Reconciliation

[LMU]

In the ERV thread RahXephon mentioned that an armistice or truce or reconciliation of some sort might be desirable. What do you think this would look like and what would have to happen or change first?

[Darren]

I think it is desirable, but is unlikely to happen. A "truce" would involve compromise from both sides. Can you really see any of the FC5 compromising on anything?

[Lsuoma]

I don't see this board as being at war. This is a place for discussion on various matters. People who want to post here might have had history elsewhere. That doesn't carry over automatically. But neither is it automatically dismissed.

[John Greg]

One of the most difficult bridge to cross is the simply, at root, but challenging, at heart, "let's just agree to disagree".

But there are some much more serious issues that would need to be, well, fixed isn't really the word, but I am not convinced that they possibly can be. The basic principles of how most of us here at the Slyme Pit and how most of the FfTB uniiverse view the world are so deeply at oppsites, that I am not at all sure that any kind of reconciliation or agreement can ever be reached.

One of the primary difference is that we in the Slyme Pit tend to make fun of many of these differences; make fun iof FfTB/Skepchick folks, and point out that we disagree with them and why we disagree with them, and to some degree dismiss them as loopy, whereas the FfTB universe tends to just flat out say Slyme Poeple are wrong, are bad, are sick, are evil, and then create a range of sins to paper is woth, such as misogynostic, rapeist, rape aplogist, MRA, and so on and so forth, even when, maybe even especially when, such epithets are quite literaly irrelevant and completely unrelated to the supposed Wrongness in the first place. How does one work with that.

[EveryMan]

Won't happen.

This is just a border skirmish that been going on between social "scientists" and real scientists since the 90's.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

The red flag is the keyword "privilege". Nobody with a real job ever uses that word.

The only way to deal with them is to troll them; ala Sokal and Hoggle. They are not operating in reality so reality-based methods are futile.

[Stretchycheese]

Everyman, I don't see it that way. Perhaps there's a tendency in some social sciences and humanities to see human nature in terms of blank slatism and social constructivism (women's studies faculties in particular), but I don't see the conflict rooted in hard science vs. social science disciplinary thinking. After all, I'm a social scientist myself (political science mostly) and many FTB/Skepchick supporters have hard science backgrounds.

I see the divide in terms of people who have very strong and often dogmatic gender identity politics vs. people who don't. People with backgrounds in both social and hard sciences have fallen on either side of the fence.

[Skepcheck]

Everyman: That wikiP link is very interesting. I have often had thoughs along those lines, but didn't know it was an actual *thing* with a name.

[Dilurk]

It would be nice indeed. I rather think most of the sound and fury is due to misunderstandings due to text. Flame wars are infamous in the old email/Usenet (anyone remember Usenet here?) posting world, the same happens with modern blogs. Y''all need to have a drink of beer together somewhere. Or should I say have a cup of coffee after meeting in the elevator? *** runs ***

[dustbubble]

The only way to deal with them is to troll them; ala Sokal and Hoggle. They are not operating in reality so reality-based methods are futile.

Like EveryMan, this is the conclusion to which I have been driven.
For some reason the Myers cadres have an irresistible appeal to the very people atheists and skeptics appear to wish to inform and influence.

And the worse the insanity and gutless viciousness, the deeper the unreason and dishonesty, the greater the appeal, it seems.
The supposed constituency of scientific scepticism seem repelled by the rational. Perhaps the futile efforts to debate and argue with the fanatics in a civil manner strikes them as weak and unworthy. They prefer the absolutes and certainties and the abrogation of personal responsibility that Fat Boy dispenses.
WTF is up with that?

(Apols. if that's a bit snivelly. I've just come from wading through the most recent crap in the JREF Forum thread about teh mussojannee at TAM.
What a crock of shit. A year later, and they are patently incapable of grasping even the basic sequence of events surrounding ThatSlidyBoxOnAString-gate and "Dear dick", the credibility of the various actors and so on. Planks.
And that's just the confused non-obsessives trying to find out, not deliberately disingenuous poseurs like the loathsome bookitty, or RemieV.

Face it, these moneyed and leisured baboon-people own the public face of atheism, and to the casual observer, everyone in it.
And people seem to think playing nice is the way forward. Ay! de mí )

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Dilurk:

I rather think most of the sound and fury is due to misunderstandings due to text

Doubt that. They have been informed often enough what the Slimers mean, and don't mean, by the words they find objectionable. What would reconciliation mean anyway? Would you become active on their blogs? The problem many of us have with them is their hypocrisy and tendency to swarm over foreign bodies with stock rejoinders like immune cells, which is not a new phenomenon. They have never acknowledged the tendency to become on-eyed when challenged, so why would they start now? Are you willing to ditch your principles to go along with them when you see them going after somebody in a frenzy? Look at the piss-poor quality of Stefunny's reasoning, and ask yourself how a people of PZ's, or Watson's, intelligence could keep their mouths shut about it if they had any honesty. Just read Queen Bee's ludicrous response to Justin Vacula's questions and ask yourself if you can see getting along with people who see nothing wrong with that. If you want to reconcile, send PZ a nice email, but don't blame anyone else if it ends up as an 'I get Email', then you get blocked from responding.

[EveryMan]

Everyman, I don't see it that way. Perhaps there's a tendency in some social sciences and humanities to see human nature in terms of blank slatism and social constructivism (women's studies faculties in particular), but I don't see the conflict rooted in hard science vs. social science disciplinary thinking. After all, I'm a social scientist myself (political science mostly) and many FTB/Skepchick supporters have hard science backgrounds.

I see the divide in terms of people who have very strong and often dogmatic gender identity politics vs. people who don't. People with backgrounds in both social and hard sciences have fallen on either side of the fence.

The crux of the particular brand of feminism that is prevalent on teh InterWebZ & FfTB in particular if of the "postmodern" variety. Again, their "privilege/patriarchy" language is a dead giveaway. Both of these notions are pure fiction. Biology drives social roles; not the other way around.

Men both produce more and are more sensitive to the male sex hormone, testosterone. A direct consequence of this is that men are about 50% stronger than women, on average. Ergo, they can work harder, longer and more dangerous jobs. Hence the income disparity.

Men also die earlier than women. Hence the population and wealth disparity. There is no free lunch in nature.

[EveryMan]

Everyman: That wikiP link is very interesting. I have often had thoughs along those lines, but didn't know it was an actual *thing* with a name.

I'm a GenX'er and this was a huge, huge thing when I was undergrad. In fact it, it contributed to me dropping out of a liberal arts college and getting into the whole 'scientific skepticism' thing. Postmodernism is my own personal White Whale.

I'll also suggest checking out the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

It's important to note that what "worked" to some extent in dealing with these people was trolling/exposing them.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

@Everyman:

Personally, I think that the concept of privilege is a valid one. What is wrong with acknowledging that a position of relative advantage can blind one to the experience of the less privileged? One can see this 'privileged' attitude amongst some wealthy whites in post apartheid South Africa who seem to think that the non-white population should just shut up about the past. I don't deny that there is a strong element of abdication of responsibility on the part of the ANC and their supporters, but to deny that the disadvantaged should not feel some grievance or expect some redress is just wrong.

Women have been disadvantaged in some societies and I don't deny that , on balance, they would feel very vulnerable in situations where men wouldn't. Where I have a problem with privilege is when it is automatically applied as a blunt weapon without regard to the particulars of a situation and when the existence of a privilege imbalance is used as a justification for discriminatory policy. The fact that I might not know EXACTLY how a women feels in a threatening situation does not necessitate that I hold back any judgement on whether anyone's inconvenience necessitates remedial action on anyone else's part. The radfems seem remarkably unable to acknowledge that men have emotions and insecurities too, unless they can manipulate those emotions. Personally I have often witnessed a women in a position of relative power asking 'innocent' questions to embarass the hell out of the shy male employee. It's obvious what's going on but nobody takes it seriously. Cue mocking cries of "OOH, TEH POOR MENZ, HAVE A CUPCAKE".

[EveryMan]

Personally, I think that the concept of privilege is a valid one. What is wrong with acknowledging that a position of relative advantage can blind one to the experience of the less privileged? One can see this 'privileged' attitude amongst some wealthy whites in post apartheid South Africa who seem to think that the non-white population should just shut up about the past. I don't deny that there is a strong element of abdication of responsibility on the part of the ANC and their supporters, but to deny that the disadvantaged should not feel some grievance or expect some redress is just wrong.

Aha! This is what is so brilliant about the whole mess. Of course they are correct in that the idea of social privilege is valid.

The crux of the problem is they can't see their own.

For example, consider the idea of 'male privilege'. Lets break that down:

1. Men are on average stronger than women, due to differences in sex hormone production/sensitivity.
2. Stronger is Better.
3. Men are Superior to Women.

#1 is biology and #2-3 are social constructions. And I hope its clear that I'm enlightened enough not to buy into #2-3.

But, if you accept that line of thinking; then you also have to accept that the idea of "Male Privilege" is a social construction as well. Same goes for the "Patriarchy" and everything else they've made up. Ideas like "Weak is Worse" or "Women are Victims" is as privileged as anything.

If you want a great example of this, study the push-back Unis got from migrating Women's studies into Gender studies. Or, heaven's forbid, opening a "Men's" center.

[Badger3k]

Personally, I think that the concept of privilege is a valid one. What is wrong with acknowledging that a position of relative advantage can blind one to the experience of the less privileged? One can see this 'privileged' attitude amongst some wealthy whites in post apartheid South Africa who seem to think that the non-white population should just shut up about the past. I don't deny that there is a strong element of abdication of responsibility on the part of the ANC and their supporters, but to deny that the disadvantaged should not feel some grievance or expect some redress is just wrong.

Aha! This is what is so brilliant about the whole mess. Of course they are correct in that the idea of social privilege is valid.

The crux of the problem is they can't see their own.

For example, consider the idea of 'male privilege'. Lets break that down:

1. Men are on average stronger than women, due to differences in sex hormone production/sensitivity.
2. Stronger is Better.
3. Men are Superior to Women.

#1 is biology and #2-3 are social constructions. And I hope its clear that I'm enlightened enough not to buy into #2-3.

But, if you accept that line of thinking; then you also have to accept that the idea of "Male Privilege" is a social construction as well. Same goes for the "Patriarchy" and everything else they've made up. Ideas like "Weak is Worse" or "Women are Victims" is as privileged as anything.

If you want a great example of this, study the push-back Unis got from migrating Women's studies into Gender studies. Or, heaven's forbid, opening a "Men's" center.

So, would social privilege apply to a white female in her 20s, college educated, who doesn't seem to work a real job, but is free to travel the world and give "talks", as well as attend many conventions, and have a hoard of followers who will mindlessly defend her every whim?

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Everyman said:

Aha! This is what is so brilliant about the whole mess. Of course they are correct in that the idea of social privilege is valid.

The crux of the problem is they can't see their own.

It probably doesn't even occur to most of them to look. Privilege seems to very often be used as an argument deflector (someone at ERV described it as a talisman). Doubt that there is the integrity to even honestly evaluate the circumstance in question before using the Check your Privilege Gambit.

[Badger3k]

Everyman said:

Aha! This is what is so brilliant about the whole mess. Of course they are correct in that the idea of social privilege is valid.

The crux of the problem is they can't see their own.

It probably doesn't even occur to most of them to look. Privilege seems to very often be used as an argument deflector (someone at ERV described it as a talisman). Doubt that there is the integrity to even honestly evaluate the circumstance in question before using the Check your Privilege Gambit.

A talisman? Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong. I thought it was a "Privilegiosa" charm, and was trying to get the hand gesture down. How is yon talisman constructed?

[EveryMan]

So, would social privilege apply to a white female in her 20s, college educated, who doesn't seem to work a real job, but is free to travel the world and give "talks", as well as attend many conventions, and have a hoard of followers who will mindlessly defend her every whim?

I made that exact point as an undergrad 20 years ago.

Basically, that wealthy white American women getting a free "women's studies" education are the most privileged and entitled social class in the world. But they are also victims, of course. Can't forget that.

If you read between the lines, this was the core of Dawkin's response. Basically, if your "worst" problem is a guy asking you to have coffee with him, you don't have any problems. It's nothing but White Whine.

[RebeccaB]

...snip...(Apols. if that's a bit snivelly. I've just come from wading through the most recent crap in the JREF Forum thread about teh mussojannee at TAM.
What a crock of shit. A year later, and they are patently incapable of grasping even the basic sequence of events surrounding ThatSlidyBoxOnAString-gate and "Dear dick", the credibility of the various actors and so on. Planks.
And that's just the confused non-obsessives trying to find out, not deliberately disingenuous poseurs like the loathsome bookitty, or RemieV.

Hi guys, newbie here, but longtime observer of the FtB phenomenon, and occasional poster at JREF. I took part in that thread, starting at #2669, defending DJ Grothe and trying to put the TAM "misogyny" meme in some sort of historical context - that is, as part of the ongoing demonization of DJ by Skepchick and FtB, especially Myers and Benson. I got the impression there is not much overlap between JREF and FtB; the JREFers are familiar with Rebecca Watson because of her history there, but FtB does not loom large - and somebody asked what an ERV was. Those who followed my link to a typically batshit thread on FtB were stunned. For me, the good news was that PZ and the Wyrd Sisters may not be as important to other segments of the skeptical community as they evidently think they are.

[disumbrationist]

I think a 'truce' (like we need more military metaphors to aggrandize our internetz arguin') can come about if we have a common cause to oppose. Like in science fiction, when an alien invasion unites the squabbling nations of the world against a common enemy. Each side would need to see the value that the other provides - if in fact they do. Someone like Dawkins, or one of the other 800 lb. gorillas, doesn't have to worry too much about being alienated from the skeptical movement, because they provide leadership and publicity. Randi would have to become a Scientologist and start selling homeopathic cures for atheism before the community would turn it's back on him. If ERV, for example, keeps taking on antivaxxers, charlatans, creationists, Fundamentalists, etc. on her blog and IRL, eventually PZ et al. will have to forget that she's a gendermisogynal sister-traitor. They'll see her value. And that's how truces are made.
If a truce never develops it will be because neither side is of any value to the other, or one or both is populated by fanatics who "won't change their minds and won't change the subject."

[EveryMan]

If a truce never develops it will be because neither side is of any value to the other, or one or both is populated by fanatics who "won't change their minds and won't change the subject."

The broader debate in Academia (of which this is a subset) is really that of objectivists vs. subjectivists.

There can be no reconciliation as the objectivists simply have a broader worldview than subjectivists. It's like trying to explain what seeing in color looks like to someone that can only see gray scale.

As an example; I accept the biological reality of sexual dimorphism as well as the social reality of male/female "privilege".

The gender femmies only see male privilege. There can be no reconciliation, only education on their part; which by and large they refuse. Such is life.

[Quine]

In clan wars, reconciliation usually does occur after everyone's houses have burnt down and there is nothing else left to do.

[surreptitious57]

One thing above all should suffice and indeed should be the natural default position here. And it is this: ideas can be taken apart, but one should respect the individual at all times. In other words, our old friend, the Golden Rule. If we all took that as our foundation, our platform, our base, then everything else would flow naturally.

We are supposed to value logic over emotion. Yet the site wars and ideological conflicts of recent suggest otherwise. I have commented on them like everyone else, but do so from a position of zero tolerance or respect for ad hom. That others cannot do so, is disappointing. But I shall not be disheartened. I shall continue to hold my head while all around me, others may be losing theirs. I reference this not out of arrogance or pomposity, but simple truth. I am not interested in all this tribalism. It is not my thing. It may be here for some time to come. Nevertheless. I shall continue to while away, learning as much as I can and engaging correctly with those who seek to do so. I only wish this was true for all.

Just think of how more positive the entire skeptic community could be if we did this and only dissed negative ideas and not each other. There is no reason why this should not be so. We can put by our differences and come together as one. There is nothing stopping us from doing so other than our own intransigence. We can and should do better. The tribalism has to go. It could divide skepticism for ever. It should not be like this. Not even remotely so. I look forward to better days.

[Gilmarvag]

http://i.imgur.com/i7lHtAl.png?2



Edited by Skep Tickle, reason = spam