There seem to be different views on what “skepticism” is. Daniel Loxton seems to define it (or perhaps I mean prefer it) quite narrowly.
For decades, skepticism has very deliberately worked to stay close to what it does best: tackling empirical questions in the realm of pseudoscience and the paranormal, and (as the other side of this same coin) promoting scientific literacy.
That’s skepticism? That’s it? To me that sounds more like science education combined with some applied science. I thought skepticism could be applied a good deal more generally than that.
Also, perhaps, more…searchingly.
consider this passage from the first editorial of North America’s first regular skeptical publication, written when I was a toddler:
Finally, a word might be said about our exclusive concern with scientific investigation and empirical claims. The Committee takes no position regarding nonempirical or mystical claims. We accept a scientific viewpoint and will not argue for it in these pages. Those concerned with metaphysics and supernatural claims are directed to those journals of philosophy and religion dedicated to such matters.
Demonstrable evidence is common ground for skeptics like Houdini (who wrote, “I firmly believe in a Supreme Being and that there is a Hereafter”).
But if you’re a skeptic, then the question arises, why do you firmly believe in a Supreme Being and that there is a Hereafter? What are your reasons? What causes you to believe those things?
The answer isn’t obvious, after all. It’s the opposite of obvious. There seems to be nothing in the world that corresponds to a reason for believing those things, and skeptics as such generally want reasons for beliving things. Not invariably, but generally. So why would a skeptic believe those things? And why is it not part of skepticism to ask questions of that kind?
It seems to be because Loxton doesn’t want atheism messing up skepticism, but that just presents us with the same question in a slightly different form.
Comments
78 responses to “How wide is skepticism?”
IOW, skepticism can nibble away at the obviously lunatic fringes of religion — creationism, fake faith healers, weeping statues and the like — but not question the core claims about spiritual beings or the afterlife.
Why not? If it has empirical consequences, then it falls under the aegis of even the restricted definition of scientific skepticism. If it is purely “metaphysical”, it can either be dismissed as meaningless nonsense or ignored as irrelevant, depending on your epistemological tastes (assuming it’s not just logically incoherent in the first place).
This seems to me to be defining a word as if it were a movement. That almost works for words like ‘Marxism’ or ‘Conservatism’, but even there it’s only almost. Skepticism has perfectly good dictionary definitions. If he means ‘the particular group of people associated with the debunking of certain kinds of paranormal claims’, he ought to say that.
A scientist, or frankly any kind of enquirer, who isn’t ‘skeptical’ isn’t a very good one, but being skeptical doesn’t make you ‘a Skeptic’ in the same sense as one might be ‘a Republican’.
Ophelia’s already very kindly linked to my response to Loxton’s piece, where I agree with some of his arguments but disagree with others. Here it is again for other people:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/08/09/the-two-cultures-redux/
My position is similar to Eamon’s above, with the caveat that I am most concerned with the social effects of religious belief (I go into this in more detail in my piece). Mine is a very Millean question: does it do harm? Houdini’s version clearly didn’t; he was a very fine skeptic.
I must admit I am concerned with some of the responses to Loxton, particularly Amanda Marcotte’s (I also discuss this in my piece), which represents a deliberate attempt to claim both skepticism and atheism for political progressivism (left-liberalism in the US, Labour in Britain).
This won’t fly in the UK, where atheists and skeptics are found across the political spectrum, but I do think it is fraught with danger in the US. My principal concern with the political appropriation of skepticism and the scientific method is that if it is tied to one side of politics, then we are all deeply stuffed when ‘the other side’ has its hands on the levers of power.
As incredible as it may seem now, there was a time when Republican administrations funded science more generously (including basic science research) than the Dems and beefed up science education a lot as well. That happened because the GOP had people like Barry Goldwater in it (which is why Dawkins draws on him a fair bit in The God Delusion). Hoping that there will always be a Democrat in the White House is not a long term strategy for anyone who values science education and skepticism more generally.
Who is suggesting that as a strategy?
Or, if you want to toss strawmen around, I’ll respond with “pretending that the current-day Republican values science education and skepticism just as much as Democrats is not a sound strategy.”
The current GOP does not value science education and skepticism at all. That was my point. They will not, however, stay out of office forever: such is the ebb and flow of democratic politics.
Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for all the others that have been tried, etc etc.
