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: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Clinton Huxley » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:48 pm

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!
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Image
User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
 
Posts: 23076
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Seth » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:50 pm

Organizing Atheists = herding cats
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
 
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Coito ergo sum » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:51 pm

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.
Coito ergo sum
 
Posts: 32039
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Gallstones » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:53 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Actually, the point is that there is a very large schism in the atheist/skeptic community that has grown from the kernel of "Elevatorgate" and is now causing supposedly freethinking blogs like Freethought Blogs run by prominent atheists/skeptics like PZ Myers to ban people for mere expressions of opinion.
There is no large schism, just an obsessed minority who keep propping it up to keep it alive on a tiny and insignificant part of the internet. The banning of people from blogs et al for thier opinions is unremarkably common.

Richard Dawkins thought it was important enough to comment last year,
A year of this? The obsession is really starting to look pathological.

and since then the issue has ballooned.
Not really.

If some of you don't give a fuck, then why would you comment in the thread? Is it your habit to go through all threads about which you have no fucks to give, and notify everyone of said dearth of fucks?
Why not? People are as free to share their opinions on this topic as any other. No where does it say you have to like it.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
 
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Hermit » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:58 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:If some of you don't give a fuck, then why would you comment in the thread?
Coz. :razzle: Start whining when someone creates a whole quiver of threads on one single topic.
There were arguably different topics originally.
They are scenes from the same soap opera. I don't think they are worth the footprint they take up as separate threads. Merge them, I say, under the title: The Skepchick Saga Kerfuffle.
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 16450
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Pappa » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:04 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:It's likely that most threads are not relevant to the interests of most people. The fact that this particular thread drew several people, immediately, to suggest that they don't give a fuck about it implies that there is something interesting about the topic. It implies to me that "I don't give a fuck" means more like -- "I wish the issue would just go away," not that it is a nonissue.

Plainly it is an issue. To suggest that it is a nonissue about which no fucks ought to be given, moreover, places one in the anti-Myers camp on this one. Because those opposing the PZ Myers stance are those, like ThunderfOOt, who believe that "sexual harassment" at atheist and skeptic events is a comparatively minor issue.


No, it doesn't mean "I wish the issue would just go away". It means "This issue isn't worth giving a fuck about".

It's not the first time PZ, Dawkins and others have got themselves overly frothy because someone on the Internet had a loud and stupid opinion, and it won't be the last. The respond irrationally at times, just like everybody else. Quelle surprise!
User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
 
Posts: 56246
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Clinton Huxley » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:07 pm

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.

They can be used as synonyms but I think they have a very subtly different connotation.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Image
User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
 
Posts: 23076
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Coito ergo sum » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:14 pm

Gallstones wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Actually, the point is that there is a very large schism in the atheist/skeptic community that has grown from the kernel of "Elevatorgate" and is now causing supposedly freethinking blogs like Freethought Blogs run by prominent atheists/skeptics like PZ Myers to ban people for mere expressions of opinion.
There is no large schism, just an obsessed minority who keep propping it up to keep it alive on a tiny and insignificant part of the internet. The banning of people from blogs et al for thier opinions is unremarkably common.


This is incorrect -- as the whole concept of sexual harassment in at conventions, Elevatorgate, Swingergate, hate mail, sexism, misogyny, and objectification, etc., have congealed into a single schism. And, it's not insignificant, given the players -- PZ Myers, Thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins, Greg Laden, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Dunning (Skeptoid), etc. Interest is taken by a large number of atheists and skeptics, given that these issues generate more discussion and commentary than most other issues. It's far more significant, I daresay, than any issue you regularly post on, Gallstones. There are countless youtube videos about it, countless blogs, forum discussion threads by the hundreds, and varying opinions across a broad cross-section of the atheist/skeptic community, including big names.


Gallstones wrote:
Richard Dawkins thought it was important enough to comment last year,
A year of this? The obsession is really starting to look pathological.


It isn't a year of discussing Elevatorgate. There are issues that have arisen constantly since then, and it's not me and others raising the issues. I respond to issues raised by the PZ Myers/Skepchick crowd, not the other way around. Are you suggesting THEY are pathological about the issues they keep raising? Why would their raising of the issues not be pathological, but responses to them be pathological?

Gallstones wrote:
and since then the issue has ballooned.
Not really.
It's inarguable that it has ballooned. Look at Thunderf00ts blogs and video blogs on Youtube. Countless thousands are talking about these issues, and it's ever increasing. You'll find podcasts about it, Skepchicks doing radio/podcast interviews suggesting the seriousness of these issues. You'll find that the drum has been beaten on this issue constantly.

Gallstones wrote:
If some of you don't give a fuck, then why would you comment in the thread? Is it your habit to go through all threads about which you have no fucks to give, and notify everyone of said dearth of fucks?
Why not? People are as free to share their opinions on this topic as any other. No where does it say you have to like it.


Why not indeed. The question is, why pick this thread? This isn't the first time you've seen fit to excoriate commentary on these issues. You don't do it with respect to other threads, though. Why? Why is this thread drawing your ire?

You are absolutely free to do that here, yes. It is generally considered derailing, however, to refrain from talking about the topic, and instead focus on how unworthy of commentary you feel the topic is. It would be like me going to a thread you created and harping on about how dumb I think the topic is. The netiquette, generally, is to talk about those topics you feel are worthy of your comment, and just not visit those threads you don't think are worthy of comment.

That isn't to say you don't have a right to do what you want. Comment all you like, no matter how pointless, noncontributory, derailing, off-topic, and otherwise stupid the comments you make might be. I would never suggest that you should be banned. But, just as you have the right to comment on how pointless the thread is, I may likewise comment on how asinine your posts are.

Enjoy.
Coito ergo sum
 
Posts: 32039
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Coito ergo sum » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:17 pm

Pappa wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:It's likely that most threads are not relevant to the interests of most people. The fact that this particular thread drew several people, immediately, to suggest that they don't give a fuck about it implies that there is something interesting about the topic. It implies to me that "I don't give a fuck" means more like -- "I wish the issue would just go away," not that it is a nonissue.

Plainly it is an issue. To suggest that it is a nonissue about which no fucks ought to be given, moreover, places one in the anti-Myers camp on this one. Because those opposing the PZ Myers stance are those, like ThunderfOOt, who believe that "sexual harassment" at atheist and skeptic events is a comparatively minor issue.


No, it doesn't mean "I wish the issue would just go away". It means "This issue isn't worth giving a fuck about".

It's not the first time PZ, Dawkins and others have got themselves overly frothy because someone on the Internet had a loud and stupid opinion, and it won't be the last. The respond irrationally at times, just like everybody else. Quelle surprise!


So, do you think the sexual harassment allegations raised by Skepchicks/Myers camp, such as Elevatorgate, Swingergate, etc., are much ado about nothing much?
Coito ergo sum
 
Posts: 32039
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Gallstones » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:21 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Pappa wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:It's likely that most threads are not relevant to the interests of most people. The fact that this particular thread drew several people, immediately, to suggest that they don't give a fuck about it implies that there is something interesting about the topic. It implies to me that "I don't give a fuck" means more like -- "I wish the issue would just go away," not that it is a nonissue.

Plainly it is an issue. To suggest that it is a nonissue about which no fucks ought to be given, moreover, places one in the anti-Myers camp on this one. Because those opposing the PZ Myers stance are those, like ThunderfOOt, who believe that "sexual harassment" at atheist and skeptic events is a comparatively minor issue.


No, it doesn't mean "I wish the issue would just go away". It means "This issue isn't worth giving a fuck about".

It's not the first time PZ, Dawkins and others have got themselves overly frothy because someone on the Internet had a loud and stupid opinion, and it won't be the last. The respond irrationally at times, just like everybody else. Quelle surprise!


So, do you think the sexual harassment allegations raised by Skepchicks/Myers camp, such as Elevatorgate, Swingergate, etc., are much ado about nothing much?


I think it is totally conflated into a drama of the minority. Dropping names doesn't raise it to the level of an issue.
It is a made for the internet soap opera.

Have you read your signature lately?
So you are offended and upset--so fucking what.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
 
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Pappa » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:23 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Pappa wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:It's likely that most threads are not relevant to the interests of most people. The fact that this particular thread drew several people, immediately, to suggest that they don't give a fuck about it implies that there is something interesting about the topic. It implies to me that "I don't give a fuck" means more like -- "I wish the issue would just go away," not that it is a nonissue.

Plainly it is an issue. To suggest that it is a nonissue about which no fucks ought to be given, moreover, places one in the anti-Myers camp on this one. Because those opposing the PZ Myers stance are those, like ThunderfOOt, who believe that "sexual harassment" at atheist and skeptic events is a comparatively minor issue.


No, it doesn't mean "I wish the issue would just go away". It means "This issue isn't worth giving a fuck about".

It's not the first time PZ, Dawkins and others have got themselves overly frothy because someone on the Internet had a loud and stupid opinion, and it won't be the last. The respond irrationally at times, just like everybody else. Quelle surprise!


So, do you think the sexual harassment allegations raised by Skepchicks/Myers camp, such as Elevatorgate, Swingergate, etc., are much ado about nothing much?


For the very vast majority of what I've read about it, yes.
User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
 
Posts: 56246
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Gallstones » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:27 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Actually, the point is that there is a very large schism in the atheist/skeptic community that has grown from the kernel of "Elevatorgate" and is now causing supposedly freethinking blogs like Freethought Blogs run by prominent atheists/skeptics like PZ Myers to ban people for mere expressions of opinion.
There is no large schism, just an obsessed minority who keep propping it up to keep it alive on a tiny and insignificant part of the internet. The banning of people from blogs et al for thier opinions is unremarkably common.


This is incorrect -- as the whole concept of sexual harassment in at conventions, Elevatorgate, Swingergate, hate mail, sexism, misogyny, and objectification, etc., have congealed into a single schism. And, it's not insignificant, given the players -- PZ Myers, Thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins, Greg Laden, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Dunning (Skeptoid), etc. Interest is taken by a large number of atheists and skeptics, given that these issues generate more discussion and commentary than most other issues. It's far more significant, I daresay, than any issue you regularly post on, Gallstones. There are countless youtube videos about it, countless blogs, forum discussion threads by the hundreds, and varying opinions across a broad cross-section of the atheist/skeptic community, including big names.


Gallstones wrote:

Richard Dawkins thought it was important enough to comment last year,
A year of this? The obsession is really starting to look pathological.


It isn't a year of discussing Elevatorgate. There are issues that have arisen constantly since then, and it's not me and others raising the issues. I respond to issues raised by the PZ Myers/Skepchick crowd, not the other way around. Are you suggesting THEY are pathological about the issues they keep raising? Why would their raising of the issues not be pathological, but responses to them be pathological?

Gallstones wrote:
and since then the issue has ballooned.
Not really.
It's inarguable that it has ballooned. Look at Thunderf00ts blogs and video blogs on Youtube. Countless thousands are talking about these issues, and it's ever increasing. You'll find podcasts about it, Skepchicks doing radio/podcast interviews suggesting the seriousness of these issues. You'll find that the drum has been beaten on this issue constantly.

Gallstones wrote:
If some of you don't give a fuck, then why would you comment in the thread? Is it your habit to go through all threads about which you have no fucks to give, and notify everyone of said dearth of fucks?
Why not? People are as free to share their opinions on this topic as any other. No where does it say you have to like it.


Why not indeed. The question is, why pick this thread? This isn't the first time you've seen fit to excoriate commentary on these issues. You don't do it with respect to other threads, though. Why? Why is this thread drawing your ire?

You are absolutely free to do that here, yes. It is generally considered derailing, however, to refrain from talking about the topic, and instead focus on how unworthy of commentary you feel the topic is. It would be like me going to a thread you created and harping on about how dumb I think the topic is. The netiquette, generally, is to talk about those topics you feel are worthy of your comment, and just not visit those threads you don't think are worthy of comment.

That isn't to say you don't have a right to do what you want. Comment all you like, no matter how pointless, noncontributory, derailing, off-topic, and otherwise stupid the comments you make might be. I would never suggest that you should be banned. But, just as you have the right to comment on how pointless the thread is, I may likewise comment on how asinine your posts are.

Enjoy.


You grossly exaggerate the importance of this Skepchick thing, and your own opinions.
You get all butt hurt by mine and predictably launch into personalizations. Weak.
You make shit up and treat it as if it really happened.

I care as much about you commenting in any thread I start as I do about this alleged schism.

BTW it isn't ire--yours is the ire repeated over and over and over and over again.
Last edited by Gallstones on Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
 
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Coito ergo sum » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:29 pm

Pappa wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Pappa wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:It's likely that most threads are not relevant to the interests of most people. The fact that this particular thread drew several people, immediately, to suggest that they don't give a fuck about it implies that there is something interesting about the topic. It implies to me that "I don't give a fuck" means more like -- "I wish the issue would just go away," not that it is a nonissue.

Plainly it is an issue. To suggest that it is a nonissue about which no fucks ought to be given, moreover, places one in the anti-Myers camp on this one. Because those opposing the PZ Myers stance are those, like ThunderfOOt, who believe that "sexual harassment" at atheist and skeptic events is a comparatively minor issue.


No, it doesn't mean "I wish the issue would just go away". It means "This issue isn't worth giving a fuck about".

It's not the first time PZ, Dawkins and others have got themselves overly frothy because someone on the Internet had a loud and stupid opinion, and it won't be the last. The respond irrationally at times, just like everybody else. Quelle surprise!


So, do you think the sexual harassment allegations raised by Skepchicks/Myers camp, such as Elevatorgate, Swingergate, etc., are much ado about nothing much?


For the very vast majority of what I've read about it, yes.


That was the opinion taken by Thunderf00t, and those in his camp.

The schism, the civil war, appears to center around those who think it is such a big deal that anyone expressing the opinion you just expressed ought to be banned from "freethought" blogs (aka PZ Myers and Skepchick camps), and those that are saying "hey, wait just a cotton picking minute here" (which is the Thunderf00t, and apparently the Pappa, camp, as well as the Dawkins camp, among others). So, you are on a side of this civil war. It's kind of like many civil wars -- it's hard to be neutral, because being "neutral" or "apathetic" or "indifferent" or "not giving a fuck" puts you four-square against the Myers/Skepchick wing of the skeptical movement, and right in line with Thunderf00t et al.
Coito ergo sum
 
Posts: 32039
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Pappa » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:32 pm

You're grossly exaggerating the importance of all this.
User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
 
Posts: 56246
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Clinton Huxley » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:32 pm

As Crusades go, this is on a par with the Fourth.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Image
User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
 
Posts: 23076
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Wilder Web

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests