Would that this had the honesty of deliberate satire –
Butterflies and Wheels was established in 2002 and has (not surprisingly) evolved since then. At the beginning it focused mainly on various kinds of pseudoscience and epistemic relativism, aka postmodernism. The latter prompted an increasing focus on moral or cultural relativism and a defense of universalism and human rights. This in turn led to concern with the chief opponent of universalism and human rights, which is religion. This then led to interest in the backlash against overt atheism.
Unfortunately, it’s not. It’s a Münchhausean self-appraisal from an intellect that’s a cold carcass on a slab having overdosed on way too much mind-killing belief.
It’s basically a whatever’s-in-the-cupboard stew of lofty concepts, more designed to confuse than enlighten, yet leave an overall flattering aftertaste in those not prepared to digest properly. Ms. Benson (or for the sake of consistency, just “cunt”, if I am to stay in keeping with her preconceptions of the Unbelievers she forces on her readership) promotes herself a lot as a “skeptic”, and the impression given by conflating epistemic relativism1 with pseudoscience (which is apparently bad) certainly intends to support this.
Unfortunately, it flies in the face of the basic reality that epistemic relativism is the very foundation upon which she erects her entire temple of specious codswallopery. Consider this nonsense from The Baboon King she allows to pass on her blog without so much as raising an eyebrow –
-
PZ Myers says:
September 30, 2011 at 11:34 amPosting reams of hysterical posts demanding a boycott of Richard Dawkins in retribution for his alleged ‘misogyny’ was not only extremely damaging to the atheist cause and community, but did feminism no favors either.
Which did not happen.
The only pattern here is that every event in this affair gets inflated into absurdity by the misogynists.
A black lie that the Naked One will contort with epistemic relativism to in fact state is a truth, and that his pet princess’ rant to the contrary was “taken entirely out of context”. This proclamation was allowed to pass with no inkling of protest from Ophelia – let alone her asking whether the Elevator Guy incident itself was an affair that got inflated into absurdity by the misandrists.
This convenience store approach to reality is highlighted quite nicely in Ophelia’s more recent offering –
See especially the extract in footnote 1 from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Delicious. Freethoughtblogs style “freethought” in action, and that’s just the blog title. But the part of real interest is this –
That was that, but I saw this morning that James had flagged up his recent FK post on the subject on Abbie Smith’s thread (the one full of “cunt” and “fucking bitch” and all the rest of the thoughtful, non-sexist vocabulary), so I read/skimmed it.
Quite amazing. Cunt Ophelia just can’t get past a mention of Abbie without descending into this gutteral, snarling rage, flogging to death cherry-picked irrelevancies, and avoiding any actual relevancies, in a misogynistic hissy fit to, yet again, pour a bucket of shit on Abbie for her own mindless2 reasons.
Ophelia, using her very best epistemic relativism, insists on convincing the planet that Abbie exists for only one reason – to promote gender hatred via applied linguistic rape. And that’s all she does. Ever. Because that is all Ophelia ever says she does. Memetically, this is a twig on the same branch as “niggers have thick skulls and want to rape your white women” and “Jews need the blood of infants to make matzos for Passover”. I certainly can’t see any difference.
How mighty liberal, enlightened and tolerant.
You are a fucking misogynist cunt Ophelia. Your brain is a can of ball bearings on a paint shaker spouting gibberish to suit. You sell your brand of schizophrenic hatred to us as your epistemically relativist truth and demand to be taken seriously.
In other words, you are a perfect fit for The Naked Emperor’s Crisis Factory.
The blog’s which caused this current cretinous meltdown by Ophelia are from James Onen of Freethought Kampala, a guy in a real tough part of the world where people have enough on their plates without having to fabricate extra problems out of trivia to feed their own narcissism. The two main items are –
Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism
Both are articulate, well reasoned, well researched and more objective than any of the pink pudgy things will ever give credit for. Both are recommended reading, and are especially good as an introduction for those that have not kept up with this idiocy and/or are of the opinion that this issue is not a serious one. And the irony of Ophelia fighting “backlash” against atheism, as mentioned in her about section, is of course lost on her now that she is one of the bulldozer drivers.
Special Bonus Ophelia (7th Oct.)
Ophelia being civil to Adrienne Myers over the latter’s gender treachery –
Sideshow distraction –
The things you find rummaging around in Ophelia’s panty drawer looking for something sniffable that won’t turn your nose hairs to dust. Found this –
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2006/cartoons/
Now the only way Ophelia can comment on that issue without being a hypocrite (not that it’s ever a concern) is to show full support for the imams.
1 – Cesspit of lies: “Factual relativism or epistemic relativism is a mode of reasoning which extends relativism and subjectivism to factual matter and reason. In factual relativism the facts used to establish the truth or falsehood of any statement are understood to be relative to the perspective of those proving or falsifying the proposition.”
Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: “The thesis that what may be a proper claim to know something when made by one group or culture may be otherwise when made by a different group or culture. In some cases this is harmless and banal (people who have looked and seen may know things that people who have not do not know). In other cases it can be highly contentious, as when there are claims made for specific cultural, religious, or female ways of knowing things, unavailable to outsiders.”
2 – in the antithetical sense to mindful, the exact opposite of being –
attentive, aware, or careful (usually followed by of ): mindful of one’s responsibilities.
October 3, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Essentially, you have described a person for whom philosophy is a religion — a corrosive dogmatic cult — no matter how obviously absurd.
October 3, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I just described what close to half a century of “there are no losers, we’re all winners” and “everyone has a right to an opinion” has done to our western academic system. This idiocy will probably take another half century to undo the damage – that is unless we are past the point of no return.
The problem with these “intellectual” iron lungs is that they are all so entitled. This poison rubs off onto young Ophelia’s that old Ophelia’s snare. And as long as this illusion of “oppression” or victimhood is maintained, there will be slave solidarity, their dumbness a forbidden “truth” blah blah. This is how xtianity started. 2000 years later and it’s still not dead… What a cheery thought.
October 4, 2011 at 12:03 am
I add this because I think it does well in pointing out the disease at the root of these “symptoms.”
There is a 3-part series entitled Take Skepticism Back, which is a fair and eloquent criticism of the very attitudes which we have been discussing here. Though I may not have thought it before, my observations lately lead me to believe that she (Barbara Drescher) is quite correct to point out that conflating skepticism with atheism or any particular political or religious opinion — and that’s what they are, opinions — is problematic, as it leads people away from the original principles of skepticism: an adherence to scientific principles in understanding the world around us. Worse, it cripples people with arrogance and ignorance, which are the opposite of skepticism.
Of course, I’m paraphrasing based on my current understanding, it’s a lot to take in. May have to read it again. Anyhow… Part 1 begins here. I think it’s well worth the read.
October 4, 2011 at 12:20 am
Thanks for that. Yes, that is the problem – “value add” culture. The Baboon King tries to do the same with atheism – which is “absence of believe in god(s)”, and no matter how many assholes challenge it, thats all it will ever be.
Clifford’s Credo, though largely associated with real Freethought (as opposed to the baboon empire’s pseudo-freethought) is probably the closest thing for skeptics –
“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
Anything beyond that is typhos. This is what CFI needs rubbed in their faces. Get real – stop flushing resources on spoiled, tantrum throwing children. They keep howling about how cash strapped they are and they are, and they just squander what little they have on ideological sideshows.
*THAT* is dereliction of duty…
October 4, 2011 at 1:18 am
Take Back Skepticism, Part III: The Dunning-Kruger Effect
Wow. Its like we’ve shared the same notebook. Much of this is precisely the same as what I have expressed about the atheist status quo (to no ultimate effect), mostly at SensitiveLand where damage by morons and ideologues has been the most devastating. The place is now owned, and held hostage, by vanity spammers, pseudo-scholars, conspiracy loons and gender slaves/puritans. They rule the place through terror, and the twit who runs it is absolutely spineless… I spent well over a year telling him PRECISELY what was going to happen to his site, after seeing all the warning signs. He ignored everything – now its completely, irretrievably ruined, just a toxic waste dump of stupidity. Every last problem I told him would manifest did. And it very much was a case of where you HATE being right…
… and this is now what is happening to CFI.
Need to read the whole thing in greater detail when less tired. Awesome OL. Thanks.
October 4, 2011 at 1:34 am
And in fact, this is the proto-Watsonista drone that first poisoned Sensitiveland with this crap, via Greta Christina just over 2 years ago –
http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/atheist-nexus-is-run-by-a
That was the beginning of the end – as I said at the time and was proven correct. That is the point where the site turned from egalitarianism to Stasi police state – overnight.
October 4, 2011 at 11:38 am
To those of you scratching your head and wondering, “What issue?” Well, watch closely as we proceed to invent one and solve it with diversity quotas and self-righteous moralizing (read: “sensitivity training”)!
Fixed that. Also, James Onen does an excellent job ragging on white guilt and victim mentality in the linked article.
October 6, 2011 at 11:02 pm
My initial skim of Drescher/ICBS item was more enthusiastic than what I feel after a full read. Drescher needs to do more than talk the talk, she also has to live up to her own expectations. She doesn’t. In part 2 she states –
While Melchiorre does sound like a typical non-thinking new new atheist dogmatist (going by the content of his talk), her fawning over the pudgy pink one appears ridiculous in the extreme when she devotes most of part 3 eviscerating Marcotte over a specific blog post, which is nowhere near her most insane, and nowhere near as crazy is the gibberish that Watson spouts either.
Someone has an ingroup bias they would be highly offended to have pointed out to them…
October 7, 2011 at 12:24 am
That had struck me as a bit odd, too, but I honestly wasn’t sure what to make of it. Her beef with the Youtuber AronRa was particularly bizarre. Granted she said she doesn’t know anything about him which she goes on to make abundantly clear, but her criticisms are as flimsy as she claims his talking points were. He doesn’t know why people believe? Of course he doesn’t, nobody really does! He can however speculate just like anyone else and based on his experiences and frustrations in (for example) combating Christian ideologues like Don McLeroy in the Texas education system, I don’t particularly blame him for thinking that way whether it’s “irrational” or not.
Maybe I’m making shit up, maybe this is an emergent pattern, but if you’re a skeptic and don’t like what someone has to say, doesn’t it seem that you can simply dismiss it by branding it based on emotion or otherwise “irrational”?
October 7, 2011 at 12:49 am
In fact, she reduces her whole post to nonsense by stating in part 1 –
Sorry, a) you did not pursue this point and b) you sang the praises of the worst ideologue of the lot.
October 7, 2011 at 12:57 am
* calling for social change related to political ideology or other values.
Isn’t skepticism a value? Is it not promoting social change related to that value to promote skepticism in the public sphere? Isn’t that what movements do, and isn’t the skeptical movement precisely that? I’m CONFUSED!
Clearly I didn’t read the posts closely enough…
October 7, 2011 at 1:11 am
Err, no, it is not a “value”. If anything, it is a “system” for clarity. This is how new, new atheists poison atheism too – by trying to add “values” to what is a null hypothesis: “There is no evidence of god(s), therefore we must assume god(s) is/are nonexistent”.
Drescher herself devotes a whole post to this –
http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2010/04/scientific-skepticism-a-tutorial/
Which makes her assertion that Miss Piggy is the “best representative” sound so much more absurd and inconsistent with her call for skeptical purism.
October 7, 2011 at 2:16 am
Conceded. Not that it’s an excuse, but in defense of my ignorance, I’ve seen it presented that way for quite a long time, which is of course the point Drescher makes in the article you linked. Old and wrong ways of thinking (especially when they’re easy to understand) aren’t always easy to get rid of.
October 7, 2011 at 2:30 am
No offense OL – but you have just explained the whole problem without realising it. The problem is that given the information available to you, you don’t know any better – and the people you have interacted with have confirmed the same errors.
This is why things are falling to pieces – now there is also CFI and Skepchick pushing the same false message to other new skeptics.
It takes venturing into potholes like mine, that are as far away from them as is probably possible, to stumble on this information. *That* is a problem no?
October 7, 2011 at 3:05 am
Absolutely none taken, it’s true, and it is a problem. The worst part is, had I not been disillusioned by the politics of the “in-crowd,” that whole mentality would have probably never been broken.
October 7, 2011 at 8:56 am
OL, I dont really follow the skepticism movement/blogs in general, but I am beginning to now and your link was useful. So some of them are pissed with the attempted expansion of scope to atheism.. (which makes sense given the definition(s) of scientific skepticism in that same blog). And who are the culprits? the usual gang.. PZ, Marcotte. LOL
couple of points..
1) Isnt it funny that BD spends the entire part2 on dissecting the “communicating atheism” discussion.. entirely unrelated to skepticism? She claims that RD conflated skepticism with atheism because he responded to Phil’s DBAD. Bollocks. NitPicking. Also, even if speaker TomD is proposing an Overton Window scheme for the atheist movement, how is criticizing that related to “taking back skepticism”?
2) whats with all the criticism of “offensive language” in part 1? This is the freaking internet. I didnt even crack a smile for most of the citations 😀
October 4, 2011 at 6:41 pm
[…] Ophelia Expects To Be Taken Seriously Too, Part 2 (greylining.wordpress.com) […]
October 7, 2011 at 8:18 am
Adrienne Myers In short: Fuck feminism.
September 29 at 5:19am · Like
Adrienne Myers Don’t need the specialized force ANYMORE. There does come a point of refinement where it becomes more cumbersome than helpful.
September 29 at 5:20am · Like
Adrienne Myers Always hated the term anyway. Morphological nightmare.
September 29 at 5:21am · Like
Ophelia Benson Well fuck you back.
October 1 at 7:04pm · Like
Melody Hensley Indeed.
October 1 at 9:46pm · Like>
October 7, 2011 at 9:48 am
Stay classy, Ophelia!
October 7, 2011 at 9:48 am
Don’t you love the Ophelia Benson civility? Here’s a mini-quiz –
Which one is Ophelia and which one is Catharine MacKinnon? The latter earns special kudos from all of the oppressed by citing the snuff movie industry, who’s worth is apparently greater than the GDP of Portugal (she just doesn’t have any evidence with her right now), no less than 50 times (I lost count) in her book Only Words.
While physiognomy is hardly a credible science, it is funny how all of these fem-bot things morph over time to be virtually indistinguishable. Becky – this is you in 20 years. You think you are unappealing now? It only gets worse honey.
October 8, 2011 at 5:36 am
That is EERIE. Also cf., Greta Christina.
October 8, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Oh dear. Yes Greta… A look impossible to parody.
October 17, 2011 at 9:45 am
[…] Ophelia Expects To Be Taken Seriously Too, Part 2 (greylining.wordpress.com) […]