Steersman wrote:Stephanie Zvan said (#54):
Steersman wrote:Methinks you’re engaging in some egregious “four legs good; two legs bad†in making it a precondition that anyone to be involved in healing those “deep rifts†has to “leave the slime pit behindâ€.
Methinks you don’t know what that phrase means or refers to. If you did, you might be a bit more embarrassed by your own behavior around FtB lately.
Of course I know what the term refers to – Orwell’s
Animal Farm – and I used the term advisedly. And what are you suggesting – that I should be embarrassed that I’m supposedly acting like some sexist pig? My intent – though not stated or suggested – was to allude to what I expect both Orwell in his book and Shermer in his comments in the December issue of eSkeptic were getting at – i.e., the rather universal tendency for people to allow their allegiances to groups – tribalism – to get the better of their critical faculties. Which in this case manifests itself as stereotyping and the denial of individuality. And while I will readily concede that the Slymepit has some deficiencies in that area, I figure they don’t hold a candle to FTB in comparison. However I think the Pit has the saving grace – and it is not an inconsiderable one, either – of being almost an entirely open forum which is, I think, a very important prophylactic against group-think. And
that is, I think, the very great failing, if not a fatal one, of both Atheism-Plus and FTB itself.
As a for instance, I would refer you to PZ’s December effort – commendable in itself but finally an outright abortion – to do an experiment, to ask “why do you despise feminism?†And in that thread a Pitter posting in Pharyngula as
skeptixx had the temerity to take PZ at his word and to post a number of quite reasonable comments and
questions. PZ’s response? This (#400) charming bit of stereotyping and nastiness:
Skeptixx: Slymepitters are never welcome here — your gang crosses the line from sexism into outright misogyny, and I don’t think that group’s fondness for inventing ‘creative’ versions of people’s names using crude slang for genitals counts as rational discussion. Banned with extreme prejudice.
Considering that that was without absolutely any effort on his part to address
skeptixx’s questions and comments, I would say that eminently qualifies as tarring the whole group with the same brush – in a word or two, manifesting Orwell’s aphorism: “four legs good; two legs badâ€. And I expect I could come up with a further dozen or more equally egregious examples without half breathing hard – though not without some time. And that’s not including another half-dozen just in this thread.
Repetition of a simple argument doesn’t make it true.
Hallelujah, we agree on something. However, if you’re referring to my frequent claim that the charge of “sexist comment†against Michael Shermer’s “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing†is egregiously bogus if not a libel and a defamation then I expect that since there has been absolutely no effort to refute it, much less an actual proof against it, that would tend to cause most people – skeptics, at least – to think that there might be some truth to that claim.
I, on the other hand, have gone to the work to explain what it is about the pit that makes it an enemy to any “healing†and why I think it shouldn’t be a big thing to leave it behind.
And they used to “explain†illnessness as “bad humours†and prescribe bloodletting as a cure. As mentioned, your effort to paint the Pit as a forum whose “entire point†is “to contain vitriol against Rebecca Watson, FtB, and anyone who acts as though any of us have a point†qualifies as another case of Orwell’s aphorism at best, and egregious demagoguery at worst. If you went over there to do more than to just cherry-pick posts to confirm your biases then you might have seen that charge doesn’t hold any water whatsoever. As mentioned, I and more than a few others have been willing to concede that some here have had some good points. However, that a central theme here seems to be, as suggested by Ophelia Benson’s Secular Humanism article last August, the “intersection of skepticism, atheism, and feminism†– which is deemed to be decidedly problematic by many, and not just in the Pit – tends to make FTB and AtheismPlus a frequent topic of discussion.
As for “a big thing to leave behindâ€, that qualifies as rather much of a joke. Seems to me that a not inconsiderable percentage of those posting and lurking in the Pit – myself included – do so because they’ve been banned, dungeonated, or put in eternal moderation or limbo, for questioning the “conventional wisdom†in this rather benighted neck of the woods. And that it has, thereby, become a significant source of information as well as a venue for the free and open discussion of those issues and ideas. Pray tell, unless you’re all prepared to address the many complaints and issues that led to that state of affairs, what do you think the chances are that anyone is likely to agree to those terms of yours? Which, I might add, looks rather much like a poisoned chalice.
No. I expect that anyone who actually wants to find common cause with me will understand what a toxic environment the pit is and won’t have any trouble leaving it behind.
Again, that really only qualifies as your opinion which, as mentioned and detailed, really doesn’t seem to hold all that much water. That some of the “humour†there is decidedly rude and crude if not rather nasty, I will readily concede. However, I think more than a small amount of it is clever, cogent and incisive. And since more than a few there, myself included, have deprecated the former, the benefits of the latter, as well as those of the other aforementioned attributes, tends to outweigh the former.
Making up oaths and rituals so you have something to get all frowny about strongly suggests you understand that what I ask isn’t that much in itself.
What you refer to as my “oaths and rituals†was not something intended “to get all frowny aboutâ€, but to be the vehicle for some sarcasm to illustrate what I think are some central issues motivating this widening “riftâ€. And issues – gender feminism and evolutionary psychology – which very few here are actually prepared to address. It would be rather amusing if it weren’t so depressing to see the rather willful Panglossian blindness of many here to the many flaws within the edifice “feminismâ€. I expect very few – at least outside various religious backwaters – have much dispute with the idea of equal civil rights for men and women, although many have created some impressive strawmen that suggest otherwise. But non-trivial problems arise when the devil shows itself in the details of various feminist ideologies encompassing such concepts as the infamous “patriarchyâ€, and gender as a social construct, as well as the consequential social policies. Some of which have some rather “virulent†manifestations.
One more time: These people want my time and attention. They leave comments that they demand be posted here. They send me mentions on Twitter after I tell them conversations are over.
Not having been party to those conversations or seen any discussion of them, I can’t very well say much about the intent, goals, or objectives they might have in mind. Although, considering that, as mentioned, feminism seems to be at the heart of the matter, one might suggest “listening to the women†might be part of their motivations. However, the fact of the matter is, I think, that neither you nor any of the other women in FTB know of or speak for all of the strands in feminism, some of which are substantially more problematic than you and they are apparently willing to consider.
