|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2013 : 15:50:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Michael Shermer needed, a while back, to do nothing more than clarify his original meaning and perhaps apologize, but now he really, really needs to shut the fuck up.
|
This is hard for me to watch, since Shermer was extremely influential in exposing me to skepticism. I want to like him. I shook my head when I found out he wrote a book promoting Libertarianism, but now he has me shaking my fist. It's really sad to see a man who dedicated his life to exposing bias in others could be so blind to his own.
What gets me is the false cries of persecution. It's exactly the same shit Christians pull when they are called out for their offenses. After all the religious debates he's participated in, you would think Shermer would understand a concept as simple as personal accountability.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2013 : 19:18:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
This is hard for me to watch... |
For me, too. Perhaps I feel more bitter about my one-time heroes crashing down to earth. I mean, as compared to the skeptics/atheists I'd never heard of until they popped up as raging asswipes with a Rebecca Watson fixation. Those people I can just laugh at while I do what I can to marginalize them.
Watching Dawkins and Grothe have their moments was disturbing, too, and Al Stefanelli is a sad loss to the Dark Side, but Shermer is going completely overboard in what appears to be a totally unprecedented way for someone of his caliber in the community. I mean, it's in the pages of Free Inquiry no less. This isn't a little blog blow-up; this has fucking hard copy.
Irony of ironies, look what Shermer Tweeted four days ago.
Oh, Shermer's triple-down is now online. How blind can he be? This blind:...if the worst offense against women in secularism today is a ten-second quip taken out of context and redacted to the two-second line “it’s a guy thing”... Hey Shermer, that is, hands down, nowhere remotely close to the worst offense against women in secularism today. What an ass. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2013 : 09:44:00 [Permalink]
|
Stephanie Zvan has a post up about the words Shermer used:Look at that list of characterizations again. Six terms, four of them explicitly relating to governmentss. The other two relate to religious power, particularly in times and places where religion actively and effectively compete(d) with the state for control.
Control. Power.
We’re not talking about happy democracies with power-sharing strategies either. What happened to opponents of the powers listed above? They had their livelihoods taken away. They were locked up and forced into labor. They died. They were killed.
That’s the kind of power Michael Shermer and others and who have used those terms claim for me. It seemed bizarre until I realized that this was an argument about how I’m supposed to behave if I want to be allowed to continue in these movements.
You see, I’m supposed to be circumspect to the point of sitting on my hands when we talk about rules that could ever be misinterpreted or misused in any way–despite the fact that the lack of rules has been badly abused. I’m supposed to settle any difference I have with a public figure with closed-door diplomacy–despite the fact that they speak about me, individually or as part of a group, from stages and in magazines that function as the mouthpieces of organizations. I am ever supposed to hold my temper–despite the people who take to the airwaves to yell about me.
I’m being told I should act, not as though I were submissive, but as though I held all the power in the world.
Just a note: It isn’t going to happen. If you want me to behave as though everything and everyone trembled in response to my whims, you’re going to have to give me the unassailable power to make that happen. Then you’d have to convince me to take it. Frankly, I don’t think anyone is offering. Read the whole thing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2013 : 11:19:34 [Permalink]
|
I'd also note that Shermer Tweeted that his latest rhetorical vomit is his "final" response, as if nothing anyone could say to him could possibly change his mind about anything. This is, of course, a thoroughly unskeptical attitude.
Until Shermer makes some major changes, I'm done with giving him any sort of financial support. With this meltdown, he's certainly shown himself to be someone I wouldn't want in my ideal skeptical community. Are his current contributions to the movement(s) justification enough to put up with his apparently massive and un-self-critical ego? I don't think so.
Would refusing to continue to link to Skepticality ("The Official Podast of Skeptic Magazine and the Skeptics Society," both Shermer outfits) in our Summary be an over-reaction on my part? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2013 : 19:52:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Would refusing to continue to link to Skepticality ("The Official Podast of Skeptic Magazine and the Skeptics Society," both Shermer outfits) in our Summary be an over-reaction on my part?
|
Yeah. They became the official podcast of Skeptic Magazine, but it's still just Derek and Swoopy doing their thing. The podcast doesn't generate any revenue. I don't see the point in punishing friends of ours because of something that isn't really theirs to control.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2013 : 21:23:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Yeah. They became the official podcast of Skeptic Magazine, but it's still just Derek and Swoopy doing their thing. The podcast doesn't generate any revenue. I don't see the point in punishing friends of ours because of something that isn't really theirs to control. |
Actually, it is theirs to control. They could say, "we're not going to associate with this sort of nonsense any longer," and refuse to renew their contract with Shermer's groups. That's partly the point of the petition in the OP here, after all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2013 : 22:21:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
Yeah. They became the official podcast of Skeptic Magazine, but it's still just Derek and Swoopy doing their thing. The podcast doesn't generate any revenue. I don't see the point in punishing friends of ours because of something that isn't really theirs to control. |
Actually, it is theirs to control. They could say, "we're not going to associate with this sort of nonsense any longer," and refuse to renew their contract with Shermer's groups. That's partly the point of the petition in the OP here, after all.
|
It's a delicate line to walk. We don't to want to become fanatics who disassociate ourselves from anyone who disagrees with us. On the other hand, we do need to stand up for our principals.
The thing I always try to remember is that it's the bad ideas that we want eliminate, not people. People can their change minds about things. They can grow, they can mature. They can learn. We just have to be calm, rational, and persistent. It's what worked on me. I understand how maddening and frustrating it can be at times, and not everyone is interested in listening. But I've seen the direction things are going, and they are improving. This dialogue has been divisive for our community in many ways, but there have been many tangible victories for our side as well. Many skeptical conferences that did not have harassment policies now do, for instance.
Like skepticism, the only place most people will ever hear about feminism is in college, and that's if they really go out of their way to take a course or two. This stuff just hasn't percolated down into the general consciousness yet. But it will. It is. I see the younger generation and they are way more tolerant and supportive of each other than the generation I grew up in. At least from what I see here in liberal New York. (I realize the rate of change varies wildly throughout the nation.) It's not perfect. It probably never will be. But the general trend is upwards to greater tolerance and equality.
So I say keep the link, but add an asterisk. Shermer and Skeptic Magazine are a great resource on many skeptical topics. That doesn't cease to be true just because Shermer has ego issues.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/16/2013 22:22:32 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2013 : 23:04:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
Yeah. They became the official podcast of Skeptic Magazine, but it's still just Derek and Swoopy doing their thing. The podcast doesn't generate any revenue. I don't see the point in punishing friends of ours because of something that isn't really theirs to control. |
Actually, it is theirs to control. They could say, "we're not going to associate with this sort of nonsense any longer," and refuse to renew their contract with Shermer's groups. That's partly the point of the petition in the OP here, after all.
|
Half the skeptics in the known universe have a little something to do with Skeptic. Shermer's article appeared in the CFI's Free Iquiery. So do we now also boycott the CFI and everyone who has any association with the CFI and doesn't speak out against publishing his article? How about Ron Linsday? He's the CEO of the CFI. What do we do about Blake Smith, Ben Radford , and Karen Stollznow of Monster Talk? We don't link to Monster Talk but we most certainly link to articles by Ben Radford in just about every SFN Skeptic Summary. Randi is on the editorial board and writes a column for Skeptic. It just goes on and on.
Be critical of Shermer. He has it coming. And this isn't the first time. But boycotting everyone who is not actively distancing themselves from Skeptic is going to be a lot of people. It's going to be all three of the major skeptical organizations, and then some.
You asked:
| Would refusing to continue to link to Skepticality ("The Official Podast of Skeptic Magazine and the Skeptics Society," both Shermer outfits) in our Summary be an over-reaction on my part? |
Yes. I think it would be.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2013 : 00:11:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But boycotting everyone who is not actively distancing themselves from Skeptic is going to be a lot of people. It's going to be all three of the major skeptical organizations, and then some. |
If that's what it takes...
Shatter the movement and rebuild it from the ground up to avoid at all costs hero-worship and arguments from popularity or size. And really, the sooner the better. Get the growing pains over with. Rip all the Band-Aids off at once, scream for a few seconds, and then get on with life.
While all of the groups and people (including Shermer!) mentioned here have made and continued to make some excellent contributions, not one of them is indispensable to either Movement Skepticism or Movement Atheism. If continued acceptance of their participation means compromising my skeptical or atheistic principles, then fuck them. Especially with groups like CfI, which depend upon our support for their existence. They need us to agree with what they do or don't do so that we continue to support them. Suggesting that we need to support them because of what they once did flips reality on its head. They beg us for help for a reason, and we shouldn't feel guilty about voting with our wallets.
Saddened, sure. I certainly don't feel good that Shermer has had the melt-down that he has. But I absolutely don't feel badly about myself for refusing to give him my money. (FFS, that's the Libertarian Way!) I'm not in any way responsible for what he does. Similarly, I'm not responsible for CfI's actions or inactions, and so while it'd be a sad day if they ceased to exist because they chose the wrong path (in my opinion), it won't be a day that I regret.
By the way, I doubt Ron Lindsay has day-to-day oversight of Free Inquiry. I imagine that Tom Flynn had the go-or-no-go decision to make on Shermer's piece. In comments in various places, it's been suggested that Shermer's hit-piece only got published because he and Flynn are fellow libertarians - effectively a good-ol'-boy network connection allowed that dreck to be printed in what has otherwise been a magazine of integrity. While Benson "will be given" space to respond in the next issue, do you think she'd have been given two-and-a-half pages to write such a nasty article in Free Inquiry if Shermer had made a two-sentence example of something she'd said in some other magazine?
And Lindsay has already spoken out:Members of the secular and skeptical communities should be distinguished by their respect for others, including those with whom they may disagree. Those who are incapable of treating others with decency and respect do not belong in our communities. To such individuals we should say with one voice: take your hate elsewhere. Time will tell whether he follows through in this particular instance. Shermer's attack - which conflated Benson's criticisms of him with inquisitions, witch-hunts, and the damned Holocaust - could not even charitably be considered respectful or decent. Objectively, Ron Lindsay has already said that Michael Shermer doesn't belong in our communities. He should declare that Shermer will no longer appear in the pages of CfI-owned journals or at CfI-sponsored events. I think I'll send him an email... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2013 : 10:04:32 [Permalink]
|
Dave. I wasn't talking about numbers or hero worship, really. I was talking about high value people who do the heavy lifting in promoting skepticism. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
There is more than one way to look at Benson being offered a chance to respond in Free Inquiry. They could have shut her out too. But they must see the debate as valuable. Just because we don't know what "will be given space" actually means, doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions about what it means. And being a high profile figure in the freethinking community, I would not assume that she would not have been given the space that Shermer was given in a magazine dedicated to that part of the movement that she is most active in. Did she submit any articles that were turned down? This is just too much speculation for my taste.
I would refer you back to Humbert's reply to your question, which was less nuts and bolts and much more eloquent than my reply.
I'm uneasy with guilt by association. Not everyone is going to be a social activist within the movement. If that's the demand of A+ for all of us, and I was told by you that it isn't, than what can I say? I know that you want to expand the movement to include social issues. (I'm not so sure that's a good idea, but on the other hand, I don't see why we should be accepting of asshats and sexism in our movement. Harassment has no place in any cause that I support.) And I don't see any reason why you shouldn't lean on the movement to push for what you think is right. You made it clear that the petition is about that, and I stood down in my small criticism of it. Far be it for me to get in the way of something that is ultimately a cause I believe in too. But "shattering" the movement because of a few asshats does not feel to me like the way to go. The You are either with us in our methods, or you are against us, no matter how valuable their contributions are to skepticism and critical thinking has been seems counter productive to me. Perhaps every movement needs its dissenters to keep it honest and fair and moving in more positive directions. The dialog is open and it's clearly happening. So what is it you want? Change overnight? Look at those people who have answered Surly Amy and you will see that the harassment/sexism issue is both on the table and being discussed with plenty of people outraged over what some assholes are doing.
Yeah. Shermer has blinkers on. Again, not for the first time. I got into it over the libertarian thing with a letter to Pat Linse, the co-founder of the Skeptic Society. I did it with Daniel Loxton's blessings, and he works for the guy. She replied that she was not happy with Shermer's promotion of libertarianism either.
Again, I'm not comfortable with going after friends of ours who are doing good work and have shown no sign of being sexist. You want them to do what you would do. Well... You are the editor here. So do what you are going to do. This is, after all, and editorial decision.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2013 : 15:25:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave. I wasn't talking about numbers or hero worship, really. I was talking about high value people who do the heavy lifting in promoting skepticism. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. |
My response wouldn't have been too much different. People who were once high-value but who melt down into embarrassing puddles become less highly valued, and can be left behind.| There is more than one way to look at Benson being offered a chance to respond in Free Inquiry. They could have shut her out too. But they must see the debate as valuable. Just because we don't know what "will be given space" actually means, doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions about what it means. And being a high profile figure in the freethinking community, I would not assume that she would not have been given the space that Shermer was given in a magazine dedicated to that part of the movement that she is most active in. Did she submit any articles that were turned down? |
That's not the question. The question is whether a long, unskeptical example of persecution complex and vanity just like Shermer's could have gotten published in Free Inquiry if anyone else had been the author.| I would refer you back to Humbert's reply to your question, which was less nuts and bolts and much more eloquent than my reply. |
Well certainly nobody who gets left behind need be anathema permanently. People can learn, and I see examples every week of "I used to think just like those asshats do, but I got over it." It's quite possible for Shermer, Thunderf00t, Stefanelli, Vacula and even the odious Reap Paden to "redeem" themselves, and the people they've wronged the most would undoubtedly forgive them and get on with their lives and goals.
In the meantime, however, it's not actually these peoples' ideas that are a problem, but their behavior. Nobody would ever had cared if they'd all kept all their misogynistic, hateful thoughts to themselves. And we get people to change their behavior through discussion with the reasonably wrong, and shunning with the obstinate asswipes.| I'm uneasy with guilt by association. |
I'm not talking about simple associations, but of support (via link-love, if nothing else).| Not everyone is going to be a social activist within the movement. If that's the demand of A+ for all of us, and I was told by you that it isn't, than what can I say? I know that you want to expand the movement to include social issues. (I'm not so sure that's a good idea, but on the other hand, I don't see why we should be accepting of asshats and sexism in our movement. Harassment has no place in any cause that I support.) And I don't see any reason why you shouldn't lean on the movement to push for what you think is right. You made it clear that the petition is about that, and I stood down in my small criticism of it. Far be it for me to get in the way of something that is ultimately a cause I believe in too. But "shattering" the movement because of a few asshats does not feel to me like the way to go. |
I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, but if it's necessary to get the entrenched asshats out of their positions of power who use it to prevent the movement from being more inclusive, then I'll be all for it.| The You are either with us in our methods, or you are against us, no matter how valuable their contributions are to skepticism and critical thinking has been seems counter productive to me. |
There is no "you're either with us or against us" attitude in evidence here. People's contributions to the movement are diminished when they also help ensure that more people won't want to join the movement.| Perhaps every movement needs its dissenters to keep it honest and fair and moving in more positive directions. The dialog is open and it's clearly happening. |
No. Just no. Michael Shermer's three-page rant is neither dissent nor dialog. Slimepitters mocking "Rebecca Twatson" is neither dissent nor dialog. People telling Jen McCreight that she's too ugly to rape is neither dissent nor dialog. The idea that the people I'm calling "asshats" are just trying to engage in polite debate is a lie.| So what is it you want? Change overnight? |
What? No.| Look at those people who have answered Surly Amy and you will see that the harassment/sexism issue is both on the table and being discussed with plenty of people outraged over what some assholes are doing. |
And that's a great start.
| Again, I'm not comfortable with going after friends of ours who are doing good work and have shown no sign of being sexist. |
"Going after?!" Holy shit.| You want them to do what you would do. |
Who wouldn't? I think what I would do is the morally-correct thing to do.
Derek and Swoopy have Shermer's attention much more than I ever will. I've got no clue if the fact that we link to them offers us any pull (need to see link traffic stats for that, among other things), but if it does, then we can give them a nudge on this issue, and say that they should try to similarly nudge Shermer. How much does it matter to them that they are Skeptics' official podcast?| Well... You are the editor here. So do what you are going to do. This is, after all, and editorial decision. |
 If I'd wanted to exercise that sort of editorial power, I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. And the fact that I asked publicly instead of in our back-channel or via email should have suggested that I intended more for the question to be a jumping-off point for discussion than I intended to actually do it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2013 : 16:07:28 [Permalink]
|
| The dissent I was talking about wasn't Shermer's article or any of the horrible things you listed that people have done. I was commenting on what you are engaged in, Dave. And I don't have a clue as to how you could have taken that any other way. I don't give sexism and hateful messages a pass. I need to work on my writing skills I guess. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2013 : 16:53:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
The dissent I was talking about wasn't Shermer's article or any of the horrible things you listed that people have done. I was commenting on what you are engaged in, Dave. And I don't have a clue as to how you could have taken that any other way. I don't give sexism and hateful messages a pass. I need to work on my writing skills I guess. |
No, I apologize. Reading it again, I think maybe I triggered on the word "dissenters" and lost the context. Sorry about that.
Also, re-reading my response, it looks like I'm calling you a liar when that wasn't my intent. I apologize for that, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2013 : 23:22:07 [Permalink]
|
| If there was a hypothetical world where there was no sexual prejudice, discrimination or history of it... would it STILL be sexist to say "It's a guy thing". Or could we then perhaps just consider the possibility that biologically men are generally more inclined towards certain things? |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fighting back
