His response to Greta throws out several accusations: there exist something called “controversialist” blogs, and their writers have anonymously informed him they’ve been directed to go on the attack by the founders for an “uptick in hits”.
I don’t know of these blogs. Can anyone point me to some?
I can say that there have been no such directions given at Freethoughtblogs, Scienceblogs, the Panda’s Thumb, or any blog I’m associated with.
There other weird things about that comment, but I trust Greta will handle it well; I’m just surprised by this novel conspiracy theory.
I run a controversialist blog. All 6 of my readers know that. Today, I had 7 hits. It’s woooorkiiiiing!
Anyone remember when the motto of the head of the JREF was “Don’t be a dick”?
@Veritas
No. The motto was “Don’t be a dick…to potential marketing demographics like theists”
I loved JREF. The foundation was my second real introduction to skepticism after Robert Carroll and his website. I hung out on their forums nearly every day (I have a boring life.) But other incidents have caused me to walk away. And then, just after that all these weird comments from D.J. Grothe start coming to light.
There really does seem to be an acrimonious (on at least one side) split amongts skeptics that appears to be related to the idea that skepticism is not just UFOs and Bigfoots and conspiracy theories. Or am I just imaginging it? I for one am sick of debating with crazy people over inconsequential topics when there are important issues I can apply logical thought to.
There has always been a divide in the skeptic community between communities that want to hold some cows as sacred (like religion or, evidently, gender roles) and those who want to inquire critically into all truth claims about the universe.
@Gregory
I observed earlier that the JREF and some other skepticinc groups seem to lump things like Politics, sexism, racism, economics and religion into the category of “Opinion” and then seek to minimize talk of it and codify status quo as the fair and balanced stance.
Nuh-uh! We don’t comment much because we just agree with everything you say.
Cross post
It’s things like this that make me (sorry) skeptical about the skeptical movement and it’s goals. When I see arch icons held up like Hitchens and the like who held fast to dangerous beliefs even when the problems were pointed out to them, I question the very ideals of skepticism they promote.
Don’t be baffled. There is a type of person—no matter what oppressed group he or she may belong to—who doesn’t want actual change on a broad scale. He wants his favored group to achieve Normal Respectable Status in mainstream society even if that comes at the cost of throwing even less-privileged people under the bus.
If DJ Grothe were a young man in the 1950s, he would likely have been a member of the Mattachine Society. Think of them as the anti-stonewall queers. . .err, I mean. . .err. . I mean ‘inverts’. . .err, I mean ‘homophiles’. . .err, I mean ‘homosexuals’. . .err, I mean GOD DAMN IT WE’RE NOT LIKE THOSE RABBLE ROUSERS NOW GIVE ME A MORTGAGE
Don’t be surprised at his apparent cluelessness and affected disdain for rude, controvery-stoking Others. He’s reverting to type.
Someone’s moving up in the world.
Because it’s pertinent here, a re-post of a comment I left on Greta’s thread and also here in TET:
DJ with my emphasis…
@Carlie #7 – that was always my suspicion, but I dared not think it aloud. Good to know. It’s nice being right about everything.
@Julian #10 – move over, George and Weezy!
I’m stuck on the fact that this…
…is what DJ thinks this is all about.
Man, you don’t have to move in with the Jeffersons. You’re so bigtime you can probably evict them!
Thanks blamer. Those careful qualifiers totes let him off the hook. Who could think those were just a rhetorical device to give DJ plausible deniability for dismissing lots of critics? Only stupid femi-sheep. :)
Name them.
No I’m serious. Name. Them.
That is a serious accusation against intellectual integrity. Either it’s false and DJ is being a shit head, or it’s true and we fucking deserve to know to avoid those blogs.
This is DJ’s equivalent of Santorum’s gay friends.
Are Controversialist Blogs™ ghostwritten by Outside Agitators™?
Controversy gets hits?
Let’s see… I know!
Tune in to Queereka tomorrow for “Why Rebecca Watson should circumcise Ron Paul for his anti-abortion stance which makes me hate all libertarians (p.s. The Smiths are better than The Clash)”
I agree with everyone.
No controversy here.
Move along.
Chigau-
Pro-tip: You forgot “Nothing here to see, folks.”
This argument baffles me.
Storm. In. A. Teacup.
Surely there are bigger fish to fry.
@Fullerer
Fuck you too.
Plainer you: You’re stupid/frivolous/hysterical/biased to care about things I don’t.
“I believe some of the controversies in the atheist blogosphere (certainly not limited to topics related to feminism or sexism) appear to me to be fomented for the hits that result” -DJ Grothe
I’m still trying to understand what would be the point of saying that. Surely he can see that so many insinuations of wrong doing (if they’re not going to be backed up by anything) are incredibly inflammatory. Literally that is the only thing they do.
Surely there are bigger fish to fry than a problem affecting 51% of the human race? Please accept my undying contempt. It doesn’t take much upkeep, and it’ll last you for life with very little feeding required.
Considering the issue is potentially loosing conventions speakers that would be a draw to me (and DJ and others have actually been repelling me away due to other schisms…some of which are deep) I’d say it is an important issue.
ING U R SO STUPID IZ 4 TEH HITZ DUH DOAN NO Y FEMNAZEES STUFF%@
I was in the audience at TAM when we skepticked the fuck out of dowser Connie Sonne. We were all absolutely silent because we’d been instructed to by the powers that be. Talk about an echo chamber. You could have heard a pin drop.
The 50% group disagreement (or whatever the percentage required to be ‘freethinking’ is) clearly wasn’t met, and we didn’t hear a peep about being ditto heads from all these self-described skeptics, because they, just like everybody else, are perfectly happy to be in full agreement when they’re in their comfort zone.
The skeptics’ community is a fucking joke.
So fry ’em your damn self.
But the point of disagreement is so small in the scheme of things. Do we really think DJ Grothe is a secret misogynist? Forgive me, but I find that accusation absurd. I’m sorry if that’s all it takes to earn contempt towards me, I didn’t realise that would be so easy achieve. In fact that kind of aggressive, reactive mentality on both sides seems to be part of the problem.
Or maybe there’s something I’ve missed, I don’t know! I don’t know. I shouldn’t have said anything, obviously.
No, fullerer. The problem is that DJ injects his say into conversations and defends people rather arbitrarily, and has defended some rather indefensible shit, then has thereafter walked back everything EXCEPT that he should never have gotten involved without first finding out what these people were doing. Plus, he’s all pissy about feminism in the atheist community being about “driving controversy” for an “uptick of hits”.
He’s basically walked back everything he’s done in the initial events (while simultaneously saying “I stand by my comments”), and has treated this entire imbroglio like it was some sort of conspiracy to tear down the community rather than an honest attempt by passionate people to correct some injustice being done by one of the leaders of our community.
It’s not that you’ve MISSED something, so much as you’ve INSERTED something. Nobody is saying that DJ is a secret misogynist. The point is that his reaction to the complaint of personal attacks, attacks rooted in extreme sexism, was met with a “well both sides are equally at fault”. He then openly speculated that people were just looking for something to get upset about to drive controversy for personal gain. That kind of response is TEXTBOOK marginalization derailing that is used primarily against women.
And YOUR reaction of “there are more important things to talk about” is equally typical derailing whenever someone brings up a legitimate complaint of sexism (or racism, or ableism, or homophobia, or any marginalization of a minority group). That someone would claim to be a skeptic and then show a complete lack of self-criticism when it comes to her/his own behaviour is quite hypocritical.
The whole “well I shouldn’t have spoken if you’re all just going to get upset” is a classic derail too, just in case you were curious. Engage with your own ideas, accept the criticism as given and either point out their flaws or admit your own. That’s skepticism in action.
No, it isn’t. Not if you care about sexism and exclusion of women as a primary value. Just because it doesn’t seem big to you doesn’t make it negligible. Are you that much of a narcissist?
No one said that. There’s nothing secret about his behavior. He’s being critiqued on a very public pattern, written in his own words, of dismissing and hand-waving nasty, sexist, misogynist behavior away. Whether you want to dwell on him being ESSENTIALLY a misogynist is beside the point. His behavior hurts people, and it’s worthy of criticism.
Shorter me: intent isn’t magic.
Now you know. For those of us who’ve been waging a pitched battle just to get other members of the skeptical community to recognize that we’re not idiots, complainers, or unreasonable when we fucking PLEAD for sexism and misogyny to be condemned, yeah, you waltzing in here without bothering to learn any of that earns you contempt. It doesn’t mean we hate you (we don’t even know who you are). It does mean we fucking hate your entitled behavior and expect you to do just a smidgen of work to understand what’s going on before you get on your high horse.
No. No false equivalency. It’s not a “both sides” thing. You have no basis to call us “reactive” when you clearly have no idea the struggle you’ve stepped into. Who do you think you are? How would you like it if one of us stepped into a discussion group of yours where you were arguing passionately and at length for something you believed in, only to be dismissed as behaving “just as badly” as the other kids?
Cut the passive aggressive shit. If you think you’ve missed something, ask. We’ll tell you. But don’t pull that bullshit.
Crommunist
Yep. Because he’s a classic, Simon Pure appeaser. I got mine, and I’ll boot you if you threaten it.
The “bigger fish to fry” argument is commonly used to silence opinion and shut down conversation and will often get you pelted. People discuss things that concern them, and if it’s not a big enough fish for your tastes, you can duck out. Bigger fish will be fried later. And there’s always bigger fish.
The statement contributes nothing, doesn’t in fact fry any fish whatsoever, and dismisses those who are concerned about an issue. And generally, people don’t care for that.
ADMIT THE TRUTH, PZ!! The Reptoids made you do it!!
Oi! Josh, that was me, not Crom. He’s had lots of awesome in this thread. Let me keep mine! :)
Oh, Jason, sorry! You deserves all Teh Gloriez for that one!!!
Josh hits on the real reason we do what we do: not hits, but glory.
*smears blood on his face*
Yeah, that there, why I’m finding it increasingly difficult to take atheists seriously when they complain about the religious or religion in general.
Jason Thibeault –
Right, thanks for that. I happily upgrade my ‘storm in a teacup’ comment to ‘storm in a bucket’, or even ‘bathtub’.
It can be tough to remain dispassionate in argument about such thorny issues. I don’t like what Krauss said at all, but DJ seems too far removed from the issue to significantly stress me about it. I would just hope that that the argument doesn’t all get too personal – we’re all prone to folly, after all. If DJ is backtracking and stammering now (while still trying to save face), isn’t that as much as we could expect?
I can’t help noticing that Grothe didn’t say he was told this by blog authors, just people who have been “personally involved with one of the controversialist blogs.” Disgruntled commenters?
Wow. Thanks everyone. As it happens, I had not fully researched the issue before my initial comment – I apologise for that.
The aggression here is…startling. I welcome being informed and corrected, but damn. Soz.
fullerer:
Obviously not. Personally, I expect a hell of a lot more than that. Backpedaling isn’t something to be proud of, nor will it do the trick.
Just what is your point, fullerer, being in this discussion except to attempt to silence those of us who take sexism seriously? Don’t you have bigger fish to fry?
fullerer
An object lesson in scepticism: changing one’s opinion when one gets more data. Kudos.
I’m not trying to silence anybody. From my point of view, initially, this looked like more the usual bickering that I’ve gotten so used to seeing in the community of late. Turns out there was a bit more to it. I accept that, apologise, and retract my initial comment. K?
I could have been corrected without the aggression. Just saying.
fullerer@47: When your flip comments sound identical to people actively trolling, rather than exhibiting genuine curiosity as to what’s going on, people are going to think you’re actively trolling. A pro tip: if you don’t know what’s going on, ask. Don’t tell people it’s a tempest in a teacup if you’re not sure why people are upset.
Thank you for going back and doing some homework. You might find the “aggression” less startling when it becomes fully clear why there’s a reason for it. Yeah, it sure does sting when you’re the target. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and it doesn’t mean it’s misdirected. Aggression all the time isn’t good, of course, but aggression is not “wrong,” “counter productive,” or “inappropriate” just because it feels wicked uncomfortable.
And sometimes it’s not “aggression” at all—it’s ordinary passion and censure, such as you’d expect in any heated debate, and that you wouldn’t write off (and there is a certain writing-off by calling it “agression,” do admit) if you weren’t the target and if it were a cause you were passionate about.
Yes, I jumped to conclusions. Failed to fully research. Lesson learned. I don’t believe it should have earned me the vitriol I received, but hey, it’s the internet and all.
Yeah, but that wouldn’t have been as fun. Also, I don’t know what “aggression” you’re talking about. Jason and I were more than polite, and Josh was too – up until calling you out for using passive-aggression as a manipulative debate tactic (which you were). I get that it’s tough to be told you’re wrong. Getting comfortable with that will make you a much better skeptic.
I try to be wrong at least once a day. It’s why I blog.
Dude, seriously, Fullerer, that was pretty fucking cool of you. I always read most/all of the comments on these things- rife with stupid ass shit and people digging in their heels and not being good skeptics… Just so I can be rewarded with the goddamn GOLD of someone who actually looks at shit. Reminds me what I’m fighting for.
PS Crommunist, can I be your 8th hit? I luvvs you.
Wait… that sounds more sexual than I meant it to O_o
fullerer:
It’s not aggression. Bluntness, yes. Tiredness and annoyance at seeing the same stupid fucking comment for the 9,000 time? Yes.
You weren’t overly insulted that I read, you didn’t get a single Cupcake, douchebiscuit or asspimple aimed your way and you didn’t get a decaying porcupine offer, so I suggest you stop fucking whining about the “aggression” or you’ll most likely actually see some.
Welcome to the shark tank. Try not to fall in ass first again.
I’ll let you walk it back. We all make mistakes. The important thing is that we don’t videotape them, and then leave the tape where a vengeful ex-lover can find it and post it on an amateur porn site.
That was exactly as sexual as I meant it.
No. Stop that. Stop affecting woundedness.
The gaffe was yours. You came in here and obnoxiously declared “tempest in a teapot.” It was you who said something incredibly rude and dismissive. You did that. You deserved the censure you got. You would have been justified in treating any one of us just the same way if we had come onto your blog and peremptorily declared that what you were going on about was a “storm in a teacup.”
Stand back and stop being defensive.
No one here is saying you’re an irredeemable asshole. No one here is saying you have nothing useful to contribute. No one is questioning your fundamental worth as a person or as a conversational partner, so just stop with the deflecting.
What we are doing is pointing out that you did an asshole move, and you got asshole treatment. That’s OK. We’ve all done it, really! But you don’t get to make us out to be the bad guys for dishing out to you what you served us.
Now can we move on?
Alright guys, I think he gets it, we don’t need to be quite so righteous at him. I call it a victory, at least he’s not one of those horrendous trolls over at Greta’s blog who will never take their head out of their ass ever.
Josh – yes yes it’s all fine, good, whatever. I’m not trying to make you the bad guy. Continue to talk in whichever style you please. I shall carry it in my stride.
Caine – yes sir Mr Shark sir! (I imagined the ‘welcome to the shark tank’ line to be followed by a fade to black and ‘in cinemas Feb 7’)
fullerer:
:D I think I need a tux and a martini…
By the way, I’m not a sir. Welcome to Pharyngula.
I love you guys. I have to say though, wow PZ’s comment thread is seeming rather tame compared to Greta’s original (albeit more inflammatory) one. Never saw that coming- Greta was the one who showed me it was reasonable for PZ to be so pissed off at everything XD
Fullerer:
A few pointers that will make your stay at Air Pharyngula more comfortable:
1. ‘Mr. Shark’ Sir Caine is a woman:) If you ask her very nicely she might spank you.
2. If you make use of your personal porcupine we ask that you please do so only in the lavatories so that the quills do not get ground into the carpet (it is not yet paid for)*. For your convenience there is a lavatory behind your seat in the rear of the Blogcraft and one in the front–but that is for first-class only, thank you.
*Hang around for a few days and you’ll get it. :)
Oh, and Fullerer? Here’s some helpful stuff: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2011/08/01/pharyngula-standards-practices/
Caine – ah yes, should have got that from the rest of your name, my apologies. Again.
*cough*
Josh:
Oh no I won’t. Newbies go straight to Miss Patricia. If they survive, then I’ll play with ’em in the spanking parlour.
That is the second time today I’ve been accused of being nice! At work someone on the phone said to me, “I’m gonna have to talk to them. . .who said you can’t be conciliatory and diplomatic? I don’t know where they got that idea. . ”
LOL
DJ can go fuck himself with his “dittohead” bullshit. What an arrogant, insulting, dismissive shit of a thing to say.
Of course, he can go fuck himself with the rest of his bullshit too, which was even worse.
How do you propose that the bloggers concerned prove this, DJ? A polygraph and sodium pentothal?
If I am wrong and you do not, in fact, fuck goats for kicksI will happily stand corrected.
Can’t get the latter anymore, not even hospitals can. The whole executing people with it thing is a killer for their marketing.
Maybe that’s his problem right there. That he can see no payoff other than blog hits. I’d say a considerable payoff is that we get some evidence, rational thinking and, you know, skepticism, into the debate, whatever it may be on the day. And I agree with Brownian above, the things some self-proclaimed skeptics say and do, the rather unskeptic way many of them debate or argue their positions, makes large parts of this movement indeed appear like one big fucking joke.
That’s a damned shame. It made my wisdom-tooth extraction tolerable. It would have made my cardiac catheterization even more so during my heart attack.
Well, actually I can get it, but it requires lots of paperwork, some pharmacies still keep a stash of it, and I have to give good reasons when I ask for it.
Well, start filling it out, pally (wink). That’s some excellent shit when you want to have no earthly idea what the hell doctors are doing to your innards. Trust me.
Josh:
It made me blissfully unconscious during mine, which was rough as it included shaving bits of my jawbone away. In the whole “count backward from 100” business, I made it all the way to 97.
Same here, Caine. One minute I was counting down to 97, the next I was being shaken awake by a nurse who kept saying, “Mr. Josh. . it’s time to wake up.. wake up now.”
With the cardiac cath during my heart attack? Pfft. Way too awake.
Although, Caine, I’m not the best judge of how awake I was afterward as I remember calling you to relay the bullshit news, but I can’t for the life of me remember what we talked about. :)
Josh:
Oh, I was terrible, such a lightweight. They finally put me in a side room, laid out on padded leather covered bench…for *two* hours. All the attempted waking during that time went nowhere. They finally got me to surface, my grandmother took me home, where I swallowed a couple of pain pills and promptly went back to zoned-completely-out land.
Josh:
It was not bullshit news! Geez. You were lucid, but sounded on the stoned side, you got distracted a lot. :)
Oh, it is such a joke, isn’t it? They might as well just roll one into the trunk of any waiting friend/family car, because you’re going to be good for absolutely nothing for at least 24 hours.
Like I said, bullshit. . LOL. To be expected when they get done poking all up in your groinal artery to fish around and do plumbing in your heart! Heheheheh.
I’m terribly glad I was stoned, and awfully glad you were there on the phone to talk to me while I got through it. Thanks babe.
Josh:
Oh, absolutely. I was good for nothing for more than 24 hours. You coulda rolled me into a trunk and left me there for a week! :D
Josh:
I was, and am, thrilled you were around to talk to me. Our doctors and nurses are all too often seriously unsung heroes (emts, too.) I still want to squeeze you half to death, I’m so happy you’re here and healthy and talking.
I’ll end this mutual admiration society here (though I do appreciate it, love). I did make a hefty donation to the nonprofit hospital and to the medic squad that saved my life that night. The friendship you and the horde gave me by phone and by email I can never repay.
Now, DS9 for real, and also toast.
Josh:
Toast is good. Back on topic for a moment, thanks for the link you provided on TET, that was some good reading.
Oooh! Ooh! Me! Me! I know this one!
“The lurkers support me in email.”
Did I get it right?
Crommunist says:
Imagine how well it would work if you actually included a link to your blog?
It’s so hard to be a semiprofessional dittohead, if nobody tells me what I supposed to agree with.
Sili:
It certainly sounds an awful lot like the lurkers support me in e-mail, however, he does cite all of two people.
Honestly, I expect much better of a skeptic than to resort to such a weak, stupid tactic. I expect evidence.
Sili:
I had the same thought, but didn’t say anything. Crommunist, how about you put a link to your blog in your nym?
Found him: https://proxy.freethought.online/crommunist
You have a new reader. :)
Dittoheads: “You disagree with me, and I can’t comprehend the autonomy of others; you are therefore not ONLY wrong, but also only expressing your wrongness to personally dig at ME.”
Sorry if that translation’s slightly off; my Idiot-to-English Dictionary is falling apart due to too-regular handling.
Well, left my lengthy response at Greta’s place, but this conspiracy thing really gets me (And now they’ll accuse me of echoing PZ. I swear to all the gods that I typed it before I read here).
Somebody whose identity must be kept secret told me that they’ve heard from somebody associated with someone up high that they’re secretly crossbreeding aliens and daffodills.
One would think that the leader of a major skepics organization would recognize how such argumentation must look to the readers.
Crommunist, loving your work in Greta’s thread.
Giliell:
Holy Fuck, Triffids!
That explains why the world is going to end this year.
At least it’s going to end fluffily
It’s the denial of personal autonomy that pisses me off when the accusations of ‘echo-chamber’, ‘dittohead'(srslywtf?), ‘femisheep’ start flying.
I have an opinion, it is mine, I thought of it, and it belongs to me. /AnneElk(Miss)
If you think that that expressed opinion of mine is wrong, then argue with me. Debate. Reply to points that I’ve made. Don’t tell me that I’m too stupid to draw my own conclusions from my own reading and research.
Emrysmyrddin:
The accusations of echo chamber and so on have been heard here so damn often that it’s beyond tiring. Generally, that comes from those who have very weak thinking skills and an inability to defend their stance.
For someone who is known as a leader in skepticism and critical thinking, it’s a fucking travesty. The whole dittoheads business was bad enough, but for Grothe to resort to the “two people have told me” crap and work it into a conspiracy? Beyond idiocy.
Yeah, DJ, it’s just fucking amazing that people with a vested interest in educating about sexism and privilege would have similar things to say about it. Why, you’d never find a large group of skeptics saying similar things about the Loch Ness Monster, oh no, never ever!
Tsss, everybody who knows anything about Nessie knows that it’s real
Sorry, I’m feeling a bit silly.
But yes, Grothe tone trolls while being fucking offensive to everybody on a high level, accusing them of severe wrongdoing while carefully using “some” “people” “maybe” so that you can never actually say that he actually accused anybody.
Passive-agressive bullshit 101
The only controversialist blogs I can think of would be the gawker group stuff which I’m pretty has ran some articles in the past designed to get hits through outrage. Where this ties in with Mr. Grothe I can’t be certain since he seems to use that response as a catch-all defence against accusations of sexism.
@Josh. Yikes! I’m glad you made it through all that.
@Rorschach. Stoopid capital punishment ruins everything.
Giliell:
:snortle:
killertapir:
It doesn’t. DJ wasn’t talking about gawker, it was clear he was talking about atheist/skeptic based blogs. He was pulling shit straight from his ass in a pathetic attempt to ignore the elephant and the 800 pound gorilla in the room, sexism in the atheist/skeptic community.
Did the old guard skeptics really think they had it all worked out? That once they conquered Nessie, ghosts, telekinesis, and *gasp* religion, they would have no more work to do? That they harbored no biases viewed or unsupported beliefs in their own minds?
I suppose they must have, otherwise there’s no way to explain the amount of SHOCKHORROR one sees in the nominal leadership of the skeptic movement when confronted by evidence of their own biases.
Just imagine, this is how they’re acting when asked to listen to the concerns of a group of mostly white, able-bodied, more or less middle-class women. It’s only happening because there’s something of a critical mass of this type of person (of which I am one, apart from the middle class thing). At present, it seems there simply aren’t enough people of color participating in the community to have a similar sort of pushback against racism. Can you imagine the kerfuffle when we finally get around to talking about issues or race, colonialism, class, and so on?
And yes, Gawker really does post inflammatory bullshit for the hits. They have admitted as much. Unless someone thinks Nick Denton is running FTB, I don’t know how anyone could honestly think that the pushback against sexism is a ploy for pageviews.
I don’t follow this blog ‘religiously’, but I read it often enough to have gotten an idea of PZ Myers motivations, and I certainly wouldn’t say that he posts stuff with the expressed purpose of starting furores to garner traffic from the resultant…er…furores. Not at all. He seems to me to have a genuine interest in a wide range of subjects and, in fact, very rarely posts anything that creates controversy with other atheists. Except accommodationists of course. But they don’t count. Myers, in fact, seems to go out of his way to steer clear of argy-bargy with other like-minded atheists and runs a pretty sound blog – certainly, he’s a sight more democratic than any of the other ‘new’ atheist wankers, that’s for sure.
Though I must say that the recent threads about the elevator incident were slightly eye-brow raising. As far as I recall, Myers stopped comments on the first thread at around 1500, declaring that the subject had been commented on to death and that no more would be allowed. However, within a short time, another thread appeared on the same subject, with, I think, similiar results. And then, finally, when the second one was killed or died, a third thread got started on the same subject. Perhaps it’s this that Grothe has in mind, but he doesn’t have the balls to be specific.
I agree wholeheartedly with Ing. And he doesn’t have to hame them by actual name. Most bloggers and commenters are known by their ‘nym anyway, so name the ‘nym.
If they exist, that is.
Er, what, exactly, is bigger than half the population of the world being treated as less than human? Or half the atheist community being treated as less than human? Atheists make up, what, less than 5% of the US population (ones who will admit it, that is)? So we want equal rights for atheists (no discrimination because we do not believe the dominant paradigmatic delusion) but you feel we can safely ignore misogyny, sexism, and gender discrimination because it is a ‘storm in a teacup’?
And ‘bigger fish to fry’ sounds an awful lot like ‘Dear Muslima.’ A great silencing tactic.
I think (and this is only my useless opinion) that part of the problem with the skeptic community is that the term skeptic has morphed in so many directions that it is now about as descriptive as ‘spirituality.’ Every thing from atheists to 9/11 deniers to anti-vaxxers to big foot hunters.
You do realize that it is possible to do or say misogynistic things without being a misogynist? Same for sexism. Much of this is about awareness of our unexamined social conditioning when it comes to women. Or members of the GLBT community.
Yeah, because the best possible way to help people examine their societal prejudices when it comes to religion is to ignore other examples of unexamined prejudice. Works every time.
Keep in mind that I am a coward, and the suggestion I am about to make is the coward’s way out: Apologize, admit ones mistake, and start trying to undo the damage is what I would expect. Painful in the short term, lots of good down the road. And it is quick. But what do I know?
Then don’t use silencing tactics. Simple.
Jumping to conclusions and failing to research is one of the best reasons for vitriolic responses. It even works occasionally. You appear to be a case in point.
And I apologize for piling on. I read (and responded to) the thread in order so your comments and my responses kinda evolved. Welcome to the shark tank. If you can keep up, it’s a hell of a lot of weird fun.
Sigh. You do know you can look those up, right? No, that’s not what happened. He closed the comments because the thread was getting so long that people with crappy internet connections and/or computers were having problems loading it. The new thread was a direct continuation of the old one, in the same way that mobile-friendly articles break up the information on several pages to make it easier to load and read.
nmcc:
What’s the matter, Cupcake, did people get tired of your bullshit at Greta’s blog?
You’re wrong. If you ever once managed to read through, you might spare yourself the embarrassment of displaying your stupidity.
Threads are routinely cut off once they reach such a number because it becomes very difficult for people to load them, so one thread is closed and the topic is continued in a fresh post and thread.
Wrong again. See above. Just once, why don’t you refrain from posting when you don’t have the slightest fucking clue of what you’re talking about?
nmcc: what precisely is the point of your ramble @ 100?
Mr. Fire:
Noooo! Oh lack of gods, you had to ask. Prep the way for a fall of bullshit.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
Clear the way, folks. Bullshit coming through. Step aside, step aside. We need a path. Parents with children, you may wish to move toward the back of the mob, and bullshit has been known to flail around a bit. It gets a little bit messy, and a lot bit stinky.
C’mon, people. We need a clear avenue here. We don’t know where this bullshit is going to go, just that it’s gonna ramble and weave a lot while it’s ducking the point.
*plants rotting porcupine beneath nmcc*
You know, I feel awful. Porcupines don’t deserve the kind of treatment they get around here. They’re not so bad, really. Even though they’re a bit spiny, deep down they’re cuddly little critters.
I’m with We Are Ing way up at #17. You can’t drop shit like that and expect anyone to believe you if you aren’t willing to name names. Maybe you think it would be unfair of you to name them, and it probably would based on a couple of accusations, but you’re willing to smear basically every single blog that has posted on sexism with this accusation by not naming the specific blog, all while shrouding the accusers in secrecy? Suddenly anonymity seems awfully convenient. So name names, DJ, don’t use anonymous accusations about some unnamed blog to defend a position that you have stated repeatedly but also claim you don’t really hold, though you feel the need to defend it…
That accusation has been heard everywhere. It’s absolutely contentless.
As I noted above, the skepticky skeptics are perfectly ecstatic to have a chamber to echo the opinions they think are right—there was not one presenter to talk about the spirit-cleansing power of crystals or the African animal unknown to science that traps chickens with its corn-mimicking anus. No, everyone there was pretty much of the opinion that such things are not true, undoubtedly because of the microchip James Randi implanted in everyone’s brains. I mean, that’s the only possible conclusion when you encounter a bunch of people who more or less agree with each other, right DJ?
Incredible claims require incredible evidence indeed, unless the claim is that everyone who disagrees with you is involved in a massive conspiracy, apparently.
So, I’m pretty much done with the skeptics’ community. Thanks for the work showing up Sylvia Browne, JREF folks. That was a real world-changer. I’d like to say that you’re still relevant in the fight against anti-vaxxers, but I work in public health and we’re pretty much full of pro-vaccine people who know the science and campaign as such, so you’re not the only game in town.
Incidentally, anyone else notice the correlation between how strongly someone asserts their intelligence or skepticity in their username and the likelihood that they’re a puddle of dumb?
consciousness razor
Don’t worry.
The porcupines used here are already dead.
And rotting.
That’s why I’m gonna start using the term ‘skepticky skeptic’. It means the kind that thinks the most important thing to do is debunk online psychics and tell New Agers that their crystal necklaces don’t really enhance yin qi. The ones who want politics, religion, and sexism off the table because it’s distracting or doesn’t fulfil their mandate but most importantly (and the only argument of theirs that isn’t a wad of fucking bullshit), such issues alienate their base of privileged nerds who’re just great at beating down patchouli-wearing hippies who believe in angels but cannot stomach considering that their sexism, racism, and libertarianism is just as much part of the problem as idiot actresses with autistic sons. The irrelevant old white fuckers. The JREF. The CFI.
The JREF keeps sending me emails asking why I won’t help fight the fakers. Well, DJ, I know it’s hard to for you to comprehend, what with all the evidence that I’m an MIB from the NWO recieving my orders from PZ, but this is exacty why I won’t help you.
Also, all those of you who have not been reading crommunist (and that includes me, sometimes) for shame.
He’s good. I mean, really good. I mean, if you’re stuck in the gay sex line, check him out. You might not even come back for the gay sex. (But do anyway.)
Nigel:
+1
@ Brownian:
I for one won’t fault CFI or the JREF for wanting to go on debunking the “traditional stuff”: psychics, alt-med, miracles and so on. The problem is when their leaders want to stop there, and go into denial mode when others point out that the community has still to work on its own issues with sexism, racism or transphobia.
But certainly, the blame is not with scepticism of Bigfoot or psi powers or ghosts, even if that looks like beginners’ stuff.
Most of us here at Pharyngula (hopefully) know better, but it’s a fact that a lot of people harbour New Agey beliefs, even very educated people. It’s also a profitable industry for a lot of charlatans, and believers can be extremely emotionally invested in it. (I’m thinking for instance about the long and acrimonious controversy between Alex Tsakiris from Skeptico, on the one hand, and Ben Radford and other sceptics, on the other, on the topic of paranormal research. I found fascinating the debate hosted on Skepticality, featuring Radford and Tsakiris. It’s two hours long, but worth listening to at least in part to see how someone can get so emotionally invested in things like precognition, “global consciousness”, psychic detectives and even psychic dogs!)
Even beyond the fact that paranormalism and alt-med are popular, and can be used to teach non-sceptics about how to think critically, I’d argue also that we should not minimise the harm they can do, either directly or because they promote magical thinking.
We regularly hear about people who died or whose illness got worse because they trusted in prayer, homeopathy or other nonsense – or worse, who allowed their child to die. Sadly, as anyone who regularly reads Orac or the Science-Based Medicine blog knows, the so-called “complementary and alternative medicine” are often very good at infiltrating medical schools and science journal. And when it comes to “traditional Chinese medicine”, there’s also the harm to the environment, with the harvesting of organs from endangered species.
I could also mention that belief in the after life is tied in with mainstream religion, and so are miracles, relics and the idea of mind-matter dualism. When trying to counter the harm done by religion, it’s useful to have arguments to oppose to this kind of claims when the believers extol the “truth” and “beauty” of their dogma.
So, yeah, there’s good work to do in the area of “traditional” scepticism. As long of course as nobody tries to make it the only valid area to investigate!
But that would mean nmcc would never post at all!
Ah. Yes. I see your point.
For whatever reason, my login in the comments is tied to my login with the FTB server – meaning that it is WordPress’ fault that my name doesn’t have a link to my blog. My apologies. I would love if people came and read my stuff and posted comments and whatnot.
Or maybe, according to DJ, I should just start picking fights with other prominent skeptics. Fame and fortune are assured!
I should read more of Greta Christina’s blog if I want to avoid feeding known trolls, shouldn’t I.
:(
Crommunist, just checking that you have tried editing your profile in the dashboard and putting the blog URL under ‘website’ field?
Jason has fixed my link issue.
For those looking for a link to Crommunist’s blog, it’s on the list of FtB blogs as The Crommunist Manifesto.
One word of warning about Crommunist (parents, you might want to send the children out of the room), he’s a (dare I say it) a (yes, I dare) Canadian!
Sorry, Crommunist, but I feel these nice people needed to know the truth about you.
‘Tis:
Canadian? Canadian? CANADIAN?
Oh. Okay.
He doon’t sound aboot like a Canadian, eh?
I do too sound like a Canadian. I sound exactly like a Canadian.
…Skeptickiness? Maybe skeptyness? Skepticissism?
Yes, and neither organisation will be getting a cent from me while they’re in Stop, Drop, and Deny mode.
I agree with the rest of your post as well, Irene. But, as you point out, a lot of such beliefs are interconnected, and they’re going to find themselves less and less relevant as long as they continue to impose arbitrary constraints on what is considered skepticism.
@ Pteryxx:
I see your skeptickyness and raise you a skepticosity!
@Irene Delse: Oo, I like “skepticosity”. That gives the undeniably useful “skepticose” for how these folks are behaving.
He totally does, eh.
Quoted and cross posted because this idiot is hillarious
https://proxy.freethought.online/greta/2012/01/10/d-j-grothe-replies-and-i-reply-back/
*starts briefing the Lilac Berets™ on how to get nmcc to fall on said porcupine*
Grothe:
On this, I think he has a solid point. For example, the level of verbal abuse, lazy pigeon-holing and knee-jerk dismissiveness applied to anyone who even mildly questioned the absolute rightness of Rebecca Watson and her defenders in the two most recent spats involving her, was a particularly shameful case in point. When a group of alleged rationalists is loudly dismissing critics and questioners as “privileged white males” and “people who just don’t get it” I regard that as every bit as much of a problem as sexism. Some of the behaviour from the pro-Watson crowd – even, and perhaps especially here at Pharyngula – was extremely poor in this regard.
I fear that insofar as there even is such a thing as an atheist “community” it is being fractured by internecine squabbling and clique-forming. And the saddest thing, for an old and long-time atheist like me, is that the most divisive of those cliques appear to be forming around subjects that aren’t even directly about atheism. Perhaps this is unsurprising as our numbers grow (and we bring our other pet issues and concerns with us) but I wish we would resolve to make 2012 a year to re-focus on what binds us all: our atheism and our resistance to the problems caused by religion.
It’s not dismissing, it’s shorthand. We’ve finally moved on to a situation where atheist/skeptic circles aren’t entirely feminism 101 now, so we can sometimes talk about more advanced topics without calling everything to a screeching halt every sentence to explain it all to everyone who doesn’t understand. If you don’t know what privilege is in this context, look it up. There’s even this thing called the internet on which you can look up things you don’t quite understand to see what people mean when they talk about them, and you can look them up on your own rather than either trying to stop the conversation and make everyone your own personal tutor, or arrogantly misinterpreting everything they say as knee-jerk verbal abuse.
Are you sure your name isn’t jackstrawlinson?
What the everliving fuck does the relevance to atheism have to do with whther the issue is important or not?
“As long as you and I don’t have issues regarding atheism, it’s all good!”
You are highlighting the very essence of the problem, dumbass.
Josh: “….poking all up in your groinal artery….”
AAAAUGH!!! /crosses legs
Sally: “Can you imagine the kerfuffle when we finally get around to talking about issues or race, colonialism, class, and so on?”
Oh, holy shit, colonialism, with posh British types like Dawkins and Fry in the movement? That…. will be interesting.
Caine: “Prep the way for a fall of bullshit.”
A fall? I was thinking more something like this.
Brownian: “…the African animal unknown to science that traps chickens with its corn-mimicking anus.”
Is it terrible that I now want one of those for a pet? Or at least a plushie of it?
Their intelligence, their skepticity, their rationality, their logic, their objectivity, their love for liberty, their love for gawrd, their sexual prowess….
Jack Rawlinson, still stroking that Watson hateboner, eh? Haven’t you gotten a little chafed by now?
Good priorities you have there. Sexism is a much bigger problem than some clueless dolts being called out on their cluelessness. There is nothing wrong with identifying that the source of their cluelessness is primarily a result of their privilege. By saying this, you are downplaying the impact of sexism, and it makes you look awfully privileged. I am not dismissing you or your arguments by stating that you reek of privilege. I do as well, but I don’t dismiss real problems like sexism just because I am fortunate enough not to have to deal with them personally*.
Fuck off. It is the “pro-Watson” side whose behavior was “extremely poor”. Did you read what they were responding to?
I hope 2012 is the year that old-guard atheists and skeptics recognize sexism as a real and pressing problem and that combating it is perfectly in line with skepticism. If that isn’t possible, I hope 2012 is there year the community splits so that I don’t have to listen to the privileged whining of people who don’t see the denigration of half the population as an important issue.
*to be clear, sexism effects all people within the community in adverse ways by imposing harmful gender roles.
@Carlie:
I’ve seen the use of terms as various as “slut”, “person of colour”, “chauvinist”, “pikey” and “gay agenda” similarly justified as being “shorthand”. And they certainly are. But they’re still diminishing, insulting and offensive.
If you call me a privileged white male you’d better understand something very, very clearly: you just insulted and offended me with your damned “shorthand”. Every bit as much as if I chose to label you with certain “shortand” terms for women that we have “advanced” so much that you’d “instantly understand”.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and double standards will always lead to an angry reaction. Okay?
jackrawlinson
There’s your problem. There isn’t one, so it cannot be “fractured”.
I’m an old and long-time atheist and am feeling no pain whatsoever about “internecine squabbling”.
Waaaah, poor ickle Jackie! His fee-fees iz hurt by teh ebyl wimminz calling attention to a sociological phenomenon that applies to him!
Okay, then we’re all in agreement.
Let it be resolved that 2012 will be the year of Nobody Giving a Fuck that Jack Rawlinson’s Poor Little Fee-Fees Got Hurt.
This resolution will not be construed to conflict with an earlier designation of 2012 as The Year of the Rotting Porcupine.
I wonder what part of the phrase is so offending, when used to describe Caucasian men who display obliviousness to gender issues in their speech and their behaviour.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/
Oh, but of course! I got it now: calling it out for what it is, there’s the horrible, intolerable part! Let’s not disturb those poor guys’ assumptions! It’s so hard, you see, to question your own habits of thoughts. Let’s refrain from ever trying to hurry people along that path…
NO. No, no, no. That is not correct, and you do NOT get to say that. Understand this very clearly: taking that as an insult is a very clear indication that you have absolutely no idea what the term privilege means, not in the slightest.
It is NOT an insult. It is a statement of reality. It is a statement that refers to the fact that, by virtue of being male, you are afforded certain levels of status, attention, and deference in society whether you like it or not. It says absolutely NOTHING about your character, your personality, or your morals. It is as real, as stuck to you, and as unrelated to your own personal character as saying that my skin is pale, therefore I burn easily in the sun. It is not an insult to say that I burn easily in the sun, it just is that way. I can recognize it, and I can take as many steps as I can to understand that other people’s skin doesn’t react the same way in light, and that I shouldn’t judge all of them by my reaction (How stupid are they, going out in the sun like that? Aren’t they smart enough to know better?), but it doesn’t change the fact that my skin is pale and I will always burn in the sun.
Go read Unpacking the invisible knapsack right fucking now, and sit and fucking THINK about it for awhile, before you go around being insulted and offended by a descriptive term that you have no right to be offended by. I am fucking SICK AND TIRED of people who get all hurt by someone else pointing out that they have certain benefits by simple virtue of who they are. And if you can’t bring yourself to read or believe something written by a woman, because she must be biased or something, then go read John Scalzi’s take on it instead.
Odd.
I am, without doubt, a privileged white male. My parents both have college degrees. I attended a public high school which had zero minorities. I attended college and graduated with a degree and less than $10k in debt. I am married, have two children, a large American sedan, and own my own house. I do not consider being called a privileged white male to be an insult. I consider it a challenge.
Being called a privileged white male, honest as it is, challenges me to reconsider my preconceptions. It challenges me to view the world empathically. It challenges me to examine my socialization and attempt to realize that my point of view is only one point of view.
If I write something on line and I get a response suggesting that my privilege is showing, I do not immediately jump in and defend my thoughts. The first thing I do is check what I have written. Did I express my thoughts the way I intended? If not, fix it, you moron. If I did, then maybe I need to reconsider what I wrote — not necessarily the idea itself, but the foundation of the idea, how it was presented, and how it might be viewed by others.
I am always willing to consider that I might be wrong. If I still feel that I am correct, I defend my writings passionately but with an eye towards minimizing possible cultural, gender-based, or sexual misunderstandings. I may (often) still get my arse handed to me on my own gilded plate, but that does not mean that personal animosity is involved (animosity towards the idea or the cultural filter is perfectly acceptable and normal (though oft times painful)).
So, jackrawlinson, if you comment on a blog and someone, directly or indirectly states that your privilege is showing, ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to discuss what is, in this case, a subject fraught with pitfalls, anger, misogyny, and repetition, do not be surprised if an old argument, an old line of reasoning, or a complete misread of the well-documented history earns your writings a whole heap of approbation. If this is what you desire, you are doing well. If you want to establish your bonafides by being slammed at Pharyngula, you are doing well. If you want to actually discuss the original post, and how it may reflect on other past incidents of percieved or real intolerance, dude, epic fail.
Jack Rawlinson was in early and often, here and elsewhere, at the beginning of the Watson/elevator saga. I was not the only one to wonder about the motivation for his (evidently continuing) crusade.
I suspect he is EG.
Rawlinson, where were you on the night of, uh, whatever night that was???
DUBLIN???!???!
Privilege: it’s a real thing.
Deal with it, “skeptics.”
Seconded.
Or, if you have no shame, you could just go the tried and true route.
jesus christ, but that thread over at Greta’s has attracted an impressive collection of pondscum
also, because I’m narcissistic enough to think y’all want to hear my opinions on everything, I shall repeat myself here:
As Josh pointed out, they’re an invasive species.
Got a pic ? I might be able to tell you. Not that it matters now…
jackrawlinson,
As one privileged white male to another, would it offend you if I called you a fuckwitted misogynist shitbag, grossly inflated with a sense of your own importance? I do hope so, because that’s what I am calling you.
“…the African animal unknown to science that traps chickens with its corn-mimicking anus.” – Brownian
I’m sceptical about this: how would African chickens have evolved an interest in corn, a native of the Americas, and hence made a corn-mimicking anus advantageous? Now a sorghum-mimicking anus, that’s plausible!
I disagree. You want to talk about “verbal abuse, lazy pigeon-holing and knee-jerk dismissiveness”? Look to the anti-Watson sites. Look to yourself. There are websites now dedicated to calling Rebecca Watson “Twatson”, to “ElevatorGate”, to that knee-jerk abusiveness at even the mention of her name.
There are no such “monuments” of vituperation erected against those who disagreed.
If you were honestly arguing against hysterical over-reaction, you would not be taking the side that you have, repeatedly.
Nothing whatever binds me to shitbags like you.
PZ why can’t you let EG go and stop bringing it up!? Oh my glob!