Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Recovering Agnostic]

I find all this both fascinating and bizarre. Elevatorgate happened around the time when I started to seriously reconsider my previous beliefs, and I've been aware of the ongoing drama llama situation ever since, without any background, either positive or negative, to colour my response. From that perspective, it all looks jawdroppingly petty and ridiculous.

There are people on either side of this subject who need to wind their necks in, but most importantly, who need to remind themselves of the most fundamental part of skepticism - accepting that you may be wrong. Instead, absolutist rhetoric has turned it into simple tribalism, "them v us", and it seems many people have been completely turned off by being caught in the middle. That's sad, because those people who see problems with both sides of the false dichotomy are the sort of sceptical/skeptical thinkers we need more of.

Unfortunately, many of the most prominent voices at the heart of this whole fiasco are bloggers. I've got nothing against bloggers, obviously, but part of the game (a part I'm not very interested in) is stirring things up, poking a hornet's nest in the hope of generating more activity. No publicity is bad publicity, so the more extreme, outspoken and vitriolic your attacks are, the better. Nuance and compromise can have their place, but they don't do nearly as much for your traffic and profile as a running flame war, so there's a perverse incentive to perpetuate petty bickering. How many hits has this thread alone generated for the various protagonists' latest pot shots?

In fact, I may have to blog about this.

 

[Zelenius]

from pz myers:

Harriet Hall and Amy Roth have reconciled. I’m pleased to hear it; I wasn’t worried about Amy, but Hall was going to hit mantle at the rate she was digging. It is a great relief that she stopped, looked around, and considered her situation thoughtfully, and then responded well.


this guy is the "english" definition of a right twat!

I had a feeling this would backfire. PZ is just too predictable! I personally believe Hall conceded too much, although it looked like this was a good start.

I think we need to be very clear about this "conflict". That PZ Myers and RW have no interest in ending it because they do not benefit from ending it(Surly Amy may be different from them in this regard). They thrive off of this conflict even if it has reduced their reputations to near zero within the skeptic community. They have become more "famous" as a result of this conflict, and enjoy a good reputation among far left atheists who have very little in common with actual skeptics and were always at best on the fringe of the skeptic movement.

The person whose reputation within the skeptic community whose reputation is most threatened by the prolonging of this conflict is Steven Novella. This is why he is working behind the scenes doing all he can to try to bring about a reconciliation. Yet he continues to protect and empower RW on SGU, the ultimate source of this conflict. It is a mystery to many people why RW is still on SGU. Many skeptics are very disappointed in Novella, and see these reconciliation attempts as a belated attempt to save face.

I think these "peace negotiations" may lead to a possible rift between celebrity skeptics and the rank and file of the skeptic movement. The "leaders" of the movement may be perfectly willing to sacrifice skepticism or Harriet Hall at the altar of political correctness to end this ridiculous conflict. They seem to want a bigger tent than the rank and file. But I don't think the ordinary skeptics would be so enthusiastic about this. I wouldn't support this.

If somehow "peace" was achieved and the A-Plussers/Skepchicks/FTB were fully reintegrated into TAM and other skeptical events, this would alienate people(lots of them) who disagree with their politics. If this were to happen, reconciliation isn't worth it.

Just because there is a conflict doesn't mean it requires resolution. Sometimes its just better to part ways, especially if the other side is unreasonable and favors a scorched earth policy when it comes to their enemies. Especially if their goals are contrary to yours.

 

[RandFan]

from pz myers:

Harriet Hall and Amy Roth have reconciled. I’m pleased to hear it; I wasn’t worried about Amy, but Hall was going to hit mantle at the rate she was digging. It is a great relief that she stopped, looked around, and considered her situation thoughtfully, and then responded well.


this guy is the "english" definition of a right twat!

pz's black and white thinking. He's right and everyone else is wrong. If there is any reconciliation then it's a victory for him.

 

[s_pepys]

pz's black and white thinking. He's right and everyone else is wrong. If there is any reconciliation then it's a victory for him.

hes not thinking. just ranting as usual

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I had a feeling this would backfire. PZ is just too predictable! I personally believe Hall conceded too much, although it looked like this was a good start.

I think we need to be very clear about this "conflict". That PZ Myers and RW have no interest in ending it because they do not benefit from ending it(Surly Amy may be different from them in this regard). They thrive off of this conflict even if it has reduced their reputations to near zero within the skeptic community. They have become more "famous" as a result of this conflict, and enjoy a good reputation among far left atheists who have very little in common with actual skeptics and were always at best on the fringe of the skeptic movement.

The person whose reputation within the skeptic community whose reputation is most threatened by the prolonging of this conflict is Steven Novella. This is why he is working behind the scenes doing all he can to try to bring about a reconciliation. Yet he continues to protect and empower RW on SGU, the ultimate source of this conflict. It is a mystery to many people why RW is still on SGU. Many skeptics are very disappointed in Novella, and see these reconciliation attempts as a belated attempt to save face.

I think these "peace negotiations" may lead to a possible rift between celebrity skeptics and the rank and file of the skeptic movement. The "leaders" of the movement may be perfectly willing to sacrifice skepticism or Harriet Hall at the altar of political correctness to end this ridiculous conflict. They seem to want a bigger tent than the rank and file. But I don't think the ordinary skeptics would be so enthusiastic about this. I wouldn't support this.

If somehow "peace" was achieved and the A-Plussers/Skepchicks/FTB were fully reintegrated into TAM and other skeptical events, this would alienate people(lots of them) who disagree with their politics. If this were to happen, reconciliation isn't worth it.

Just because there is a conflict doesn't mean it requires resolution. Sometimes its just better to part ways, especially if the other side is unreasonable and favors a scorched earth policy when it comes to their enemies. Especially if their goals are contrary to yours.

Two things:

1) I suspect the vast majority of people in the "skeptic community" (assuming there even is such a thing) have no idea any of this is going on. I've met lots of skeptics at SitP events, who have never heard of TAM, and many who have never heard of Randi (mostly younger people). Skepticism exists separate from TAM and the JREF.

2) The A+/Skepchick/#FTBullies are a rather small echo chamber...errr...group of people. They don't have the influence you may think they do. Most of their online supporters are people who would never come to TAM or NECSS anyhow.

 

[zooterkin]

Two things:

1) I suspect the vast majority of people in the "skeptic community" (assuming there even is such a thing) have no idea any of this is going on. I've met lots of skeptics at SitP events, who have never heard of TAM, and many who have never heard of Randi (mostly younger people). Skepticism exists separate from TAM and the JREF.

And even at TAM, quite a few people I spoke to were completely unaware of Elevatorgate, and even of the JREF forum.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And even at TAM, quite a few people I spoke to were completely unaware of Elevatorgate, and even of the JREF forum.

Exactly.

 

[Zelenius]

Two things:

1) I suspect the vast majority of people in the "skeptic community" (assuming there even is such a thing) have no idea any of this is going on. I've met lots of skeptics at SitP events, who have never heard of TAM, and many who have never heard of Randi (mostly younger people). Skepticism exists separate from TAM and the JREF.

2) The A+/Skepchick/#FTBullies are a rather small echo chamber...errr...group of people. They don't have the influence you may think they do. Most of their online supporters are people who would never come to TAM or NECSS anyhow.

All the more reason to be rid of them.

But then if this is the case, why are some people like Novella trying to reconcile with them as if they are indispensable?

 

[Foolmewunz]

PZ to stir the pot and go back to pitbull mode... I'd give it roughly 1:1.

Well, that was my surest bet! No million dollars for me, then.

 

[Zelenius]

And even at TAM, quite a few people I spoke to were completely unaware of Elevatorgate, and even of the JREF forum.

To me, this kind of ignorance is actually a good thing. I'm glad there are skeptics who have better things to do. To think I was once one of them. I wasn't even aware of Elevatorgate for months after it happened and didn't voice my opinion on it until much later(some time in late 2012 I believe). It just got harder to ignore it, especially with all these people claiming Dawkins is a sexist and a racist.

For some reason, I am sure one side of the conflict is a lot more disappointed to hear there are skeptics who have never heard about Elevatorgate than the other.

One side can't shut up about it, and even uses the podium to launch attacks on those who disagree; the other just wants to carry on with its business and almost never makes any noise about this, except to occasionally defend itself.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

But then if this is the case, why are some people like Novella trying to reconcile with them as if they are indispensable?

Because he likes both Amy & Harriet. As do I (although I only know Harriet in passing). I think it's more a matter of not wanting two of your friends fighting.

 

[WillyWonka]

Because he likes both Amy & Harriet. As do I (although I only know Harriet in passing). I think it's more a matter of not wanting two of your friends fighting.

Same here, I like both of them. I can certainly see why Steve want to resolve the issue between them, as it has more to do with miscommunications than anything else. And since Harriet is not interested in a flame war, and Amy is probably tired of the whole issue, they were willing to burry the hatchet and move on. Good on them, and kudos to Steve.