Chris Mooney. For him, there’s a definite link between “The Republican War on Science” and “Unscientific America”. And I doubt that his sentiment is uncommon.
It was only in the past few years that I started my serious interest in atheism and skepticism. I started reading skeptic blogs and naturally moved on to the oft linked atheism blogs. The two, while not completely coterminous, clearly overlap as far as I have seen. I don’t see a problem with people choosing to be skeptics with a very narrow field of vision, but an atheist who isn’t, at least in part, a skeptic, doesn’t make much sense to me.
I got into “skepticism” simply because I had a tedious job and needed to listen to podcasts all day to remedy my boredom. While I find debunking silly myths and superstitions interesting, only the ones that do harm get me angry. I was probably always a little skeptical but I never put a name to it or even thought about it much. My point though is I always found the so called skeptics who want to only be skeptical about the silly stuff rather idiotic.
Whats the point about being skeptical about peoples hobbies if they aren’t doing harm? Bigfoot? UFOs? Who cares? Selling someone chelation drugs for autism or pretending to talk to peoples dead children to rob them of money? well that is something to get angry over, but even the latter two pale in comparison to the harm done by religion on a daily basis, after learning about the routine atrocities done for a god who is not there, I don’t have the energy to get angry about someone selling water as a miracle cure.
If you remove religion from skeptical review I see no point in skepticism at all. It becomes just a bunch of nerds laughing at less rational nerds over issues that have almost no meaning.
(Reminding me of the bottle of Holy Water (really, that’s what it says, right on the little plastic squeeze bottle) my father-in-law left in our guest room medicine chest. I’m not sure if he forgot it or if it’s supposed to… do something holy?)
I think that anyone who wants to claim to be a skeptic should be accepted as such, but they shouldn’t get upset when their empirical claims (including political ones) are challenged. And given reality’s well-known liberal bias, some conservatives may end up uncomfortable in some circumstances. And some liberals may end up uncomfortable, too — there’s plenty of bad and unsupported claims going around. (Note: No, I do not think they are equivalent. The bad liberal claims tend not to be as damaging, in my experience.)
@9: <i>(Reminding me of the bottle of Holy Water (really, that’s what it says, right on the little plastic squeeze bottle) my father-in-law left in our guest room medicine chest. I’m not sure if he forgot it or if it’s supposed to… do something holy?)</i>
Perhaps in case you had vampire problems? Very thoughtful of him, really. ;-)
In the US, I think you’re right; in the UK, this problem is reversed. New Labour governed for 13 years on the basis that there was a money tree growing somewhere in the Palace of Westminster.
And, on another issue, as Britain is clearly going to the dogs, I’m heading off to watch Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later, a fictional representation of Britain… going to the dogs. Or the zombies, at least.
Are not most of the usual religious claims pseudo-scientific and paranormal?
Dave –
Ah. That makes sense of it. I still think he’s wrong, but that makes sense of how he got there.
Science is one manifestation of skepticism, an especially formal and rigorous one, but it is hardly the sum and sole expression of skepticism. Skeptcism is the science and art of not jumping to conclusions.
@skepticlawyer:
Unfortunately, reality appears to have a left-wing bias.
Personally, I reached my atheism through skepticism, which really encourages one to actually pull out those doubts you have in the back of your mind during church and really think about them. I think the way that religions work to shut down dissent, doubt, and discussion are one of the primary reasons why you can’t just leave skepticism the movement to the paranormal stuff. And even if you do, both religious and non religious people aren’t stupid.
The religious people realize that scientific investigation has taken a lot of their prestige, archaeology has taken their historical truths, and freedom of speech has taken their authority. The paranormal skeptics can’t help but notice that the weeping statues and saint cinnamon buns are re-enforcing religion in the same way that fake crop circles and Bigfoot prints do in their areas. So, I don’t think pretending that religion is exempt from skepticism (and from science in turn) is fooling the religious people that fuel the Republicans, all it it is doing is giving them a free pass.
I first learned about skepticism only a year or two ago, when I first started reading about movement atheism. I tried reading a few issues from the Skeptical Inquirer, but thought that it spent too much time on things that didn’t matter (I don’t remember specifics, but things like Bigfoot, UFOs and ESP).
If a majority of skeptics agree that it’s a movement that’s focused on debunking things like that and doesn’t want to get involved in larger issues, like religion, I’d probably stay away from it.
However, I have a few thoughts:
1. Homeopathy and other types of new age medicine can be very harmful if people use them as a replacement for actual medical treatment. In that sense, I think these types of medical claims are pretty close to religion in terms of importance.
2. I have a very hard time seeing how skepticism doesn’t naturally lead to atheism. As others have stated, the evidence to support the supernatural claims of the various religions just isn’t there. Plus, many religious claims are testable.
Also, I really like Bruce S. Springsteen’s quote:
Benjamin S. Nelson @6:
Maybe. My impression of Mooney’s strategy is “enough people will stop voting for anti-science Republicans if we can get the New Atheists to shut up.”
You know, those dogmatic skeptics are going to get the impression that all of us atheists are peevish critics who keep questioning things.
And they’re going to keep telling us stuff like this.
Conceptually, both religious and political claims are within the purview of skepticism-as-a-stance — even if the most desirable kind of society is considered a non-empirical question of ideology, the consequences of taxation, regulatory, fiscal and other govt policies in principle have empirical answers, even if we currently lack sufficiently good models of the system to get reliable answers.
However, I can see a pragmatic argument that it is advantageous for Skepticism-as-a-movement (or particular organizations) to restrict themselves to the “traditional” scope. The advantages are:
1) It makes for a bigger tent — we can get liberals, libertarians, and conservatives, atheists and (moderate) religionists, on board to fight quack medicine etc.
2) Religion and politics are both huge cans-o-worms on their own, with active movements on all sides of the issues, so maybe it makes sense to let those fights go on elsewhere. Otherwise, it might tend to dominate and consume the Skeptical movement, to the detriment of other important issues.
I’m not recommending the above strategy — personally, I want religion/atheism in the Skeptical bucket, though I’m less certain about politics.
Lately occurring thought: the pig-heads who recently held the US (and world) economy for ransom are the same ones who deny global warming and evolution, believe prayer is the way to solve serious real-world problems, and do it all in the Name O’ Jesus. I don’t see how we can separate religion, politics and science when it comes to people like that — in their own addled minds, it’s all inextricably and toxically linked.
@20: Damn, item #2 should end “…to the detriment of other important isses”.
God I hope that’s not what we have to contend with during the zombie apocalypse. I can run for days but a dead sprint against those speed junkies?
Sorta on topic, I had a pretty long chat with an atheist republican buddy of mine prompted by him telling me “Dude, there’s no fucking way I’d vote for a democrat. Period. Fuck them.” It was all very polite (odd considering how we talk to each other usually) and by the end of it I learned two things; he would vote for a democrat (being pro-gay rights, pro-choice and actually considering those important issues) and he had completely bought into the “Republicans are patriotic/know how to run money/will preserve the constitution” narrative we have going on in this country. Democrats apparently are bad with money/don’t care about the nation’s security/want to impose a Communist State.
Fingers crossed demoncrats don’t become the party of science to the point where people actually believe being a republican means you hate science.
[…] Ophelia Benson: There seem to be different views on what “skepticism” is. Daniel Loxton seems to define it (or […]
Scepticism applies to everything but is a personal methodology, while science is more restricted because it is part of a community. Atheism isn’t a methodology but a lack of belief.
Lawnboy made an excellent comment over at PZ’s new blog that seems relevant here.
Pretty much sums up the silliness of Loxton’s approach.
Re the Barbara Drescher comment PZ linked to @19, it’s always amusing to see projection at work. Drescher accuses Amanda Marcotte of wanting to drive theists like Pamela Gay out of skepticism. There’s no citation provided, of course; no doubt Drescher is just assuming that Gnus have the same mentality that she admits to in wanting atheist activists to GTFO.
Drescher does an impressive line in pointless semantic quibbling.
Julian – you’re waaaay too late. Being a Republican these days pretty much guarantees you hate science. Or at least pretend that you do for your constituents. Creationism and global warming denialism are both pretty much required these days.
If you read Amanda Marcotte’s post, you find she doesn’t even mention Pamela Gay; the name came up in a quote from Loxton, and that’s it. And from there, we’re off and running to a campaign to drive Gay out of skepticism.
This is actually a vestige of an old debate from a year or two ago when several TAM regulars got extremely upset that an atheist (I think it was Dawkins) was even invited to speak at the meeting. A couple of them severed all ties with the JREF over it, and were even at the meeting this year to protest (ineffectually: nobody noticed). Pamela Gay was the poor club they waved around then — I got the impression she wanted to stay out of the argument altogether — and people were ranting about this bizarre hypothetical: if we let atheists into the clubhouse, the next thing they’ll want to do is ban Pamela Gay!
Again, then as now, no one has talked about doing anything to Gay, who is a good speaker about space science, except these hysterical anti-atheists.
Yikes. The crazy, it’s everywhere.
There’s no shortage of people willing to criticize Penn Jillette for some of his more “out-there” libertarian beliefs, or Penn & Teller both for some dubious claims in certain episodes of their show, but I wouldn’t say anyone’s trying to “drive them out” of skepticism. No more than there was an attempt to drive James Randi out of skepticism when he wrote that rather dodgy post about global warming a year or two ago. It’s only the theist skeptics who apparently need to be treated with kid gloves.
@Cath
Oh I know. I was talking about non politicians for the most part.
…. well, theist skeptics and “younglings,” I suppose….
skepticlawyer wrote:
Why does that matter? The only question skeptics should be asking is: is this claim true? And if the claim in question has been structure to be “untestable,” then at the very least the question we should be asking is: do we have any good reasons to believe this claim is true? There’s no reason why skepticism must be restricted to empirically testable claims. Skepticism has a wide range of philosophical tools which work equally well on rhetoric and abstractions. The principle of parsimony, for instance, allows us to dismiss uncredible claims even in the absence of evidence.
Houdini was a fine skeptic, but not because he credulously believed in an innocuous fantasy. He was a fine skeptic in spite of his faith. And it’s okay to openly recognize that. Houdini is an icon in the skeptic community but he isn’t a saint. We don’t have to pretend he was perfect.
Scepticism is good, but open to conformation bias. That’s why scientific naturalism is a better methodology for removing conformation bias, but in doing so, it is limited to what can be verified by experience.
This might help explain why ‘sceptics’ can apply their scepticism on a wider range of problems, but sometimes fail to realize that their own personal biases may cloud their judgment.
Hush! You’ll upset our allies who oppose criticism!
Skepticism can tackle the core claims of religion. Simple from the angle of “Where do these claims originate?” Many people say that some questions are out of bounds for investigation; but that ignores the origin of the question itself, which can be investigated.
Others have criticised this already, but if that’s one of your criteria for activism, then you’re better off fighting religion and conservatism than bigfoot belief and UFOology.
Political and economic claims are not untestable. It may not be as simple as debunking orgone energy, but it is possible to rationally determine whether a public or private system of healthcare better serves the needs of the most people, for example.
Skepticism doesn’t have a choice. AGW is a political issue. Do we sit on our hands over climate change because we don’t want to alienate the climate ‘skeptics’ who just might get back into power? What if Jenny McCarthy decides to run for office? Will we keep mum over the effectiveness of vaccines for the sake of politics?
What about women’s issues? You may be bothered by political progressivism in the skeptics community, but I’m a hell of a lot more bothered by the alternative: leaving attitudes espoused by Russell Blackford, Richard Dawkins, Abbie Smith, et al. unchecked. That’s the problem with Daniel Loxton’s approach to ‘diversity’: by agreeing to disagree with individuals who hold anti-women, or anti-LGBT beliefs (such as certain theistic and conservative beliefs) for the sake of inclusivity, you’re not encouraging diversity at all; you’re encouraging an old white mens’ club with a few token minorities.
Frankly, the whole issue is about those with unsupportable religious beliefs (and, as for the ‘untestable’ god claim, it’s a cop-out; anyone who sincerely believes in a deity that doesn’t interact with our universe in any way is welcome to it as far as skepticism is concerned) and political beliefs wanting a special dispensation from skepticism.
No Gnu worth listening to is claiming that theists and libertarians and who knows whom else have no place at the skepticism table; they just don’t get diplomatic immunity for their deeply held convictions just because they’re willing to point and laugh with the rest of us at the guy with the tinfoil hat and the car that runs on water.
I suppose I have only two things worth saying. The first is that I think rational skepticism, as a general epistemic approach, almost completely settles many issues that are ostensibly about “values”. As an example, debates on gay rights are not about any abstract philosophical issues regarding a Deistic god. They regard a) whether particular parts of a particularly historic text accurately represent the will of a powerful and alien intelligence that controls our ultimate fate, and b) the supposed harms of homosexuality as catalogued by a handful of pseudoscientific propagandists. These claims seem to me to be not essentially different than a) ancient alien astronaut theories, and b) other pseudosciences such as creationism and phrenology.
Of course, it’s possible to have an accurate understanding of the subject and still be anti-gay due to personal values, but that’s a very rare standpoint. And gay rights activists can have their delusions as well, but those appear less central to the core message. On this and other issues, skepticism simply has more to say to one side than the other.
My other point is that there is a difference between allowing a viewpoint and encouraging it. I certainly think that skeptics shouldn’t be banned for having certain religious and political beliefs, but it doesn’t follow that lacking people with certain religious/political beliefs is a deficit that needs to be corrected by encouraging (or even ignoring the deficiencies of) those beliefs.
This is different from other types of diversity. There’s nothing inherently anti-skeptical about any particular gender, or race, or sexual orientation, or age, or class, or physical handicap. For that matter, the same goes for living in certain places, or enjoying certain media (people can watch NASCAR or opera or football or comedy or horror films or no TV at all and be as skeptical as those who watch mostly sciencey things). In all those situations, if there’s an underrepresented group, it’s at least worth looking into why, and whether something correctable holds them back.
But there’s not much mystery to it when you’re dealing with a group whose leaders actively oppose scientific, skeptical inquiry into some issues. So if we lack people from the New-Agey left, or the fundamentalist right, or the industry-is-always-harmless set of libertarians, it’s not an odd correlation. It’s what you would expect from groups that have, generally, openly declared that they disavow our viewpoint on science. Or, to put it differently, skepticism is inherently very damaging to those points of view, which makes skeptics clear, de facto political opponents, even when it’s not advantageous to us to declare that openly.
Is disingenuously asking if “blanket censorship of different points of view” is part of skepticism trolling? (Hint: the answer is “yes”.)
To me it honestly depends. Do the points of view hold any water? Have they been addressed repeatedly? Are they influenced by hate/bias/poor thinking/ect? Honestly just an idea getting addressed repeatedly ad nauseum to where just about every angle has been looked at sounds like good enough reason to censor it. If it’s been asked and answered going back just keeps us from moving forward.
Blog moderation, of course, has little to do with skepticism, so I don’t get why you brought it up.
“munkhaus” – what’s going on at ERV is not “different points of view.” It’s a sustained malicious campaign of personal attack, laced with sexist epithets.
Is it deliberate disingenuousness, or is the reading comprehension level really that low? No one that I’ve seen has been defending taking religious claims off the table for skepticism, which is what the OP was about. Deleting trolling posts that offer nothing new, nothing that hasn’t been thoroughly examined and found wanting, is not censorship, it’s housekeeping.
But I guess that’s women’s work. <– Sarcasm.
munkhaus, to repeat (are you “having a nap” while actually typing?): what’s going on at ERV is not “different points of view.” It’s a sustained malicious campaign of personal attack, laced with sexist epithets. I’m not letting it go on here.
Munkhaus, I don’t care what they’re a result of, I care what they are. The insults can’t and shouldn’t be put aside. I’m not going to put them aside. I wouldn’t if they were racist and I’m not about to shrug forgivingly because they’re sexist instead of racist.
Im skeptical about your claim. No one is preventing other blogs from discussing the issue. or petitioning other people to ban views. This “censorship” is more don’t enter my house with dirty shoes.
(though I hate censorship on the internet , including Ophelias – but I can understand it).
If you want to talk about how to fairly run a blog that’s one thing but don’t drag skepticism into it. Would it be fair to accuse labs that won’t hire someone who rejects germ theory of practicing bad skepticism because they refuse to tolerate disagreement or because they shouldn’t be censoring opposing povs?
Munkhaus by proxy is obvious.
I point to … there!
For the record, I don’t like Ophelia’s new rule. To vague for me.
Deepak – think how much you would hate B&W if it filled up with those goons. They deliberately drown out other people – see Martin’s thread (at furious purpose).
julian for fuck’s sake the new rule is a joke. It’s not a genuine rule. It’s a goon-tease.
You are trying to turn this into a discussion of something else. You should at least be honest about that.
Munkhaus, the question of epithets has nothing to do with the scientific method. It’s a moral issue, not an empirical one.
The scientific method has nothing to do with not wanting dinner guests to fart noisily or take their clothes off. It’s still a reasonable thing to want. It’s contingent on a particular culture, but still reasonable.
The goons at ERV are viciously rude and malicious, therefore I don’t want them here. Nothing to do with scientific method.
I guess I’ll have to spell out the joke thing.
@Ophelia
Im not complaining about your ban – I understand your reasons.
But I think Munkhaus ,like me , has a knee jerk reaction to censorship on blogs.
Baron von Münchhausen, set thineself astride thy connin-ball forthwith!
FIIIRE!
/ That was just my short fuse. Don’t think twice, it’s alright.
Deepak, I don’t think so, I think Munkhaus is just another needling ERV goon.
Bollocks. Violates causality.
Ah yes – that’s confirmed.
Damn, and here’s me hoping that my post on a completely unrelated topic would allow us all to have an interesting chat about skepticism and atheism and… Oh well, that didn’t work. Thanks to everyone up to Sean @40 for giving me food for thought, and no thanks to Munkhaus for colonising what was developing into an interesting discussion.
[Ophelia, please feel free to delete this comment if it’s too snappy].
In other news, it’s piddling down across the UK, which seems to be the best police force the country has at this moment. The rioters, it appears, do not like the thought of wet feet.
This is precisely why I won’t have the ERV-goons here (along with their determined viciousness). They don’t want to talk, they want to colonize.
It’s not “censorship” to repel invaders.
Munkhaus, sure, it might – if you hadn’t called me stupid names at ERV.
Maybe you’re better than that, I don’t know. Maybe you got carried away by the frolics there. We can all get carried away. But as it is – I don’t consider you some well-meaning stranger, I consider you one of ERV’s name-callers. I don’t want them here.
And yes, invaders, because of the way they systematically deliberately drowned out everyone else on Martin’s post at Furious Purpose. They’re a pack. That’s not my fault.
The fuck it does.
Approval of what, exactly, your mudslinging prowess?
It’s an echo chamber. The comments may be arranged across a continuum, but they’re all in more or less total and indiscriminate agreement that mean, prudish hypocrites (these are all common terms there, not attributable to just one person, or even just ten) are trying to ‘censor’ them. That IS the whole.
Hah!
Since the argument is in part about the use of sexist language then it seems they fail to understand their own argument. They certainly are being foolish if they think arguing they are not sexist whilst using sexist language will win the argument for them.
And it’s not “they,” it’s “you” – “Munkhaus” did indeed join in, and he included me in his mudslinging. Then he expects me to welcome him here. Yeah no that’s not going to happen.
Jeezis, there it is again – the Miranda note – “I have a thin skin, feel sorry for me, but talk any shit you like about other people, and I’ll giggle right along with you.”
Miranda Hale is not a doctor of anything. Really. Why are people so keen to pretend she is?
Have you even read Dear Dick?
There’s no “irony” evident to me. You’re minimizing the degree to which The ERV thread is a place where misogynist language and gender-specific slurs are the norm. I’m calling you on it. What goes on here has no bearing on that fact.
Ophelia is well within her rights as blog hostess to decide what kind of dialogue goes on here. She’s being spammed with the same trollish (not to mention asked and answered a thousand times over) challenges through all hours of the day and night. If I were her, I’d be fed up with the lot of it as well.
And are you actually trying to deny the significance of jumping on the dog-pile because your words weren’t *really* so offensive? Pathetic.
You read it? Really? What exactly did you find cringeworthy about this letter?
Err, you are not making any sense. Please try to be coherent and understand that stringing words together in a pattern that is syntactically correct does mean it makes sense semantically.
Who is this Dr Miranda Hale you talk of ? I am aware a Miranda Hale pertinent to this discussion, but since she does not have a doctorate it will not be her. Or did you just make shit up in a pathetic attempt to bolster your argument. Looks like an argument by authority by proxy to me.
You know, I tell you what – I’ll believe you shits aren’t really misogynist or sexist as soon as ERV does three posts with 5000 comments ranting about niggers and spooks and jigaboos. Until then I don’t believe a god damn word of it.
Ahem.
Not “you shits” as in the people on this thread, but “you shits” as in the trolls who keep coming here to say “who, me, sexist?!?!11.”
Ophelia,
When you said you shits I assume it was referring to those people here who have commented at ERV’s and think they have right to continue to be arseholes here.
Yes Munkhaus, I am talking about you.
Yo, Abbie – thanks a lot for the infestation.