Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[squealpiggy]

It's worth remembering that this is an individual who begged for money on the Internet because she had "cancer" (unconfirmed), then bragged about the $400 pair of shoes she bought with a portion of the proceeds.

If anyone wants to they can respond to this accusation, but Greta just doesn't have the time to do that right now.

Yeah right, and everything Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bachman say equates to the right wing political movement

I don't think anyone is claiming that PZ Myers is representative of left wing politics, just that he is trying to make the atheism movement an offshoot of left wing politics. Which of course it is not.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

http://skepchick.org/2013/09/how-skepchick-got-booted-from-dragoncon-today/

Love the implication that was clearly implied rather than claimed that it was a MRA anti-feminist plot rather than a compounded lack of apparently unclear rules and a lack of reading the rules for selling things at their event...rather than, more likely, a huckster or two that paid for their spaces complaining about the rules, that I expect they understand well, being violated rather than some "agent" or "SP" or "non-person" rules-lawyering to oppress them.

Another perspective on "tablegate":

http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.php/2013/09/the-credibility-of-skepchicks-tablegate/

I noticed myself that RW's tweets at the time didn't quite match up with her account in that article.

 

[blutoski]

I don't think anyone is claiming that PZ Myers is representative of left wing politics, just that he is trying to make the atheism movement an offshoot of left wing politics. Which of course it is not.

Well... where is that written, though?

This is not a new schism. One (not the only) reason Mike Shermer split off CSICOP and spun his own organization was that he strongly objected to CFI's left-wing-ish message, which they felt was the logical conclusion of adopting a Secular Humanist ethic. CSICOP, CSH, and CFI were all completely controlled by Paul Kurtz at the time.

Basically Shermer's preference for Welfare Capitalism vs Kurtz' perference for Market Socialism.

That was 20 years ago, and my feeling is that over time this particular source of friction between CSI and Skeptics Society has become gradeually less important over time as the skeptical societies diluted their mandates.

To put this another way: the question of whether skepticism should be a vehicle for any particular social/political/economic 'movement' is the age-old question of: "what, exactly, is skepticism?" - Shermer believed skepticism included advocating for free market solutions. Reasoning: because skepticism is critical thinking, and you can apply critical thinking to any topic, and the free market is the best solution per critical thinking, so all (true) skeptics must be coming to the same conclusion and therefore skepticism is just as much about free market advocacy as it is about vaccination advocacy.

My local Vancouver Skeptics group believes it's marching in the Pride Parade to support gay rights.

Paul Kurtz felt it included a mandate to support abortion rights.

There was a time when atheism advocacy was tied at the hip to Communism.

Daniel Loxton thinks none of the above are appropriate for skepticism.


This relates to my earlier statements about recruiting inertia - people of all walks of life are drawn into skepticism (which is great) but they often have formed an early view based on the slice of skepticism that first engaged them. For example, if you were brought into skepticism through watching Penn & Teller's ********! it would be a shock to later learn about the modern movement's origin in the left wing politics of its founder Paul Kurtz. They may not be really aware that Shermer, P&T, Stephen Milloy, and others have been regarded as 'pushing a right-wing / libertarian agenda' within skepticism over the last 20+ years (because they view those worldviews as self evidently true facts obtained through critical thinking, rather than ordinary value laden political opinions)

 

[squealpiggy]

Well... where is that written, though?

This is not a new schism. One (not the only) reason Mike Shermer split off CSICOP and spun his own organization was that he strongly objected to CFI's left-wing-ish message, which they felt was the logical conclusion of adopting a Secular Humanist ethic. CSICOP, CSH, and CFI were all completely controlled by Paul Kurtz at the time.

Basically Shermer's preference for Welfare Capitalism vs Kurtz' perference for Market Socialism.

That was 20 years ago, and my feeling is that over time this particular source of friction between CSI and Skeptics Society has become gradeually less important over time as the skeptical societies diluted their mandates.

To put this another way: the question of whether skepticism should be a vehicle for any particular social/political/economic 'movement' is the age-old question of: "what, exactly, is skepticism?" - Shermer believed skepticism included advocating for free market solutions. Reasoning: because skepticism is critical thinking, and you can apply critical thinking to any topic, and the free market is the best solution per critical thinking, so all (true) skeptics must be coming to the same conclusion and therefore skepticism is just as much about free market advocacy as it is about vaccination advocacy.

My local Vancouver Skeptics group believes it's marching in the Pride Parade to support gay rights.

Paul Kurtz felt it included a mandate to support abortion rights.

There was a time when atheism advocacy was tied at the hip to Communism.

Daniel Loxton thinks none of the above are appropriate for skepticism.


This relates to my earlier statements about recruiting inertia - people of all walks of life are drawn into skepticism (which is great) but they often have formed an early view based on the slice of skepticism that first engaged them. For example, if you were brought into skepticism through watching Penn & Teller's ********! it would be a shock to later learn about the modern movement's origin in the left wing politics of its founder Paul Kurtz. They may not be really aware that Shermer, P&T, Stephen Milloy, and others have been regarded as 'pushing a right-wing / libertarian agenda' within skepticism over the last 20+ years (because they view those worldviews as self evidently true facts obtained through critical thinking, rather than ordinary value laden political opinions)

That's pretty much the point I'm making. Myers is pushing a left wing agenda while Shermer is pushing a right wing or libertarian foundation, while the concept of scepticism in general and atheism in particular are apolitical.

 

[Diogenes]

Another perspective on "tablegate":

http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.php/2013/09/the-credibility-of-skepchicks-tablegate/

I noticed myself that RW's tweets at the time didn't quite match up with her account in that article.

Thanks for the link!

I'd missed before that she actually is self-identifying as a professional blogger...at least as her major source of income.

I just ran across this:

http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Phawrongula_Wiki

that looks like it could be a fun site.

ETA: Looks like I'm just behind the times as much of this is from 2012
http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Freethoughtblogs_timeline

 

[blutoski]

That's pretty much the point I'm making. Myers is pushing a left wing agenda while Shermer is pushing a right wing or libertarian foundation, while the concept of scepticism in general and atheism in particular are apolitical.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: my point was that not everybody agrees that skepticism or atheism are 'nonpolitical' - that has always been a debate. Last I heard, CFI funds a lobbyist in Washington and many skeptic activities involve trying to change public support for proposed changes to legislation.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

Myers is pushing a left wing agenda while Shermer is pushing a right wing or libertarian foundation, while the concept of scepticism in general and atheism in particular are apolitical>>>>>>>>>>>>
To me politics is boring to the nth because you keep hearing the same old arguments with new dressing. Skepticism has flexibility and may cross all lines. I am skeptical of the Bible because of the lack of cohesion for one thing. Still, some of the writers probably had laudable motives in teaching love over hate etc. But sadly they were a product of "flat earth" and "Geo Centric" philosophy which makes their words ring silly. I will never "turn the other cheek" no matter what the preachers say.

 

[Humes fork]

Well... where is that written, though?

This is not a new schism. One (not the only) reason Mike Shermer split off CSICOP and spun his own organization was that he strongly objected to CFI's left-wing-ish message, which they felt was the logical conclusion of adopting a Secular Humanist ethic. CSICOP, CSH, and CFI were all completely controlled by Paul Kurtz at the time.

Basically Shermer's preference for Welfare Capitalism vs Kurtz' perference for Market Socialism.

That was 20 years ago, and my feeling is that over time this particular source of friction between CSI and Skeptics Society has become gradeually less important over time as the skeptical societies diluted their mandates.

To put this another way: the question of whether skepticism should be a vehicle for any particular social/political/economic 'movement' is the age-old question of: "what, exactly, is skepticism?" - Shermer believed skepticism included advocating for free market solutions. Reasoning: because skepticism is critical thinking, and you can apply critical thinking to any topic, and the free market is the best solution per critical thinking, so all (true) skeptics must be coming to the same conclusion and therefore skepticism is just as much about free market advocacy as it is about vaccination advocacy.

My local Vancouver Skeptics group believes it's marching in the Pride Parade to support gay rights.

Paul Kurtz felt it included a mandate to support abortion rights.

There was a time when atheism advocacy was tied at the hip to Communism.

Daniel Loxton thinks none of the above are appropriate for skepticism.


This relates to my earlier statements about recruiting inertia - people of all walks of life are drawn into skepticism (which is great) but they often have formed an early view based on the slice of skepticism that first engaged them. For example, if you were brought into skepticism through watching Penn & Teller's ********! it would be a shock to later learn about the modern movement's origin in the left wing politics of its founder Paul Kurtz. They may not be really aware that Shermer, P&T, Stephen Milloy, and others have been regarded as 'pushing a right-wing / libertarian agenda' within skepticism over the last 20+ years (because they view those worldviews as self evidently true facts obtained through critical thinking, rather than ordinary value laden political opinions)

Wow, I didn't know that Shermer had a history with CSICOP. I knew Randi had though, but Randi has never (to my knowledge) made public his politics and so it seems unlikely he broke with Kurtz over politics.

Speaking of it, didn't Kurtz break with the CFI due to that he felt it had become too atheistic, and put too little emphasis on secular humanism?

I don't think Shermer has ever really pushed his libertarianism. He basically wrote a few blogposts (and a book) explaining why he is a libertarian and how he became one. I have a hard time to find that objectionable. He never said that skeptics must be libertarians and added that due to him being mostly in sciencey circles most of his friends were left-wing liberals.

Daniel Loxton's skepticism is basically anti-paranormalism. He is pretty much exclusively interested in Bigfoot and ghosts and has repeatedly stated that skeptics should limit themselves to these topics (but making an exception for holy ghosts).

 

[Stout]

Another perspective on "tablegate":

http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.php/2013/09/the-credibility-of-skepchicks-tablegate/

I noticed myself that RW's tweets at the time didn't quite match up with her account in that article.

There's an interesting bit of info over on RW's blog about the wares in question.

most of our handmade stuff is related to science and skepticism but without garish branding.

Bolding mine.

So no Skepchick logos then, or very few.

I posted this on another thread. Vendor tables at Dragoncon start at $ 550 for the weekend and if I'd paid that( or more ) for a table to sell my wares you can best bet I'd be screaming blue murder at the organizers for allowing something I viewed as competition, in for free.

RW admits there were complaints, and Amy flying back home all butthurt indicates that she was there for purposes other than simply promoting Skepchicks.

The only thing up for grabs is whether one truly believes RW & SA "didn't know" about the rules and made an honest mistake.

So now on to "plan b" create a fuss and hope it parlays into online sales.

 

[RandFan]

Well... where is that written, though?

This is not a new schism. One (not the only) reason Mike Shermer split off CSICOP and spun his own organization was that he strongly objected to CFI's left-wing-ish message, which they felt was the logical conclusion of adopting a Secular Humanist ethic. CSICOP, CSH, and CFI were all completely controlled by Paul Kurtz at the time.

Basically Shermer's preference for Welfare Capitalism vs Kurtz' perference for Market Socialism.

That was 20 years ago, and my feeling is that over time this particular source of friction between CSI and Skeptics Society has become gradeually less important over time as the skeptical societies diluted their mandates.

To put this another way: the question of whether skepticism should be a vehicle for any particular social/political/economic 'movement' is the age-old question of: "what, exactly, is skepticism?" - Shermer believed skepticism included advocating for free market solutions. Reasoning: because skepticism is critical thinking, and you can apply critical thinking to any topic, and the free market is the best solution per critical thinking, so all (true) skeptics must be coming to the same conclusion and therefore skepticism is just as much about free market advocacy as it is about vaccination advocacy.

My local Vancouver Skeptics group believes it's marching in the Pride Parade to support gay rights.

Paul Kurtz felt it included a mandate to support abortion rights.

There was a time when atheism advocacy was tied at the hip to Communism.

Daniel Loxton thinks none of the above are appropriate for skepticism.


This relates to my earlier statements about recruiting inertia - people of all walks of life are drawn into skepticism (which is great) but they often have formed an early view based on the slice of skepticism that first engaged them. For example, if you were brought into skepticism through watching Penn & Teller's ********! it would be a shock to later learn about the modern movement's origin in the left wing politics of its founder Paul Kurtz. They may not be really aware that Shermer, P&T, Stephen Milloy, and others have been regarded as 'pushing a right-wing / libertarian agenda' within skepticism over the last 20+ years (because they view those worldviews as self evidently true facts obtained through critical thinking, rather than ordinary value laden political opinions)

Thanks Blutoski. I knew a bit about that. I know has held is politics fairly close to the vest but once noted that a close friend who passed and observed that, IIRC, something negative about the man being a liberal.

 

[blutoski]

Wow, I didn't know that Shermer had a history with CSICOP.

Shermer was a director of CSICOP for years, but left to found Skeptics Society. There was a minor kerfuffle over his using the CSICOP membership list, but otherwise unremarkable. It's worth mentioning that at the time, there were many skeptical organizations that had already distanced themselves from CSICOP and were a sort of 'unaligned' federation of skeptical societies. This was encouraged by CSICOP to some degree, as they wanted to be shielded from liability of organizations whose management they did not directly control.

