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

Skiltch said:
Because the people they vilify have little or nothing to do with the problems they are identifying. Railing against Carrier, Lindsay, or JREF burns...
Click to expand...

Wait....what? I thought Richard Carrier was one of the original A+ heroes? What has he done to have them turn against him? Was it thought crimes?
 
blutoski said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is, they haven't left any particular organization or ally in order to pressure them from without. Rather, they've isolated themselves on their own forum. They've essentially withdrawn from the skeptic movement entirely; so not only are they not reforming from the inside, but they aren't even interacting with the groups they intend to reform anymore.

They can't influence the movement if they refuse to talk to or interact with anyone besides each other.

Now, if rather than work with JREF they had tried to build their own organizations--conferences with language and behavior policies they support; speakers who embrace their type of skepticism--that could also be a way to bring about change. But they don't do that either. They do nothing but stay on their forum, then wonder why they aren't changing anything.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
Wait....what? I thought Richard Carrier was one of the original A+ heroes? What has he done to have them turn against him? Was it thought crimes?
Click to expand...

He's discussed in this thread about bad atheists.
 
Last edited:
Skiltch said:
The problem is, they haven't left any particular organization or ally in order to pressure them from without. Rather, they've isolated themselves on their own forum. They've essentially withdrawn from the skeptic movement entirely; so not only are they not reforming from the inside, but they aren't even interacting with the groups they intend to reform anymore.

They can't influence the movement if they refuse to talk to or interact with anyone besides each other.

Now, if rather than work with JREF they had tried to build their own organizations--conferences with language and behavior policies they support; speakers who embrace their type of skepticism--that could also be a way to bring about change. But they don't do that either. They do nothing but stay on their forum, then wonder why they aren't changing anything.
Click to expand...

My impression is that they're licking their wounds right now. It's not clear if they have the critical mass necessary to establish a distinct organization anymore.

But this isn't in and of itself an argument that they should join an organization they feel will not listen to their proposals for reform, which was the proposal I specifically disagreed with.

(ie: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em")
 
Doubt said:
Once they have gone after a person or group they tend not to come back to them again.
Click to expand...

But there's no reason why they can't. Watson doesn't seem to have moved past Elevatorgate, and the antagonist there doesn't even have a face. Why not have more than one go at someone that people have actually heard of? Is there any reason this is a less plausible strategy than a complete change in ideology and the potential loss of supporters that would entail?
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
My impression is that they're licking their wounds right now. It's not clear if they have the critical mass necessary to establish a distinct organization anymore.

But this isn't in and of itself an argument that they should join an organization they feel will not listen to their proposals for reform, which was the proposal I specifically disagreed with.

(ie: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em")
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that they join JREF or CFI if they didn't want to, only that they work with them. Those groups head up many of the major skeptic groups and conferences. In order to change the skeptic movement, it would be very useful for them to talk to leaders in those groups, propose new policies, ask that certain changes be implemented, etc. They don't need to join JREF to propose, "Hey, if you adopted policy X it would make JREF more welcoming to Group Y; here's our evidence, how about it?" Or to build relations with the group so that their policies will be more warmly received. Or to even help JREF with stuff, as an allied group, and do it their way (with their policies on language, behavior, etc.), to demonstrate that such policies do more good than harm. That not only provides evidence for their goals, but then JREF leaders are more likely to be susceptible to their requests.

Whether they join the group or just influence it from outside, if they want to make change in the skeptical movement, they need to at least be able to talk to members of the groups. But they've burned all their bridges and no one will listen to them... which makes it impossible for them to fulfil any of their activism goals.
 
Skiltch said:
They don't need to join JREF to propose, "Hey, if you adopted policy X it would make JREF more welcoming to Group Y; here's our evidence, how about it?" Or to build relations with the group so that their policies will be more warmly received. Or to even help JREF with stuff, as an allied group, and do it their way (with their policies on language, behavior, etc.), to demonstrate that such policies do more good than harm.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if that resulted in real change they couldn't whine and bitch, anymore.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
But there's no reason why they can't. Watson doesn't seem to have moved past Elevatorgate, and the antagonist there doesn't even have a face. Why not have more than one go at someone that people have actually heard of? Is there any reason this is a less plausible strategy than a complete change in ideology and the potential loss of supporters that would entail?
Click to expand...

It is less plausible in the case of skepchick in that they want to drive traffic to their site, which means they need new targets. They won't capture new people's interest by rehashing the same things they have been talking about. They need fresh targets to bring in fresh eyeballs. They need fresh outrage to introduce themselves to fresh conference audiences and get more speaking gigs because they have alienated themselves from most of the ones they have been involved in. They need to find new audiences who don't know the garbage they pull so they can acquire new acolytes.

That doesn't mean they will have to give up their old outrages or topics completely but they will have to expand into other areas.
 
Belz... said:
Wasn't he the one who basically said that if you're not with A+, you're against A+, and should be shunned and excommunicated ?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's him. He was one of the first heavyweights to endorse A+, he did the whole 'with us or against us' thing, and AFAIK, he was the last of them to stay with the group. Then they turned on him. I can't think of any prominent atheists or skeptics who were still supporting A+ after that.
 
Kochanski said:
It is less plausible in the case of skepchick in that they want to drive traffic to their site, which means they need new targets. They won't capture new people's interest by rehashing the same things they have been talking about.
Click to expand...

Really? Because Elevatorgate seems to have served them well so far. Surely it's not the targets themselves, but the things the targets are being accused of that's the draw?

Besides which, I still don't see why any of this means they're likely to abandon feminism. Surely feminist issues exist outside of scepticism that they could discuss? Not to mention the fact that there are already plenty of articles on Skepchick which aren't about feminism.
 
Skiltch said:
Yep, that's him. He was one of the first heavyweights to endorse A+, he did the whole 'with us or against us' thing, and AFAIK, he was the last of them to stay with the group. Then they turned on him. I can't think of any prominent atheists or skeptics who were still supporting A+ after that.
Click to expand...

Or supporting Carrier after that.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Really? Because Elevatorgate seems to have served them well so far. Surely it's not the targets themselves, but the things the targets are being accused of that's the draw?
Click to expand...
It served them well but is not the draw that it once was.

Besides which, I still don't see why any of this means they're likely to abandon feminism. Surely feminist issues exist outside of scepticism that they could discuss? Not to mention the fact that there are already plenty of articles on Skepchick which aren't about feminism.
Click to expand...

But what draws people to the website? Information they can get elsewhere or information that is unique? They need traffic and outrage gets more than anything else. Recycled outrage is not going to get them large numbers of hits as something new.

Targeting people has worked better for them than actual issues. Elevatorgate was interesting in that they were able to target a faceless person initially. Would it work a second time? Continuing to go on about elevatorgate itself will not work forever because the readers will lose interest. Elevatorgate 2 might be possible but would it drive as much traffic?

Sure there are issues outside of skepticism they could go after. But unless they have a new angle on it they won't get much attention. Certainly not from their existing core of readers. They will need something new to drive traffic or people will get tired of them.
 
Last edited:
Doubt said:
It served them well but is not the draw that it once was.
Click to expand...

Point being if they can drag one incident out for years, then they can do the same with others.

But what draws people to the website?
Click to expand...

Christ alone knows.

Recycled outrage is not going to get them large numbers of hits as something new.
Click to expand...

Who said that they could only recycle things? There will always be a new Adria Richards for everyone to have an opinion about.

Elevatorgate 2 might be possible but would it drive as much traffic?
Click to expand...

Depends on what it is.

They will need something new to drive traffic or people will get tired of them.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that their core readers are getting tired of them?
 
cornsail said:
Anyone have a link to where they turned on Carrier?
Click to expand...

I don't know if this was the start of it or not, but a few of them* get on his case in the comments to this blog post. The post itself is a response to people getting on his case about a different blog post, but according to the comments most of the people got on his case for the previous one on the comments section of a different website, and I'm not interested enough to track it down or see who is having a go.

*WhithinThisMind and SubMor, at least, I'm not sure if there are others, as I've not been paying too close attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom