game players jailed? Internment camps run by Jack Thompson? What bizarre fantasy have they imagined?
Don't be stupid. People are making money on both sides. GG made obscure folks like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian in to internationally-known celebrities. Over all, it's been good for their career and their message. On the other side, folks like Phil Mason make a living from manufacturing outrage. A pariah in atheist circles, he was barely staying afloat promoting bigotry. The new enemy he's found in the form of feminism has done wonders for his career as a video blogger.
Remember when creationism was the hot-topic? It made people on both sides millions. There were no losers, from a financial perspective. Why do you think Bill Nye and Ken Ham bothered with their silly debate? Ham wanted to keep that outrage money flowing, and Nye wanted his piece of the pie. Sadly for them, that ship had sailed.
If there were no money to be made from the outrage, the "debate" would have ended long ago. Like the creation vs evolution before it, the results of the "debate" have already been decided by the media and society at large. We're just waiting for the money to dry up.
Yes. Life is great, so any problems we have are necessarily trivial and therefore aren't worth addressing.
Feeling marginalized? Suffered discrimination due to race, gender, or national origin? Someone in the past had it worse, so you're obviously just whining.
Juvenile behavior making it difficult for you to function at your job, school, etc.? Quit complaining, because it's not as bad as it could be.
It is imperative that we not progress as a society. Any attempt to do so is... er, bad. Horrible. We shouldn't do it. Seriously. No progress. Progress bad.
Who is suggesting a conspiracy? I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I was suggesting that politics/nationalism is one reason that it remained a heresy, despite the existing evidence.
Inheritance of acquired characteristics, not very long ago, was scientific heresy. There was evidence for it, but was lambasted and dismissed. (International politics may have played a role here.) There's a real danger in elevating things like this to sacred truths.
Darwin just wasn't aware of epigenetics, but that doesn't make him wrong.
On the contrary, it would appear that he was wrong. He went out of his way to deny just about everything Lamarck put forward. On the Origin of Species is not a holy book, sacred text, or any other similar thing. We've long moved beyond it. It was not the final word, nor is it (or Darwin) infallible.
What you really want to say is something obvious like "this doesn't mean evolution isn't true". That's fine, but why not just say that instead of some silly, indefensible, nonsense like this?
Well, it is being rejected based on personal belief, in this specific case. Science is loaded with things that any reasonable person would consider non-science. (String theory being the standard pop-sci example, though you'll find things like it in other branches.) I don't really have a problem with that, it very often leads to real progress. Science is messy, after all. It's never been the perfectly clean and hyper-rational exercise the public imagines it to be. (An argument could be made that that stereotype is harmful.) The problem I have here is with the laity -- those fans of science without any formal background making absurd, baseless, pronouncements. It is, without question, harmful.
When you attribute to science knowledge which is not attained through scientific means, you undermine the entire enterprise. It is exactly the same tactic used by creationists or those unscrupulous folks selling toxin removing foot pads or magnetic balance bracelets; it's an attempt to lend scientific credibility to unfounded claims.
We're quick to give nonsense like this a pass when it supports our preconceptions, fits within our own metaphysical understanding, or uplifts something we strongly support, like science. It's a trap we've all fallen in to at one time or another. Being aware of this problem is a helpful defense against it.
The scientists who proposed the consciousness-causes-collapse interpretation realized this and stopped supporting their own idea because of it.
Well, that's not quite true. You're thinking of Von Neumann, who did distance himself from it, but on entirely different grounds. Today, it is still a popular, if minority, viewpoint. You are justified in dismissing it, but not for the reasons offered by the OP. That was the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
A dangerous game. I picked up a copy of Learn fad language in 24 hours the other day. It turned out to be a touching story about a boy and his dog dealing with the illness and subsequent death of his sister-in-law.
League is competitive; if someone tells you to fuck your mother, then you're doing it right. Don't like it? Then fuck right off, faggot. You're obviously not prepared to handle actual social interaction.
Amazing. Someone actually believes this. I'll repeat the kicker:
You're obviously not prepared to handle actual social interaction.
From the guy who wrote:
if someone tells you to fuck your mother, then you're doing it right. Don't like it? Then fuck right off, faggot.
Seriously. It's right above this post. Read it for yourself. This actually happened. It makes me sad. The collectivist in me wants to know where we went wrong. How did we fail him so badly.
