There has been an appalling amount of nonsense spewing out of the Center for Inquiry (CFI)/ Committee For Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) since some inner turmoil saw the less than amicable departure of founder Paul Kurtz.
The full story will probably never be public knowledge, but the popular reasoning seems to focus on Kurtz’s known attitudes of accommodationism as regards to religion clashing with those of successor Ronald A. Lindsay1 – who, allegedly, has definite anti-theistic attitudes and fondness for superficial irrelevancies such as the Blasphemy Challenge2.
The problem with this “official” version is that it doesn’t really have any reflection in reality. Ever since this changing of the guard, CFI / CSI have been churning out a pretty steady stream of accommodationist nonsense, far in excess of anything that preceded it. Perhaps the pinnacle of this idiocy was from CSI fellow Gollum and his now incurably pathogenic don’t be a dick sermon-on-the-mount3, but it is far from the only example. Other notable outbursts include one from Michael De Dora on the CFI site itself –
The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World
– pretty much updating Gollum’s sermon and branding all atheists dicks. Followed up by this gem published today –
This time branding atheists stupid for dissing “belief” by cataloguing his list of definitions for the word whilst proving he hasn’t ever talked to any actual atheists about their reasoning before damning them as a bloc. But the nonsense crème de la crème, where accommodationism morphs into appeasement, can be found from CFI director of education John Shook with this effort published at HuffPo –
For Atheists and Believers, Ignorance Is No Excuse
Atheists are getting a reputation for being a bunch of know-nothings. They know nothing of God, and not much more about religion, and they seem proud of their ignorance.
Sensational, eye catching opening – ideally suited for consumption on the Deepak Chopra-ised clone of Faux News – but actually a fair summary of his opinions and probably the only line in the article where Shook is speaking with genuine sincerity. I am 99% certain this article was reproduced on CFI, but it no longer appears there. But a quick perusal of Shook’s other, often self-contradictory, output shows readily enough that it is not an unusual piece for him.
These blogs are far from alone and are probably the best visible evidence there is of how seriously CFI / CSI has skidded of the rails in the 18 months since Kurtz filed for divorce. Hardly a hotbed of rabid anti-theism is it? So the “official” reason for the discontent just adds to the nonsense.
The toxin though, as my Canadian correspondents repeatedly stress, appears to be confined at this stage to the US, with the other affiliate branches outside the US still making the effort to maintain their charters and integrity.
So what is it with this sudden desire to tar-n-feather atheists? Or more broadly, those that insist on stating their cases about reality as they see it unapologetically and without compromise? Why are they suddenly being branded dicks, assholes, contrarians, antagonists and far worse? Being accused essentially of vandalism and bringing disrepute to the world of secularism and black-marked for others to see? Hitchens has long been derided and slandered by certain segments of the secular movement, but now we are seeing similar contempt being mobilised against Richard Dawkins4 and many, many lesser players that similarly refuse to play the accommodationism and appeasement game.
And where it ceases to be a discomforting observation, and becomes a genuinely disturbing cause of greater concern, is that mapped alongside of this and covering the exact same period of time is the sudden emergence, relentless propagation and entrenchment into our reality space of the atheist misogyny meme… Not just dicks now, but woman hating rape apologists to boot. Mere coincidence or work o’ the devil?
What. The. Fuck. Is. Going. On?
This is no longer an incident here or an incident there… This is a wholesale social cleansing operation to marginalise and disenfranchise all voices that are deemed unacceptable. Or in old school language, a purge or a pogrom. Suddenly, some of the odd statements made by Kurtz about his resignation from CFI to the New York Times are not so strange –
Closer Look at Rift Between Humanists Reveals Deeper Divisions
By MARK OPPENHEIMER, Published: October 1, 2010
…We are meeting in his home, not at the center, minutes away in this Buffalo suburb. In 2008, looking to spend less time running the center, he supported his board’s decision to hire Ronald A. Lindsay, a corporate lawyer from Washington, as chief executive. He soon regretted the decision. Mr. Lindsay “became very authoritarian and dictatorial,” Mr. Kurtz told me.
In June 2009, at odds with Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Kurtz was voted out as the center’s chairman. In May, he resigned from the board altogether.
According to Mr. Kurtz, there were two areas of conflict. First, he says, Mr. Lindsay changed the work culture. Whereas Mr. Kurtz had managed “in the spirit of a think tank,” Mr. Lindsay brought his legal background to bear.
“I am used to the academic life, where we don’t impose rules on employees,” Mr. Kurtz said, sitting in his living room. But Mr. Lindsay, he said, “set up a command system, said these are the rules and laws, and anyone who deviates from that will be investigated.”
Employees were interrogated for minor infractions, Mr. Kurtz said, and several were let go. “That is like Stalinism or the Inquisition,” Mr. Kurtz said…
[It needs to be noted that the above are Kurtz’s recollections of prior to his resignation on May 18, 2010 – and well before the much discussed CFI firings a month later. The implied attitude of Stalinism was about matters unrelated to the how and why of the job losses.]
Kurtz’s comments which initially may have seemed alarmist, or even bordering on hysterical, are now not so odd in light of the behaviour of all involved in the Watsonista side of the recent Elevatorgate morality crusade. If anything, they now come across as measured and restrained.
CFI have not only ignored all of the antics of Watson to date, they continue to feed her oxygen to continue pumping out her poison. As they did recently by sponsoring her speaking at the CFI Leadership Conference 2011 where she took full opportunity of the event to, again, grind out her misandrist sermonising. Amongst the choice nuggets she injected into a defenseless audience –
You know, since starting Skepchick, I’ve heard from a lot of women who don’t attend events like this because of those of you who have this attitude. They’re tired of being objectified, and some of them have actually been raped; quite a number of them have been raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted.
– which to any uncritical ear sounds like skeptic and atheist conferences without a healthy number rapes of defenseless women simply don’t happen. Great way to promote the movement. That it is outright bullshit is irrelevant – the only thing that matters is delivering the right emotional punch for the faithful. Is this good value for an organisation that is as cash strapped as CFI? Must be. They keep throwing funding at her. After all, they have a common goal – hatred of atheists, specifically the white and male ones with big, opinionated mouths and/or wealth.
What initially spawned this post was the utterly nauseating latest ad video for CSICon 2011 introduced by CSI director Barry Karr –
.
You’d think Watson was the Lady Gaga of the skeptic set. What is the foundation for this fawning? An actual Watson curriculum vitae is proving to be an elusive, almost mythical beast. There simply isn’t one to be found – which is more than slightly unusual for a celebrity skeptic of her stature. The Naked Emperor contemptuously scoffed at requests from cynics to see one, and with a straight face referred folks to an alleged copy of one on Myspace (!) – where I am unable to find anything. So in lieu of the real thing, let’s attempt to make one from available information –
Qualifications: None that anyone can find other than references to working as magician / juggler to get through some college somewhere. Either Philadelphia or Baltimore, depending where you dig. Fine, but if it was a qualification of any relevance, what purpose would it serve to conceal it? Not a biggie, I am always a proponent of vocational / life learning as opposed to formal education anyway.
Vocational / Life Experience: Big fat blank of nothing. Not here one day, darkening our doorway the next. No hisherstory, no one knows. Nada. Zilch. She’s just here and we had better get used to it.
Character References:
- Randi.org – permanently banned. Exploiting inadvertent elevation of personal account privileges for grubby revenge against other members by unauthorised account tampering and deletions. Interesting to compare to the case of David Kernell, currently in a Kentucky prison for activities not too dissimilar to Watson’s after he hacked5 Sarah Palin’s Yahoo email account using primarily social engineering to obtain false trust. The main differences are that Kernell’s motives were to expose the corruption endemic to the Palin political machine, while Watson’s were more banal – common spite and malice.
- Amanda Marcotte – who Watson promotes on Skepchick. Another cog in the misandrist blog industry machine, Marcotte naturally returns the favour. Very appropriate then that Watson frames her pictured in the same row as The Naked Emperor and Greg Laden –
One of Marcotte’s main claims to fame, and attraction to Watsonistas everywhere, was proclaiming –
“the real crime of the ‘independent feminists’ is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault.” [more]
Well blow me down. I always assumed basics like presumption of innocence for all, without prejudice, was a principle firmly grounded in skepticism and reasoning, but what the hell would I know? Marcotte also labels anyone that even thinks of defending any male accused of sexual crimes (against women of course, men and kids don’t count) as “rape-loving scum”6. What a hot babe.
- The entire atheist and skeptic communities – It’s just plain wrong for any community to exist as an egalitarian, self-governing collective. Now, thanks to the efforts of the Watsonistas, we all have pigeon holes we can be crammed into – Vestal virgins; conscious men (toilet slaves); misogynists / rapists; and gender traitors. Wonderful. Life is simpler and more enjoyable now. We are eternally indebted to Watson for this fragmentation.
- Religious conservative bloggers – last but not least, they are there gloating and guffawing to themselves, all of their dreams coming true, watching their worst assumptions about secularists coming to life before their eyes. Their gratitude can’t even be expressed in words.
Career Highlights:
Pretty much only one thing here – in the space of around two years, in concert with Greta Christina and the rest of the Skepchick posse, has managed to increase the incidence of atheist misogyny in Google by well in excess of a 1000% and managed to flood search results to such an extent that it is no longer possible to search for women and atheism or skepticism without being overwhelmed by sexism and misogyny horror stories (other staggering statistics have been detailed here). Thanks to their efforts, it is now evident that, outside of the middle east, the worst misogynists, sexists and rape apologists can all be found concentrated in our secularist communities. More even than in the Nascar or pro-sports communities, apparently. Titanic effort. Well done! Manufacturing reality 101.
Other than that, what has Watson done? Not a whole lot actually. When Watson is not crying wolf about sexism or misogyny, she’s whining about her next favourite word (even more favourite than “creepy”) – that hoary old nugget objectification. And when not whining about objectification, she objectifies others, or objectifies herself7 with designer cheesecake smut designed to entice precisely the right supporters. Shocking isn’t it? Selling yourself with sex… cheap titillation purely with the intent of leading mindless chumps around by their balls.
And this is who CFI, so often teetering on the brink of insolvency, consider to be an outstanding ambassador for secularism, and keep throwing funds at. Go figure.
Yes Becky. There is a lot of privilege at work here. An awful lot. And it’s the diametric opposite of what you claim it is. Privilege still needs to be white. But it also has to have a pussy.
As tempting as it may be to imply conspiracy here, it is not a trap I wish to fall into. No, what I think we are witnessing instead is two distinct microcosms with an inherent slave mentality that have evolved in parallel in two separate petri dishes. They then discovered each other and lo! found they had remarkably common interests – namely an intense dislike of up front, direct and no nonsense atheists and skeptics, specifically male ones and especially those that are white and successful. A natural marriage was consumated. They then proceeded to claim the mantle of Freethinkers for themselves, despite being nothing of the sort, and in a pincer movement that we are currently in the throes of, are attempting to route out and exterminate the remaining genuine Freethinkers using slander, misrepresentation and guilt by association. The situation as it stands is more reminiscent of HUAC than a movement that claims reason and enlightenment as its goal.
Our existing communities are being purged. The evidence has been there for anyone who chooses to see it for some years now. The current attacks against Dawkins4 are stunning in their audacity – and show the full extent of the arrogance the Watsonista camp now feel entitled to after their years of manipulation and insinuation into CFI.
It is now a misnomer for any of these parties to use the term inquiry in there names. It should be ideology. This is very much an effort to subvert and destroy the old guard of the atheist and skeptic communities and replace the values of freethought and actual liberalism with a vile authoritarian brand of crypto-fascist gender feminism, neo-puritanism and genuinely Stalinist command structures based on slave morality groupthink where all dissent can be silenced and exterminated on sight.
It is also a mistake to look at events such as Elevatorgate, the “don’t be a dick” sermon, the purges of the unwanted from SensitiveLand and ThinkAtheist or the TamTamPamela lynching as standalone problems in their own right. These are all mere symptoms of the much larger disease. This is the new, new atheism. And it is a disease ignored at our peril.
We have effectively been hijacked and it is very close to game over. I don’t know what else to say.
1 – The most remarkable fact about Lindsay is the complete lack of information about him online. Apparently he’s a lawyer. A corporate lawyer. Probably has good reason to be shy.
2 – Just one question – why? It looks kind of stupid to secularists outside the US. Kind of like having a site devoted to people who renounce garlic, or existentialism. What is the point? Very juvenile. Very pointless.
3 – Made at TAM 8 and, ironically, subsidised by “dick-in-chief” James Randi (in the Gollum sense of the word and otherwise innocent of this dumbness. Randi is a scholar. a gentleman and certainly above all this slave mentality). This talk, a masterpiece of wedge politicking, has now been embraced as the most effective tool ever for silencing dissent within the godless and skeptic communities and saw collective IQs at the major godless social sites halve as the most interesting members abandoned them in disgust.
4 – See especially the demands from Rebecca Watson / Skepchick that call for a Dawkins boycott that falls just short of demanding a public book burning.
5 – I hate the wanton misuse of the term “hack”, but this is how the cesspit of lies has written it up. He didn’t “hack” anything.
6 – Some background on the target of Marcotte’s outrage –
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Crystal_Gail_Mangum
http://reason.com/archives/2007/04/16/last-call-for-rape-crisis-femi
7 – Odd. Much higher resolution of this image have been purged from previous locations in community threads. Anyone know of intervention to facilate this? Here is some more Becky smut. Make up your mind Becky – you either are a sexual being or you’re not. You can’t have it both ways.
August 11, 2011 at 1:54 am
For all the mocking I do of the “privilege” concept, Amanda Marcotte is the strongest proof out there that it is real and strongly benefits white people. Can anyone name a mainstream columnist of color who has produced the stream of idiocy that Marcotte has and kept their position?
August 11, 2011 at 2:10 am
Michelle Malkin count?
August 11, 2011 at 4:43 am
Due to their collective success in the United States, Asian-Americans are viewed as white (except when they are convenient hammers with which to bash regular white people with during bouts of Oppression Olympics,) Malkin would count as well.
August 12, 2011 at 1:40 am
History Punk — I think the relationship between whites (Americans at least) and Asians is more complicated than that. If anything, I think there is this sort of paternalism…
Interesting side note: With the Philippines in particular (Malkin’s ethnicity), it was an American conquest, although McKinley states the intention is not to conquer, but “to develop, to civilize, to educate, to train in the science of self-government.” (Does this sound familiar, ca. 2003, perhaps?)
June 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Hoggle is great that friend/betrayal thing that goes back and forth is pecfert for this movie. It just wouldn’t be Labyrinth without Hoggle.But I’ve always thought that public urination scene was a little rough. Like, you’d have a hard time finding a bit that graphic even in a modern family movie, let alone one from the 80s, when standards were tighter. It’s the only scene in Labyrinth that squicks me out a little.
August 11, 2011 at 2:01 am
it ain’t over til we say it’s over.
August 11, 2011 at 2:29 am
I must admit I’m very confused by CFI. I do see them as a fairly accomodationist outfit, and I have from my first awareness of them. At first I thought the accomodationism was just tolerance, which I am basically for. Then they changed the names of the meetups they sponsor from atheist names to things like skeptic or humanist or freethinkers, because I guess no one hates those words as much. Then they admonished all their members to not be dicks. The latest idea they’re pushing is some guy’s book or lecture or whatever on how to be a good asshole. We are obviously allowed to be good vaginas, based on how supportive they are constantly being of including women, so it’s good to know they’re now adding in rectums as another body part that is approved of. (As long as it’s good of course.) I still hope urethras are allowed back in at some point. Atheists do need potty breaks, you know. (Where is Shylock when you need him to speak up on what it means to be a human?) And it would be nice if someday they’d authorize some wart outcroppings such as craniums back in as well.
The weird thing is the actual in the flesh CFI gatherings that I’ve attended have not been overwhelmingly populated at all by people with behaviors that need modifying by all this grooming and managing that they’re doing. And their online forums when I’ve looked at them seem mostly not real active. It’s hard to see what they’re really afraid of at this point, but it looks suspiciously like they don’t actually want people giving out honest or tone-ful enough to be heard opinions.
August 12, 2011 at 1:53 am
Seeing what kind of people make up that outfit, I’ve for quite some time referred to it as the Center For Inanity. Bunch of blowhards and pseudo-intellectuals posing as serious activists, that’s what I think.
Maybe it wasn’t always that way, I don’t really know.
August 12, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Doesn’t appear to have always been. This flood of nonsense articles they are producing appears to be a recent phenomenon, and unless someone can enlighten me otherwise, dates roughly from the changing of the guard.
August 11, 2011 at 3:13 am
What you’re seeing is an attempted hijacking. Feminism–specifically, radical or “gender” feminism–is attempting to take control of the skeptical movement and forcibly ejecting any “Old Guard” members who are insufficiently fervent about the new cause. (Or worse, who continue to focus on religion and reason rather than the plight of privileged white women suffering under Der Patriarchy.)
Skepticism and reason are, naturally, incompatible with radical feminism. In fact, they’re diametrically opposed. The attempted takeover will not succeed–but it WILL make atheists and humanists look awfully silly for a while, and that will hurt the advance of reason in the short term.
August 11, 2011 at 11:17 am
And sorry, I disagree. It is tempting to just blame the gender feminists / slave moralists, but it would be wrong – and I keep raising this point here. The fem-bots are just one of the symptoms (albeit the mother of all boils) of a much larger malaise. I take particular exception to the “don’t be a dick” sermon which many people don’t seem to see as a part of this.
This vile denunciation of many members of the various communities is the secular equivalent of the British Anti-Social Behaviour Order – a non-specific toolkit which can be used to attack any voice of dissent whilst appearing just so goddamn nice. Evil. Raw evil.
August 11, 2011 at 5:29 am
“the plight of privileged white women suffering under Der Patriarchy”
That is funny. Yes, I am so oppressed and objectified, especially in the skeptic and atheist “communities”. Poor weak and timid me, I need to be protected, and treated like a lady. A lady from the 1800’s.
This is more than nauseating.
Thank you for the topless photo, Franc, no one can make me swoon like Hitch.
Hitchens, Pat Condell, Dawkins. Those are my heroes.
August 15, 2011 at 10:04 am
For serious.
And those guys are totally my heroes too. 😀
March 22, 2012 at 8:15 am
And Sam Harris if it’s not too much trouble.
August 11, 2011 at 6:31 am
When was the last time you did something loving, compassionate, supportive, that benefited all humans? All genders? All gender expressions? That came from a deep sense of connection between all of us? That aimed to unite, rather than divide? That aimed to validate all of us as equal instead of creating further divisions in society? That brought healing into the world, instead of anger? That wasn’t sitting in a comfy chair, safe and protected by your many-layered privilege, writing a book, writing a blog post? Are you alive? Do you have a heart? Answer me. Answer us.
August 11, 2011 at 9:42 am
Ok now. Should I play the “Pirate-Fish on album cover” card again?
This is my greatest achievment in the name of reason so far!
:p
August 11, 2011 at 10:56 am
Wow. A PZ style, substance free, righteous derailing. Bravo. I can’t tell you anything in a forum that would not sound hollow. But I can tell you that as far as actual, practical, hands-on humanism (as opposed to hollow, preachy, finger pointing humanism) goes, I go to sleep at night with a far clearer conscience than the Naked Emperor, Watson or any of the other participants in this slave revolt.
August 11, 2011 at 11:14 am
It’s a pretty good troll and I’ll probably start using it on Myers’ crew now that I’ve tested its effectiveness.
August 11, 2011 at 11:20 am
Touche sir. Actually a perfect example of Myers’ Courtier’s Reply – so perfect in fact that it sounds exactly like the kind of dingbattery Myers would say himself.
April 19, 2014 at 7:52 pm
I find History Punk’s provided statement to be similar to “What are your Crimes?”, a statement associated with scientologist rhetoric meant to manipulate a feeling of guilt and defensiveness in the target (possibly in order to take attention away from the matter at hand).
The former statement has been expanded in the mathematical sense, which could better obfuscate the nature of the statement.
No implications or criticisms towards History Punk of course, just had a few thoughts about the statement and thought I’d share my analysis.
August 11, 2011 at 7:09 am
“Civilization begins where reason kicks in, and where there are no unexamined assumptions.”
-Christopher Hitchens
August 11, 2011 at 8:04 am
Its sad that Hitch isnt in good shape right now, else we could have relied on him to give these MFkers the bad ass kicking that they so deserve.
PS:
Franc, When OpheliaB started her tirade on oh-those-bad-words, I so remembered your diagnosis of ‘atheist puritanism’.
August 11, 2011 at 10:56 am
Center for Indoctrination!
August 11, 2011 at 11:09 am
Pretty much. Have a cigar. Again, I have to restate, this is not an isolated incident or two but a steady consistent skid over several years.
August 11, 2011 at 9:59 pm
This is starting to creep into the online atheist/skeptical communities.
Now, if I disagree with certain female posters I am “trying to make [them] look stupid” rather than, you know, try and have a debate and pointing out flaws in their arguements.
The entryist tactics of radical-feminists reminds me of the hardline left ripping apart Labour and the unions in the UK in the 70s and 80s.
I think we have a lot more infighting to come.
August 11, 2011 at 10:48 pm
“Starting to”? Good grief. Where have you been hanging out and why has it remained sane for so long? Most places, you haven’t been able to say “boo” for several years without complaints to admins about harrassment and stalking.
August 12, 2011 at 5:16 am
I’ve only really occasionally posted on smaller UK forums, and generally the few blogs I read until this kicked off were UK based.
I was blocked very quickly from Skepchic (although I was trolling).
August 12, 2011 at 8:59 am
Hi all. Have you seen this Mr. Deity video?
It touches upon the Watson BS.
(Edit: repaired your link, or tried to, I think it’s the right one. Raw link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKAO_ieeqTo – Franc)
August 12, 2011 at 11:06 am
Watson has experience as a radio host. I was there when she was banned from JREF and it reflected poorly on JREF, not watson.
Is skepticism something that anyone can do, or do you need to have a degree in something in order to use it? I was under the experience that the former was true. If it is the latter then I don’t know why it is worth promoting, I think of it as a means for every day people to solve problems. It is a kind of activism, if you want to say that people who organize each other and raise money aren’t worth listening to then I guess that political progress is a stupid idea in general.
I have made many criticisms of skepchick (like the pin up calender and lack of critical examination of some important feminist issues), but I think that it is important exactly because it isn’t hard hitting. Watching the dudes scramble to deal with really minor accusations of sexism is an eye-opener to women who haven’t been radicalized yet. Just keep diggin the hole, dudes.
August 12, 2011 at 12:25 pm
The “dudes” have articulated a criticism of Watson which you are condescendingly dismissing with a wave of the hand without in any way addressing its substance. So, keep digging YOUR hole by being so blithely dismissive, if it suits you. The problems are real, and they remain, whether you wish them gone or not.
August 12, 2011 at 2:03 pm
@Skeptifem: I suppose, for the sake of consistency, you are going to expect freedom to spout gibberish here whilst simultaneously claiming the right to rigidly purge dissent in your own forums – and without acknowledging any double standards? Because, y’know, “that’s different…” BAU.
Watson has experience as a radio host.
So? Marilyn Chambers had a deeper throat than Linda Boreman before branching out into mainstream cinema. That does not qualify her to be a film director. Very cool, and sane, lady other than that. Your point? There actually isn’t one is there? Well here are my points – Yes, we do have “privelige” in our communities. No, it’s not the kind that you harpies whine about. Watson is evidence of that. When Watson is not hyperventilating about white males, she’s little more than the Paris Hilton of the skeptical community. Her contributions of substance are zero.
Is skepticism something that anyone can do
Precisely. And what we are seeing here is a mass of evidence of female-on-female misogyny that makes actual atheist misogyny pale into insignificance (not that a single example of actual misogyny has yet been provided). You fem-bots are terrorising other women from making comments expressing their own opinions, i.e. skepticism of outrageous assertions. I have had quite a few women comment to me in private because they fear doing so in the public comments due to harassment from Watsonistas when they have done so elsewhere, and fear their own blogs being slandered as a result. You use terror to silence dissent. Fuck you.
You do not practice skepticism anyway. You preach an ideology of hatred that is both racist and sexist. You arrive at conclusions and reverse engineer reality to suit. In this regard you are no different to 911 truthers or televangelists. Just listen to your own hate bile against your own sex.
Your not liberal. You are not progressive. You are not skeptical. You are not freethinking. You are a deranged crypto-fascist unable to cope with your own self-loathing and instead unload your venom on the rest of us. You are not even worth hating. You are far too pitiable for that.
August 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm
@Skeptifem: – and we can’t let this nonsense go unchallenged:
“I was there when she was banned from JREF and it reflected poorly on JREF, not watson.”
Aside from this being nonsense (the Randi forums are still calling her bullshit for bullshit being immune to intimidation and emotional extortion), Watson was not banned for simply behaving like a spoiled brat pig-child.
She was banned for criminal acts of the kind that have put others (always men) in prison – using a private computer network in an unauthorised manner to tamper with other user’s data and delete other user’s account information.
That is a jailable offense pretty much anywhere.
“Privelige”. Yes indeed. It’s rampant.
August 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Au contraire, I at least (see, I don’t pretend to speak for other people) thought it was a nice eye-opener about the skeptical feminist movement, namely that it’s overly dogmatic about the latter part and almost completely lacking in the former. Though doubtlessly I will be considered among the radicalized because remember, only women who agree with the rigid ideology count.
Although, speaking of radicalism, I feel like feminist need to label so many things as sexism might be losing my generation. (Not to be too optimistic.) Obviously anecdotes aren’t evidence, but most of my friends are youngish, very liberal sorts, but most of them, male or female, seem to be leery of identifying themselves as feminists. When my dorm had its first floor meeting, our RA told us that she was required to tell us that we should report any incidences of “bias,” the official example being a man taking a heavy box from a woman and helping bring it into the room. This was met with a near universal eye roll and a couple of giggles, and not in support of the example. Is this really the picture of feminism that’s going to get a lot of recruits? Campaigns against helpfulness and elevator conversation? I must say I’d much rather be asked out in an elevator than called out as anti-woman by a speaker for expressing a dissenting opinion.
I mean, I was raised to think that being sexist was pretty bad and that if you were accused of sexism, you’d feel the need to defend against that a little more vigorously than you would if someone accused you of being rude. Is it not a big deal anymore? Why wouldn’t people scramble to deal with people saying they’re sexist? I guess if even feminists are saying accusations of sexism are nothing to get worked up over anymore, it’s pretty much dead.
August 12, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Jennifer, according to Skeptifem, you don’t exist –
“Watching the dudes scramble to deal with really minor accusations of sexism is an eye-opener to women who haven’t been radicalized yet. Just keep diggin the hole, dudes.”
August 12, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Is a minor accusation of sexism similar to a minor accusation of committing or condoning rape?
August 13, 2011 at 2:21 am
Radical/Gender Femimism makes unfalsifiable claims and stems, mainly, from post-modern literally theory.
If you have any real study of Feminist then please point me in the direction of some decent empirical Radical/Gender Feminist research.
Otherwise, all the best radicalising, but keep your ideology out of Skeptisn.
Yours
A male liberal feminist
August 13, 2011 at 11:58 am
How’s this for dumber than dogshit? According to Skeptifem’s “what I read” list, she doesn’t appear to realise that iblamethepatriarchy.com is secular Poe laughing it up at the expense of folks like her.
August 13, 2011 at 2:14 pm
LOL.. that would be something indeed. I bookmarked that site.. definetely need some poes on this matter.
But quickly browsing through skeptifem’s blog, her posts are funny too.. she seems to disagree with Jen and Greta as well for pussyfooting on this issue. (she wants to go in for the kill) hardcore eh? I hope she gains some more popularity within their cult.. Man it will fun to watch them go at each other, we can sit back and grab some popcorn.
August 13, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Get some plastic sheets and some jello…
Skeptifem has planted another term in my head – the South Park lesbian. Someone who squeals like a stuck pig about demeaning and insulting stereotypes whilst simultaneously confirming each and every one, and doing it to such excess she becomes impossible to parody.
August 14, 2011 at 11:57 am
I think you’ve really done it this time, Franc. I mean, your posts make it clear that labels are shit unless a community has some kind of duty/responsibility to something other than self-aggrandizement. As communities (skepticism, atheism) we need to encourage the kind of serious criticism I read on this blog lest we fall further into the depths of brand management, personality cults, and ideology. Maybe those of us with an inclination can start reviewing blogs, podcasts, etc. in terms of roughly quantifiable things like average number of logical fallacies, average number of sources, etc. Maybe we can have open debates at conventions. At any rate, as communities we need to find reliable ways to peer-review our stuff. A few blogs isn’t enough and we all know it. If we have to splinter-off into a new group or consist as a loose band of outcasts then so be it. Our commentary and criticism is important and worth doing well.
August 15, 2011 at 5:28 am
Mr. Deity video is great. Rebecca Watson can ban his videos now too.
August 15, 2011 at 4:59 pm
The last 30 seconds are priceless.
August 15, 2011 at 10:51 am
Interesting tie-ins. A quibble: it looks like you’re quoting Marcotte directly when it is actually Cathy Young’s inference about her. It’s much less of a stretch than what Marcotte did with Kathleen Parker’s argument, but still…
August 15, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Yeah, point taken. I do try and maintain better standards than that. The problem with Marcotte is she purges here most extreme derangement when she’s caught out as though it never happened. In any case, it’s consistent with Marcotte’s typical blabbering. But it’s not even in the same ballpark as say, Watsonistas implying Dawkins thinks rape is funny as concrete fact. We’re dealing with hardcore slanderers that are also chickenshits that can’t stand by their own words. Instead the alter reality by retroactive editing and then pretending innocently they never do any wrong.
October 1, 2011 at 2:27 am
[…] You have been a primary driver in instilling a culture of nepotic sycophancy into the godless and skeptic communities and now its tentacles reach all the way up into the boardroom of the CFI. […]
October 26, 2011 at 5:54 pm
[…] or justifiable reason other than to sustain itself. Flatus begetting flatus. And a gravy train of CFI subsidised […]
January 6, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Great post again, as always. The only good thing to come out of the destruction of the secular movement is, hopefully, the recognition by others of the insidious danger of feminism. The comic scene and gamer scenes have gone through it, and are still clinging on for dear life, and now the secular community too. The really horrifying thing is that we’re talking about such a small number of irrational ideologues who have managed to garner enough fanatical pseudo-support to essentially eat the movement from the inside out. Disgusting, deplorable, vile human hatings.