I knew Randi had though, but Randi has never (to my knowledge) made public his politics and so it seems unlikely he broke with Kurtz over politics.

Randi did not break with CSICOP over policy disagreements.
It was entirely due to the Uri Geller defamation crisis.

Speaking of it, didn't Kurtz break with the CFI due to that he felt it had become too atheistic, and put too little emphasis on secular humanism?

That would surprise me. He was actually ousted, and I think his subsequent criticism of CFI was a response to what he felt was a betrayal, and ultimately difficult to interpret.

I don't think Shermer has ever really pushed his libertarianism. He basically wrote a few blogposts (and a book) explaining why he is a libertarian and how he became one. I have a hard time to find that objectionable. He never said that skeptics must be libertarians and added that due to him being mostly in sciencey circles most of his friends were left-wing liberals.

I agree that he wasn't 'pushing' his libertarianism... but he did go on record saying that it was a skeptical topic, and therefore skeptics should be able to get aligned and come to a single conclusion one way or the other if they're doing skepticism right.

I would say that Stephen Milloy is closer to 'pushing' libertarianism as the logical conclusion from critical thinking.

Daniel Loxton's skepticism is basically anti-paranormalism. He is pretty much exclusively interested in Bigfoot and ghosts and has repeatedly stated that skeptics should limit themselves to these topics (but making an exception for holy ghosts).

Yes, he and I are pretty aligned on this 'old school' CSICOP scope for skepticism, but don't get me wrong - I'm not really thinking skepticism will revert. There's no going back.


Really all I was trying to convey was that skepticism has never really settled on what role individual skeptics or organized skeptical societies would consider the limitation of their scope of operations. Skeptics and skeptical societies have engaged public policy to different degrees over the years.

My observation is that when individual skeptics support something they feel it is 'obviously' within the skeptical scope (eg: advocating the elimination of blasphemy laws); when they disagree with something they feel it is outside the skeptical scope (eg: advocating for school voucher programs).

Back to what triggered my post: PZ has as much right to advocate women's rights as a skeptical topic as DJ Grothe does to say advocating GLBT rights are a skeptical topic, or Penn Jillette does to say that libertarianism advocacy is a skeptical activity. I don't think skepticism has ever been truly apolitical or politically neutral.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is there any chance someone could post the tweets in question here? Or link to a blog or something where they have already been posted?

 

[Diogenes]

Is there any chance someone could post the tweets in question here? Or link to a blog or something where they have already been posted?

http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2013/09/dragoncon-rules-are-rules.html

and

http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2013/09/skepchicks-not-so-accurate-dragoncon.html

appear to have the relevant tweets

 

[s_pepys]

Back to what triggered my post: PZ has as much right to advocate women's rights as a skeptical topic as DJ Grothe does to say advocating GLBT rights are a skeptical topic, or Penn Jillette does to say that libertarianism advocacy is a skeptical activity. I don't think skepticism has ever been truly apolitical or politically neutral.

i do agree with this. a skeptic can have his political leanings incorporated into his skepticism fine. no problem.

the problem is PZ Myers believes that if you dont agree with his politics, you are not a skeptic. furthermore you will get rafts of abuse followed by censorship, closing of communication, maybe the odd rape accusation.

you can be skeptical and political yes. but skepticism rises above and sits apart from politics for what i thought were obvious reasons here at jref. a right wing skeptic or left wing or neither or something else. we are all still trying our best to be skeptical.

 

[SimplyAghast]

i do agree with this. a skeptic can have his political leanings incorporated into his skepticism fine. no problem.

the problem is PZ Myers believes that if you dont agree with his politics, you are not a skeptic. furthermore you will get rafts of abuse followed by censorship, closing of communication, maybe the odd rape accusation.

you can be skeptical and political yes. but skepticism rises above and sits apart from politics for what i thought were obvious reasons here at jref. a right wing skeptic or left wing or neither or something else. we are all still trying our best to be skeptical.

Aw, come on. It's not as though the self-proclaimed "intellectual artillery" of A+ invited the rest of the secular/skeptic community by proclaiming:

“Don’t assume that because someone else did that, that it’s covered and you can give it a miss. No, we need to show numbers. So speak out wherever you see these two sides at loggerheads, and voice your affiliation, so it’s clear how many of us there are, against them. And this very much is an us vs. them situation. The compassionate vs. the vile. You can’t sit on the fence on this one. In a free society, apathy is an endorsement of villainy.”

and

“I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.”

and

Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned.