His justification for supporting this kind of adolescent behavior?
League is competitive;
This past spring, we gave a stupid amount of money (around 10k) to the local little league team. Why? Because we think learning things like teamwork and sportsmanship are important.
To One With Whisp, I'm sorry that you were not offered the same opportunity to learn about sportsmanship as the kids participating in those kinds of activities. I can only hope that you take this opportunity to learn a little more about it, develop some empathy, and learn how to play well with others.
I thought it meant "imaginary monster under the bed".
... because that's how it's used ...
While what you say is literally true, the problem is that "research that appears to confirm an expected answer" is frequently "useless." Anyone who has been following recent attempts to reproduce studies in various fields know that Ioannidis's claims that most published research findings are false [nih.gov] has been shown to be an accurate assessment again and again.
You see this pop up every time you see a study to which someone viscerally disagrees. It's mostly used as a bludgeon by extraordinarily lazy internet forum demagogues. The correlate, naturally, is the study which confirms someone's preexisting beliefs being touted as infallible truth handed down by the god of science.
It's this sort of ruthless irrationality from the self-described rationalists that is responsible to the public mistrust of science we've seen growing over the past few years. The science cheerleaders are actively working against their own interests.
They really need to stop. If they really want to public to trust science, leaving science to properly credentialed scientists is their best bet. The constant barrage of incoherent ramblings from those self-identified "champions of reason" posted to youtube, internet forums, or other social media has caused nothing but harm.
I think the complaint has never been bloat, but ridiculously high memory usage.
Only by idiots. Chrome has been the biggest memory hog for years now, using significantly more memory than FF. Yet the same yahoos that bash FF eagerly promote Chrome as a 'lightweight' alternative. It doesn't make any sense.
it does seem to be mindboggling how we've gone from browsers like Firefox 3.x, which I happily ran on a 128Mb (yes, megabyte) Slackware Linux laptop, with no apparent memory leakage and decent performance, to today's Firefox which seem to have added little in features, yet end up sucking gigabytes of memory on a regular basis.
As for memory usage and performance, you can thank modern web standards for a lot of that. Pages are heavier and more resource intensive than they were 10 years ago, and far more is expected of the browser. You'll want to include modern web standards when you're feature counting.
I find Firefox very difficult to use these days, and their debugger console is a total mess (especially when it was Firebug before, and now it isn't) especially when you compare it to Chrome's.
I completely disagree. It's a lot better than it was in the firebug days, and a bit better than what Chrome offers. What do you think is better and why?
Why? That's been done to death. You know this, yet couldn't care less.
When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty. Sooner or later, however, you find out that the pig likes it.
Pure delusion.
Times haven't changed, <things> are exactly the same as they were previously. ><
It is a tradition for users, regardless of how long they've been here, to forget something simple like how to use < and > in a forum post. I don't know how many times I've seen someone complain that Slashdot ate this or that bit of their post. Should have used the preview button...
Just use < instead of typing a < and you'll be fine. You can also use > in place of simply typing a >, if you're a bit paranoid. Type &lt; to write out < should you need to explain this to someone else.
why did Twitter, Fark, Reddit, Polygon, Giant Bomb, BoingBoing, and a host of other sites just coincidentally synchronize on the same enemies and the same narrative?
Because they recognize that supporting the kind of abusive behavior we see from GG and similar groups is not socially acceptable. GG just hasn't figured out that they're no different than other hate groups, so when they see a bunch of large sites reaction exactly like a normal person would expect, they immediately assume that there is some secret conspiracy.
I'm glad that at least Slashdot has largely stayed immune
I'm glad to see that someone is paying attention. To hear most you folks talk, you'd think Slashdot is a bastion of liberalism, beholden to the whims of those evil SJW's. A fiction, as you're well aware. It's pretty obvious that the majority here, sadly, agree with you.
Why? There are countless example of denial in threads like these.
You, for example, believe total nonsense despite the near limitless evidence to the contrary. Your own rhetoric isn't even original, it's parroted nonsense from a group long discredited.
Even your example is weak. A hate group received bomb threats. Big surprise. Other hate groups face that every day. We don't want GG anymore than we want the KKK polluting our society. What group are you blaming for the threats here? You basically have the whole of society to pick from -- including the very group that organized the event, as threatening their own event is perfectly in line with other dishonest tactics they've used in the past.
What you want to do, of course, is normalize your own, now deviant, beliefs and behaviors. Worse, you know your attitudes are no longer socially acceptable, as evidenced by your explicit disassociation with the very group from which you draw your rhetoric. Yet you persist...
You want to talk about denial. It's pretty clear that you're moved beyond denial into paranoid delusion. You go around hiding your associations, looking for conspiracies, and spreading laughable propaganda on the few corners of the internet you think you'll find a receptive audience. You're a nut.
I'm not even a GG supporter
Liar:
Stop living in denial and stop supporting professional victims that have harassed themselves
If you're not a supporter, why copy/paste their idiotic rhetoric?
What's it like to be marginalized? A hero turned pariah? A self-described "champion of reason", abandoning those principles to garner a few more views on a content-free vlog? What's it like to spend your days manufacturing outrage, lying and laughably misrepresenting others just to keep the few idiots who still watch your channel engaged?
What's it like seeing someone far more popular than you elevated to celebrity status while you've stooped to posting on Slashdot?
The world has moved on. No one has time for your hate-mongering. Particularly the fact-free nonsense you've been posting for the past few years.
Sarkeesian has won both in the media and the public consciousness. You've lost your imaginary war on feminism, just like you lost your imaginary war on Islam.
It's pathetic, really.
Because what you say "she points out" is fictitious and don't stand up to any serious analysis.
That's funny. No one, so far, has actually addresses her points. Have a real example?
And she is apparently not merely wrong, but doing this for personal gain. Because she "dumps a boatload of hate" on anybody who disagrees with her. Because she is a sexist and a bigot.
You're thinking of hate-mongers like Thunderf00t. No one cares about him any more, which is why his second-rate screeds have somehow managed to dramatically drop in quality. I didn't think it was possible, but he's actually sunk lower.
What do you think the goal of all their activism is?
I'm far more interested in what you think it's all about. What paranoid conspiracy have you imagined?
She doesn't just "offer criticism", she pushes an ideological agenda
Okay ... What would that be?
She engages in bigotry and hate mongering.
Citation needed.
She has complained about Thunderf00t's videos, and they are certainly "legitimate" (and accurate) criticism of her videos.
You're kidding, right? Phil isn't exactly known for his honest and accurate criticism. He lies, outright, habitually to motivate his fanbase, who he knows won't bother to check his facts. Remember his 'real threat' video? The one where every single 'point' was an outright lie, trivial to prove false? As for his replies to Sarkeesian, they're on par with the rest of his backwards, fact-free, rants.
A second problem is self-censorship by industry. Companies want to avoid controversy and bad publicity, and it's easier to water down products a bit than to fight people like her.
Here's a clue: YOU already self-censor. It's true. So does everyone else. Industry, obviously, does so as well and has since time immemorial. Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences. You have to face real social consequences for your speech.
As for fighting people like Sarkeesian, why would you? To what, specifically, do you object? I certainly couldn't find anything objectionable. She points out harmful tropes, sure, but has never called for their removal. She's never advocated censorship, just pointed out why she believes those unsavory elements are harmful.
Oh, congratulations on making her famous. Your misdirected outrage has elevated her from obscure vlogger to international celebrity. You built her a giant platform for her message. Consequently, your views have been marginalized, relegated to a few dark corners of the internet. In short, you shot yourself in the foot.
The public are seeing through the veil of media censorship and agenda pushing to try and write off GG as being about misogyny.
Don't be silly. The general understanding is that GG is all about misogyny and harassment. Probably because that's all you see come out of GG.
No one believes that it has anything to do with ethics, because GG has done absolutely nothing to address ethics in game journalism. They have, however, posted countless misogynistic screeds and threatened and harassed women.
As an independent observer I'm fucked off with the media labelling me as sexist for being a gamer
You're living in a fantasy land. The only time you hear that accusation, is when GG supporters tell each other that that's what the media/SJW's/evil monster's think.
Just stop harassing the rest of us for enjoying a broad range of games whether they fit worth your skewed world view or not.
What harassment? Care to share a single example? That'll be the first time in history a GG supporter had anything of merit to offer.
Translation: Anything I'm not interested in seeing is a waste of resources. This gigantic event should cater exclusively to my desires.
the biggest example of the Streisand Effect yet.
So... What did [unnamed group] attempt covered-up only to have it spread?
Nothing? I see... How is this an example of the Streisand Effect?
You're deeply confused.
From what I've seen, the criticism she offers has been derided as an unforgivable assault on video games and the people who play them. I don't know if it's just cowardice or ignorance, but they certainly feel threatened by her videos. She has not, to my knowledge, complained about legitimate criticism of her videos.
It's not Sarkeesian that considers criticism to be harassment, but her detractors.
I just wonder what they're afraid will happen if her views are allowed to be heard. Do they think video games will be banned or censured by the government? Video game players jailed? Internment camps run by Jack Thompson? What bizarre fantasy have they imagined?
Don't be stupid. People are making money on both sides. GG made obscure folks like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian in to internationally-known celebrities. Over all, it's been good for their career and their message. On the other side, folks like Phil Mason make a living from manufacturing outrage. A pariah in atheist circles, he was barely staying afloat promoting bigotry. The new enemy he's found in the form of feminism has done wonders for his career as a video blogger.
Remember when creationism was the hot-topic? It made people on both sides millions. There were no losers, from a financial perspective. Why do you think Bill Nye and Ken Ham bothered with their silly debate? Ham wanted to keep that outrage money flowing, and Nye wanted his piece of the pie. Sadly for them, that ship had sailed.
If there were no money to be made from the outrage, the "debate" would have ended long ago. Like the creation vs evolution before it, the results of the "debate" have already been decided by the media and society at large. We're just waiting for the money to dry up.
Yes. Life is great, so any problems we have are necessarily trivial and therefore aren't worth addressing.
Feeling marginalized? Suffered discrimination due to race, gender, or national origin? Someone in the past had it worse, so you're obviously just whining.
Juvenile behavior making it difficult for you to function at your job, school, etc.? Quit complaining, because it's not as bad as it could be.
It is imperative that we not progress as a society. Any attempt to do so is ... er, bad. Horrible. We shouldn't do it. Seriously. No progress. Progress bad.
Who is suggesting a conspiracy? I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I was suggesting that politics/nationalism is one reason that it remained a heresy, despite the existing evidence.
Did I really need to explain this?
Inheritance of acquired characteristics, not very long ago, was scientific heresy. There was evidence for it, but was lambasted and dismissed. (International politics may have played a role here.) There's a real danger in elevating things like this to sacred truths.
Darwin just wasn't aware of epigenetics, but that doesn't make him wrong.
On the contrary, it would appear that he was wrong. He went out of his way to deny just about everything Lamarck put forward. On the Origin of Species is not a holy book, sacred text, or any other similar thing. We've long moved beyond it. It was not the final word, nor is it (or Darwin) infallible.
What you really want to say is something obvious like "this doesn't mean evolution isn't true". That's fine, but why not just say that instead of some silly, indefensible, nonsense like this?
We're clearly having different discussions.
Well, it is being rejected based on personal belief, in this specific case. Science is loaded with things that any reasonable person would consider non-science. (String theory being the standard pop-sci example, though you'll find things like it in other branches.) I don't really have a problem with that, it very often leads to real progress. Science is messy, after all. It's never been the perfectly clean and hyper-rational exercise the public imagines it to be. (An argument could be made that that stereotype is harmful.) The problem I have here is with the laity -- those fans of science without any formal background making absurd, baseless, pronouncements. It is, without question, harmful.
When you attribute to science knowledge which is not attained through scientific means, you undermine the entire enterprise. It is exactly the same tactic used by creationists or those unscrupulous folks selling toxin removing foot pads or magnetic balance bracelets; it's an attempt to lend scientific credibility to unfounded claims.
We're quick to give nonsense like this a pass when it supports our preconceptions, fits within our own metaphysical understanding, or uplifts something we strongly support, like science. It's a trap we've all fallen in to at one time or another. Being aware of this problem is a helpful defense against it.
The scientists who proposed the consciousness-causes-collapse interpretation realized this and stopped supporting their own idea because of it.
Well, that's not quite true. You're thinking of Von Neumann, who did distance himself from it, but on entirely different grounds. Today, it is still a popular, if minority, viewpoint. You are justified in dismissing it, but not for the reasons offered by the OP. That was the problem.