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 PsychoSerenity » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:17 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
PsychoSerenity wrote:No it doesn't, - I can also not give a fuck that Thunderf00t got himself banned from blog that I don't read, and think that his making a video about it is just as self-obsessed and irrelevant as some of the stuff Skepchick keeps going on about. I really don't think this is going to shatter the core of scepticism.


PsychoSerenity wrote:I'm not saying I don't give a fuck about the thread, I'm saying I don't give a fuck about the argument between Thunderf00t, Myers and Skepchick. This thread is about you declaring an internet argument to be a "War Within Skepticism" that is somehow important enough that everyone who considers themselves a sceptic must be on one side or another. Most people in this thread seem to be saying they think you're wrong and that they don't think it's that big a deal.


However, if one "doesn't give a fuck" about the issue, then by definition almost one doesn't think the problem identified by the Skepchicks and Myers is a big problem at all. That is precisely what Thunderf00t argued. So, in a very real sense, not giving a fuck is siding with Thunderf00t on that issue.

If you do think the problem identified by Skepchicks and Myers is, indeed, a serious issue in need of a remedy, then, again, you have picked a side.

Right? Or, is there a third option that I'm missing?


To clarify further, I'm also not saying that I don't give a fuck about the issue (sexual harassment and what is acceptable behaviour at conferences etc.), I'm saying I don't give a fuck about the argument between Thunderf00t, Myers and Skepchick, and I don't think it's anywhere close to a "civil war".

Coito ergo sum wrote:Where I see the serious importance, though, is in the fact that prominent and influential skeptics, relatively speaking, are having an impact, and the ridiculous views of the Skepchicks, white knighted by folks like PZ Myers, and their myriad followers, are starting to take hold as almost the prevailing view of things. This is why we're seeing Skepchick-esque "policies" being adopted by conferences and conventions. That's what caused Thunderf00t to comment, really. The PoLOLicy (as he put it) adopted by a convention to "remedy" the supposed sexual harassment "problem."

If the Skepchicks start saying what we can and can't do at a Ratz meet, then I might pick a side.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
PsychoSerenity
"I" Self-Perceive Recursively
 
Posts: 7333
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Devon, UK

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby maiforpeace » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:22 pm

Pappa wrote:Yes there is the third option of not giving a fuck about what any of them think.


:ask:

CES, do you even attend any of these conventions?
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~

Image
User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
 
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Coito ergo sum » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:23 pm

maiforpeace wrote:
Pappa wrote:Yes there is the third option of not giving a fuck about what any of them think.


:ask:

CES, do you even attend any of these conventions?


Yes, I've been to some.
Coito ergo sum
 
Posts: 32039
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Hermit » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:29 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I launched into personalizations? This is typical your bullshit, Gallstones.
:irony:

In addition to this irony, there is another. I seem to recall that it was you who started with the personal comments here: "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?"
That isn't a personal comment at all. It's a question.
It's a question alright, but a rhetorical one, don't you think? With that question you were commenting on another member's frame of mind, rather than the topic itself. Gallstones, on the other hand said what she thought of the topic, and then noted as an aside that you feel offended by the skepchooks' actions and attitudes. Then you decided to focus on that.

For the record, I regard the skeppy crowd as a bunch of neurotic, airheaded, selfabsorbed circle wankers whose main function seems to be to serve as acolytes of two megalomanaical queen bees one of whom is an utter airhead, the other a virtuoso of tabloidism, and both of them totally selfabsorbed. I wouldn't dream of spending anywhere near as much time and effort on reading their shit and commenting on it as you do. Lordpasternack's obsession seems a more worthwhile one, and I think she has a better chance of making a material difference with hers than you do with yours.
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 15931
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Coito ergo sum » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:35 pm

Hermit wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I launched into personalizations? This is typical your bullshit, Gallstones.
:irony:

In addition to this irony, there is another. I seem to recall that it was you who started with the personal comments here: "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?"
That isn't a personal comment at all. It's a question.
It's a question alright, but a rhetorical one, don't you think? With that question you were commenting on another member's frame of mind, rather than the topic itself.


No, I was suggesting that it's ridiculous to come to this thread and say how much you don't give a fuck about it, because if you did that for this thread, why would you not do it for other threads? Asking that question illustrates that point.

Hermit wrote:
Gallstones, on the other hand said what she thought of the topic,
No, she did not say what she thought about the topic. She said that she didn't care about the topic. If someone were to comment about the topic, they would say something substantively to contribute to the discussion. Saying you don't give a fuck about it isn't that.

Hermit wrote: and then noted as an aside that you feel offended by the skepchooks' actions and attitudes. Then you decided to focus on that.


I don't think she did say that. In any case, I don't "feel offended" by their actions and attitudes. I disagree with them.


Hermit wrote:For the record, I regard the skeppy crowd as a bunch of neurotic, airheaded, selfabsorbed circle wankers whose main function seems to be to serve as acolytes of two megalomanaical queen bees one of whom is an utter airhead, the other a virtuoso of tabloidism, and both of them totally selfabsorbed. I wouldn't dream of spending anywhere near as much time and effort on reading their shit and commenting on it as you do. Lordpasternack's obsession seems a more worthwhile one, and I think she has a better chance of making a material difference with hers than you do with yours.


Good. There you go. Yet another personalization. Now, if I were to retort in kind, I'm sure I would get some sort of whine back that I, the responding party, am doing something wrong, or making it personal. This is precisely what Gallstones did. If you throw a rock at someone, don't be surprised if they respond.
Coito ergo sum
 
Posts: 32039
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Hermit » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:20 pm

:dq:
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 15931
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby laklak » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:39 pm

Pappa wrote:Yes there is the third option of not giving a fuck about what any of them think.


The fourth option - just enjoy the lulz.
User avatar
laklak
 
Posts: 12198
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
Location: on the beach, drinking a beer
About me: Assault weapon aficionado

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Pappa » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:06 pm

laklak wrote:
Pappa wrote:Yes there is the third option of not giving a fuck about what any of them think.


The fourth option - just enjoy the lulz.


The fifth option - wanking.
User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
 
Posts: 56199
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 Coito ergo sum » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:09 pm

Pappa wrote:
laklak wrote:
Pappa wrote:Yes there is the third option of not giving a fuck about what any of them think.


The fourth option - just enjoy the lulz.


The fifth option - wanking.

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

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby maiforpeace » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:10 pm

Pappa wrote:
laklak wrote:
Pappa wrote:Yes there is the third option of not giving a fuck about what any of them think.


The fourth option - just enjoy the lulz.


The fifth option - wanking.


Isn't that what everyone is already doing? :lol:
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~

Image
User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
 
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Gallstones » Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:18 pm

:ddpan:
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 6:27 pm

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

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Robert_S » Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:38 pm

I don't know if I'd call this a civil war in Skepticism.

But I will say that, and the mess at RDF highlights the need for an even more diverse movement.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
Location: Illinois
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby rasetsu » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:38 pm


Image

Image
User avatar
rasetsu
la belle fleur de la géhenne
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: "Worlds sundered, cheap."

Re: The Civil War Within Skepticism

Postby Gallstones » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:23 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
You grossly exaggerate the importance of this Skepchick thing, and your own opinions.
It's not just Skepchicks. It's Pharyngula, PZ Myers, James Randi Foundation, TAM, Greg Laden, Ophelia Benson, DJ Grothe, and hundreds of bloggers, commenters, etc. The discussion threads are rife with discussions of these issues.

Gallstones wrote:You get all butt hurt by mine and predictably launch into personalizations. Weak.


I launched into personalizations? This is typical your bullshit, Gallstones. You come here for the sole purpose of attacking me (see above reference to "pathological" etc.), and to derail the thread by pointing out how worthless you think the topic is, and then you bitch, piss and moan when I respond? Give me a break.


!?

You!?

:funny:

:roll:

Gallstones wrote:You make shit up and treat it as if it really happened.


Like what?

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


That doesn't change the fact that you popping up in a thread for the sole purpose of talking about how uninterested you are in the thread is pointless and stupid. You could be spending your time in more relevant and worthwhile threads like "Listening Too: The Fifth Galaxy" where you wowed the crowd by posting a youtube video. That thread is worth so many more fucks. Why don't you give them over there?


This thread isn't worthy of anything. It gets what it gets.

You don't own the thread.
You don't own the discussion.
I will post what I please, where I please, when I please.
I don't owe you any particular comments or any particular regard or any particular style of participation.
If you don't like it, use your analog block--your scroll wheel.

You can drop the persecution complex, it is unseemly and only makes obvious the power you give to me over your emotions.

But thanks for mentioning how you follow my posting.
Yes I do like to post videos from time to time.
If I find one that fits this topic, I'll be posting one here too.
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.

PreviousNext

Return to The Wilder Web

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests