Jack wrote:Mark Thomas wrote:some guy wrote:Although I didn't go read things to get the context, I fail to see how saying "I fail to see how 'A' leads to 'the logical conclusion' of 'B'" means that the speaker is implying anything about whether or not he believes 'B'.
And the proper response to someone who claims the speaker implied he believes B is not to chastise the originally speaker, but rather the person who can't understand what he said.
You're correct - saying B doesn't follow A isn't in itself an endorsement of B. However, the way Justin phrased it, coupled with the absence of any sentence in the piece flatly stating 'I disagree with B,' he left the door open for an uncharitable opponent to interpret his meaning in the worst possible way. Marcotte walked through that door.
When politicians do it it's called a gaffe - and they are almost always followed by an apology or a re-statement of their position. And that's exactly what Justin should do here in my opinion. In a debate like this it would have the effect of showing humility, humor (if done correctly), and a willingness to concede that your opponent - at times - has a point.
Given my experience over at skepchick this week, they appear to display none of those traits - a losing political strategy in my mind. I believe more people will agree with someone who is willing to be inclusive, compromise, and admit they are human and therefore not perfect, as opposed to someone who exhibits authoritarianism, enforces groupthink or a rigid adherence to dogma.
They misrepresent what someone says all the time. They are looking for an apology (which they won't accept anyway) and every chance they get to lie and misrepresent someone they take it. JV said nothing wrong. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows what he said is correct. If they want to play politics they can but for me rationalism wins every time over a bunch of people playing games.
"If they want to play politics"....there's no 'if' about it, we're already there.
It's not a zero sum game. Not everyone has chosen "sides" - such as they are. In our hope of advancing the cause of atheism and skepticism, we're inviting new people into the movement all the time and these new people (myself included) are going to wade into this debate. Because I'm a fan of SGU I was introduced to it through the Novellas and the skepchicks, and I found a hostile environment at the skepchicks. I can't be the only one...
Science cannot inform political tactics - since we all agree on the broad principles (see here, for example:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... ecularism/) the debate appears to be between those who prefer to highlight gender difference and seek to achieve and enforce (!) gender equality and those who seek to achieve gender neutrality and enforce equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Forgive the sloppiness of my formulation, I'm relatively new to the debate.
If tactics (or methods) are indeed the question, then it's not a question a double-blind study can resolve. We already know Marcotte's answer to that question: "As demonstrated in the liberal blogosphere, when everyone is on board with the 'more women' goal, it tends to create more harmony and more friendships." (Source:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/22/d ... d-t-shirt/)
Remember her background - she is a political operative who worked for John Edwards' failed Presidential campaign in 2008. She's attempting to get everyone on board with the "more women" goal - i.e., radical feminist doctrine. Everyone not with her is against her.
As it was with GW Bush, so it is with Marcotte - and those who are expelled for not being "with her" will look for another outlet. If you care about skepticism, rationalism or secularism and aren't on board with the radical feminist agenda, then you should be as inclusive as possible to those who go looking for another outlet. This, in my opinion, is the correct counter to her extremism.
Countering her extremism with equal/opposite extremism polarizes the debate, and sends those looking "for another outlet" somewhere else (if they don't quit altogether).
TL;DR = is Marcotte an extremist? Yes. But you don't counter extremism with equal/opposite extremism, you counter it with inclusion and rationality.
