Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Double wank and shit chips
Wonderist
.
.
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#61

Post by Wonderist »

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.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#62

Post by JackSkeptic »

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.

Wonderist
.
.
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#63

Post by Wonderist »

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/

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#64

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

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?

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#65

Post by JackSkeptic »

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.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#66

Post by Submariner »

My post replying to Zvan's 2nd post.
Submariner says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 4, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Replies exclusive to Ms. Zvan’s numbered comments:

1. Agree.Re: defining “community”- fortunately an associate of yours from FTB has recently done just that.(a) Richard Carrier said, “Atheism is now a community”. Let us therefore follow his lead and define it as he suggests.

2a. Disagree. Your example is a false equivalence. One must go deeper to the root of the “equal” treatment argument. People are considered to be equally treated in terms of marriage if they are all equally allowed to marry a person they are physically, emotionally, and otherwise attracted to. This excludes the need for “wants to be treated” to be an issue.

2b. Disagree. We as a society DO treat those who act in ways that damage the community. They are considered not guilty until proven so. They are equally treated to due process. Only then do we impose sanctions upon them. To do otherwise invites errors such as the case of a college lacrosse team in not too distant memory. I’m also very curious why “cheaters” was mentioned here with “overly physically aggressive”.

3b. Agree. Since we have defined the topic of these discussions as atheist skeptic, the only original dogmas that would seem to establish is the lack of belief in deities and the belief in a systematic critical approach to claims. Any other claims should therefore be examined under the first two “dogmatic” precepts.

3c. Disagree. When one puts ethical treatment above truth seeking one can reach “deeply troubling” results as well. The “rule of thumb” was designed to demark ethical treatment of women, who were considered to be of lesser intelligence and prone to irrationality. This ethical line would have been unnecessary in the face of truer beliefs about women.

4a. Agree and disagree. “We” defined above. Once scientific consensus is reached we generally shelve the discussion until new data is uncovered. You use geocentrism as an example. In the more complex field of human social interaction, is there in fact such overwhelming scientific data that prescribes one coherent picture of human dynamics as there is that the earth travels around the sun?

4b. Disagree. Jack specified “open and free debate”. Your comment here seemed to mean professional debaters in organized and structured debate formats.

4c. Agree. Once most experts agree on a matter such as evolution. These are matters which have scientific data. The social sciences have yet to reach such consensus.

4d. Disagree. I would hope that the physicist actually reads the submission, first. Imagine if Einstein’s papers were thrown away because he was just a patent clerk and therefore a “crank”.

Wow, this is longer than I had planned. I will shorten my responses to just agree or disagree.and if needed will defend them in the discussion thread.
6a. Disagree
6b. Agree.
7-8 agree.
9.Disagree
10-11 Meh.
12a. Thankfully this is currently true.
12b-14 Disagree.
15. Meh.
16b. Those are the very foundation of the Atheist Skeptic “community”. The humanitarian values you mention would likely be better served under a different (but not exclusive) banner of humanism, in that they have little to do with lack of belief in deities.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#67

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Jack wrote: Have you read the process that Michael has laid out? your clear attempts to reveal 'steps' makes me wonder what your motives are.
My motivation is to figure out where this is all headed, before investing further time & thought. It's reasonable to expect some sort of roadmap, but all we know is: there will be an exchange of 1,000 word exegesis's on five questions, followed by 1,000 word replies & replies to replies. This is to continue "until we have reached as close to a consensus as we can attain."

Any estimate on how many rounds this will require? Also, are we talking weeks, months?

Will there be any digest or compilation of interim results? Any response to the input from commenters?

After the consensus is finally reached, how will the results be promulgated?

How will they be applied or implemented?


Jack wrote: Also you may be unaware this is nothing to do with the Slympit.
Duh. I'm commenting here because it's easier than going through Checkpoint Charlie every time.

Jack wrote: feel free to disown the process if you wish.
I was under the impression this was to be an inclusive effort. Yet there seems to be considerable push-back to critique, and a reluctance to consider offers of outside contribution, like John Greg's above. It seems odd that you'd be so quick to encourage people to drop out.

Jack wrote: Were you serious when you said you had experience in negotiation? I don't believe you sorry.
My experience is in corporate senior management, in political campaigns & activism, and on the boards of three charitable organizations.

I've taken part in formal mediations over legal & contractual disputes;

I've been involved in two corporate mergers, requiring the blending of departments with distinct corporate cultures;

I've helped arrange & oversee vertical market alliances and joint marketing & promotion campaigns among Fortune 100 corporations;

I've led or participated in numerous strategy sessions for product & program launches, corporate ID development, promotional & advertising campaigns, as well as the development & roll-out of political, advocacy, public awareness & charitable initiatives.


What I have not done is sit in a circle doing the hand jive at an Occupy camp. If your project is being conducted under the principles of organic leadership and free-form consensus-building, that should have been declared at the outset.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#68

Post by Submariner »

What's the harm Jack? tamerlane can't be any worse than Gurdur.

Give him/her a chance. (That's all I am saying)

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#69

Post by Skep tickle »

Submariner, your post (& 1 other) are up at Stephanie's response to Jack's statement.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#70

Post by JackSkeptic »

Submariner wrote:What's the harm Jack? tamerlane can't be any worse than Gurdur.

Give him/her a chance. (That's all I am saying)

It's not a complicated process and it is laid out at Nugents. We are following that process. As said many times that process will be relaxed as an when the moderators feel it is safe. That is their judgement call. Until then it is easy. We take turns writing and responding. That will lead to a general discussion phase where certain basic common principles have been agreed.

We now have 7 members and hope to grow that. But personally I have no interest in arguing from the get go with anyone that joins until they know the facts of what is being done. There is too much assuming going on. We all have limited time and I am expressing my opinion and no one else's, as usual.

Our response statement is due sometime tomorrow (Saturday)

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#71

Post by JackSkeptic »

And comments such as 'considerable push back to critique' is demonstrably false. We have all been as open as we can (without telling Zvan what we intend to do, this is a public forum. She has said precisely nothing) I do not appreciate comments like that when it has been effectively me and one other dealing with every issue raised here.

Anyway we have others now which is great and something we have always wanted. As I have said consistently.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#72

Post by Submariner »

Thanks skeptickle.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#73

Post by Submariner »

Well, they hacked off my examples. I just hope Zvan saw them.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#74

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Jack,

On the assumption that the call for them was sincere, I have offered specific critiques, suggestions and requests, especially for clarification of the intended process, for definition of terms, and for a reworking of the initial statements. (My suggestions* posted at the discussion page remain in moderation.) I am far from alone in making such suggestions. It is surely your prerogative to decline to implement them, but an explanation as to why would be proper. Instead, you either 'blame it on Zvan' or indicate that critique is not welcome, rather, everyone must simply accept the process as is, or show themselves out.

I asked you specifically whether the dialog will be conducted using anarchist/ organic leadership/ evolved consensus methods. If so, that is a deal-breaker for my personal involvement. Your equivocal response I interpret as 'the process is what the process is.'

Your tone at times has been condescending & dismissive. You implied I was too dense to have read or comprehend Nugent's statement of purpose. You painted me as a naif for not realizing that the Nugent/Zvan/Smith Method was the only proper way to conduct negotiations, then essentially called me a liar for claiming negotiation experience of my own. I don't know about your experience with team-building, but that's not how we do it where I come from.

Considering all this, I rescind my offer to volunteer in the dialog working group, and will desist from participating in the dialog itself. It's no snark when I say I do hope I'm proven wrong, and that the dialog can realize tangible results.

I do, however, intend to continue to frequent the Slymepit and to engage in its many other lively discussions. I'm very new here, and everyone has been welcoming, engaging, and -- despite the 'pit o' slime' bad rap -- exceedingly polite. Indeed, Slymepit is evidence that a civil, adult conversation can occur with minimal moderation.


* FYI:

tamerlane says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 3, 2013 at 4:54 pm
I greatly appreciate Michael Nugent’s initiative to serve as mediator, and the efforts of Jack Smith and Stephanie Zvan to prepare initial statements on short notice. I was disappointed, however, by the lack of clarity and focus of those statements. While both contained intriguing lines of inquiry, both were also disjointed and verbose, merely a string of numbered paragraphs rather than a list of concise propositions. Consequently, it proves very difficult for anyone to know exactly what they are being asked to agree or disagree with.

As I understand it, the origin of this rift was a dispute over the definition of skepticism/atheism and the intended goals & objectives of the skeptic/atheist community. The rift was widened by acrimonious, sometimes hostile, exchanges, and by accusations & counter-accusations. Would it not therefore be wise to preface this endeavor with a concise reiteration of the proposed definitions & goals, along with the establishment of parameters for constructive communication & debate?

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#75

Post by JackSkeptic »

tamerlane wrote:Jack,

On the assumption that the call for them was sincere, I have offered specific critiques, suggestions and requests, especially for clarification of the intended process, for definition of terms, and for a reworking of the initial statements. (My suggestions* posted at the discussion page remain in moderation.) I am far from alone in making such suggestions. It is surely your prerogative to decline to implement them, but an explanation as to why would be proper. Instead, you either 'blame it on Zvan' or indicate that critique is not welcome, rather, everyone must simply accept the process as is, or show themselves out.

I asked you specifically whether the dialog will be conducted using anarchist/ organic leadership/ evolved consensus methods. If so, that is a deal-breaker for my personal involvement. Your equivocal response I interpret as 'the process is what the process is.'

Your tone at times has been condescending & dismissive. You implied I was too dense to have read or comprehend Nugent's statement of purpose. You painted me as a naif for not realizing that the Nugent/Zvan/Smith Method was the only proper way to conduct negotiations, then essentially called me a liar for claiming negotiation experience of my own. I don't know about your experience with team-building, but that's not how we do it where I come from.

Considering all this, I rescind my offer to volunteer in the dialog working group, and will desist from participating in the dialog itself. It's no snark when I say I do hope I'm proven wrong, and that the dialog can realize tangible results.

I do, however, intend to continue to frequent the Slymepit and to engage in its many other lively discussions. I'm very new here, and everyone has been welcoming, engaging, and -- despite the 'pit o' slime' bad rap -- exceedingly polite. Indeed, Slymepit is evidence that a civil, adult conversation can occur with minimal moderation.


* FYI:

tamerlane says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 3, 2013 at 4:54 pm
I greatly appreciate Michael Nugent’s initiative to serve as mediator, and the efforts of Jack Smith and Stephanie Zvan to prepare initial statements on short notice. I was disappointed, however, by the lack of clarity and focus of those statements. While both contained intriguing lines of inquiry, both were also disjointed and verbose, merely a string of numbered paragraphs rather than a list of concise propositions. Consequently, it proves very difficult for anyone to know exactly what they are being asked to agree or disagree with.

As I understand it, the origin of this rift was a dispute over the definition of skepticism/atheism and the intended goals & objectives of the skeptic/atheist community. The rift was widened by acrimonious, sometimes hostile, exchanges, and by accusations & counter-accusations. Would it not therefore be wise to preface this endeavor with a concise reiteration of the proposed definitions & goals, along with the establishment of parameters for constructive communication & debate?
I am not alone in my assessment. As I have said repeatedly this is not a solo effort and nor am I any form of spokesmen. The proposed definitions and goals have been clearly outlined, something you seem happy to dismiss despite repeating it many times. That is worrysome.

I am also not dismissing your possible contribution. I am critical of your approach and your assumptions. Some of your statements have lead me to believe you have made invalid assumptions. You are entitled to those assumptions as I and others are entitled to judge them.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#76

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

That is worrysome.
Again, I wish success to those who choose to participate in the dialog.

I trust that you and I can peaceably coexist at this bulletin board without need for further direct interaction.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#77

Post by JackSkeptic »

tamerlane wrote:
That is worrysome.
Again, I wish success to those who choose to participate in the dialog.

I trust that you and I can peaceably coexist at this bulletin board without need for further direct interaction.
tamerlane wrote:
That is worrysome.
Again, I wish success to those who choose to participate in the dialog.

I trust that you and I can peaceably coexist at this bulletin board without need for further direct interaction.
Thanks for your comments and I realise they were meant as constructive and furthermore I have no issue with what you offered. I love the Slympit because we can both say what we think and not play games.

I'll interact with anyone, I don't do internet gripes or feuds. I also have no intention of closing the door to anyone and in any event that is not my decision to make.

I am not the leader of the team. No one is. We make decisions, and have done from the start, on majority consensus. It is slow but so far it has worked.

Thanks again for offering your help and it may well be extremely useful in the future if you are still willing to offer it.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#78

Post by Aneris »

Here is my response to Zvan's post... it took me forever, as I didn't have time to make it in one go. I'm an intuitive and found it a pain in the ass to go through it point per point, when it's not really written that way and probably mixed up a thing or two, but there it is anyway.
1) I agree with this. Everyone brings in their perspective, which gets scrutinized, supported, weeded out or voted up. Good things eventually emerge.
“Feynman was all genius and all buffoon. The deep thinking and the joyful clowning were not separate parts of a split personality. He did not do his thinking on Monday and his clowning on Tuesday. He was thinking and clowning simultaneously.”


2) I disagree with this, mainly as I don’t see where this is going. Scientists, in whichever fashion are not my priests. Their job description is not what matters, but a commitment to finding the best approximation of a truth. The best method known is the scientific method. As a movement, we should strive to advance what is currently best supported by evidence and discuss everything with as much rigor and disagreement as deemed necessary. As the ultimate truth is unknowable, we commit ourselves to recognize which truth-candidates are the best available approximation, and if there are multiple, adjust our stridency accordingly towards these other views. We need to be able to see where others are coming from and that our understanding of a topic might be as limited as theirs. Despite disagreement, we should learn to get along with each other and not get caught up in proxy wars of various academical disciplines. Unless they are truthology and Woo, which should always be opposed. I trust in the community, including its opinion leaders, that such views won’t have a chance anyway.
“[...] is an adversarial process [...] adversarial in the same sense that a court of law is adversarial, committed to the belief that through a contest over information, some ultimate truth will emerge. The system works best when people are contesting every claim that gets made, taking nothing at face value” – Henry Jenkins (2006)
3) I disagree with this. Most of us don’t do science, it is not my concern who thinks who does whose job. This is not to say that I don’t value “experts” or “authorities”. It is however, their consistent excellence in advancing rational or proven ideas that make them reliable.
“Nothing is static, nothing is final, everything is held provisionally.” ― Jocelyn Bell Burnell
4) I agree with reservations. Everyone should be able to promote their own course of action and criticize other effort constructively, including debunking unsound ideas. Nobody can dictate anything in a true open, participatory and diverse community. It is a constant negotiation between opinion leaders, bloggers, organizers, big names and the participants, fans, commenters or attendees. I have a positive view of people and think that the right ideas will emerge when everyone, especially those with more range, act responsible. This also means that when people don’t wish to participate in groupthink, it doesn’t mean they are opposed to it, it just means that they are, for whatever reason, not willing to participate in that particular groupthink. I very much dislike the “with us or against us” mentality that has spread in our community.
“We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.” ― Richard P. Feynman
5) I disagree with this. While I do recognize that we have different personal experiences shaped by what we are in the real world, none of this necessarily carries over into the online space. It is a place where people of different age, gender, sex, skin color, shoe size, origin, background and any other criteria can freely meet in ways that would be unlikely otherwise. I strongly object to supremacist views in whichever guise they come along. Everyone is also free to appeal to a different audience, including those that are perceived as not yet included well enough. I particular object to racist or sexist buzzwords (cis gendered, white…) that are used to shape the discussion without actually having any actionable value.
“Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas. ” ― Marie Curie
6) I agree, and I don’t like it.

7) I agree with this. Especially from a pluralist and individualistic perspective. I am interested in the things that interest me. Tautology being tautological. I believe people should mix and match whatever they like, if they want to focus on atheism and environmentalism, for whatever reason, it’s their thing.
8) That’s probably true.
9) I disagree with this. Joke. Do whatever you like.
10) That’s probably true.
11) Like science that converges on increasingly better approximation of truth, we should work towards common goals, but how to get there can be as individual as pluralistic as there are people.
“New forms of community are emerging, however: these new communities are defined through voluntary, temporary, and tactical affiliations, reaffirmed through common intellectual enterprises and emotional investments.” – Henry Jenkins (2006)
12) That is probably true.
“I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.” – Richard Feynman
13) That’s probably true.
14) I agree with reservations. Those who organize and plan should probably think it through. I certainly won’t set any benchmarks. That might also be a good point to remind that issues are also very different in other countries and places.
15) I agree with this. See above.
16) I agree with this with reservations. Again, this is the top-down kind of approach. Yes, everyone can personally think about where to spend their energies best, but I also believe people need to do what they like to do, regardless of what others think would be better. This can only be solved by inviting, not demanding, people to participate in more efficient endeavors.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#79

Post by JackSkeptic »

Thanks Aneris

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#80

Post by Lsuoma »

I have to say, it's really hopping over at Atheist Skeptic Dialogue. Like a party aboard the Marie fucking Celeste.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#81

Post by Submariner »

An interesting article which might be useful in these discussions here.
People who can’t be criticized—and who react with great hostility at any hint of criticism—are revealing something important about themselves.
and
Consider the mindset of a person who is not hostile to criticism. “I arrived at my conclusions through facts, reason and logic. I’m prepared to explain how, and am happy to do so to any
interested, intellectually honest person.”

As a result, you get a calm, patient and substantive answer when you raise a question.

Wonderist
.
.
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#82

Post by Wonderist »

Aneris wrote:Here is my response to Zvan's post... it took me forever, as I didn't have time to make it in one go. I'm an intuitive and found it a pain in the ass to go through it point per point, when it's not really written that way and probably mixed up a thing or two, but there it is anyway.
Liked your reply, Aneris, and I think I managed to cover most of your points, though sometimes in a different order. Liked your quotes, and took one of your lines almost verbatim.

I also had a lot of difficulty slogging through it. A lot of credit goes to Jack for wading through it with me. Again, Jack, I regret having put you through the ADHD wringer. Hope I haven't put you off it entirely. It's clear I shouldn't be the main author again. Run the risk of tanking the whole thing.

Wonderist
.
.
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#83

Post by Wonderist »

Submariner wrote:An interesting article which might be useful in these discussions here.
People who can’t be criticized—and who react with great hostility at any hint of criticism—are revealing something important about themselves.
and
Consider the mindset of a person who is not hostile to criticism. “I arrived at my conclusions through facts, reason and logic. I’m prepared to explain how, and am happy to do so to any
interested, intellectually honest person.”

As a result, you get a calm, patient and substantive answer when you raise a question.
Thanks, Submariner, nice find!

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#84

Post by Aneris »

interestingly, whoever is moderator removed this one key sentence from my reply, even though it was not directed at anyone specifically.
I very much dislike the “with us or against us” mentality that has spread in our community.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#85

Post by Apples »

Aneris wrote:interestingly, whoever is moderator removed this one key sentence from my reply, even though it was not directed at anyone specifically.
I very much dislike the “with us or against us” mentality that has spread in our community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_%28logic%29

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#86

Post by JackSkeptic »

Aneris wrote:interestingly, whoever is moderator removed this one key sentence from my reply, even though it was not directed at anyone specifically.
I very much dislike the “with us or against us” mentality that has spread in our community.
Especially as it was in my opening statement. However the idea is to avoid pointing fingers but it is easy to sidestep that as people can easily read between the lines.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#87

Post by Skep tickle »

Jack wrote:
Aneris wrote:interestingly, whoever is moderator removed this one key sentence from my reply, even though it was not directed at anyone specifically.
I very much dislike the “with us or against us” mentality that has spread in our community.
Especially as it was in my opening statement. However the idea is to avoid pointing fingers but it is easy to sidestep that as people can easily read between the lines.
A line like that would be removed if both mods felt it could provoke a response from "one side" or "the other" that wouldn't, at this point, help move forward the process of finding agreement.

More pedantic reply - putting them side by side, it looks to me like the main differences are:

(1) Guidelines for participation at the dialogue side are presented as applying for "posting a comment below a Statement" and "posting a comment below a Discussion Post", and specify that "Comments will be moderated before they are approved". http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/how-to-participate/

Guidelines are not specified for Statements & Responses by the main participants (the 'team' posts rather than subsequent individual comments on any of those posts) other than the goals of working toward trying to find points of agreement and unresolvable disagreement (agree-to-disagree points). Nor is it specified at the site that the Statements & Responses will be moderated (however Michael Nugent has had the mods look at the Statements and Responses before he posts them).

(2) Jack's phrasing in (6) of Statement 1 was a prediction or guess about a split in the community ('us v. them'), with "our...aims" at the end of this line potentially referring to the aims of the whole community (given Nugent's discussion topic #1, which Jack's Statement was addressing):
It will set up an ‘us vs. them’ mentality which distracts from our core aims.
Compare that to a statement of personal opinion, saying this is already occurring & describing it with a slightly different term that sounds more adversarial ("'with us or against us' mentality"). While the personal opinion is unassailable, the wording of the claim and the claim itself could be interpreted as a challenge by someone on a side that may have appeared to display 'with us or against us' mentality and the atheistskepticdialogue site isn't the place to try to have a flame war among the commenters. (Not even a war with half-empty cigarette lighters or soggy matches, heh.) Whether or not you could quote someone like Carrier to support the "'with us or against us' is already happening" claim. ;)

_____

Finally, I'm going to nab this opportunity to point out how Jesus-like Carrier was in that early post he had about A+: "He that is not with me is against me" - Matthew 12:30 (KJV).

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#88

Post by Skep tickle »

Team B's response to Stephanie's opening statement is now up:
http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/2013/ ... themalios/

LMU
.
.
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:40 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#89

Post by LMU »

Skep tickle wrote:Team B's response to Stephanie's opening statement is now up:
http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/2013/ ... themalios/
Thanks! Keep up the good work! Appropriate: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2939#comic

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#90

Post by Skep tickle »

Nugent has posted an "Analysis of the dialogue so far" with some comments on the process & color coding of the two Responses to initial Statements to highlight areas of agreement & disagreement (a few of each) and areas (large) where further discussion/clarification is needed to determine where agreement/disagreement lie:
http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/2013/ ... e-so-far//

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#91

Post by Submariner »

LMU wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Team B's response to Stephanie's opening statement is now up:
http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/2013/ ... themalios/
Thanks! Keep up the good work! Appropriate: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2939#comic
Well done wonderist!

I agree with each of your points. My response:
Submariner says:
April 8, 2013 at 3:11 pm

I agree with all points but especially with

15) Strongly agree. The groundswell of atheist activism is having real effects. There are excellent new YouTubers, bloggers, podcasters, etc. that are making progress via the worlds largest information exchange medium, the internet. This “grass roots” activism is an example of the diversity of methods (the “myriad solutions”) mentioned by Ms Zvan. The national and international organizations may wish to find a few highly effective methods of “getting the message out there” (television commercials, billboards, appearances on TV news/talk shows,etc. but the ground level individuals reach niches that the organizations may not.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#92

Post by Steersman »

Sort of as a point of reference I thought I would (just) ask a few questions (Atheist-Skeptic Dialog 101?) about where we’re going with this process, whether there is some sort of “road map” that Michael Nugent and company have of the goal and the routes to get there.

While I think Michael is quite correct in framing the issue in terms of “the recent rifts in the atheist and skeptic communities” – although several at least discount, even if not credibly, the idea that such rifts even exist in the first place, such as evidenced by the recent YouTube video by Russell Glasser and Don Baker – I also think the waters are somewhat muddied by the conflation, or lack of clarity between, some underlying and fundamental issues, and, in the views of some, the apparently superficial “rifts” between FfTB/Skepchick/AtheismPlus and the Slymepit. And, of course, PZ Myers is front and center in muddying those waters as a number of people have pointed out, notably Skep tickle in her comments about Myers’ recent talk in Seattle.

But I think Myers’ talk also frames the issues and the problematic nature of the rifts rather starkly, and not least his apparent dogmatism and “misinterpretation” – being charitable – over where the Slymepit is coming from – as evidenced by his answer to Skep tickle’s question to him at that talk. While I at least am sympathetic to Myers’ apparent and general objective – using atheism as a vehicle to marshal forces against the very problematic consequences of religion in general – I, and apparently many others, have some serious reservations about the specific version of atheism he is peddling, as well as what other principles and concepts he wishes to yoke to that vehicle. For instance, I at least have to look askance at any suggestion that “their” definition of atheism “is specifically the position that there are no deities” – one of those negatives that are, I think, virtually impossible to disprove, not least since I very much doubt that Myers has defined all possible definitions of the term, much less actually proven they don’t exist.

But, apart from the somewhat philosophical or logical problems entailed by that deficiency, I think there are some substantially problematic consequences that follow from what might reasonably be called Myers’ dogma if not bigotry and pigheadedness. And while I will quite readily agree that religion has some very great downsides, I also think that it can have some significant benefits that a narrow-minded view of it will discount if not discard. As the anthropologist John Hartung put it:
Religion is the opiate of the masses, but taking away their drug will not resolve the angst that drives them to addiction.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, one might reasonably argue that what Myers and, to a lesser extent as evidenced in some of his comments, Nugent are attempting to do is to replace traditional religion with atheism as a religion, at least in the sense of religion as “a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion”. Far too easy for the tail to wind up wagging the dog, particularly if one fails to notice the similar natures of what it is that one is fighting against, and what one is attempting to replace it with.

In any case, I also think that, as more than a few have argued, one of the problematic concepts that Myers and company are attempting to yoke to atheism and to transmogrify it with is a highly questionable version of feminism. And while I certainly haven’t plumbed those depths in their entirety, my impression, due in part to one of Stephanie Zvan’s posts and to Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate (chapter on gender here), is that “their” version of feminism is predicated on a belief that “gender is entirely a social construct”. For instance, while I will give Zvan some credit for some skepticism about the point, I also think that both she, and to a greater extent LeftSidePositive, hold and advance a position – that gender as entirely a social construct constitutes the “null hypothesis” – that is highly problematic and likely to bode more than a small amount of ill, and ill will.

So – tl;dr – the upshot is those set of questions: i.e., to what extent is the scope and implications and underpinnings of those “rifts” recognized; what are the plans, if any, to address them in detail; and what progress, if any, is being made towards those ends, assuming that they are, in fact, ones which motivate these dialogs.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#93

Post by Skep tickle »

You've asked several interesting questions.

I'm not sure how clear their goals are to them, and I suspect they do not all share the same goal(s), though there may be some overlap. Some seem to want to expand their own celebrity or sphere of influence; some seem to want to expand the size or relevance of atheism as a movement or of its organized groups; some seem to want to merge atheism and Justice In Society (as they view it, often but not always focusing on an area that's of personal importance to them).

And then there are their methods, which you would be excused for thinking reasonable, rational people should be relatively immune to, including vilifying people; being inconsistent and exhibiting hypocrisy (repeatedly); succumbing to the allure of popularity & celebrity; and so on.

PZ's talk in Seattle was about making "atheism" pertinent to the growing number of people identifying as "non-religious" by using "atheism" (meaning "humanism" IMO) to address problems all around the world in a more thoughtful way than "science" can do alone. He's trying to expand the sphere of influence of atheism by making it relevant to all modern problems; it's possible he sees himself as a leader in this (that, I don't know). In doing so, he uses his own definition/description of atheism, vilifies those who have disagreed with him, represents these people & the nature of the disagreement inaccurately or at least incompletely (without seeming to recognize this but not appearing to allow consideration that he may have done so), and exhibits inconsistencies (for example, saying everything can be discussed rationally but then reacting with emotion and ruling out discussion with those he has vilifed).

And Carrier's talk on Atheism+ at the recent American Atheists conference was about increasing the appeal of atheist organizations to "women and minorities" possibly for a grand reason but definitely in order to increase membership (including dues paid). (That's what I heard him saying - repeatedly - throughout the video of his talk.) In doing so, he advocated shunning those already in the atheist community who do not go along. (Probably other non-rational approaches; I don't plan to go back & watch it again.)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#94

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote: <snip>
I'm not sure how clear their goals are to them, and I suspect they do not all share the same goal(s), though there may be some overlap.
One of the things that I hope comes out of these “atheist-skeptic dialogues” – which seem to be caught in some doldrums – is a little clarification of the goals envisioned and the methods of reaching them.
Skep tickle wrote:In doing so, he uses his own definition/description of atheism, vilifies those who have disagreed with him, represents these people & the nature of the disagreement inaccurately or at least incompletely (without seeming to recognize this but not appearing to allow consideration that he may have done so), and exhibits inconsistencies (for example, saying everything can be discussed rationally but then reacting with emotion and ruling out discussion with those he has vilifed).
Agreed, although I found it interesting and maybe somewhat encouraging that he seemed to have at least enough self-awareness to joke about everyone else being wrong:
Myers wrote:… both sides in the argument are feeling that they're absolutely right and they're justified, and one side - and it’s always the other side from me, I can tell you that [little bit of laughter from audience] - is totally wrong...
But that vilification you spoke of is decidedly problematic to say the least, as is his apparent and all too frequent tarring of the Pit – and all “anti-feminists”, for that matter – with a rather narrow brush. And likewise with these dialogs:
Myers wrote:So, no, I categorically reject Michael Nugent’s efforts and I’ll be seeing him in Ireland in June and I will be telling him so to his face.
I figure that that would probably make a very interesting debate. Particularly since I expect that Michael’s views on atheism, and on feminism are very different from PZ’s, and on the latter it is probably more along the line of that exhibited by Richard Dawkins’ in his FFRF talk here. And I sort of get the impression that Michael thinks that these “rifts” extend very much further and deeper than the FfTB/Skepchick/AtheismPlus – Slymepit backwater as I can’t otherwise see him expending, as he has done, the probably not inconsiderable time, effort, and political capital required to host and promote these dialogs.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#95

Post by Submariner »

[youtube]0yUwwmeBvKA[/youtube]

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#96

Post by JackSkeptic »

While I make no claim about Nugent's motives I think a lot of it stems from his original naivety that this was about a few posts on an open and largely unmoderated forum, the Slympit, which had been sold to him as deeply offensive. Once he realise there was far more to it that that he may have felt obliged to try and help.

But really I do not care if people like Myers and Carrier are right. Their whole approach is dismissive, arrogant, simplistic, censorious, often factually erroneous, humourless, dogmatic, myopic, judgemental, manipulative, not supported or open to skepticism and delivered in a deeply offensive style. They are not leaders in any sense of the word outside of a totalitarian state and in fact I feel they would contribute to people leaving the movement if they got more influence. If they simply held their beliefs to their blogs and the occasional speech no one would care but they do not. They are trying to poison the rest of us by exclusion and strawmaning those who disagree with them. They are trying to tell us how to think and behave and I find that reprehensible no matter what they are saying. The fact what they say is often complete rubbish or misapplied is icing on the cake.

They can try and bully theists or creationists but they are trying that trick with us and it damn well won't work. People like some of those at FtB and A+ are two a penny; we see them all the time in theist and other 'believer' communities.

People like Nugent are more of a leader I can follow and respect even if he does believe in the things Myers does. So I feel this is more about style than content although the content of course gets amplified by their style so it gets dragged in.

As to this dialogue I am aware of only one person, Stephanie Szan, involved from 'their side'. I do not care about one person but the idea is to get some sort of narrative going that others can follow if they wish. If there is seen to be an attempt then that has value in itself. We have already had the head butting the last several weeks at Nugent's which was a great way to show the various positions and publicly show peoples points of view. It can take time to reap the benefits of this as what we have said spreads out. The Nugent Dialogue is simply another method to communicate in the public arena. I am under no illusion that it will achieve much, if anything in the minds of people who's minds are already set in stone. In fact I am sure it won't. But this is not for them. It is for observers and outliers. It may change the minds of those people who get to realise the narrative they have been hearing for the last two years is materially false or needs serious reconsideration.

It will be slow. It was always said it was going to be slow and if people do not like that then sorry, tough luck. It may get nowhere. But to me the process itself has value.

Finally people are welcome to come into the process if they wish. We can't ask so if anyone feels left out it is because they have not indicated they have an interest (or we missed it) Also please keep up the comments and criticisms. It has been great feedback and proof to me how valuable such comments are in formulating ideas. People from 'the other side' damage themselves with their style. Luckily most of us know where that leads to. Stale echo chambers.

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#97

Post by Karmakin »

Steersman wrote:In any case, I also think that, as more than a few have argued, one of the problematic concepts that Myers and company are attempting to yoke to atheism and to transmogrify it with is a highly questionable version of feminism. And while I certainly haven’t plumbed those depths in their entirety, my impression, due in part to one of Stephanie Zvan’s posts and to Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate (chapter on gender here), is that “their” version of feminism is predicated on a belief that “gender is entirely a social construct”. For instance, while I will give Zvan some credit for some skepticism about the point, I also think that both she, and to a greater extent LeftSidePositive, hold and advance a position – that gender as entirely a social construct constitutes the “null hypothesis” – that is highly problematic and likely to bode more than a small amount of ill, and ill will.

So – tl;dr – the upshot is those set of questions: i.e., to what extent is the scope and implications and underpinnings of those “rifts” recognized; what are the plans, if any, to address them in detail; and what progress, if any, is being made towards those ends, assuming that they are, in fact, ones which motivate these dialogs.
While I agree with you about gender feminism, I don't think that's the main point here. Regardless if gender is a social construct or biological construct or whatever mix of the two (obviously the most rational position..btw), it's not really about that. In the end, it really doesn't matter that much. What does matter, and where the conflict is, IMO, is in how predictive these things are in terms of any given individual. The A+/Modern version of gender feminism takes the stance that these constructs are actually much more predictive than most of us here would have them, even the people who lean heavily towards biological constructs. It's why you see so many comments about things like "Women want this" or "Men do that". (That was the real problem with the Big Dick post that was talked about recently)

It's a much larger conflict than just in the atheist/skeptic community, but that's the general pattern. If it was just the A+ problem, then where it all went wrong was when they replaced "sexism" with "misogyny". Those are two different terms with two entirely different outlooks and solution sets. To channel Sam Harris for a second, yes, those words really do mean things. That's where the modern feminist movement went entirely off the rails. When it stopped being about gender roles and stereotypes being bad, and started being much more about personal comfort, privilege and entitlement. Like I said, it's larger than just A+ (My personal opinion is that Laden wanted a personal fiefdom on the outskirts of the ShitRedditSays community and dragged everybody into it), it's just now so large that it's impossible to ignore.

But it's not the same old gender feminism. Or maybe it is, and it's just that privilege and entitlement are infectious. Who knows.

Oh, and back on topic. It's pretty clear that from Zvan's reply, what she's looking for is for people like her to be treated like "experts" when it comes to gender like we would look at Dawkins for biology/evolution as an example. And that's simply not going to happen.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#98

Post by Steersman »

Jack wrote: <snip>
The Nugent Dialogue is simply another method to communicate in the public arena. I am under no illusion that it will achieve much, if anything in the minds of people who's minds are already set in stone. In fact I am sure it won't. But this is not for them. It is for observers and outliers.
Planting a few seeds at least. And I also think the discussions provide some opportunities to hone our arguments, and to put a few issues on the table.
It will be slow. It was always said it was going to be slow and if people do not like that then sorry, tough luck. It may get nowhere. But to me the process itself has value.
I’ll certainly agree with you about the value of the process itself, but, not to throw too many stones, I at least am finding some difficulty seeing how the agenda items speak either to the narrower FfTB/Skepchick/AtheismPlus-Slymepit “rifts”, or to the broader ones in the atheist-skeptic communities. And without more “buy-ins” by the affected parties because they see those items as relevant to them attaining their objectives, I fail to see how the conversation can generate enough interest and activity to be effective. Although I can well see that the process is not an easy one to design and manage.
Finally people are welcome to come into the process if they wish. We can't ask so if anyone feels left out it is because they have not indicated they have an interest (or we missed it). Also please keep up the comments and criticisms. It has been great feedback and proof to me how valuable such comments are in formulating ideas.
I had expressed an interest to Michael in a letter to him about 2 weeks ago about throwing my hat into the ring and had asked to take part in the discussions, but I certainly don’t feel “left out” as I had posted lengthy comments to both opening statements, and as I doubt that I have the time or talent to contribute much to the moderation processes. However, while I certainly agree that “formulating ideas” is a necessary precursor, at least, I also think it quite important for everyone to see how those ideas have relevance in practical every-day applications if the process isn’t to become largely academic. And while I don’t know precisely what Michael has in mind about how he wants this process to develop, I would think, as I suggested above, that something in the way of a debate-Google-meetup between PZ and Michael might provide a bit of a jump-start to the process.

And, changing gears somewhat to encompass a few practical aspects, I notice that the recent “Strand 1 Statement 2” and “Strand 1 – Analysis” are only available on the “How to Participate” tab; maybe they should be on at least the “Agenda” one as well? In addition, I note in the “Note from Moderators” that “2. Do not respond here to comments by other people. ….” But that seems inconsistent with the fact that each of those comments has a “Reply” link – which is correct?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#99

Post by Steersman »

Karmakin wrote:
Steersman wrote:In any case, I also think that, as more than a few have argued, one of the problematic concepts that Myers and company are attempting to yoke to atheism and to transmogrify it with is a highly questionable version of feminism. And while I certainly haven’t plumbed those depths in their entirety, my impression, due in part to one of Stephanie Zvan’s posts and to Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate (chapter on gender here), is that “their” version of feminism is predicated on a belief that “gender is entirely a social construct”. For instance, while I will give Zvan some credit for some skepticism about the point, I also think that both she, and to a greater extent LeftSidePositive, hold and advance a position – that gender as entirely a social construct constitutes the “null hypothesis” – that is highly problematic and likely to bode more than a small amount of ill, and ill will.

So – tl;dr – the upshot is those set of questions: i.e., to what extent is the scope and implications and underpinnings of those “rifts” recognized; what are the plans, if any, to address them in detail; and what progress, if any, is being made towards those ends, assuming that they are, in fact, ones which motivate these dialogs.
While I agree with you about gender feminism, I don't think that's the main point here. Regardless if gender is a social construct or biological construct or whatever mix of the two (obviously the most rational position..btw), it's not really about that.
I quite agree with you about a “mix of the two”. But I find it rather remarkable, and it is probably indicative of a serious problem, that many people seem to be death on even the idea that biology should be a determinant, to a greater of lesser extent, of our behaviours. Reminds me of a passage in Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works (highly recommended):
Pinker wrote:... When sociobiologists first began to challenge [the Standard Social Science Model], they met with a ferocity that is unusual even by the standards of academic invective. The biologist E.O. Wilson was doused with a pitcher of ice water at a scientific convention, and students yelled for his dismissal over bullhorns and put up posters urging people to bring noisemakers to his lectures. Angry manifestos and book-length denunciations were published by organizations with names like Science for the People and The Campaign Against Racism, IQ, and the Class Society. ...[pg 45]

Many of us have been puzzled by the takeover of humanities departments by the doctrines of postmodernism, poststructuralism, and deconstruction, according to which objectivity is impossible, meaning is self-contradictory, and reality is socially constructed. The motives become clearer when we consider typical statements like ‘Human beings have constructed and used gender – human beings can deconstruct and stop using gender’ ....[ pg 57]
Somewhat indicative, I think, of a serious fear at least that some underlying dogma is being threatened. And while I’ll agree with you that “gender feminism [isn’t] the main point here”, it seems that it is the tip of the proverbial iceberg – of Titanic holing size and potential. For instance, there’s this Wikipedia article on a “text on gender studies” by the woman interviewed – Dr. Carol Gilligan – in the YouTube video posted by Submariner in post #95 (above). But one of the links in the References section (Power, Resistance, Science), while broken leads to an interesting section of papers at, apparently, a William Patterson University, one in particular by Alan Sokal titled, A Plea for Reason, Evidence, and Logic, salient sections of which include these points:
Alan Sokal wrote:David Whiteis, in a recent article, said it well:
Too many academics, secure in their ivory towers and insulated from the real-world consequences of the ideas they espouse, seem blind to the fact that non-rationality has historically been among the most powerful weapons in the ideological arsenals of oppressors. The hypersubjectivity that characterizes postmodernism is a perfect case in point: far from being a legacy of leftist iconoclasm, as some of its advocates so disingenuously claim, it in fact ... plays perfectly into the anti-rationalist -- really, anti-thinking -- bias that currently infects "mainstream" U.S. culture.
Along similar lines, the philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, observed caustically that the displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time. (And these days, being nearly as anti-intellectual as political campaigns is really quite a feat.)

<snip>

This plea of mine for reason, evidence and logic is hardly original; dozens of progressive humanists, social scientists and natural scientists have been saying the same thing for years. But if my parody in Social Text has helped just a little bit to amplify their voices and to provoke a much-needed debate on the American Left, then it will have served its purpose.
And, as I’ve quoted at length before in the context of the book “Professing Feminism”, it seems that that anti-intellectualism, and anti-rationalism is one of the hallmarks of some of the more “virulent” manifestations of feminism itself, and seems to derive from the same roots described by Sokal. And which is, I think, quite sufficient reason for being more than a little apprehensive about the efforts of Myers and company to impose a shot-gun wedding between atheism and that particular branch of feminism.
Oh, and back on topic. It's pretty clear that from Zvan's reply, what she's looking for is for people like her to be treated like "experts" when it comes to gender like we would look at Dawkins for biology/evolution as an example. And that's simply not going to happen.
While I’m not quite sure exactly what her background and training are, it seems that she does have some specialized knowledge on the topic. However, my impression is that she is discounting vast quantities of cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, behavioural genetics, and evolutionary psychology – the four disciplines that Steven Pinker argues (in his The Blank Slate) are the four bridges between biology and culture (nature and nurture) and which are cutting the legs out from under the view that gender is entirely a social construct. She may have a serious and problematic blind spot on the question which probably isn't going to do much for her claim for "expert" status and role.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#100

Post by JackSkeptic »

Steersman. We have been aware that some messages of interest to Nugent we're not passed on (to our surprise soon after we started) I do not suggest any bad intent as it seems only those that publicly stated it, even if by a sentence or two, on his blog were asked. That's one of many reasons we publicly asked for contributors here too. If you wish to join the discussions you are more than welcome. Please PM or state here and someone will get you in.

That applies to anyone else.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#101

Post by Steersman »

Jack wrote:Steersman. We have been aware that some messages of interest to Nugent we're not passed on (to our surprise soon after we started) I do not suggest any bad intent as it seems only those that publicly stated it, even if by a sentence or two, on his blog were asked. That's one of many reasons we publicly asked for contributors here too. If you wish to join the discussions you are more than welcome. Please PM or state here and someone will get you in.

That applies to anyone else.
Sure, count me in, at least for my 2 cents worth ....

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#102

Post by Submariner »

Link from PTOS from John Greg:
Atheist vs Skeptic

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/04/09/t ... -skeptics/

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#103

Post by Karmakin »

Steersman wrote:
Karmakin wrote:
Steersman wrote:In any case, I also think that, as more than a few have argued, one of the problematic concepts that Myers and company are attempting to yoke to atheism and to transmogrify it with is a highly questionable version of feminism. And while I certainly haven’t plumbed those depths in their entirety, my impression, due in part to one of Stephanie Zvan’s posts and to Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate (chapter on gender here), is that “their” version of feminism is predicated on a belief that “gender is entirely a social construct”. For instance, while I will give Zvan some credit for some skepticism about the point, I also think that both she, and to a greater extent LeftSidePositive, hold and advance a position – that gender as entirely a social construct constitutes the “null hypothesis” – that is highly problematic and likely to bode more than a small amount of ill, and ill will.

So – tl;dr – the upshot is those set of questions: i.e., to what extent is the scope and implications and underpinnings of those “rifts” recognized; what are the plans, if any, to address them in detail; and what progress, if any, is being made towards those ends, assuming that they are, in fact, ones which motivate these dialogs.
While I agree with you about gender feminism, I don't think that's the main point here. Regardless if gender is a social construct or biological construct or whatever mix of the two (obviously the most rational position..btw), it's not really about that.
I quite agree with you about a “mix of the two”. But I find it rather remarkable, and it is probably indicative of a serious problem, that many people seem to be death on even the idea that biology should be a determinant, to a greater of lesser extent, of our behaviours. Reminds me of a passage in Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works (highly recommended):
Well, here's why I think that's the case. I think to a degree, Feminism has "won", in that most part to some degree most people like the concept of equality. At least speaking for myself, when I think about biological constructs, I thought of them as being much more prescriptive than I think about cultural constructs. That's why I tended to shy away and be wary of them. It wasn't until I saw a chart that really laid out what people were talking about..that it WASN'T that prescriptive at all, that I changed my mind. I really do think this is a hard thing for people to get their minds around. Now I feel that in the real world, it's exactly the opposite, that social constructs are often presented as much more prescriptive than cultural constructs, but as I've said before I think that this is a very recent change that we intellectually have not caught up to yet.
Somewhat indicative, I think, of a serious fear at least that some underlying dogma is being threatened. And while I’ll agree with you that “gender feminism [isn’t] the main point here”, it seems that it is the tip of the proverbial iceberg – of Titanic holing size and potential. For instance, there’s this Wikipedia article on a “text on gender studies” by the woman interviewed – Dr. Carol Gilligan – in the YouTube video posted by Submariner in post #95 (above). But one of the links in the References section (Power, Resistance, Science), while broken leads to an interesting section of papers at, apparently, a William Patterson University, one in particular by Alan Sokal titled, A Plea for Reason, Evidence, and Logic, salient sections of which include these points:
Alan Sokal wrote:David Whiteis, in a recent article, said it well:
Too many academics, secure in their ivory towers and insulated from the real-world consequences of the ideas they espouse, seem blind to the fact that non-rationality has historically been among the most powerful weapons in the ideological arsenals of oppressors. The hypersubjectivity that characterizes postmodernism is a perfect case in point: far from being a legacy of leftist iconoclasm, as some of its advocates so disingenuously claim, it in fact ... plays perfectly into the anti-rationalist -- really, anti-thinking -- bias that currently infects "mainstream" U.S. culture.
Along similar lines, the philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, observed caustically that the displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time. (And these days, being nearly as anti-intellectual as political campaigns is really quite a feat.)

<snip>

This plea of mine for reason, evidence and logic is hardly original; dozens of progressive humanists, social scientists and natural scientists have been saying the same thing for years. But if my parody in Social Text has helped just a little bit to amplify their voices and to provoke a much-needed debate on the American Left, then it will have served its purpose.
And, as I’ve quoted at length before in the context of the book “Professing Feminism”, it seems that that anti-intellectualism, and anti-rationalism is one of the hallmarks of some of the more “virulent” manifestations of feminism itself, and seems to derive from the same roots described by Sokal. And which is, I think, quite sufficient reason for being more than a little apprehensive about the efforts of Myers and company to impose a shot-gun wedding between atheism and that particular branch of feminism.
Oh, and back on topic. It's pretty clear that from Zvan's reply, what she's looking for is for people like her to be treated like "experts" when it comes to gender like we would look at Dawkins for biology/evolution as an example. And that's simply not going to happen.
While I’m not quite sure exactly what her background and training are, it seems that she does have some specialized knowledge on the topic. However, my impression is that she is discounting vast quantities of cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, behavioural genetics, and evolutionary psychology – the four disciplines that Steven Pinker argues (in his The Blank Slate) are the four bridges between biology and culture (nature and nurture) and which are cutting the legs out from under the view that gender is entirely a social construct. She may have a serious and problematic blind spot on the question which probably isn't going to do much for her claim for "expert" status and role.
All of this comes together I think. It's not so much that Zvan herself is an expert, but what it is, is an acknowledgement that their flavor of gender studies is an "academic truth" and should be treated as such. It's for the ideology itself to be THE authority. That's why so much of their rhetoric is coated in academic drivel.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#104

Post by Aneris »

Karmakin wrote:[...] All of this comes together I think. It's not so much that Zvan herself is an expert, but what it is, is an acknowledgement that their flavor of gender studies is an "academic truth" and should be treated as such. It's for the ideology itself to be THE authority. That's why so much of their rhetoric is coated in academic drivel.
But their idea of patriarchy is apparently A) different than the academical one, and B) the academical one is still under construction and its application disputed. There are apparently some valid points in the idea, but there are also a lot of moving parts. We have to be a bit careful to throw away legitimate academical theories based on what a commentariat purports. And they are already known to reinterpret terms as they see fit. Just look at their definition from troll, concern trolls, sexism, misogyny... about everything I hear from them has little to do with established meaning. I am bit worried that they have done so much damage with their nonsense and cry-wolf that people who would be otherwise open to legitimate theories are now heading into the opposite direction (which was one of my original, now obsolete, bone of contention with FfTB).

Here is one good example:
Wikipedia on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler]Judith Butler[/url] wrote:In this work, Butler also argues that feminists need to be more self-critical and not “identify the enemy as singular in form” (150). There is a tendency in feminism, according to Butler, to uncritically accept the notion of universal patriarchy. Such a notion, has led many feminists researchers to appropriate “non-Western cultures” with the end of proving this theory and universalizing “western notions of oppression” (147). Hence, there are many layers of oppression, and they do not necessarily fit nicely in an air-tight hierarchy where women are at the very bottom (150)
Butler isn't some conjured up MRA spokesperson, but a heavy weight on academical feminism. Keep in mind, we should not argue about right or wrong, but for making reasonable points. When people bring plausible arguments, they shouldn't be shouted down, expelled, name exposed and smeared as it is the standard procedure at FreeThoughtBlogs. Again, they can do what they like, but what goes around, comes around. And there it connects to the other points, like satire.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#105

Post by Skep tickle »

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... /#comments

Sampling (not unbiased) of the 24 comments (from 18 or 19 people, including Ben Zvan) in the latest thread at Stephanie Zvan's site re the Nugent-sponsored dialogue, in reverse chronologic order:
rorschach wrote:This really has to stop.

... keeping this charade up is, as was mentioned, only enabling a few internet stalkers and harassers.
arbor wrote:...Participation in this dialog is doing much more harm than good.

These are people to be shunned, not engaged.
Raging Bee, referring at least in part to the latest tf00t video, wrote:...Like I said before, there’s really no point in pretending we can gain anything from talking to people like this. I had higher hopes for Dennis Rodman’s meeting with Kim Jong Un.
A Hermit wrote:...I’m actually enjoying the “dialogue” because I see it as exposing the bankrupt thinking on the other side.

They (at least the ones engaging in the dialogue) desperately want to believe that THEY are the reasonable ones, but the only way they can look that way to an impartial observer, or even to themselves, is to adopt all this fuzzy language and in the end sound as if they are actually agreeing with the A+ ideals of equality and harm reduction…we can see this happening already in the last statement. They can’t come right out with the usual “freeze peach” defense of anti-feminist/MRA type language in this format because it’s clearly not in keeping with the very principles they are claiming to support. Hence the internal contradictions in their statements around not imposing ideology while simultaneously insisting on adherence to certain principles.

They are painting themselves into a rhetorical corner. As the dialogue progresses I think they are going to have to be more and more explicit about rejecting the kind of outright hatred they have been ignoring or making excuses for (if not actually engaging in themselves) up to now. The real hardcore haters are never going to engage anyway, but if the bigger group of people who really think the problem is just people being mean on the internet can be coaxed into agreeing with those basic principles of fairness and equality then the haters will be even more marginalized.

I see this as an opportunity to peel away that layer of “respectable” support that the worst of the slymepit has been enjoying. And I think Stephanie is doing a good job so far. far better than I could have…
Kevin wrote:...At this point, the “dialog” is the problem. Because its continuing to provide space for the “there are two sides to every story” camp. It’s like continuing to call the Tobacco Institute about the dangers of cigarette smoking.

It’s bad ethics, bad rhetoric, bad psychology, bad everything.

Bad bad bad bad bad.

I don’t want dialog with skinheads. I want them marginalized so they don’t harm me or others. You don’t do that by opening up a tattoo parlor that specializes in swastikas.
Kevin wrote:
Enough. Seriously. Enough.

It’s all smoke and mirrors. You’re enabling them and their abhorrent behavior. And are giving cover to their abhorrent ideas.

Plain language, please. Direct. Specific. Stop tiptoeing around the issues.

1. There is a large group of “skeptics” who do not support an ethos of full human rights for all.

2. This group of “skeptics” has engaged in a years-long campaign of harassment and bullying against people who do support an ethos of full human rights for all.

3. The rest of us are perfectly within our rights to marginalize them, ban them, ignore them. In exactly the same way we marginalize, ban, and ignore white supremacists and the like.

4. Engaging in “dialog” with such people is counterproductive and enabling. It’s like buying a fifth of vodka every day and bringing into the home of an alcoholic, and then being SHOCKED that they actually drink it. Even though you tell them not to.
doubtthat wrote:...I have seen no evidence that they even understand the double standard they’re promoting: we get to argue against feminism in all its imagined incarnations, but the minute you start arguing against our anti-feminist position, you’re “imposing” your beliefs, and we can’t have that. ...

...What are these beliefs being “imposed”? Once the specifics enter the conversation it will quickly be noted that (1) they cannot make a substantive argument about any of this and (2) they’re just bitching about feminism — the fake variety in their heads.
carlie wrote:...It seemed so weird, because to me the prevailing vibe it gave off was “there are ideas we shouldn’t ever entertain because they are so damaging, even though we’re saying that we should be free to entertain any ideas”. And then the ideas he thinks we shouldn’t be entertaining due to being damaging aren’t the ones that make women less valued as people than men, but the ones that try to make them equal.
Wowbagger wrote:I only skimmed it, but it seemed to me to be suggesting – without using the terms directly – that feminism ‘isn’t science’ and therefore shouldn’t be considered important.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#106

Post by Steersman »

Aneris wrote:
Karmakin wrote:[...] All of this comes together I think. It's not so much that Zvan herself is an expert, but what it is, is an acknowledgement that their flavor of gender studies is an "academic truth" and should be treated as such. It's for the ideology itself to be THE authority. That's why so much of their rhetoric is coated in academic drivel.
But their idea of patriarchy is apparently A) different than the academical one, and B) the academical one is still under construction and its application disputed. There are apparently some valid points in the idea, but there are also a lot of moving parts.
Indeed – a great many “moving parts” that many people seem to have some difficulty in facing, much less addressing in any depth. While I recently quoted the following from Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate in the main thread, I think it is also relevant here:
Pinker wrote:Social psychologists have amply documented that people have a powerful urge to do as their neighbors do. When unwitting subjects are surrounded by confederates of the experimenter who have been paid to do something odd, many or most will go along. They will defy their own eyes and call a long line “short” or vice versa, nochalantly fill out a questionnaire as smoke pours out of a heating vent, or (in a Candid Camera sketch) suddenly strip down to their underwear for no apparent reason. But the social psychologists point out that human conformity, no matter how hilarious it looks in contrived experiments, has a genuine rationale insocial life – indeed, two rationales. [pg 63]
Many people do seem to have a tendency to unthinkingly follow their fellows, even if it happens to be over a cliff. But that process seems to be largely autonomic and is, I think, a very close cousin to the swarming behaviour in locusts: proximity produces physiological changes that causes the individuals to congregate which causes the physiological changes ….

So I don’t doubt that a similar process undergirds much of the group-think and adherence to “conventional wisdom” that might reasonably be called “the patriarchy”. However, as suggested by the locusts, that is a phenomenon that is manifested in much of group dynamics and formation, and is probably applicable to a great many other groups, from “the matriarchy”, to nation-states, to races, to football hooligans, to sexual harassers and bullies. As Pogo put it many years ago, “We have seen the enemy, and he is us”.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#107

Post by Skep tickle »

Steersman wrote:...Many people do seem to have a tendency to unthinkingly follow their fellows, even if it happens to be over a cliff. But that process seems to be largely autonomic and is, I think, a very close cousin to the swarming behaviour in locusts: proximity produces physiological changes that causes the individuals to congregate which causes the physiological changes ….

...
[skeptical about the biology] Do you mean "autonomic" here, as in "autonomic nervous system"? [/skeptical about the biology]

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#108

Post by Skep tickle »

(in referring to this type of human behavior, I mean)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#109

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... /#comments

Sampling (not unbiased) of the 24 comments (from 18 or 19 people, including Ben Zvan) in the latest thread at Stephanie Zvan's site re the Nugent-sponsored dialogue, in reverse chronologic order:

<snip>
Kevin wrote:
Enough. Seriously. Enough.

It’s all smoke and mirrors. You’re enabling them and their abhorrent behavior. And are giving cover to their abhorrent ideas.

Plain language, please. Direct. Specific. Stop tiptoeing around the issues.

1. There is a large group of “skeptics” who do not support an ethos of full human rights for all.

2. This group of “skeptics” has engaged in a years-long campaign of harassment and bullying against people who do support an ethos of full human rights for all.
Is he arguing that the Slymepitters engaged in this dialog “do not support an ethos of full human rights for all”? And if not then what makes him think that “we” speak for “them”, or are in any way responsible for their actions or beliefs?

Reminds me again of Michael Shermer’s observation “about current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event.”

But some interesting and encouraging, if equally misguided, comments from some of the others there.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#110

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote:
Steersman wrote:...Many people do seem to have a tendency to unthinkingly follow their fellows, even if it happens to be over a cliff. But that process seems to be largely autonomic and is, I think, a very close cousin to the swarming behaviour in locusts: proximity produces physiological changes that causes the individuals to congregate which causes the physiological changes ….

...
[skeptical about the biology] Do you mean "autonomic" here, as in "autonomic nervous system"? [/skeptical about the biology]
Yes, I think the definition applies in that case:
Autonomic: 1. Physiology
a. Of, relating to, or controlled by the autonomic nervous system.
b. Occurring involuntarily; automatic: an autonomic reflex.
And least to a very substantial degree, in possibly the same way as our hearts and other homeostatic processes do, largely but not entirely below the threshold of perception and control:
The autonomic nervous system (ANS or visceral nervous system or involuntary nervous system) is the part of the peripheral nervous system that acts as a control system, functioning largely below the level of consciousness, and controls visceral functions ....
That, as Pinker described, people can act largely unthinkingly to follow blindly suggests physiological processes happening “underneath the hood” that many are only peripherally aware of. I think anger and anger management probably qualifies as a similar example.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#111

Post by Aneris »

Skep tickle wrote:[...]
I don't see any rhetorical corner, it will happen as predicted. As Steersman writes, their views are 180° out of phase. The manufactoversy and invented demonization will perhaps vaporize, which would be no surprise since it is made up. After that, we should see cognitive dissonance effects on their side. Eventually, they will want to get out halfway decent, which we already see. That will backfire in any case. They are the hate-network after all, we're not. We aren't angels either, but we didn't claim to have conquered Moral Hill. The key difference is: many of us know the hate-filled FfTB commentariat, but they only know a warped image from our forum (as Dear Leader officially declared it verboten, and they denounce reading here, but some likely do).

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#112

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Aneris wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:[...]
I don't see any rhetorical corner, it will happen as predicted. As Steersman writes, their views are 180° out of phase. The manufactoversy and invented demonization will perhaps vaporize, which would be no surprise since it is made up. After that, we should see cognitive dissonance effects on their side. Eventually, they will want to get out halfway decent, which we already see. That will backfire in any case. They are the hate-network after all, we're not. We aren't angels either, but we didn't claim to have conquered Moral Hill. The key difference is: many of us know the hate-filled FfTB commentariat, but they only know a warped image from our forum (as Dear Leader officially declared it verboten, and they denounce reading here, but some likely do).
You're correct.
I've seen too much of their behavior over the years to regard them as a model for anything but petulant and immature blustering.

PZ Myers is completely hypocritical.
And glory, don't we know it.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#113

Post by Dick Strawkins »

I just noticed on Svan's thread that the delightful Rorschach (elevator guy) says:
Just watch Blackford fellate every single of Dawkins’ tweets,


So, according to Rorschach, Blackford is a cocksucker?

But didn't JoshSpokesGay throw a fit in the past when somebody used that as an insult?
He accused the person using the insult, of homophobia!

Naughty Rorschach.

BTW, is anyone else really pissed off that a great fictional character like 'Rorschach' from 'Watchmen' has had his name stolen by that whining prick? It's the equivalent of a creationist using the nym 'Charles Darwin' who continuously turns up on a proscience forum and asks "why are there still monkeys?"

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#114

Post by JackSkeptic »

They really do not get there are many flavours to Feminism and agreeing with one does not necessarily mean agreeing with another. I am by definition an equity feminist, most people are. But that is wrapped up in my Humanism and general interest in equality for all people wherever that is needed. They do not get that people wear a label according to their activities. For them it's feminism (their style) or bust whatever you are doing. That is another reason why they remind me of born again Christians who can't go to the toilet without thinking about Jesus.

Also as Aneris pointed out they are so loose with definitions and applications of what they believe they are discrediting genuine research. They have bought into the rad fem concepts hook, line and sinker and it is not a rational position to hold. Concepts such as 'Patriarcy' must be used with care and precision according to what they are examining. Applying a necessarily general concept to anything other than large groups and not individuals without very good reason is one of their main failings. I have seen many posts by various people saying they never use the word 'feminist' now as people like those at FtB/A+ etc have discredited the word.

As expected many misread what is said at Nugent's and that hold no surprises. This is not about them but those who are able to use reason and do not immediately jump to the most uncharitable interpretation possible.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#115

Post by JackSkeptic »

Skep Sheik's Strand 1 statement 3 went up yesterday for those that missed it.

http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#116

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Setar has joined in the hatefest over on Svans post, managing in the process to turn the volume up to 11.
5. Both the tactics and ideology of this group of skeptics strongly reflect those of the broader radical Right, far too strongly for such an overlap to be coincidental.
He links to the following story: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp/51436351#51436351
It's a clip from Rachel Maddow's show where she discusses the murder of abortion doctors by Christian fundamentalists.

Our 'tactics and ideology' overlaps with that of fundie terrorists who shoot abortion workers?
:think:

Stretchycheese
.
.
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:22 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#117

Post by Stretchycheese »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Setar has joined in the hatefest over on Svans post, managing in the process to turn the volume up to 11.
5. Both the tactics and ideology of this group of skeptics strongly reflect those of the broader radical Right, far too strongly for such an overlap to be coincidental.
He links to the following story: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp/51436351#51436351
It's a clip from Rachel Maddow's show where she discusses the murder of abortion doctors by Christian fundamentalists.

Our 'tactics and ideology' overlaps with that of fundie terrorists who shoot abortion workers?
:think:
Typical well-poisoning tactics and smearing of dissent that we're all too familiar with from the FSA+ crowd. Perhaps Setar's demagoguery can be cited as evidence of why FTB alienates so many people in a future dialogue post.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#118

Post by Skep tickle »

Steersman wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:
Steersman wrote:...Many people do seem to have a tendency to unthinkingly follow their fellows, even if it happens to be over a cliff. But that process seems to be largely autonomic and is, I think, a very close cousin to the swarming behaviour in locusts: proximity produces physiological changes that causes the individuals to congregate which causes the physiological changes ….

...
[skeptical about the biology] Do you mean "autonomic" here, as in "autonomic nervous system"? [/skeptical about the biology]
Yes, I think the definition applies in that case:
Autonomic: 1. Physiology
a. Of, relating to, or controlled by the autonomic nervous system.
b. Occurring involuntarily; automatic: an autonomic reflex.
And least to a very substantial degree, in possibly the same way as our hearts and other homeostatic processes do, largely but not entirely below the threshold of perception and control:
The autonomic nervous system (ANS or visceral nervous system or involuntary nervous system) is the part of the peripheral nervous system that acts as a control system, functioning largely below the level of consciousness, and controls visceral functions ....
That, as Pinker described, people can act largely unthinkingly to follow blindly suggests physiological processes happening “underneath the hood” that many are only peripherally aware of. I think anger and anger management probably qualifies as a similar example.
FWIW, from the vantage point of someone in medicine, I'd suggest using "subconscious" or "instinctive". There is a specific system called the autonomic system and it's not what this is referring to. (Or, if so, it's only a subset of what this refers to.)

It'd be kind of like using "artery" to refer to the heart, or to the pumping of blood. (Kind of.)

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#119

Post by Skep tickle »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Setar has joined in the hatefest over on Svans post, managing in the process to turn the volume up to 11.
5. Both the tactics and ideology of this group of skeptics strongly reflect those of the broader radical Right, far too strongly for such an overlap to be coincidental.
He links to the following story: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp/51436351#51436351
It's a clip from Rachel Maddow's show where she discusses the murder of abortion doctors by Christian fundamentalists.

Our 'tactics and ideology' overlaps with that of fundie terrorists who shoot abortion workers?
:think:
It's from the "Sure-fire ways to rile up the base" handbook, page 4.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#120

Post by Skep tickle »

viewtopic.php?p=83910#p83910

Tf00t's comment on Carrier's recent rants, with a selection of posts from Carrier's FB or blog (I didn't check which) on doxxing Tf00t, including this:
Richard Carrier April 11, 2013 at 10:32 am (UTC -7)

Because his reputation matters. We should not allow the world to be consequence free. This is not some random anonymous dude. This is not a rebel hiding in an oppressive state. This is not a whistleblower. This is a named scientist. That’s public knowledge. He can no longer hide that fact, or from the consequences of what he says. And you shouldn’t want him to.

Locked