Who in the world wouldn't want to be a part of such an inclusive movement? They all seem like such kind people. If you need proof for yourself, just join the A+ forum and greet everyone with a hearty "Hi guys" and see how warmly you're welcomed.

Just make sure you read the thousands of words of board regulations before commenting.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2013/09/dragoncon-rules-are-rules.html

and

http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2013/09/skepchicks-not-so-accurate-dragoncon.html

appear to have the relevant tweets

Thanks. I don't see anything there that contradicts the account in the article.

 

[blutoski]

i do agree with this. a skeptic can have his political leanings incorporated into his skepticism fine. no problem.

the problem is PZ Myers believes that if you dont agree with his politics, you are not a skeptic. furthermore you will get rafts of abuse followed by censorship, closing of communication, maybe the odd rape accusation.

I understand, but I'm saying this is nothing new. Penn Jillette is pretty good at abusing people who disagree with him. IIRC my wife in particular was offended by being called a "*********** retard" because of her religious beliefs. The internal convulsions that characterized CFI were largely about Paul Kurtz' "My way or the highway" approach to skepticism, which included approved/unapproved political advocacy.

Locally, one of the reasons I withdrew from BCSkeptics was that they made it very clear that true skeptics believed global warming was a hoax and need to rail against the conspiracy to the point of what appeared to be libel against a local climatologist (who is now pursuing a libel case against a US journal).

And reverse the situation: what would it be like if somebody felt that skeptics should stop supporting separation of church and state? Or that same sex couples should not marry? I think a skeptic pushing that view would be ostracized.

you can be skeptical and political yes. but skepticism rises above and sits apart from politics for what i thought were obvious reasons here at jref. a right wing skeptic or left wing or neither or something else. we are all still trying our best to be skeptical.

Yes, but that doesn't solve anything. Skepticism is either about changing our society or it isn't. If we believe there's a role for public advocacy, then skeptics are going to have to take a position on issues. If we believe skepticism is about critical thinking and that this process leads to optimum solutions, then there is one optimum solution per issue and that is the one true (ETA: "position") skeptics should advocate.

Where skeptics find agreement we decree it is an obvious skeptical position. Where we cannot find agreement, we either decide that there is no skeptical position, or that our personal view is the true skeptical position and the other person is a poor skeptic.

 

[blutoski]

I understand, but I'm saying this is nothing new. Penn Jillette is pretty good at abusing people who disagree with him. IIRC my wife in particular was offended by being called a "*********** retard" because of her religious beliefs.

Actually this led me to think about another aspect of the PZ 'thing' that has been on my mind during most of this soap opera: skeptics didn't really seem to care when PZ was launching these tirades against nonskeptics. It's only now that he's defining skeptics as outsiders and they're feeling his wrath that it's considered nonskeptical behavior.

I've often used his blog posts as examples of 'bad cop' skeptical advocacy when I'm discussing tactics. Some skeptics feel that the hardline approach of mocking and insulting opponents 'works' and up until recently, his bluntness has been considered at least acceptable if not even some kind of model.

 

[WillyWonka]

Actually this led me to think about another aspect of the PZ 'thing' that has been on my mind during most of this soap opera: skeptics didn't really seem to care when PZ was launching these tirades against nonskeptics. It's only now that he's defining skeptics as outsiders and they're feeling his wrath that it's considered nonskeptical behavior.

Actually PZ lost all my respect during "gelatogate". At that time, I realized that he was mostly an extremist who was not interested in dialogue and compromise when possible. Not everyone is your enemy even if you do not always agree on everything.

 

[dasmiller]

Actually this led me to think about another aspect of the PZ 'thing' that has been on my mind during most of this soap opera: skeptics didn't really seem to care when PZ was launching these tirades against nonskeptics. It's only now that he's defining skeptics as outsiders and they're feeling his wrath that it's considered nonskeptical behavior.

I've often used his blog posts as examples of 'bad cop' skeptical advocacy when I'm discussing tactics. Some skeptics feel that the hardline approach of mocking and insulting opponents 'works' and up until recently, his bluntness has been considered at least acceptable if not even some kind of model.

It was not universally viewed as acceptable within the skeptic community. The DBAD speech is widely viewed as being largely inspired by PZ (I don't know if Plait as ever acknowledged or denied this).