The Civil War Within Skepticism

[Robert_S]

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.

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.

There are those who are dangerously absurd. I thought that it would be absurd to get robbed over less than $100.00US. But that meant very little when I was looking into the "Oh, Shit!" end of a revolver...

[Audley Strange]

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.

You will be unsurprised that I disagree. This is a manner identical to skepchicks. I am using it as an example, do not take it personally.

"Fuck you you fucking girlyboy pussy!! You Misandrist fucks just don't fucking GET IT. all that oestrogen has made you weak, grow a pair, Why don't you shut up and LISTEN??! Pappa ban this intolerant fucking faggot!!"

So, you will be unsurprised that I disagree.

I have no personal animosity towards Skepchicks as individual human beings, I think the Radical Feminist horseshit they spout is pernicious. I am attacking the ideas, however, Radical feminism demands that the personal be made political, that anecdote is objective evidence and thus they take criticisms to their ideology as attacks on themselves and respond in kind by playing the victim card and maligning others. That is what they do. That is what Radical Feminism has always done (when it's not shooting artists or claiming all men are rapists or suggesting women fire fighters can drag unconscious people downstairs by the legs, or saying that men are essentially a disease) That is the tactics of Radical Feminism since the 70's. I am not angry with them because I've seen it first hand for quite a lot of my life in different fields and expect such from them. I am disappointed at everyone else who legitimise their insane bullshit as being a reasonable position which has to be respected.

Logically, a group of extremely vocal high profile non-skeptics in a skeptic movement devalues the skeptic movement no matter what their ideology is. As I have said many many times, it doesn't matter to me if it's feminism, Libertarianism, Socialism or Liberalism that is trying to edge it's agenda into skepticism, to do so necessitates as you say a conversation.

This is the conversation as it stands.

"A perceived sexual advance makes me feel uncomfortable."

"Fair enough."

"Do not make sexual advances."

"What?"

"It's harrassment!"

"Not by any reasonable definition of harrassment."

"You are not legitimising my emotions, you are a misogynist. Look I get rape mails! Why don't you just shut up and LISTEN?"

" Well that's irrelevant to your complaint, which does seem trivial, but it might be relevant to your underlying perception, provide evidence?"

"Oh blame the victim! Fuck you Misogynist, rape enabling vermin!"

"Go fuck yourself you dumb man hating cunt, see two can play that game. Do you want to discuss this rationally now?"

"You called me a cunt, you PROVED I was right."

Why do you think there should be an attempt at that point to continue reasoned debate if one side is entirely unwilling to accept any form of criticism and has a specific agenda and tactic for dismissing any questions by villification? That is not communication is it?

It is not ironic since I am entirely aware I am villifying their position. However I can provide evidence that Radical Feminism is born from misandry, a paranoid conspiracy theory which has devalued the women's movement by being a batshit insane attack group that uses the victim card to stifle debate to the extent that a lot the intellectual weight behind feminism stopped identifying as Feminists when they became the first wave of "gender traitors".

Radical Feminism deserves to be villified in my opinion because it is reactionary and revisionist and is not looking for reasoned debate. You either accept their ideology or you are the enemy. Since this has specifically been overtly male negative (and insidiously female negative) the reaction is not framed by them as "hmmm do they have a point?". Instead that reaction has become as I said a self fulfilling prophecy in which they have become further isolated and entrenched by that belief system.

They are NOT skeptical. They are not open to discussion. In fact I would suggest that more reasonable discussions about them have taken place when they are not involved. However then they complain they are being excluded from that conversation. However they are not interested in conversation, they are only interested in acquiescence to their position.That is totalitarianism.

Now since you are reasonably discussing this on their behalf (noble of you) explain to me exactly why you think we should keep the lines of communication open to Totalitarian ideologues within the Skeptic movement, or why you think they are not Totalitarian ideologues.

[rachelbean]

Audley, I just wanted to say I really appreciate your posts

[Ayaan]

So do I, Audley.

[Posse Comitatus]

SORRY to be late to the party but since logging back in her I've seen so many references to skepchicks in so many (frequently bizarre) places/scenarios (the Pappa/rape thing I happened across only yesterday). Who are they, how did they end up being so influential/disruptive? I've also only ever seen them referred to negatively. What do they do good?

[Bella Fortuna]

Wow, Audley, you have said everything that I have nebulously felt but could not quite put into words. Thank you; I have immense respect for you.

[SteveB]

SORRY to be late to the party but since logging back in her I've seen so many references to skepchicks in so many (frequently bizarre) places/scenarios (the Pappa/rape thing I happened across only yesterday). Who are they, how did they end up being so influential/disruptive? I've also only ever seen them referred to negatively. What do they do good?

I know they ended up being influential by hosting sexy bordello-themed parties and posing for nude calendars. I wish they had stayed the same.

[Pappa]

Wow, Audley, you have said everything that I have nebulously felt but could not quite put into words. Thank you; I have immense respect for you.

[Jason]

The real question here is







Would you hit it?

[Jaygray]

Excellent post Audley!

[Posse Comitatus]

The real question here is







Would you hit it?

BUT THIS IS MEAN

[Thinking Aloud]

Who's that?

[Jason]

Some chick.

[Audley Strange]

Muahahaha, soon my Echo Chamber, soon, ve shall take over ze Vulrd!!!

[Bella Fortuna]

Muahahaha, soon my Echo Chamber, soon, ve shall take over ze Vulrd!!!

Looking like this would help...