Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Double wank and shit chips

Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:26 am  •  [Post 1]

Please put here your thoughts and any relevant links, especially responses, to the discussions.

Thanks.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Aneris » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:14 am  •  [Post 2]

The Thunderdome discussion:

Rorschach, 60 wrote:This is what happens if you give them a forum. You give them credibility. Atheism and skepticism have already lost and are thrown back 20 years just by letting these lying creeps take part in this debate between supposedly equally valid positions. If those freaks weren’t atheists, not one person in the movement would have hesitated to call them out on their harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics. But here we are, having a “dialogue”. Next up, AC Grayling versus Franc Hoggle. Matt Dillahunty vs Bluharmony. Until we can all be friends again.


Rorschach complains a lot, has not a single argument or valid point to make. Compares his side with AC "Die in a Fire" Grayling.

Rorschach, 62 wrote:It is also somewhat ironic and yet a hallmark of the slymers, that even in this “dialogue”, they get to hide behind the anonymous “Jack Smith” nym, while Stephanie Zvan is named. Could they not find one slymer who had the guts to write under their real name? You’ve got to laugh.


Rorschach, 57 wrote:
Soooooo, the opening statements for Mick Nugent’s “Dialog” are up now. I have to say I gave up fairly early into the opposing side’s statement: By Jack Smith (with input from a working group including these individual volunteers: Tim Skellett, Renee Hendricks, Thaumas Themelios, Skep Tickle but not necessarily reflecting the entirety of each of their views)
 Thanks, but no thanks.


Fail.
Ѽ One of Discordianism's² primary tenets —certainly one of the most memorable— is to take nothing seriously while regarding everything as Serious Business³ // Aneris23 @ Twitter
User avatar
Aneris
.
.
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Pentagon

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:44 am  •  [Post 3]

Yep and we're the C team. And they have 1 on their side, apparently. They don't say in their statement. Surprise.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Brony sharpens his hooves

Postby Apples » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:48 am  •  [Post 4]

Image
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:52 am  •  [Post 5]

Yeh we covered that as we thought they'd go for the emotional attack. Fail in reading.

Still, lets see if they have the guts to post something and then we can address it.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Whisper Walrus » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:12 pm  •  [Post 6]

I got all longwinded in the PToS thread (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=80746#p80746), but I'll try to keep it here onwards.

It could just as well be that I'm biased and wrong and a horrible person, but of the two statements I read, I thought yours, Jack, was far more in-line with my thinking. That they see something hostile and wrong with it is telling of just how sold to their ideas they are.

Your opening point was about human equality, for fuck's sake. That's only hostile to people who have a stake in one group being above another, and given that their representative made it a point to single out "white, cisgendered, educated, middle-class to upper-class men," I'm feeling like they have a stake in, at the least, some group being lesser than others.
"Either you believe reason and evidence should ultimately guide our discussions, or you think they should be held hostage to identity politics. " -- Ron goddamn Lindsay
User avatar
Whisper Walrus
.
.
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:36 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Stretchycheese » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:14 pm  •  [Post 7]

These people are so thoroughly indoctrinated in dogma and propaganda, that virtually anything you say will be interpreted as some sinister evil motivation. If you said "let's come together to an agreement" they'd say, "Come together! That's sexual harassment! You just want to grope women! Rapist! Fuck you, die on a fire!!!!!"

It really is like talking to religious fundamentalists.
User avatar
Stretchycheese
.
.
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:22 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:16 pm  •  [Post 8]

I think we can leave this place for data/links and the main forum for comments. sub forums are so rarely used.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:20 pm  •  [Post 9]

Jack wrote:I think we can leave this place for data/links and the main forum for comments. sub forums are so rarely used.


Good idea.
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:23 pm  •  [Post 10]

Stretchycheese wrote:These people are so thoroughly indoctrinated in dogma and propaganda, that virtually anything you say will be interpreted as some sinister evil motivation. If you said "let's come together to an agreement" they'd say, "Come together! That's sexual harassment! You just want to grope women! Rapist! Fuck you, die on a fire!!!!!"

It really is like talking to religious fundamentalists.


We dealt with that in our statement too. To be honest all the responses I have seen tell me they either have not read it or are so brainwashed by their own dogma they read what they want to see.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby 16bitheretic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:38 pm  •  [Post 11]

Wow, Nugent's rules in responding to the OP posts is really restrictive, but I'm pondering how I want to respond to both. Hopefully the discussion area will offer more breathing room.
User avatar
16bitheretic
.
.
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:21 pm  •  [Post 12]

16bitheretic wrote:Wow, Nugent's rules in responding to the OP posts is really restrictive, but I'm pondering how I want to respond to both. Hopefully the discussion area will offer more breathing room.


To be fair to Nugent he is playing it cautiously. I agree and he will relax as we proceed. . This stops either side trying to derail or go off on a tangent and stick to the points as numbered.

I've already had a post on mine which links to their post on it but I am not happy. I have emailed Nugent about this.

Also if anyone thinks their posts are not getting through please say so.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby 16bitheretic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:33 pm  •  [Post 13]

finished my reply to Svan's post, being required to respond specifically to every single paragraph, when many were just elaborations of more detail of her previous points, was rather tedious. But Nugent's site, Nugent's rules...
16bitheretic says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 31, 2013 at 9:20 pm

1: Agreed, there is never a “one true path” approach to widening the exposure and adoption of evidence based worldviews and philosophies over those of faith and superstition. The amount of approaches are as varied as the number of people involved.

2. Agreed. Scientific methodology and progress requires a large number of people specializing in various specific endeavors from research to education to labwork, otherwise the process just wouldn’t work. The days of one forward thinking genius revolutionizing an entire field singlehandedly are over as the knowledge and skill set requirements of specific fields increase dramatically as more knowledge is acquired.

3. Agree: see point #2

4. Disagree: I view skepticism as just a label for the foundation of the scientific methodology and inquiry, and both labels as somewhat separate from atheism/secularism since one need not necessarily need science or skeptical thought to be an atheist. I also don’t see the specific causes of secularism being dogmatically tied to one approach from within the secular community. Certainly some have expressed concern over the public aggressiveness of some American Atheists campaigns or accusing some humanism groups of being too accommodating of theists, but I don’t think that on the whole those interested in promoting the atheist and skeptic causes are all clamoring for a “one true path” approach to be adopted by the community as a whole. I think if there was this massive swell of demand for one single-minded approach we wouldn’t see secular advocates promote the confrontational rhetoric of Hitchens as much as the warm and engaging educational approach of people like Sagan. I think any coalescing of thought behind “one true path” ideals is more coming from peripheral political and social issues that aren’t part of this current discussion from this post.

5. Disagree. Sure, there’s always been a debate between just how much skepticism can say about god or gods, there always will be that debate. There’s also alot of pondering about how to get atheism/secularism to be more accepted by various racial and ethnic minority groups, and I don’t think we have a clear answer on that problem. As an Asian-American person I can’t explain how or why my particular ethnicity in the US is less religious than African-American or Hispanic-American ethnicities, and I really don’t see too much discussion about it in the wake of the debates over politics and feminism in the past 2 years.

Separate from that my main reason for saying disagree is that science and skepticism are methodologies to determine the factual status of claims and hypothesis, it has nothing to do with one’s gender, race, sexual orientation or expression. It also has little to do with the subsequent identity politics and tribalism that are so popular and so divisive in online discussions.

6. Agree for the most part. These words do tend to be used in absolutist terms that aren’t helpful in debate or discussions.

7. Agree, seems we’re retreading ground from the first couple posts .

8. Agree, as this is a re-iteration of the initial premises with more detail and promotion of active groups. it is worth noting as an aside that some of the groups listed need not require their members to be secularists, atheists or even skeptics. For example, I’m not sure the ACLU cares what your stance on homeopathy is if you’re aiding them in their fight to stop discrimination of black people in voting districts, and it;s possible to be a theist and promote the cause of the National Center for Science Education.

9. Agree. I don’t necessarily tie my own stances on racial and gender equality to my atheism since my views on social issues were in place long before I disbelieved in gods, and nowadays I’d have no personal problems with doing something like charity work along with people who have superstitious beliefs. However, if someone wants to have a group of atheists or skeptics that do some cause that’s fine by me so long as they don’t use their social advocacy as a wedge for identity politics against other atheists or skeptics who aren’t in their group or who don’t see the link between their views on skeptical inquiry or supernatural claims and social issues.

10. Agree, not much to say here. In fact this more describes me than the previous couple of posts since I’m not a member of any national atheist/secular or skeptic groups.

11. Agree, see previous points addressing this.

12. Agree. you don’t have to go into ethics. That’s sort of a separate issue from atheism, secularism, science or skepticism.

13. Neither agree nor disagree, I’ve never read any of these materials so my opinion on them as of now is irrelevant.

14. Agree. I think the emotional aspect of advocacy for causes has been one of the central issues to the tribalism and division of the last few years. I’m not advocating that we become Vulcans, but we need some level of detachment from emotion to analyze things properly without escalating rhetoric and division.

15. Agree for the most part. Some failed messaging or efforts will lead to one conclusion that may not be applicable to a different failed effort to spread a message or achieve a goal. I don’t necessarily think all people base their responses on evidence however, so I will disagree on that particular point, but the overall point of different approaches resulting from the processes is a valid one.

16. Agree. See previous points (since this is a conclusion point)
User avatar
16bitheretic
.
.
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:36 pm  •  [Post 14]

Just an update I have requested the first post in our section to be deleted, it does not comply with guidelines. I have also requested clarification on moderation.

I'm not playing games with people from a blog. They post at Nugent's or keep out of it, up to them.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Tigzy » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:42 pm  •  [Post 15]

Jack wrote:Just an update I have requested the first post in our section to be deleted, it does not comply with guidelines. I have also requested clarification on moderation.

I'm not playing games with people from a blog. They post at Nugent's or keep out of it, up to them.


Is that the trackback to Steffy's blog?

Bit..sneaky of her, wasn't it.

I'm reminded of Ophelia's gripes about her post being moderated ( :lol: ) at the RDFRS site, because of the blog-spam she put in it. I am beginning to wonder if indeed the call has gone out from Ed to increase FTBs Google juice.
"It should be noted that among the more alarming tendencies of those men who participate in train-spotters' groups, one will also find a complete disinclination to discuss feminism or women's issues."

Isobel Shed, feminist, 1959
User avatar
Tigzy
.
.
 
Posts: 3126
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:53 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:46 pm  •  [Post 16]

Nice thorough comments on the opening statements, Submariner! That's the kind of approach to discussion I've been hoping for since before EG! Brings a tear to my eye, so see it finally come to light...
Image
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:46 pm  •  [Post 17]

Tigzy wrote:
Jack wrote:Just an update I have requested the first post in our section to be deleted, it does not comply with guidelines. I have also requested clarification on moderation.

I'm not playing games with people from a blog. They post at Nugent's or keep out of it, up to them.


Is that the trackback to Steffy's blog?

Bit..sneaky of her, wasn't it.

I'm reminded of Ophelia's gripes about her post being moderated ( :lol: ) at the RDFRS site, because of the blog-spam she put in it. I am beginning to wonder if indeed the call has gone out from Ed to increase FTBs Google juice.



Yes, and its against posting rules. I requested who authorised it, why and I want it deleted. I'm not happy.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:48 pm  •  [Post 18]

Wonderist wrote:Nice thorough comments on the opening statements, Submariner! That's the kind of approach to discussion I've been hoping for since before EG! Brings a tear to my eye, so see it finally come to light...
Image


Yep and 16bit. Please keep it coming.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:49 pm  •  [Post 19]

Meant to include reference: http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/2013/ ... comment-15
Submariner wrote:Submariner says:
March 31, 2013 at 5:12 pm

1. I agree with this with reservations. I’m not certain there are “myriad” solutions to “promoting reason, critical thinking, science, skepticism, atheism and secularism”. There are a handful of methods which will be more efficient to prioritize depending on efficacy

2. I agree with this with reservations. All of the sciences? Some have had issues with several of the “soft” sciences. Sociology and evolutionary psychology are examples from either “side”.

3. I agree.

4. I agree. This statement is odd in that taken alone, I would not be able to tell which “side” was being referred to.

5. I disagree. How is it possible for reason, critical thinking, science, etc. to have a white, middle class, wealthy and born gendered “relationship”? These things are clearly defined. Reason is reason regardless of one’s skin color, gender, economic status etc. This principle is the core of the “equality” argument, in that it does not matter the characteristics of the person with the idea, just the idea matters.

6. I agree. See #4 above.

7. I agree. See #4 above.

8. I agree.

9. I’m having trouble parsing this paragraph as it’s a bit vague, so I’ll withhold conditional agreement/disagreement until it is clarified.

10. I agree.

11. I agree with reservations. Ethics, if universally applied (to theists, purveyors of various woo, and other members of the group which hold no belief in deities) is agreeable. If different ethics hold for different groups, them I disagree.

12. N/A

13. I agree with reservations. Behavior is not one of the topics on the table at this time. Including behavior in this paragraph seems to be a version of prescriptivism, which was decried in paragraph 7 above. Perhaps, I’m reading to much into it though. I will request clarification on why behavior was included here.

Also, what is “the prize” to be kept an eye on? If it is the values at the top of this page (as set out by Mr. Nugent) then I agree.

14. I agree.

15. I agree with reservations. This word behavior appears again and with no further explanation as to it’s intent, I’m hesitant to agree here.

16. I agree with reservations. See #11 above regarding the “ethics” argument.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:33 pm  •  [Post 20]

Zvans blog on this is here. Needless to say the comments are not in line with what was actually said.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... re-issues/
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:34 pm  •  [Post 21]

Tigzy wrote:
Jack wrote:Just an update I have requested the first post in our section to be deleted, it does not comply with guidelines. I have also requested clarification on moderation.

I'm not playing games with people from a blog. They post at Nugent's or keep out of it, up to them.


Is that the trackback to Steffy's blog?

Bit..sneaky of her, wasn't it.

I'm reminded of Ophelia's gripes about her post being moderated ( :lol: ) at the RDFRS site, because of the blog-spam she put in it. I am beginning to wonder if indeed the call has gone out from Ed to increase FTBs Google juice.

I strongly doubt she had any ulterior motives. The controls for trackbacking are entirely in Nugent's hands. Zvan could simply have posted a URL, and it would trigger a trackback automatically on Nugent's site, based on his trackback settings. I strongly agree with Jack that trackbacks should be turned off on moderated threads, as it allows a backdoor right through the process of this 'structured dialogue'. Defeats the whole purpose of structuring it in the first place.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:47 pm  •  [Post 22]

Wonderist wrote:
Tigzy wrote:
Jack wrote:Just an update I have requested the first post in our section to be deleted, it does not comply with guidelines. I have also requested clarification on moderation.

I'm not playing games with people from a blog. They post at Nugent's or keep out of it, up to them.


Is that the trackback to Steffy's blog?

Bit..sneaky of her, wasn't it.

I'm reminded of Ophelia's gripes about her post being moderated ( :lol: ) at the RDFRS site, because of the blog-spam she put in it. I am beginning to wonder if indeed the call has gone out from Ed to increase FTBs Google juice.

I strongly doubt she had any ulterior motives. The controls for trackbacking are entirely in Nugent's hands. Zvan could simply have posted a URL, and it would trigger a trackback automatically on Nugent's site, based on his trackback settings. I strongly agree with Jack that trackbacks should be turned off on moderated threads, as it allows a backdoor right through the process of this 'structured dialogue'. Defeats the whole purpose of structuring it in the first place.


There is no evidence this had anything to do with Zvan. Anyway it's due to be looked at by the respective mods. Moving to the public/less moderated area would be fine. Just not in an area where there is tight requirements on posting and no ability to respond to outside comments. It's in the wrong place.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Karmakin » Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:03 pm  •  [Post 23]

I don't really have too much to say about this, other than I pretty much agree 100% with Jack, and I think that Zvan gave up the shop, pretty much.

The biggest manifestation of the "One True Path" style thinking is the whole Call-Out Culture stuff that was pushed by people (including her). Now I'm willing to say that maybe the whole thing went way out of control, but to a degree, if she really does think so she has a direct responsibility in terms of putting it back in the bottle.

Not that that's the only place it came from...I don't think completely excluding social issues from the skeptic movement is workable either (which is the "OTP" stuff from "our" side), but again, I think that the former overshadows the latter to a large degree.
User avatar
Karmakin
.
.
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Skep tickle » Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:14 pm  •  [Post 24]

As the "Team B" (Team C?) representative to the moderation team, let me just say that indeed the mod team (of 3 people, including Michael) is at work but spans 8 time zones and at this point are seeking to have all 3 of us discuss & agree on moderation measures taken so the mod representatives from the "sides" aren't put in the position of acting unilaterally, yet.

More posts will be approved from the moderation queue in (if not within) the next ~10 hrs, and we understand the concern with trackback posts so I anticipate that'll be taken care of in the same time frame.
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3113
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:41 am  •  [Post 25]

Karmakin wrote:I don't really have too much to say about this, other than I pretty much agree 100% with Jack, and I think that Zvan gave up the shop, pretty much.

The biggest manifestation of the "One True Path" style thinking is the whole Call-Out Culture stuff that was pushed by people (including her). Now I'm willing to say that maybe the whole thing went way out of control, but to a degree, if she really does think so she has a direct responsibility in terms of putting it back in the bottle.

Not that that's the only place it came from...I don't think completely excluding social issues from the skeptic movement is workable either (which is the "OTP" stuff from "our" side), but again, I think that the former overshadows the latter to a large degree.


We are not saying they should not form any groups they wish. It is not possible or desirable to try to assert that. They are claiming we want them out or to be stopped. That is simply not true. They can have their safe spaces, heavy moderation and cliques if they want. We all can. But they do not have the right to impose their views on others or to shut down people that do not agree with them. Our statement says all that.

They are the ones causing the problems by generating a false narrative that many over there seem to have bought into.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:48 am  •  [Post 26]

Jack wrote:But they do not have the right to impose their views on others or to shut down people that do not agree with them.


What are you saying they "do not have the right to" do, specifically?
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:56 am  •  [Post 27]

In the meantime, here's a bit of the judo I was referring to. After rorschach (Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience program) spewed this blather:
26
rorschach

April 1, 2013 at 12:14 am (UTC -5)

I’ll repeat here what I said last night on Pharyngula:

This is what happens if you give them a forum. You give them credibility. Atheism and skepticism have already lost and are thrown back 20 years just by letting these lying creeps take part in this debate between supposedly equally valid positions.

If those freaks weren’t atheists, not one person in the movement would have hesitated to call them out on their harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics. But here we are, having a “dialogue”.

It’s frustrating and infuriating.

I responded thusly:
Me wrote:28
Thaumas Themelios

April 1, 2013 at 5:43 am (UTC -5)

Hi rorschach,

As one of the “freaks” you are referring to, I would actually readily welcome being called out on any “harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics” I have engaged in, as I’m currently unaware of any such activity on my part; but if I am indeed guilty of such, I would much appreciate it being pointed out so that I could apologize for it, and retract any false statements I’ve made. Could you please link to or quote me where I’ve done any of these things? It would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

Thaumas, aka Wonderist
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:00 am  •  [Post 28]

Apples wrote:
Jack wrote:But they do not have the right to impose their views on others or to shut down people that do not agree with them.


What are you saying they "do not have the right to" do, specifically?

I'm not intending to speak for Jack, but I would imagine he means "in principle", not "in law". He seems to be referring to the principles he/we proposed in the opening statement.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:02 am  •  [Post 29]

Oops, forgot the link to my previous quoted comment:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-222480
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:26 am  •  [Post 30]

Wonderist wrote:In the meantime, here's a bit of the judo I was referring to. After rorschach (Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience program) spewed this blather:
26
rorschach

April 1, 2013 at 12:14 am (UTC -5)

I’ll repeat here what I said last night on Pharyngula:

This is what happens if you give them a forum. You give them credibility. Atheism and skepticism have already lost and are thrown back 20 years just by letting these lying creeps take part in this debate between supposedly equally valid positions.

If those freaks weren’t atheists, not one person in the movement would have hesitated to call them out on their harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics. But here we are, having a “dialogue”.

It’s frustrating and infuriating.

I responded thusly:
Me wrote:28
Thaumas Themelios

April 1, 2013 at 5:43 am (UTC -5)

Hi rorschach,

As one of the “freaks” you are referring to, I would actually readily welcome being called out on any “harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics” I have engaged in, as I’m currently unaware of any such activity on my part; but if I am indeed guilty of such, I would much appreciate it being pointed out so that I could apologize for it, and retract any false statements I’ve made. Could you please link to or quote me where I’ve done any of these things? It would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

Thaumas, aka Wonderist


I see no evidence he even read our statement and his casual abuse is so typical it goes over my head now. It's incredible how otherwise reasonable people can get massive blind spots.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:27 am  •  [Post 31]

Wonderist wrote:
Apples wrote:
Jack wrote:But they do not have the right to impose their views on others or to shut down people that do not agree with them.


What are you saying they "do not have the right to" do, specifically?

I'm not intending to speak for Jack, but I would imagine he means "in principle", not "in law". He seems to be referring to the principles he/we proposed in the opening statement.


Yep.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:51 am  •  [Post 32]

More bullshit from rorschach/Wagner. More judo:
30
rorschach

April 1, 2013 at 5:56 am (UTC -5)

Thaumas, you’re quite right, I don’t know you, and I have no desire at all to ever get to know you. Because you have chosen to, if not actively contribute to the harassment and bullying of Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson, to name but two persons, then at least to defend and enable such practices. And that tells me all I need to know.


Worthless trolling from oolon skipped. My 'o soto gari' here:

32
Thaumas Themelios

April 1, 2013 at 7:34 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

rorshach,

Ah, I see, so when you referred to “those freaks” taking part in this dialogue, you weren’t referring to me, then? I’m one of the five involved in the structured dialogue. Which of the other four are you referring to, then? There’s Jack, Tim, and Renee, and also Skep Tickle (who is acting as a moderator). Which of those four are you referring to as engaging in “harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics”?

Also, could you please point out where I’ve defended and enabled “the harassment and bullying of Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson, to name but two persons, then at least to defend and enable”? Would very much appreciate that being pointed out.

Links and/or quotes, please.


User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:07 am  •  [Post 33]

Wonderist wrote: My 'o soto gari' here:


Well, yes - but as you can see from the followup comments, this is a street-fight, not a judo demonstration -- and this particular skirmish is in the alley behind Svan's dojo, where she calls the shots - so, good luck.
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:55 am  •  [Post 34]

Image
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:07 am  •  [Post 35]

Uh oh, looks like I'm starting to annoy Zvan. My comments are now not passing through moderation auto-matically (perhaps last one is because of a link, but previous ones with links went through fine). Here's my latest, in case I get banned:
Thaumas Themelios says:
April 1, 2013 at 9:46 am

Stephanie Zvan:
False accusations of bullying and harassment?

Yeah, fuck you. Go away.

I think you misread my question. I said *supporting*:
Do false accusations of supporting “bullying and harassment”

Based on these prior quotes from rorschach (#30)
if not actively contribute to the harassment and bullying of Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson, to name but two persons, then at least to defend and enable such practices.

And this one from LeftSidePositive (#37)
And even if you didn’t actively take part in harassing people (and I just plain don’t know you so I don’t know if you have personally said or done anything odious), if you notice that the Slymepit is harassing people, and you choose to stick around and be friends with them, you are enabling them. You are giving them social support for their views.

Are you saying that these quotes are *not* making an accusation against me of supporting bullying and harassment? Are you saying I should not defend myself from such false accusations? Or be able to respond where they are made? I’m unclear on if you mean “go away” literally, or figuratively, perhaps in reaction from misreading what I wrote and thinking I was referring to the actual acts, and not “support”? Could you clarify? If you indeed want me to go away, I will, of course; it’s your blog after all. Thanks for allowing me to defend myself up to this point at least. It's a courtesy I very much appreciate.

In case of memory-holing: http://www.freezepage.com/1364827977RTEZPPIJKD

Note: my last comment, no links, directly replying to Zvan's misreading, is also in moderation. Clearly, "go away" was meant more literally than figuratively. Also, the false accusations of supporting bullying and harassment *stand*, with no right of reply, assuming Zvan leaves me in moderation limbo, or bans me outright. I'll give it 24 hours, but assuming my prediction of moderation limbo is correct, then QED.

Please, Stephanie, I hope you surprise me once again, as you did with your opening statement. Are you going to let a simple misreading of my words prevent any continuing dialogue on your blog thread? Do you really think it's fair that false accusations against me are left unanswered? Do you why I asked LSP if he/she would hold themself to the same standard of (paraphrasing) 'if someone on the site posts something bad, you are providing 'support' for that bad thing'? If you agree with that standard, do you not see how your keeping my comments defending myself in moderation would come across as extremely hypocritical? I hope you're willing to extend a little more 'good faith' on this misunderstanding.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:12 am  •  [Post 36]

Apples wrote:
Wonderist wrote: My 'o soto gari' here:


Well, yes - but as you can see from the followup comments, this is a street-fight, not a judo demonstration -- and this particular skirmish is in the alley behind Svan's dojo, where she calls the shots - so, good luck.

Trust me, it's a judo demonstration. She calls the shots on her blog. I call the shots where I'm given a chance to reply. And I gather evidence along the way. I use their momentum against them. It is 100% entirely her choice to limbo me or ban me. I respect that choice. Doesn't mean I have to respect the final decision. In fact, there's only one final decision I would respect in this case. And I'm sure many many skeptics and rationalists will agree with me on it.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Phil_Giordana_FCD » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:18 am  •  [Post 37]

Wonderist wrote:In the meantime, here's a bit of the judo I was referring to. After rorschach (Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience program)


Really, that's him? Interesting to know, in case he ever wants to reinstate my page on his wiki.
"It is science we are talking about here. It doesn't matter if you like the person making the argument. Sometimes the evidence supports the nice people and sometimes complete bastards are on the correct side of a scientific argument." -Strawkins
User avatar
Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:56 am
Location: Nice, France

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:50 am  •  [Post 38]

I googled to check, based on overhearing it here. It seems pretty clear that it's him. 'rorscach' links to the 'Furious Purpose' blog, which author is 'Martin', and googling for [martin wagner "furious purpose"] brings up many claims it's his blog. I didn't go further than that, that was sufficient for me. If I'm wrong, I'll retract.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:23 am  •  [Post 39]

Trust me, it's a judo demonstration. She calls the shots on her blog. I call the shots where I'm given a chance to reply. And I gather evidence along the way. I use their momentum against them.


Wax on, wax off.
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:01 am  •  [Post 40]

Judo, not karate. 8-)
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Dick Strawkins » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:03 am  •  [Post 41]

Wonderist wrote:I googled to check, based on overhearing it here. It seems pretty clear that it's him. 'rorscach' links to the 'Furious Purpose' blog, which author is 'Martin', and googling for [martin wagner "furious purpose"] brings up many claims it's his blog. I didn't go further than that, that was sufficient for me. If I'm wrong, I'll retract.


I think you are wrong.
Rorschach is 'Martin' from the furious purpose blog.
But that Martin is a physician who is from, and resides in, Australia. Surely Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience is American?
Martin'Rorschach's claims to fame are the fact that he has absolutely no demonstrable sense of humor and the interesting fact that he is the only known person who admits to have been in the hotel bar with Watson at 4 AM on the fateful night of Elevatorgate.
PZ Myers: "Hypocrisy is a bitch, isn't it?"
User avatar
Dick Strawkins
.
.
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:34 am  •  [Post 42]

I think you are wrong.
Rorschach is 'Martin' from the furious purpose blog.
But that Martin is a physician who is from, and resides in, Australia. Surely Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience is American?


Sand 'a floor.
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:37 am  •  [Post 43]

Strawkins wrote:Martin'Rorschach's claims to fame are the fact that he has absolutely no demonstrable sense of humor and the interesting fact that he is the only known person who admits to have been in the hotel bar with Watson at 4 AM on the fateful night of Elevatorgate.


He had this to say at the 'Dome after the karate kid, I mean judo, demonstration:
rorschach wrote:I want to say this one thing here since I don’t have Stephanie Zvan’s email address. I know that she probably still hates my guts after the Laden fiasco, but I appreciate that there is no editing or blocking of my comments on Almost Diamonds. I don’t normally comment there, but I feel strongly about Mick Nugent’s Courtyard ot the Gentile Atheists, so I’ve been active there a bit the last few days. She’s letting me post there no worries, and it’s appreciated.


I must have missed his involvement in a "Laden fiasco" disagreement with Zvan.
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:22 pm  •  [Post 44]

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Wonderist wrote:I googled to check, based on overhearing it here. It seems pretty clear that it's him. 'rorscach' links to the 'Furious Purpose' blog, which author is 'Martin', and googling for [martin wagner "furious purpose"] brings up many claims it's his blog. I didn't go further than that, that was sufficient for me. If I'm wrong, I'll retract.


I think you are wrong.
Rorschach is 'Martin' from the furious purpose blog.
But that Martin is a physician who is from, and resides in, Australia. Surely Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience is American?
Martin'Rorschach's claims to fame are the fact that he has absolutely no demonstrable sense of humor and the interesting fact that he is the only known person who admits to have been in the hotel bar with Watson at 4 AM on the fateful night of Elevatorgate.

Yep, it appears I made a clear mistake, based on a too-cursory check of Google. Thank fuck I was wrong! Martin Wagner, of Atheist Experience, I hereby apologize for misrepresenting you as being 'Martin' of the "Furious Purpose" blog. I am very glad you are not the same person as the owner of that blog, and I should have checked more carefully. Mea culpa. I apologize. If Zvan would be so kind as to grant me a right of reply, I would happily post this same apology on her blog where I also made this error.

This is what I was going on, which I now realize was too paltry a check to confirm what I had overheard. It was the third site listed which I spotted and thought it confirmed. On double-checking, that site appears to be google trash. Herein lies the danger of jumping to conclusions about other people based on hearsay and weak evidence. I failed to heed Feynman's advice in this case, and probably Sagan's too, though I don't have as handy a quote from him: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
martin-furious-purpose-google-mistake.PNG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:35 pm  •  [Post 45]

Apples wrote:
I think you are wrong.
Rorschach is 'Martin' from the furious purpose blog.
But that Martin is a physician who is from, and resides in, Australia. Surely Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience is American?


Sand 'a floor.

See my breakfall, above. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfall)
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Pitchguest » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:35 pm  •  [Post 46]

Yeah, see, I made the same mistake assuming it was Martin Wagner's blog. In fact, I think both of those results are mine. Oops! But since it's not, then I screwed up. Mea culpa.
"But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day . . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2

Avatar credit to tklmac (and Jan Steen) AND ANERIS (!)
User avatar
Pitchguest
.
.
 
Posts: 2528
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:44 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:16 am  •  [Post 47]

{{{{{{hugs}}}}}} all around.
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby John Greg » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:54 am  •  [Post 48]

For the record, I am a professional technical writer, and have been so for over 15 years, earning something in the range of 40 to 60 dollars per hour, depending on the contract. Because I thought the initial B Team statement had valid ideas, but was very poorly written, I have offered the B Team my professional services, gratis, to review, edit, and proof their writing before they post it.

I await their decision on this offer.
There’s a long stretch from “make me a sandwich” to gunning down random strangers because women wouldn’t have sex with you, but they’re both on the same continuum. --- PZ Myers, May 26, 2014
John Greg
.
.
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:05 pm
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:46 am  •  [Post 49]

John Greg wrote:For the record, I am a professional technical writer, and have been so for over 15 years, earning something in the range of 40 to 60 dollars per hour, depending on the contract. Because I thought the initial B Team statement had valid ideas, but was very poorly written, I have offered the B Team my professional services, gratis, to review, edit, and proof their writing before they post it.

I await their decision on this offer.


Thanks John it's a generous offer. I sent an email out a couple of hours ago about it. From a purely personal perspective the more the merrier and I have always felt that way. There is a big disadvantage in numbers though (slows things a lot) but I suspect we can get round that. I am one of 5 so others will express their own opinion.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:40 pm  •  [Post 50]

Well, it's been more than 24 hours, and surprise! my prediction came true. :o Zvan has left my comments in moderation limbo: http://www.freezepage.com/1364930901MHXZRCKQQW

Again, here is the last of the two comments still in moderation, directly in response to her misreading of my earlier comment:

Thaumas Themelios says:
April 1, 2013 at 9:46 am

Stephanie Zvan:
False accusations of bullying and harassment?

Yeah, fuck you. Go away.

I think you misread my question. I said *supporting*:
Do false accusations of supporting “bullying and harassment”

Based on these prior quotes from rorschach (#30)
if not actively contribute to the harassment and bullying of Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson, to name but two persons, then at least to defend and enable such practices.

And this one from LeftSidePositive (#37)
And even if you didn’t actively take part in harassing people (and I just plain don’t know you so I don’t know if you have personally said or done anything odious), if you notice that the Slymepit is harassing people, and you choose to stick around and be friends with them, you are enabling them. You are giving them social support for their views.

Are you saying that these quotes are *not* making an accusation against me of supporting bullying and harassment? Are you saying I should not defend myself from such false accusations? Or be able to respond where they are made? I’m unclear on if you mean “go away” literally, or figuratively, perhaps in reaction from misreading what I wrote and thinking I was referring to the actual acts, and not “support”? Could you clarify? If you indeed want me to go away, I will, of course; it’s your blog after all. Thanks for allowing me to defend myself up to this point at least. It's a courtesy I very much appreciate.


Why am I not surprised? Because this has been occurring for a long time, to a large number of people, and from more than just Stephanie Zvan. Reasonable replies that merely disagree are shunned, blocked, deleted, and sometimes even modified, and those commenters are either banned or blocked from responding (moderation limbo) to defend themselves. In this case, direct and false accusations against my character (of supporting bullying and harassment, which I do not) are left to stand, and I'm not granted a 'right of reply' to defend myself. Not that I should *have to* defend myself in the first place; such blatant accusations should not be made willy nilly in the first place! But the end result is this: character assassination via ad hominem, guilt by association, rumour mongering, and numerous other fallacies and social bullying tactics.

Even supporters have been turned on recently, including EllenBeth Wachs, as she details in her recent blog post here: http://mycatsaremygods.com/2013/03/31/y ... -derision/

This is why the 'rifts' have occurred, since day one. I now refer you to the *very first* incident which got me and several others involved from the beginning: http://gnuatheism.wikispaces.com/Elevator+Guy+Kerfuffle

The relevant event* is the treatment of Stef McGraw, which is parallel to how EllenBeth Wachs was treated, with the major difference that Wachs is a very well-known activist and has a long history of work behind her to back up her side of things, whereas McGraw was a young college student with no such influence to fight back against two of the most popular voices in the online atheist/skeptic community at the time, Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers. (hat tip to SP tkmlac for pointing out this connection on Wachs' blog comment thread.)

Want to know another freaky coincidence? The previous link, detailing my opinion about how and why ElevatorGate became such a debacle in the first place, was deleted arbitrarily by Ophelia Benson, way back when I first dipped my toes into this phenomenon. (See http://atheiststoday.com/blogs/reapercussions/?p=71)

I am absolutely not surprised I got kicked into moderation limbo at Zvan's blog over a minor and *obvious* misreading of my comments. This is par for the course; standard operating procedure; situation normal, all fucked up. I was expecting it, in fact, and was genuinely surprised she had let my comments and others' through up to that point. I was tentatively hopeful she'd allow a genuine discussion proceed, and allow me to defend myself against the bogus accusations. Alas, it was not to be. Back to the same-old same-old.

*This* behaviour, not 'guys don't do that', not 'Dear Muslima', not alleged 'misogyny' or 'harassment'. This smearing, rumour-mongering, character assassination. *This* is why people are strongly opposed to the actions of people who engage in these dishonest tactics. This is not skepticism. This is 'us vs. them' mentality, ostracism, dogmatism, demonization of real people like you and me.

You turn something into a dogma, ostracizing those who question or disagree, I will oppose it. Simple as that.

Is anybody really surprised that some of the targets of such vilification campaigns just maybe might get a little upset about their reputations being maligned? That just maybe people might object to that, seeing it as dogmatic and unskeptical, and the anti-thesis of reasoned dialogue? That just maybe, as activists interested in promoting skepticism, they might want to directly oppose such efforts to demonize members of the atheist/skeptic communities? Is anyone still surprised at this? Anyone? Bueller?

* A more thorough history of events leading up to and following 'ElevatorGate' is provided by James Onen's article here: http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com ... vatorgate/
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Lsuoma » Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:55 pm  •  [Post 51]

Thaumas - and you trust her to act decently at Nugnut's?

<carlin>
Why, I think not!
</carlin>
Call me old-fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating.
User avatar
Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:58 pm
Location: Pacific NW

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:20 pm  •  [Post 52]

Where do you get that idea? I'm not presuming to know how she'll act at Nugent's. However she acts, I'll respond to that. I'm talking about the sources of these conflicts in the first place.

The nice thing about Nugent's dialogue is that it is about as neutral a ground as you could hope for, and we won't get banned/whatever merely for disagreeing or expressing an unpopular opinion. Given that level playing field, it really doesn't matter *how* she acts at all. Reason and evidence will come out on top at the end of the day. It's a no-lose situation.

The purpose of my previous comment is to document this stuff happening in real time, for reference purposes later on when I begin defending the purpose of the 'right of reply' principle, to show why it's necessary for reasonable dialogue.

Reasonable people will read this, see, "Oh yeah, that is kinda fucked up," and see the point. I'm really not that concerned how *un*reasonable people will respond. Not sure what you are objecting to.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:51 pm  •  [Post 53]

Lsuoma wrote:Thaumas - and you trust her to act decently at Nugnut's?

<carlin>
Why, I think not!
</carlin>


Why do you think anyone needs to trust her?
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Pepsi » Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:48 pm  •  [Post 54]

I agree with Jack here. Ithinks, if she tries anything unfair, the rest of the participants will help with that. She's not in control.
User avatar
Pepsi
.
.
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:37 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Matt Cavanaugh » Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:10 pm  •  [Post 55]

I responded to both Smith and Zvan, and in the discussion stream gave a polite but pointed critique of both statements as rambling and vague, with a request for a concise presentation of the resp. propositions, along with the establishment of parameters for discussion & debate.

I'm willing to proceed on the assumption that this as a good faith effort by Nugent, Zvan et. al. Of course, the extremists will decry any olive branches, instead insisting we either submit to their dogma or drop dead. I choose to ignore them.

My comments, posted late last night, are still in moderation. The review process must be greatly expedited if there's to be any serious exchange.

I am curious as to whether any of the parties involved have prior experience with mediation. To be of any worth, this endeavor must be treated as a negotiation, not just a 'sharing of feelings' mutual masturbation.
"They're so far up their own asses, they've gone full klein bottle. Never go full klein bottle." -- Welch
User avatar
Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
 
Posts: 2632
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:55 pm  •  [Post 56]

Looking for new people to help out with the Nugent discussion. See notice here: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 733#p81733

If you're interested, reply here or send a PM to any of: Jack, Renee Hendricks, Skep Tickle, or Wonderist.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:57 pm  •  [Post 57]

I'm interested - what "help" is needed?
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Apples » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:09 pm  •  [Post 58]

Image
"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Matt Cavanaugh » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:01 pm  •  [Post 59]

Wonderist wrote:Looking for new people to help out with the Nugent discussion. See notice here: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 733#p81733

If you're interested, reply here or send a PM to any of: Jack, Renee Hendricks, Skep Tickle, or Wonderist.



I'll help.
"They're so far up their own asses, they've gone full klein bottle. Never go full klein bottle." -- Welch
User avatar
Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
 
Posts: 2632
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby welch » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:03 pm  •  [Post 60]

sure, still interested.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right.
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8207
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:34 pm  •  [Post 61]

Thanks for responding, folks! We're going to continue to collect replies to the invitation and then we'll be in touch once we have a chance to review them together.

We are keeping track of who is responding, and we're going to do our best to open it up to as many as want to participate, over the course of the next few days and weeks. So anyone who wants to respond is still welcome to do so.
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:44 pm  •  [Post 62]

tamerlane wrote:I responded to both Smith and Zvan, and in the discussion stream gave a polite but pointed critique of both statements as rambling and vague, with a request for a concise presentation of the resp. propositions, along with the establishment of parameters for discussion & debate.

I'm willing to proceed on the assumption that this as a good faith effort by Nugent, Zvan et. al. Of course, the extremists will decry any olive branches, instead insisting we either submit to their dogma or drop dead. I choose to ignore them.

My comments, posted late last night, are still in moderation. The review process must be greatly expedited if there's to be any serious exchange.

I am curious as to whether any of the parties involved have prior experience with mediation. To be of any worth, this endeavor must be treated as a negotiation, not just a 'sharing of feelings' mutual masturbation.


There is no negotiation until basic principles from both sides are revealed and compared. That is where we are now. To do otherwise would lead into a mess and any chance at a dialogue as a mutual exchange of ideas lost.

The 'other side' have explicitly stated they have no interest in any discourse. Zvan is an exception. In the Nugent dialogues everyone was welcome to post but the 'other side' rarely did for long and their arguments were very week. There was your open dialogue and it is still open and still there.

This is not about two sides wanting to achieve something as one side is more than happy as things are. It is about trying to reactivate open dialogue through basic principles. That will take time and must not be rushed. People need time to think things through and respond to specific points raised by both 'sides'. There has been over 30 replies already. While small it is better than nothing and hopefully as time passes more voices will be encouraged to enter the discussions.

In the context of that it will be a slow process and in any event it is simply one of many.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Wonderist » Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:13 am  •  [Post 63]

tamerlane wrote:I responded to both Smith and Zvan, and in the discussion stream gave a polite but pointed critique of both statements as rambling and vague, with a request for a concise presentation of the resp. propositions, along with the establishment of parameters for discussion & debate.

I'm willing to proceed on the assumption that this as a good faith effort by Nugent, Zvan et. al. Of course, the extremists will decry any olive branches, instead insisting we either submit to their dogma or drop dead. I choose to ignore them.

My comments, posted late last night, are still in moderation. The review process must be greatly expedited if there's to be any serious exchange.

I am curious as to whether any of the parties involved have prior experience with mediation. To be of any worth, this endeavor must be treated as a negotiation, not just a 'sharing of feelings' mutual masturbation.

Nugent himself is experienced with mediation. Here's the posts where he introduces the process we're going with:
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/20 ... mmunities/
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/26 ... -dialogue/
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/31 ... w-started/
User avatar
Wonderist
.
.
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:58 am  •  [Post 64]

Jack wrote:There is no negotiation until basic principles from both sides are revealed and compared. That is where we are now. To do otherwise would lead into a mess and any chance at a dialogue as a mutual exchange of ideas lost.


I believe this is just a difference in semantics, as I consider the stating of principles, requirements, etc. as the first step in the negotiation process.

I'm not alone in asking for clearer & more concise statements of principle; will an attempt at this be made? It also makes no sense to explore "how we can work together on skepticism, atheism and secularism" until those terms have been defined.

Jack wrote:This is not about two sides wanting to achieve something .... It is about trying to reactivate open dialogue through basic principles.


I'm confused. Nugent's agenda begins by asking "[h]ow we can work together on core issues" -- that sounds like trying to achieve something IRL. If this is just about civility on comment streams, then it's a long run for a short slide.

Jack wrote: it will be a slow process and in any event it is simply one of many.


Has the working group already laid out the next steps? If so, why not share them publicly?
"They're so far up their own asses, they've gone full klein bottle. Never go full klein bottle." -- Welch
User avatar
Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
 
Posts: 2632
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Postby JackSkeptic » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:03 pm  •  [Post 65]

tamerlane wrote:
Jack wrote:There is no negotiation until basic principles from both sides are revealed and compared. That is where we are now. To do otherwise would lead into a mess and any chance at a dialogue as a mutual exchange of ideas lost.


I believe this is just a difference in semantics, as I consider the stating of principles, requirements, etc. as the first step in the negotiation process.

I'm not alone in asking for clearer & more concise statements of principle; will an attempt at this be made? It also makes no sense to explore "how we can work together on skepticism, atheism and secularism" until those terms have been defined.

Jack wrote:This is not about two sides wanting to achieve something .... It is about trying to reactivate open dialogue through basic principles.


I'm confused. Nugent's agenda begins by asking "[h]ow we can work together on core issues" -- that sounds like trying to achieve something IRL. If this is just about civility on comment streams, then it's a long run for a short slide.

Jack wrote: it will be a slow process and in any event it is simply one of many.


Has the working group already laid out the next steps? If so, why not share them publicly?


Hang on, you want 'the group' to publicly lay out the steps beyond that already clearly stated? Were you serious when you said you had experience in negotiation? I don't believe you sorry. That's a a ridiculous request and if you had any experience you would know that. Ask Svan and see what response you get there. Be my guest. Ask anyone in delicate negotiation their thoughts in public. Good luck.

Also you may be unaware this is nothing to do with the Slympit. We are working as individuals so feel free to disown the process if you wish.

How we can work together was clearly stated in the statement our group made. Have you read it? Have you read the process that Michael has laid out?

You can express your opinion how you wish but your clear attempts to reveal 'steps' makes me wonder what your motives are.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
User avatar
JackSkeptic
.
.
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:23 pm
Location: UK

[Show] Post a reply

Next

Return to Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nec_V20 and 2 guests