The Civil War Within Skepticism

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:25 pm

LOL -- I haven't confirmed this, but apparently Dawkins has ribbed the Skepchicks a bit again.... I love it. I met him once and didn't find him particularly friendly or personable, but I have to say, he can tickle the ribs once in a while... http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... -campaign/

You just have to love the Skepchicks. They get their panties in a twist over Dawkins giving them a little bit of a poke, but they feel no hesitation in saying something like this:
@dELYSEious Don't worry. His old, wrinkled, and impotent jimmies have been thoroughly rustled AND he's given you free publicity!
Ageism? And, hateful statements about medical conditions? (impotence is generally a treatable medical condition, often related to blood flow and issues affecting blood flow, etc.). Gotta love it!

Dawkins, out of order for being a bit cheeky about the "hug me" campaign of the Skepchicks...but, totally in order to respond to it by denigrating his age and penile functionality (basically assuming that his cock doesn't work and laughing about it....). http://skepdirt.wordpress.com/2012/07/1 ... t-all-wet/

User avatar
Jaygray
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by Jaygray » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:20 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:LOL -- I haven't confirmed this, but apparently Dawkins has ribbed the Skepchicks a bit again.... I love it. I met him once and didn't find him particularly friendly or personable, but I have to say, he can tickle the ribs once in a while... http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... -campaign/

You just have to love the Skepchicks. They get their panties in a twist over Dawkins giving them a little bit of a poke, but they feel no hesitation in saying something like this:
@dELYSEious Don't worry. His old, wrinkled, and impotent jimmies have been thoroughly rustled AND he's given you free publicity!
Ageism? And, hateful statements about medical conditions? (impotence is generally a treatable medical condition, often related to blood flow and issues affecting blood flow, etc.). Gotta love it!

Dawkins, out of order for being a bit cheeky about the "hug me" campaign of the Skepchicks...but, totally in order to respond to it by denigrating his age and penile functionality (basically assuming that his cock doesn't work and laughing about it....). http://skepdirt.wordpress.com/2012/07/1 ... t-all-wet/
RD has used so few words to make his point, they could easily fit on a t-shirt! :twisted:

As for the Skepchicks, hypocrisy is a good word. Not least because it has four syllables and is therefore incomprehensible to them.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by colubridae » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:04 pm

JimC wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:I'd like to sit down and be counted! I'm indifferent and proud!
Is it ignorance or apathy?

I don't know, and I don't care.
It's neither. It's indifference. Read the source material!
Apathy and indifference are synonyms. They both mean lack or absence of interest.
I disagree. Apathy has a distinctly negative connotation, indifference has not...
If it's in your ear, it's in different. :rimshot:
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by Animavore » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:46 am

Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by hadespussercats » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:09 pm

orpheus wrote:My current default strategy for internet arguments:

Image
http://xkcd.com/1081/
 hades likes this.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by hadespussercats » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:19 pm

Animavore wrote:OUCH!

http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... bully.html

Cataclysmic ownage.
That was an interesting article.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:24 pm

This guy skewers Freethoughtblogs here --- nice: http://root2squared.wordpress.com/2012/ ... ughtblogs/

User avatar
Jaygray
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by Jaygray » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:08 pm

A link that may be of some moment to this problem:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by DaveDodo007 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:36 pm

Jaygray wrote:A link that may be of some moment to this problem:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
I read it an it is a brilliant blog post. I remember when I was an undergraduate in the far too distant past when some people tried to pull this crap on me. I always answered 'Don't give me that Kafkaesque crap, I'm wrong and if I don't admit I'm wrong then I'm even wronger, shove it up your arse.' That usually did the trick. Though that article takes it to a whole new level.

Kafkatrapping: Classic and (will soon be) coming to a dictionary near you. :lol:
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Badger3k
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:42 pm
About me: Just talkin' claptrap. Lilith Rules!
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by Badger3k » Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:21 am

More comments about here, although without any links to the actual material. How skeptical.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2012 ... apologist/

Here's a nice bit:
After being a few rounds of laughs at the Skepchicks expense, his own forum members criticized him and he apologized for the joke’s offensiveness and “lameness”. (*edit this is the word choice in the apology not mine)However, to date I haven’t seen an apology for publicly shaming the Skepchicks, and having a laugh at their expense in the skeptic community. Whether you agree with Skepchicks or not do they deserve gender based hatred directed at them in the form of pondering raping them as a joke to shut them up?

The original ranter I quoted continues trivializing the numerous rape threats Watson got as mere trolling, and to be expected as a public personality. Is anything Watson ever said or done worthy of hundreds of threats written with the intent of shaming her with threats of violence?
Is anything that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, James Randi...have they done anything worthy of hundreds of "threats" as well? Or are they, as Thnderf00t says, just trolls making Watson and her clique dance to their tune? Of course, that leaves out that the dancing does generate hits and revenue, and keeps her in the limelight despite a singular lack of talent. So far, I can't think of one rape threat posted by them (and they ban people for asking for evidence) that isn't the same as Watson says "I receive emails saying I should be raped". Threat? Seriously?

:coffeespray:

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by Pappa » Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:24 am

Why does everyone keep assuming I was suggesting I wanted them to shut up? I never said that. I just said they are annoying.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by hadespussercats » Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:14 am

Pappa wrote:Why does everyone keep assuming I was suggesting I wanted them to shut up? I never said that. I just said they are annoying.
You pondered in a joking vein whether or not it would be okay to rape one because she was annoying.

Within the joke context there (I know you weren't serious), what would be the goal of raping someone for being annoying?

The only obvious answer (to me) is to shut her up. So she wouldn't be so annoying anymore.

:dunno:
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by Audley Strange » Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:53 am

Badger3k wrote:More comments about here, although without any links to the actual material. How skeptical.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2012 ... apologist/

Here's a nice bit:
After being a few rounds of laughs at the Skepchicks expense, his own forum members criticized him and he apologized for the joke’s offensiveness and “lameness”. (*edit this is the word choice in the apology not mine)However, to date I haven’t seen an apology for publicly shaming the Skepchicks, and having a laugh at their expense in the skeptic community. Whether you agree with Skepchicks or not do they deserve gender based hatred directed at them in the form of pondering raping them as a joke to shut them up?

The original ranter I quoted continues trivializing the numerous rape threats Watson got as mere trolling, and to be expected as a public personality. Is anything Watson ever said or done worthy of hundreds of threats written with the intent of shaming her with threats of violence?
Is anything that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, James Randi...have they done anything worthy of hundreds of "threats" as well? Or are they, as Thnderf00t says, just trolls making Watson and her clique dance to their tune? Of course, that leaves out that the dancing does generate hits and revenue, and keeps her in the limelight despite a singular lack of talent. So far, I can't think of one rape threat posted by them (and they ban people for asking for evidence) that isn't the same as Watson says "I receive emails saying I should be raped". Threat? Seriously?

:coffeespray:
Hmm... I read that article and it got me thinking. What evidence would a skepchick need to produce to satisfy an ideological opponent's view of what constitutes a "rape threat" and how easy is it for another person who does not like them or their ideology to dismiss it as mere "trolling". It becomes a tricky business then does it not? Since if one does not think they have legitimate concerns then one is likely to dismiss their claims as being part of their "agenda."

This is where I have a problem. I utterly and totally despise Radical Feminism, I think it is as stupid and pernicious as every other separatist and supremacist ideology and deserves to be torn apart like all the other pernicious ideologies that have plagued us. If they were Islamic radicals most people would be calling for moderate Muslims to oust them from their community and yet like Islam, the Women's movement, by and large, tuts a bit and attempts to see their point and defend their insane bullshit rather than call them on it being insane bullshit.

However, just because they believe insane bullshit does not mean that they do not genuinely think they are being treated maliciously. I recognise that, I recognise and made comments about such happening to female gamers by utter fucking pricks and how disheartening it is. I have empathy. I had empathy enough to consider that perhaps their complaints were muddled contexts in which they saw themselves as "Talent", so to speak, at conventions rather than punters and that they did not appreciate being treated like participants rather than professionals. Christ, my first reaction to her elevator complaint was it was a fair enough point until I thought further upon it. It's all here if anyone can be bothered to look.

So I kind of see what they might be trying to communicate through their rhetoric, but here's the thing that article seems to miss, I don't fucking care, not because I'm a misogynist, but because giving any credence to their pernicious belief system is to reinforce it and because they do not wish to enter into debate. They have convinced themselves they are right and anything that challenges their belief enforces their belief. It becomes a self fulfilling, self destructive prophecy. Such things have disastrous consequences.

In a way it reminds me of the Branch Davidians, by believing the Government was Babylon that would bring about the apocalypse, they stored guns for their own battle of armageddon which in turn brought the shitheels of the ATF down upon them. Do you remember that? Remember how they were all holed up in there for weeks, under fire and cut off from the real world with tanks shooting flames at them, c.s gas thrown at them and loudspeakers keeping them awake with the noises of slaughtered animals and helicopter searchlights streaming in through the window. Before they all died by fire and their burned children driven over by those same tanks. How the fuck could they NOT think what they believed was coming true? The government, to them, revealed itself as the monster they always knew it was.

As I have said, Radical Feminism has got away with bullying society for too long. No one ever seriously challenged their horseshit in political or social movements before, because to do so was to be deemed Sexist, Misogynist, Un-person. People lost careers in the past for even raising the slightest concerns. They have allied themselves with the most vile fuckers imaginable in the past, including crazy fundamentalists who actively coached young children to believe they had been sexually abused by Satanic cults when it never happened. Many of the Radical Feminists were the first out claiming "we believe the children." It seems to me akin to a group sociopathy in which emotion is the only value standard, kind of like the opposite of actual misogynists like Ted Bundy had no feelings or emotions

However they are trying to insinuate themselves into a movement which prides itself in being contrary, pedantic bastards who demand evidence, not speeches and they are finding out their weaponised emotions are powerless against them, for the first time people are actively questioning their reactionary and revisionist narrative and they do not have a fucking clue how to react other than to play the victim.

Should I worry if Neo-Nazi's get hate mail? Should I get upset if Jihadi's get death threats? They're human being too, problem is sometimes human beings are actually the enemy of humanity.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by Pappa » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:45 am

hadespussercats wrote:
Pappa wrote:Why does everyone keep assuming I was suggesting I wanted them to shut up? I never said that. I just said they are annoying.
You pondered in a joking vein whether or not it would be okay to rape one because she was annoying.

Within the joke context there (I know you weren't serious), what would be the goal of raping someone for being annoying?

The only obvious answer (to me) is to shut her up. So she wouldn't be so annoying anymore.

:dunno:
I understand that. But it's a meaning that needs to be read into what I said, and was never explicitly stated. Fwiw, the concept of shutting them up never occurred to me when I was writing the OP. I just picked "because they're so annoying" because I was intentionally choosing a ridiculously trivial reason. I assumed the obvious absurd triviality of it would ensure nobody could take it seriously. I obviously made a major miscalculation in that respect too.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:15 am

Audley Strange wrote:
This is where I have a problem. I utterly and totally despise Radical Feminism, I think it is as stupid and pernicious as every other separatist and supremacist ideology and deserves to be torn apart like all the other pernicious ideologies that have plagued us. If they were Islamic radicals most people would be calling for moderate Muslims to oust them from their community and yet like Islam, the Women's Movement, by and large, tuts a bit and attempts to see their point and defend their insane bullshit rather than call them on it being insane bullshit.

However, just because they believe insane bullshit does not mean that they do not genuinely think they are being treated maliciously. I recognise that, I recognise and made comments about such happening to female gamers by utter fucking pricks and how disheartening it is. I have empathy. I had empathy enough to consider that perhaps their complaints were muddled contexts in which they saw themselves as talent, so to speak, at conventions rather than punters and that they did not appreciate being treated like participants rather than professionals. Christ, my first reaction to her elevator complaint was it was a fair enough point until I thought further upon it. It's all here if anyone can be bothered to look.

So I kind of see what they might be trying to communicate through their rhetoric, but here's the thing that article seems to miss, I don't fucking care, not because I'm a misogynist, but because giving any credence to their pernicious belief system is to reinforce it and because they do not wish to enter into debate. They have convinced themselves they are right and anything that challenges their belief enforces their belief. It becomes a self fulfilling, self destructive prophecy. Such things have disastrous consequences.

In a way it reminds me of the Branch Davidians, by believing the Government was Babylon that would bring about the apocalypse, they stored guns for their own battle of armageddon which in turn brought the shitheels of the ATF down upon them. Do you remember that? Remember how they were all holed up in there for weeks, under fire and cut off from the real world with tanks shooting flames at them, c.s gas thrown at them and loudspeakers keeping them awake with the noises of slaughtered animals and helicopter searchlights streaming in through the window. Before they all died by fire and their burned children driven over by those same tanks. How the fuck could they NOT think what they believed was coming true? The government, to them, revealed itself as the monster they always knew it was.

As I have said, Radical Feminism has got away with bullying society for too long. No one ever seriously challenged their horseshit in political or social movements before, because to do so was to be deemed Sexist, Misogynist, Un-person. People lost careers in the past for even raising the slightest concerns. They have allied themselves with the most vile fuckers imaginable in the past, including crazy fundamentalists who actively coached young children to believe they had been sexually abused by Satanic cults when it never happened. Many of the Radical Feminists were the first out claiming "we believe the children." It seems to me akin to a group sociopathy in which emotion is the only value standard, kind of like the opposite of actual misogynists like Ted Bundy had no feelings or emotions

However they are trying to insinuate themselves into a movement which prides itself in being contrary, pedantic bastards who demand evidence, not speeches and they are finding out their weaponised emotions are powerless against them, for the first time people are actively questioning their reactionary and revisionist narrative and they do not have a fucking clue how to react other than to play the victim.

Should I worry if Nazi's get hate mail? Should I get upset if Jihadi's get death threats? They're human being too, problem is sometimes human beings are actually the enemy of humanity.
The problem here Audley is that you end up engaging in a manner identical to the Skepchicks themselves. For in your attempt to reference what is wrong with them, you inadvertently reveal the very same attributes yourself. I am not entirely sure you see, or are even aware, of the irony here. I can sympathise with your anger, but is this a natural default position for skeptics? I think not.

One must always use logic, rather than emotion, when addressing any issue, and feminism is no different. Your personal animosity is preventing you from engaging positively. This is not the way to proceed. The way things are going, many on both sides of this debate, will only be receptive to the sounds emanating from their respective echo chambers. No one can therefore lay claim to moral superiority.

It is fundamental that one focuses on the ideas here and not the individuals. Attack the former by all means, but never the latter. This should be an absolute when engaging in discourse. One abandons it at one's peril. It is not conducive to greater understanding or wisdom. I always try to do so. There is not much point otherwise. I know you disagree with this as pertaining to the Skepchicks, but it nevertheless is true.
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests