The Civil War Within Skepticism

[Ian]

Looks to me like the skepchicks are just women sticking up for themselves. I'm not sure why that infuriates people so much...

It sounds like the reason they were sticking up for themselves is because some people have found them to be infuriating in the first place.

[JimC]

Looks to me like the skepchicks are just women sticking up for themselves. I'm not sure why that infuriates people so much...

It sounds like the reason they were sticking up for themselves is because some people have found them to be infuriating in the first place.

Finding them infuriating is a clear indicator that you are an evil agent of the patriarchy!

[Coito ergo sum]

Over the last year, we've seen a number of Wars declared, generally involving a certain faction of the skeptic movement, led but not exclusively populated by, the Skepchicks.

There was the original action between feminists and Richard Dawkins:

Started by Dawkins when he made a hysterical, unprovoked attack on Rebecca Watson...

It's this kind of nonsense that may well be at bottom of all this hullabaloo. "Attack?" "Attack?" Read that again -- ATTACK? You think that that Dawkins' open letter "Dear Muslima" is an "ATTACK" on Rebecca Watson?

Total and compete BOLLOCKS. If Rebecca Watson was a man, nobody would deign to call that an "attack." It was an argument written in allegory. That's all. It didn't call Ms. Watson names. It didn't sully her reputation. It didn't berate or blast her for anything. It basically was an allegory to make the point that the Elevator incident was no big deal. Saying that is not an "attack" on those who think it's a big deal, including but not limited to Watson.

That's another common strategy of the Skepchicks -- if you adopt a contrary position - you are an "attacker."

They went after Brian Dunning of Skeptoid

For doing bad science...

Bull. They went after him for doing a parody of a Fleetwood Mac album cover for one of his projects, and they labeled him a sexist and misogynist for doing it.

Edit to add: And, what would Skepchicks like Watson know about "good" or "bad" science anyhow? Call me when they've actually DONE some science. The Skeptoid piece about DDT was not "bad science" at all. It just didn't draw the conclusion that the Skepchicks think is the correct one. So, without knowing even how the science is done, or anything about it other than they believe the book Silent Spring is part Bible, the Skepchicks start a war against Brian Dunning, for explaining the science of the topic as it has progressed since the book was published 50 odd years ago...

They went after Lawrence Krauss

For defending a child rapist...

Bull. That isn't what Krauss did at all. But, that is what the Skepchicks SAID he did, because they don't care about the truth.

There was the skirmish with Ann Althouse

It's Ann Althouse, can you blame them!? Really?

Shit, yeah. I call 'em like I see 'em. Watson did an interview with Ann Althouse on Bloggingheads. Althouse was polite, respectful and the conversation lasted for quite a long time. Nobody was attacked. She asked questions of Watson, who volunteered to be on the program. Then Watson leaves the program and claims to have been treated poorly because Althouse asked her questions about her views.

You tell me -- where in this video did Althouse act inappropriately? Where? What in here merited the vitriol given her by Watson and the Skepchicks?

They went after DJ Grothe of JREF and TAM

No, again it was Grothe who went after them by blaming them, without any evidence, for declining attendence at TAM.

Bullshit. Grothe never "went after them." And, attendance of women had gone up every year at TAM, even under Grothe's leadership, EXCEPT THE CURRENT YEAR. Grothe voiced an opinion that over-exaggerating the sexual harassment problem could have led to some women thinking the problem was worse than it is. He didn't name the Skepchicks at all. But, for that opinion, they tried to run him out of town on a rail and have him lose his position at JREF/TAM.

There was the latest one against Dr. Marty Klein

Who completely misrepresented the incident he was writing about then went back and dishonestly edited his post.

S
Bull -- he wrote about it as a hypothetical.

And, the incident AS RECOUNTED BY THE WOMAN WHO WAS HANDED THE BUSINESS CARD, is about as horrifying as a woman wearing an "I am not a Skepchick" t-shirt at TAM.

Looks to me like the skepchicks are just women sticking up for themselves. I'm not sure why that infuriates people so much...

That doesn't infuriate people. What infuriates people is that they slander and sully people, and go after them by misrepresenting what they said or did (Krauss), and personally attacking them for false reasons (Dunning), and calling for people to lose their jobs over nonsense (Grothe) and whine and cry claiming to have been wronged when they've been treated politely (Althouse), and claim sexual harassment at the drop of a hat (Surly Amy going home in tears over a woman wearing an "i am not a Skepchick" t-shirt) and.....and.... and.... and....

If all they were doing was sticking up for themselves because someone did something wrong to them, or said something wrong to them, that wouldn't infuriate anyone. They pick fights and start wars, and they play hard-ball when they do it. They ought not be surprised when others quite simply aren't going to put up with it quietly.

[A Hermit]

It's this kind of nonsense that may well be at bottom of all this hullabaloo. "Attack?" "Attack?" Read that again -- ATTACK? You think that that Dawkins' open letter "Dear Muslima" is an "ATTACK" on Rebecca Watson?

Well yes actually; I think anytime you completely misrepresent what someone said, like Dawkin's did, accuse them of holding opinions they haven't actually expressed, like Dawkins did, and accuse them of them of ignoring problems which they are actually fighting hard against, as Dawkins did that does qualify as an attack. Certainly the shitstorm of abuse that came down on Watson in the wake of that poorly considered, badly written irrational letter qualifes.

Bull. They went after him for doing a parody of a Fleetwood Mac album cover for one of his projects, and they labeled him a sexist and misogynist for doing it.

Edit to add: And, what would Skepchicks like Watson know about "good" or "bad" science anyhow? Call me when they've actually DONE some science. The Skeptoid piece about DDT was not "bad science" at all. It just didn't draw the conclusion that the Skepchicks think is the correct one. So, without knowing even how the science is done, or anything about it other than they believe the book Silent Spring is part Bible, the Skepchicks start a war against Brian Dunning, for explaining the science of the topic as it has progressed since the book was published 50 odd years ago...

They disagreed with him; who was it ho was just whining about calling a contrary position an 'attack?" Do you read your own comments?

For defending a child rapist...

Bull. That isn't what Krauss did at all. But, that is what the Skepchicks SAID he did, because they don't care about the truth.[/quote]

Yeah, that's exactly what Krauss did. What else do you call it when someone make excuses for a guy who has confessed in court and been convicted of being a child rapist?

What in here merited the vitriol given her by Watson and the Skepchicks?

Why is it "vitriol" when it comes from the Skepchicks, but not when their critics do it? And again, it's Ann Althouse! Seriously....http://www.balloon-juice.com/?s=althouse&x=0&y=0

Bullshit. Grothe never "went after them." And, attendance of women had gone up every year at TAM, even under Grothe's leadership, EXCEPT THE CURRENT YEAR. Grothe voiced an opinion that over-exaggerating the sexual harassment problem could have led to some women thinking the problem was worse than it is. He didn't name the Skepchicks at all. But, for that opinion, they tried to run him out of town on a rail and have him lose his position at JREF/TAM.

He blamed them without cause, out of the blue (it was clear to anyone who's been paying attention who he was talking about), then he doubled down by lying about the lack of reports about harassment. And no, they didn;t try to get him fired, they tried to get him to LISTEN!

Bull -- he wrote about it as a hypothetical.

NO, not initially. He got called on his erroneous account and subsequently made edits (without noting that he had done so) and claimed he was making a "composite". It didn't start out that way.

And, the incident AS RECOUNTED BY THE WOMAN WHO WAS HANDED THE BUSINESS CARD, is about as horrifying as a woman wearing an "I am not a Skepchick" t-shirt at TAM.

Elyse never said it was "horrifying" she said it was rude, disrespectful and out of line. This is another tactic the Skepchick bashers like to use; pretend that the women are the ones making mountains out of molehills when in fact all they are doing is making perfectly reasonable observations (don't drunkenly proposition a woman in an elevator at 4 in the morning, especially after you've just sat and listed to her explain why it makes her uncomfortable to be treated as a sex object in what should be professional setting and then expressed her desire to go to her room to sleep; don't pas naked pictures to people you don't know when they are at work...). It is, in fact, the critics, like Dawkins in his "dear Muslima" rant and Klein with his dishonest article you here, who are inflating things.

[Badger3k]

Since this is as good a place as any, is this an example of hate speech?



This was at the end of a twitter link that she called "hate speech" (the original image is in the original post).

How can you even talk to someone who considers that "hate speech"? It makes a mockery of real hate speech. It's so blown out of proportion it isn't funny, it's sad. I'm not sure if it's just her privilege showing, her ego, or else defining herself with an attitude that equates insulting (or questioning) that as an insult, as many theists do?

What I wonder about is how the other "celebrities" handle all their mail? Do they get all roses and rainbows? Of do they get their "hate mail" too? How do they handle it? Has Justin Bieber gone on ranting about everything he gets? Vanilla Ice? We know Richard Dawkins gets tons - he's responded to some on video, freely available. Yet where are the calls for witch hunts? Why is one different than others?

We have women actually being opressed around the world, including here in the first world, with much more than YouTube comments and email "hate speech". We have atheists being persecuted and killed around the world. We have people being killed in the name of religion and woo (albinos in Africa, anyone?). It's called perspective. Real threats are shit, and shouldn't happen, but they will. If they are real, take action. If they are, as has been shown time and time again, to be words - screw them. Listen to Annie Laurie on Freethought Today. Listen to the hate mail they get. Why haven't they been yelling to everybody - they've been getting it a lot longer, and far worse, than the skepchicks. Somehow they continue to do their work, without breaking down and without freaking out. Why are they different? Is Annie Laurie a gender-traitor?

Comment with disagreement on Pharyngula or Skepchick and see what happens - should everyone whine and go on campaigns? Based on their actions, yes, we should. The ironic thing is that all the calls for action from CFI and whatever other foundations or organizations about threats and tone are just as applicable to the FC5 and the Skepchicks. The call to respect applies to everyone, right? Not just a select group of the days' targets?

ETA - apologies if my argument breaks up a bit. I'm watching the Opening Ceremonies and getting a bit distracted.

[DaveD]

Are you saying that the second half of that pic is being portrayed as hate mail, because it looks to me like the message Rebecca Watson is replying to, and agreeing with?
Ah, should have clicked the link first. I see what you mean. Pathetic.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The butt hurt is awesome.

[Bella Fortuna]

To call such a thing hate speech is despicable, as it invalidates the actual heinous act. I saw far more hate speech at FtB.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To call such a thing hate speech is despicable, as it invalidates the actual heinous act. I saw far more hate speech at FtB.

Well said. Casualization of serious terms reduces the needed impact when serious use is required.

[Ayaan]

Hell, I've had more hateful posted about me at RDF after some mod action.

[DaveD]

I couldn't help thinking of this:

[Bella Fortuna]

[Badger3k]

Hell, I've had more hateful posted about me at RDF after some mod action.

Back in the early Oughts, around the elections of King George, I was posting regularly at another forum, mainly on politics. I would routinely get into it with a right winger, and (as others commented) my posts were filled with facts and links. I got quite a bit of hate from those posts. Same thing sometimes back in the old Internet Infidels days. I won't even bring up the Dungeons and Dragon's forums! Yeeep. Getting into arguments, getting called names, etc - all par for the course. Eventually I was taking it too personally and I stopped cold turkey for a long time. I still have to watch it, but I am a lot mellower now. I recently had a little dustup with a troll, but to be honest, my heart wasn't into it and I didn't give him both barrells. It was pretty stupid.

When my kids get into it because of what someone says, I always tell them - "What does their opinion matter to you?" Someone's opinion matters to me as much as the person matters to me. I may take what they say under consideration - maybe they are correct, after all, but I won't let it get to me personally. All my email that says I need to increase the side of my...pickle....I don't take that personally. I like Apple and PS3 and hate microsoft, but insult away. No skin off my nose. Get drunk in a bar and get in my face...a bit different.

Perspective, right?

[Bella Fortuna]

Indeed.

A dose of humility never went amiss, either.

[Jason]

I'm drunk and horny and I don't give a fuck!

Hey Rebecca, how you doin'? I'm drunk..