Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Yeah, I don't see Skepchick changing much any time soon. They've got a cause which allows them to be holier-than-thou, gives them a revenue stream, and allows them to say whatever they want and shout down opposition as being (perhaps unknowingly) bigoted or gender traitors. It makes them money, gives them attention, allows them to feel superior, and means they can't be wrong. Why would they change?
 
Belz... said:
Really ?

When calling someone a "retard", you're not actually saying that they have mental retardation, but that what they just said or did is stupid or silly, etc.
Click to expand...

I thought you were saying there was a colloquial use of the term "abelist". I would question whether, in this day and age, there is a non-colloquial use of the term "retard" in reference to a person.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I thought you were saying there was a colloquial use of the term "abelist". I would question whether, in this day and age, there is a non-colloquial use of the term "retard" in reference to a person.
Click to expand...

Good point. But even if there was, we constantly use words in many different ways. For instance, "cool" doesn't mean cold all the time.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Yeah, I don't see Skepchick changing much any time soon. They've got a cause which allows them to be holier-than-thou, gives them a revenue stream, and allows them to say whatever they want and shout down opposition as being (perhaps unknowingly) bigoted or gender traitors. It makes them money, gives them attention, allows them to feel superior, and means they can't be wrong. Why would they change?
Click to expand...

Because they need outrage to drive blog hits. The primary means of generating that outrage has been to vilify individuals that they regard as expendable. They are going to run out of people to throw under the bus and conventions that they can get participate in. There has to be new sources for outrage or it gets stale and the blog hits will start to dwindle. There is also churn. Some of those that have supported or been part of them in the past do not support them now. Resolving controversy and trying to change behavior in those they disagree with does not appear to be part of their agenda.

They have there own little convention, but that is not a good year round source of hits for them the way outrage is. They tried doing their own podcast and it did not go so well. That failure keeps the Novella's safe for now.

The sad part about this is that a lot of what they are complaining about is real. I have been hearing about who women should avoid at TAM since the end of TAM 3. Mostly second hand but the information has been consistent over the years. In one case I have discussed one of those individuals with a woman who was targeted by one of those jerks. This women is not a fan of skepchick. But when there is a chance to stand up and do something they never do more than express their outrage.
 
Your post seems a little confused. You're saying they'll change from being a feminist organisation because they need a constant supply of things to be outraged over and people to be outraged at, yet you also say that the inequalities of which they speak are real and ongoing. If gender equality is real (and it certainly is), then why would a feminist organisation need to stop being a feminist organisation in order to find things to be outraged over?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Your post seems a little confused. You're saying they'll change from being a feminist organisation because they need a constant supply of things to be outraged over and people to be outraged at, yet you also say that the inequalities of which they speak are real and ongoing. If gender equality is real (and it certainly is), then why would a feminist organisation need to stop being a feminist organisation in order to find things to be outraged over?
Click to expand...

No.

They do not need a supply of things to be outraged about. That does not get them attention even though those are, mostly, real things. They need a supply of people and institutions to vilify. That is what they are going to run out of unless something changes.

Now they could very easily stay focused on feminism if they actually start trying to resolve the actual problems. But that requires something more than being the sort of keyboard social justice warriors they are now. They might actually have to find a way to start influencing people they have disagreements with rather than vilifying them. Trying to bring people over to their point of view. Never seen them try that yet. That takes a lot of work and does not necessarily get hits on a blog.

To further clarify, there are problem people in the skeptic movement. But they are not doing anything to solve those problems. They draw public outrage to get blog hits will lash out at those that they merely disagree with. How they dealt with Ron Lindsey was a classic example of where they went out of there way to make an enemy when they could have had a productive dialog with the man instead.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Take your obsession elsewhere, I said. You can glean any secret meaning you want from that, but either address the topic or don't post at all. It's one of the rules you agreed to when you signed on.
Click to expand...

But my post was related to the topic.
 
Doubt said:
They need a supply of people and institutions to vilify. That is what they are going to run out of unless something changes.
Click to expand...

Again, your point seems confused. Why are they going to run out of people and institutions to vilify if, as you say, they aren't resolving the problems they're identifying? Surely they'd run out if they were resolving problems? Or are you saying that the problems resolve themselves?
 
Belz... said:
Explain to me how "islam apologism" has anything to do with the topic.
Click to expand...

Criticism of Islam is prohibited on the basis that it is the religion of "brown people". Islamic apologists here seem to feel the same way. I was suggesting they make common cause.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Again, your point seems confused. Why are they going to run out of people and institutions to vilify if, as you say, they aren't resolving the problems they're identifying? Surely they'd run out if they were resolving problems? Or are you saying that the problems resolve themselves?
Click to expand...

I am not confused. My point is not confused. You are not getting it. They are running out of humans and institutions to target. They won't be at TAM anymore. They burned their bridges. They might not be at Dragon Con for the same reason. Once they have gone after a person or group they tend not to come back to them again. There are only so many people and groups among skpetics left to attack. This is what they do instead of trying to resolve problems. The funny part is they are the ones that end up on the outside looking in rather than the other way around.

And no, the actual problems do not resolve themselves. At least not that I have seen.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Again, your point seems confused. Why are they going to run out of people and institutions to vilify if, as you say, they aren't resolving the problems they're identifying? Surely they'd run out if they were resolving problems? Or are you saying that the problems resolve themselves?
Click to expand...


Because the people they vilify have little or nothing to do with the problems they are identifying. Railing against Carrier, Lindsay, or JREF burns their bridges with those people or groups--but it doesn't accomplish anything towards their goal of removing sexism from organized skepticism.

To resolve problems, groups like A+ and their allies would be best served by working with groups like JREF, CFI, etc. If there's a conference policy or oragnizational rule that would reduce sexism, they could propose it to those groups, back it up with skeptical thinking, and would be much more likely to have success. Instead, A+ simply flames and rejects anyone who doesn't live up to their standards. Not only does this marganalize them in the skeptical movement--which inhibits their ability to make an actual difference--but as they burn bridge after bridge, they begin to run out of targets. They don't have enough members on their forum anymore to be able to reliably castigate someone there for using a word like 'stupid'. They don't go to conferences where they can find speakers or attendees doing 'offensive' things. What can they do besides relive the flame wars of yesteryear?
 
Skiltch said:
To resolve problems, groups like A+ and their allies would be best served by working with groups like JREF, CFI, etc.
Click to expand...

Not that I endorse their approach, but I'm not convinced your advice above makes sense.

I have been told something like this after I resigned from my local skeptical organization. I was advised that working from outside as a critic was the wrong approach, and that I should come back and redouble my efforts inside the organization to push for reform.

I disagreed. I am very supportive of people who leave organizations because they do not see prospects of internal reform. I have no interest in joining organizations if I see no real likelihood that my proposals will be taken seriously. A am not, for example, joining Scientology. I think I made the right decision. Going in the other direction, a friend of mine quit his job as a massage therapist after years of railing against the profession's self-regulators. Pitching internally for reform while being restrained by the need to maintain the optics of respect for fellow members actually resulted in less progress toward his goal of reducing quackery in the profession.

I think the A+ers feel they have tried to stimulate reform from within and that this resulted in them being marginalized and therefore ineffective. I suspect they feel that their attempts at reform from within have failed.

They may be wrong, but I think their willingness to burn bridges is the result of frustration with an original internal approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom