|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/17/2012 : 23:51:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Of course not. There are people who are experts in that area. That's their interest. Among us there are a wide variety of interests, and they are all good. Those who become interested in UFO's or ghost debunking become great resources for the rest of us. Why place a value judgment on it? There is plenty of room for people to specialize in whatever interests them. |
The atheists you were reading weren't placing value judgments on having a specialty, they were judging the people who won't stand up and say, "that's wrong, too," when shitty behavior is occurring within the community of which they claim to be a part. If public and famous skeptics won't speak out against the hate within their own groups, then they're of no use to those who prioritize the fight against hate, no matter how good a resource they are for less-important (in their minds) issues.
Protest against Sylvia Browne? Good on ya, you may save thousands of people some money. Use gendered slurs while protesting against Sylvia Browne? You become part of a much bigger problem than self-proclaimed psychics bilking the desperate. Defend your use of gendered slurs? You become another source of a problem that affects billions of people and ruins (and even ends) lives on a daily basis.
Everyone makes value judgments every day, Kil. There's no avoiding it, you make one when deciding what to have for breakfast, forcryinoutloud. Choosing to avoid the "infighting" or "nastiness" around harassment issues (for example) is a value judgment, and those atheists you're reading are effectively saying that the skeptics who stay out of the social-justice fights are making wrong value judgment on that issue.
Also:| Good thing skepticism isn't limited to those pursuits. |
But some skeptics do limit their pursuits in just that way. Famous skeptics, who could wield their influence to good ends on issues they are instead specifically and publicly avoiding. They proudly and smugly declare themselves "above the fray" (which hypocritically enters them into the fray, and generally on the wrong side of it) and go back to analyzing purported Mars monolith images and think they are morally superior to those other skeptics (who happen to be atheists because of their skepticism) who are standing up to misogyny and racism.
And while they're certainly not immune to the same bullshit, the proportion of famous atheists taking this stance is much, much smaller. The skeptical attitude that leads one to value open atheism seems to be much more open to moral arguments than the skeptical attitude that leads one to specialize as a debunker of psychics (for example). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2012 : 00:22:34 [Permalink]
|
Wow! Let me know when the list of demands will arrive. Or have they already? So what are you going to do with Dawkins? Is he out of the club too?
Welp. Thanks for the lecture. I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. I'm not kidding.
Here's a thought from one of my feminist skeptic friends:
Heidi Anderson:
On the idea that the skeptic movement needs feminism. I disagree. I think skepticism need not be a movement, but a training ground offering tools for people to make the movements they are interested in stronger.
Feminism needs skepticism. Atheism needs skepticism. Every fucking ism out there needs skepticism, and none more so than "organized" skepticism. |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2012 : 06:12:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Wow! Let me know when the list of demands will arrive. Or have they already? |
It's in the same envelope with yours every time you think, "it is wrong for people to do _______."| So what are you going to do with Dawkins? Is he out of the club too? |
Hey, freedom of association implies the freedom to not associate with people you don't want anything to do with. I'm sure there are some people out there who won't attend events Dawkins has been invited to, just like there are people who won't attend events Abbie Smith will be at, and there are people who won't attend TAM or support JREF any longer, and there are people who now say, "fuck Movement Skepticism" and "fuck Movement Atheism." I'm not sure I've seen anyone publicly state such a strong reaction to Dawkins, but I figure that law of large numbers applies. If you want to consider that sort of thing to be kicking people out of the club, so be it.| Welp. Thanks for the lecture. I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. I'm not kidding. |
We've literally kicked people out of our little club here for being assholes on a small scale, I don't know why you'd be disturbed about people wanting to get rid of the large-scale assholes within "the Movements."Here's a thought from one of my feminist skeptic friends:Heidi Anderson:
On the idea that the skeptic movement needs feminism. I disagree. I think skepticism need not be a movement, but a training ground offering tools for people to make the movements they are interested in stronger.
Feminism needs skepticism. Atheism needs skepticism. Every fucking ism out there needs skepticism, and none more so than "organized" skepticism. |
|
The second paragraph is absolutely true, of course. And obviously the people who are disgusted with Movement Skepticism right now aren't going to stop applying skepticism to their prioritized -isms out of spite.
But the first paragraph... what can I say? Movement Skepticism exists. It is an attempt to celebrate and spread the value of skepticism (to get more people to consciously use skepticism in their lives), and as part of that mission, the Movement values inclusion. But so long as the Movement is perceived as rejecting the values of feminists, atheists, etc., those people will reject the Movement. And as I've said before, people who prioritize feminism (for example) won't embrace the skeptical Movement unless the Movement can demonstrate the utility of skepticism to their priorities. In other words, if Movement Skepticism wants feminists to join in and help spread Movement values, then Movement Skepticism is going to have to embrace feminism. It certainly can't reject feminism, which is what a bunch of feminists perceived the JREF as doing recently. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2012 : 06:43:52 [Permalink]
|
Also speaking out against hate directed at women are...- Michael de Dora, Director of Public Policy and the U.N. Representative for the Center for Inquiry, and
- Paul Fidalgo, Communications Director for the Center for Inquiry.
I hadn't read the last one until just now, but he's saying the same things I've been saying. He discusses what makes a movement a movement, and then concludes:So here is my opinion (not necessarily that of my employer). If you don’t share the goals outlined above, if you think it’s cool or funny or even necessary to debase or threaten women, then you’re just not part of the movement, even if you think you are. Because if making a fairer, better world is not your goal, then what are you fighting for? The right to terrorize people? The right to feel superior? Them’s small fries, my friend. You can do better.
If you’re not interested in doing better, you’re not part of this movement. You may be a skeptic, you may be an atheist, but you’re not part of this grand project. You’re not helping.
So of course I strongly echo the sentiments already expressed in this series. The kind of loathsome behavior we’ve seen directed at women in recent months is reprehensible, embarrassing, and shameful. It’s beneath any civilized human, but it’s outright unconscionable for those who profess to be part of this community, of this movement. We are better than that. Are you?
I mean, we get it. The Bible and the Koran are fiction and there’s no evidence for Bigfoot. So now what?
I’m going to join the movement that’s working on the “now what.” I’ll see you there when you’re ready to help. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2012 : 11:36:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Here's a thought from one of my feminist skeptic friends:
Heidi Anderson:
On the idea that the skeptic movement needs feminism. I disagree. I think skepticism need not be a movement, but a training ground offering tools for people to make the movements they are interested in stronger.
Feminism needs skepticism. Atheism needs skepticism. Every fucking ism out there needs skepticism, and none more so than "organized" skepticism. |
|
I think feminism need not be a movement, but a training ground for offering tools to make the movements they are interested more inclusive. Skepticism needs feminism. Atheism needs feminism. Political activists need feminism. Etc.
I say this only to point that Heidi isn't actually making an argument, merely stating her own personal priorities. Both feminism and skepticism are value systems and they are movements. Which is more important? I think that's a misguided question. Feminism and skepticism are entirely complimentary, ideally with each informing the other.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/18/2012 11:36:57 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2012 : 13:04:06 [Permalink]
|
My concern is there are people, very good skeptics like Heidi, who are thinking about these things. I didn't say she is correct. But there seems to be this attitude that a large part of the skeptical community is deaf or casting a blind eye to the issue. Even with DJ's bumbling efforts, he did something. It was very far from perfect. And the debate is going on at the JREF forums too. There is plenty to criticize. Granted. But it certainly isn't the leadership of the JREF, bumbling as they may have be, that are sending out or approving of the assholes that are posting horrible things directed at Surly Amy. I know DJ to be a very decent guy. And I really doubt that Surly Amy would not agree.
Harassment policies aside, up until this episode, I can't think of an organization that has not only welcomed woman as a priority, but has pushed to get them to TAM and created a speaker list that was over half female as the JREF has done. Not good enough? Perhaps. Do they need to do something? Sure. But they shouldn't be held responsible for every assholes attacking RW and Surly Amy. One of the first videos that they released was Pamela Gay's talk. I think doing that makes a statement because she was clearly supporting RW, Surly Amy and feminism in general in our movement. If she is delivering a black eye to the JREF, it's not as though they are hiding from it. They didn't have to release that video just now. And I have no doubt that Gay will keep attending TAM and be welcome there in the future.
As for generalizing about skeptics, while it might be a bit to quiet over at the JREF, as they figure out what to do (which is my guess) the CFI and the CSI has not been silent, as Surly Amy's list of people coming down on the issue is proof of it. They too are skeptics. And they are a skeptical organization that is much bigger than the JREF. I wonder if Surly Amy has asked DJ to weigh in? But considering how much animosity there is toward him now, my guess is that anything he says will be considered opportunistic and disingenuous. He's in a no win situation. I'm not saying he didn't put himself there, but that's where he is.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2012 : 23:02:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But it certainly isn't the leadership of the JREF, bumbling as they may have be, that are sending out or approving of the assholes that are posting horrible things directed at Surly Amy. |
No, they're just not speaking out against the assholes. Silence on the part of leaders is part of the problem, which is the motivation behind Surly Amy's series of posts.
JREF leadership blamed a victim of harassment for the decline in female participation. JREF leadership argued with a victim of harassment about whether or not that harassment was "properly" reported. JREF leadership failed to tell people who chose to harass a TAM sponsor to GTFO, and instead made the victim feel even more uncomfortable. For these and other reasons, JREF leadership appears to have decided that their preferred definition of harassment is very narrow, narrow enough that they will tolerate people creating an unwelcoming and hostile environment towards major players in the community so long as there's no physical contact, and even then the onus is on the victim to have the guts to overcome a history of thousands of years of victim-blaming.
It's not enough that the JREF was first to seek gender equity. The JREF took a step forward in 2011, and then in 2012 took three or four steps backward in how they dealt with feminist issues. And people have decided that that's not good enough, especially not with other leaders of other groups speaking out in no uncertain terms that similar behaviors will not be tolerated at all. Whatever the intent of JREF leadership has been, those intentions don't magically mitigate the harm they've been complicit in tolerating by remaining silent. And some people have decided that they don't need the JREF in order to be good skeptics, and that their money would be better donated elsewhere if JREF leadership is going to appear to be acting against their interests.
And nobody is claiming that all the assholes are in the JREF (although a rather surprising number of people are specifically blaming the SkepChicks and TfB for seeking to "harm" and/or "destroy" TAM [by ironically asking JREF to institute policies that would make TAM more welcoming]). Thunderf00t, Abbie Smith, Russel Blackford, Paula Kirby and other "big name" assholes don't seem to have much invested in the JREF in particular, but they make claims to being a part of the Movement(s), as is the JREF, and some people have decided that they want nothing to do with a movement that includes people and groups who welcome and/or defend those assholes. CFI and CSI are doing good things, but they aren't "the Skeptic Movement" (but only a part of it) and the whole thing isn't a zero-sum game in which a little good stuff can negate a little bad stuff: people are free to opt for movement purity, and some are. As I said before, if the "big tent" gets too big, everyone loses. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2012 : 07:47:50 [Permalink]
|
Jen McCreight calls for a new wave of atheism:I don’t want good causes like secularism and skepticism to die because they’re infested with people who see issues of equality as mission drift. I want Deep Rifts. I want to be able to truthfully say that I feel safe in this movement. I want the misogynists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and downright trolls out of the movement for the same reason I wouldn’t invite them over for dinner or to play Mario Kart: because they’re not good people. We throw up billboards claiming we’re Good Without God, but how are we proving that as a movement? Litter clean-ups and blood drives can only say so much when you’re simultaneously threatening your fellow activists with rape and death. She also notes that DJ Grothe defriended her on Facebook and blocked her on Twitter. She adds:I was welcome at TAM when I was talking about a boob joke, but now I’m persona non grata for caring about sexual harassment. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2012 : 09:01:33 [Permalink]
|
Well here's where I'm at. I have lectured people about objectifying woman, even here on SFN because I'm a feminist. I have made the case that porn is objectifying, and so on. I get uncomfortable when value is placed on looks even when it's meant as compliment to a women scientist. "Not only is she smart, but..." Smart is enough, and that kind of observation seems to only be used when the skeptic is a woman. That observation is sexist. I don't know if I'm a feminist activist, but I'm definitely sensitive to feminist issues. It was a no brainer to argue for RW when that bullshit went down. Same for Surly Amy. I do think the JREF bungled the harassment policy part of the job, even though they did address the issue as mentioned in my post above. I'm not sure what the deal is, but I doubt that DJ is sexist or anti feminist no matter how it appears. Hell... I've talked to him.
I've never been a big fan of the Ftblogs, not because I have anything against atheism, but atheist activism isn't my thing. I support it, but it isn't central to my interests. I also take exception with the tone of the blogs sometimes, and really, as much as some people think ridicule is a good weapon, I see it as a weapon of last resort and not particularly productive at that because once it's used, it's pretty much a signal that the discussion is over. There are all these issues. Scope, feminism, out front harassment policies (which I approve of and is the reason why I told one high up skeptic that there will be blow back.)
Like Heidi, I think promoting critical thinking should top the list of those things I advocate for, because I'm a skeptical activist. But at the same time, I bring my social concerns with me because they are a part of me. They comes naturally to me. I don't have to work at confronting someone who says something stupid or sexist and so on, anymore than on any other subject that comes up that I strongly don't agree with. I did it at TAM when the subject came up.
On the other hand, suggesting that some of the experts in whatever it is they do isn't good enough if they don't speak up publicly is going too far. For example, I'm not going to cast David Gorski or Steven Novella aside because they haven't made feminism a cause they promote. They have other things to do. My guess is that neither of them are sexist in any way and that both of them would confront someone who was out of line. RW is in fact on Steven's SGU panel. I'm sure they talk about it.
I guess what I'm saying is that the movement isn't the sketpic/feminismisnt movement. It's the skeptical movement. I'm cool with making feminism one of our issues, but I'm not cool with forcing skeptics to also be feminist activists anymore than I'm cool with the skeptic/atheist movement as though they should be one and the same. And too often in these discussion, it feels like that's what is being called for. Feminism is the right way to be and atheism is a conclusion. But skepticism is about tools. Tools that should logically lead to both feminism and atheism. Attack sexism and racism and religion as you would any other issue that can't be supported by any logic that I know of. But please don't tell me that Pamela Gay should not be a strong voice in the skeptical movement because she's also a Christian. (By the way. I don't give the same latitude to sexist behavior because it's hateful. I don't think there's a hateful bone in Pamela Gay's body. And no one here is saying that there is. But I've seen her attacked as "not a skeptic.") Ironically, or not, it was Gay who delivered the anti sexism message at TAM which included a strong endorsement of the Skepchics while wearing one of Surly Amy's necklesses.
Make feminism your issue. Find the experts, bring on the studies and introduce it as something that should be addressed from a skeptical perspective. I'm all for it.
I still won't spend much time at the FtBlogs because while I will argue against religion, and especially claims made by the religious that can be debunked (which does have the effect of arguing against religion) like Swiss said, it's not my main issue though I have nothing against those make it their main issue.
I'm all over the map because I am a supporter of critical thinking, skepticism and science. And that's where I'm coming from. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2012 : 10:11:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I guess what I'm saying is that the movement isn't the sketpic/feminismisnt movement. It's the skeptical movement. I'm cool with making feminism one of our issues, but I'm not cool with forcing skeptics to also be feminist activists... |
Nobody is. The problem is that certain skeptical and atheist activists are actively opposed to feminism, and shit all over the people who have decided to become feminist activists. These people think they have good, skeptical reasons to oppose feminism, and advocate within the skeptical movement for their views. And the silence from skeptical leaders in response to a hundred little acts of hate lends them support.
The feminist activists are saying that if skeptical leaders want to support feminism, that'd be awesome, but at the very least those leaders shouldn't be tacitly condoning the activities of those who are working hard (obsessively, even) to see the feminists fail.| And too often in these discussion, it feels like that's what is being called for. |
Appearances can be deceiving, apparently. In conversations with you, DJ Grothe appears to be a nice guy. When his audience is larger, it feels like he is supporting the assholes. The vast majority of people who are deciding whether or not to support the JREF and TAM don't get to have personal conversations with Grothe, and so have only his public displays with which to judge whether his values are in-line with their own.
And David Gorski made it clear that he felt it was a mistake for him to enter the discussion of sexism even to just berate Ophelia Benson for her Hitler analogy. While he might take someone to task on his own blogs for stepping over the line, I don't think there's a good chance that he would speak out against the harassment of women he likes at conferences he attends, for example. From what I remember of his comments a couple of months ago, he seemed to think that all of the discussion was beneath him (not that it's just not his thing, but that he was openly contemptuous that the discussion was being had at all). And that's when I chose to stop reading him, despite Respectful Insolence having been one of my favorite blogs. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2012 : 13:11:22 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and this:Originally posted by Kil
But skepticism is about tools. |
But the skeptical movement is about politics, principles and people. Advocating for skepticism is to publicly state that you think more people should use those tools. But if some people within the movement are going to dump on, harass and threaten half the intended audience with impunity, then the movement will drive them and their political allies away.
Yes, the tools can be separated from the movement, but the movement can't be separated from the character and values of the people who comprise the movement. While skepticism is just a set of methods for evaluating claims, TAM (for example) is nothing less than a plea for people to join with and support the JREF's political positions, and people are free to say "no, not until those positions change."
Advocacy groups like JREF and CFI seek to use member donations to do public outreach projects and lobby for public policy changes. It is not only acceptable but necessary that donors be able to influence what the groups' goals are, simply by getting to pick where their limited resources go. And if enough people decide to only give to skeptical organizations which are also social-justice organizations, then those groups which refuse to conform to the donors' desires will see their funding dry up, and all that will be left will be the skepti-feminist movement.
(An aside: many people are claiming that the JREF board and leadership are chock-full of libertarians, who should embrace the above as the free market in action, but who also seem to be betting on the wrong horse.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2012 : 14:07:29 [Permalink]
|
The gazillions of comments that Jen's post is getting are overwhelmingly, unequivocally in favor of movement evolution. There's broad support for calling it "Atheism-Plus," or "A+," and a commenter provided a logo:
And here's how one commenter explained things to a detractor who complained about conflation of goals implicit in the new "A+" movement:A+ denotes lack of god-belief that is the result of critical thinking and skeptical inquiry.
Critical thinking and skeptical inquiry, applied to questions of social inequality, lead inevitably to recognition of privilege and the need to fix inequality.
Of course there are people who are atheists because nobody ever taught them about gods, or because all their friends are atheists and it seems cool.
But they’re hardly going to be organizing any sustained campaigns for social change, are they?
Personally, I believe in A+, progressive skepticism, or whatever you want to call it, because I passionately believe that EVERY person should be taught critical thinking and have access to the tools that skeptical thinking provides. In order to do that successfully, you have to take into account where people are at, what their experiences are, what their interests and most pressing problems are. Thus, in order to succeed, organized skepticism must embrace diversity.
Voila. But uh-oh, a different Deep Rift™ is forming already:Jadehawk came up with “intersectional atheism” and she was designing logos before it was even cool.
http://jadehawks.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/fematheism2.png
https://twitter.com/IamJadehawk/status/236999907880341504 And here's Jadehawk offering more logos.
This certainly isn't your average sizzling-with-negativity FtB comment thread. Edited to add: ...until the first real asshole showed up at comment #148. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2012 : 16:31:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
(An aside: many people are claiming that the JREF board and leadership are chock-full of libertarians, who should embrace the above as the free market in action, but who also seem to be betting on the wrong horse.) |
I don't think that's true. Maybe those people should be looking over at the Skeptic Sociaty with Michael Shermer at the helm. But even there, I happen to know that the staff (at least the co-founder and people like Loxton) have fought against Shermers promotion of libertarianism.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2012 : 16:59:35 [Permalink]
|
I like the A+ logo for skeptical atheism and social justice. I made a little version of the logo based directly from the Out Campaign logo.
|
| Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 08/19/2012 17:05:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Rebecca Watson Not Appearing at TAM