Unfortunately, PZ has shown that some people are not willing to let go, yet.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

From that perspective, it all looks jawdroppingly petty and ridiculous.

That's how it looks to this lifelong atheist, too.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've been thinking about this whole "your right to freedom of speech ends where me being offended starts" thing. I really hope that none of the atheists on Atheist+ have ever, say, criticised Islam in any way. Or spoken negatively about the God of the Bible. Or, indeed, expressed the thought that atheism is a more logical position than theism.

Because, you know, there are plenty of religious people who get offended by things like that. By their own logic, therefore, they should never voice those opinions.

 

[jhunter1163]

I've been thinking about this whole "your right to freedom of speech ends where me being offended starts" thing. I really hope that none of the atheists on Atheist+ have ever, say, criticised Islam in any way. Or spoken negatively about the God of the Bible. Or, indeed, expressed the thought that atheism is a more logical position than theism.

Because, you know, there are plenty of religious people who get offended by things like that. By their own logic, therefore, they should never voice those opinions.

To take this argument to its logical conclusion, no one should ever express any opinion, as someone somewhere will surely be offended by it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Indeed. As far as I'm concerned, there is no right not to be offended. I want to have the right to say offensive things, and I think people should have the right to offend me.

It's as they say - it's easy to be an advocate of free speech, as long as you're defending speech you agree with. It's defending the right of people to say things that you find abhorrent that's indicative of truly believing in free speech.

 

[WillyWonka]

I've been thinking about this whole "your right to freedom of speech ends where me being offended starts" thing. I really hope that none of the atheists on Atheist+ have ever, say, criticised Islam in any way. Or spoken negatively about the God of the Bible. Or, indeed, expressed the thought that atheism is a more logical position than theism.

Because, you know, there are plenty of religious people who get offended by things like that. By their own logic, therefore, they should never voice those opinions.

At least it would mean that PZ would have to stop saying anything, which, for many, would not be a bad thing...

 

[tsig]

Is not!

Er... I mean, "No more of your piesplaining. You're finished in this thread because my anxiety level is rising at the mere thought of someone who doesn't recognize the superiority of peach pie."

I prefer freeze peach pie.

 

[Myriad]

To take this argument to its logical conclusion, no one should ever express any opinion, as someone somewhere will surely be offended by it.

As I've mentioned before in this thread, the A+ position on the paramount authority of personal experience already rules out any sort of pro-atheism advocacy, though I'm not sure any of them have actually realized that yet. It's not only a matter of taking offense. Once less-privileged theists learn to truthfully say "I feel that billboard with the pro-atheist message is nullifying my personal experiences" instead of "it offends me," the A+ faction can no longer condone the billboard without obvious hypocrisy.

It would be ironic if instead, they of all people ended up agreeing with my own position on theism, which is that it should be considered primarily a matter of personal experience, rather than primarily as a matter of belief in (let alone the actual truth of) particular narratives. On that level neither their atheism nor anyone else's theism can be challenged (though specific practices associated with theism or atheism can still be challenged on various bases). Maybe they'd be happy with that; if so, it would actually be very consistent with the rest of their discourse, if not with their name.

But otherwise, they have a problem. Ask my developmentally disabled twin brother where God is, and he'll put his hand over his own chest and say "in here." Any A+ atheist who wants to dispute the truth of that without blatant ableism is welcome to try. If they claim to know better than him because they're more intelligent, better educated, more versed in spotting logical fallacies, or whatever, I can tell them, based firmly on their own principles, to go insert deceased quilled fauna into their ableist-privilege-smeared orifices.

These problems (or insights, depending on how you view them) don't occur if the discussion stays at the level of what can be shown scientifically to be overwhelmingly likely or unlikely. In other words, skepticism. But they're the ones that seem to want to assess ideas on the basis of personal experiences instead.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Quinn]

the A+ position on the paramount authority of personal experience already rules out any sort of pro-atheism advocacy,

Not only that, but it effectively flies in the face of the basic tenets of critical thought. One of the foundations of critical thinking is wrapping your head around the counterintuitive, difficult-to-accept, often painful fact that when it comes to separating fact from fiction, people's personal experiences and memories -- yes, including yours -- aren't worth much. The fact that you may have been marginalized, traumatized or victimized doesn't change that fact. Yet somehow I get the feeling that this isn't a popular concept over at A+

I am all in favor of taking steps to make things better for people who have been marginalized and oppressed. I am not in favor of playing make-believe to accommodate them.