More Steve Moxon.

The Guardian’s Northern Blog on why even UKIP didn’t want him.

Moxon’s opinions have now cost him his place as UKIP’s candidate in Sheffield‘s local elections, where he is standing for the Dore and Totley ward, a Liberal Democrat stronghold in Nick Clegg’s constituency. The party has dropped him after attention was drawn to a post he wrote on his blog last August which endorsed the reasoning in the testament of the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik.

He wrote, inter alia:

That pretty well everyone – myself not excluded – recoiled at his actions, does not belie the accuracy of Breivik’s research and analysis in his ‘manifesto’, which is in line with most scholarship in respect of both Political Correctness and Islam.

It is clear that the mass of ordinary people are considered with utter contempt by the government-media-education uber-class across the Western world; this as the result of ‘cultural Marxism’. So we are, in effect, ‘at war’ within our societies over PC, as Breivik claims.

It’s nice that he first stipulates that he doesn’t actually approve of machine-gunning teenagers to make a point.

Then there’s the Sheffield SITP Facebook page. There’s a long discussion on May 16 with many contributions by Moxon, and this observation by someone else -

I have been approached multiple times by people, particularly women who find Steve’s views so consistently repellant that they feel excluded from contributing to this group, or even from attending SITP. I’m all for free speech but that includes both sexes and not just people called Steve. We haven’t yet reached the point of blocking anyone but there is a ‘for the good of the group’ argument to consider…

Leeds SITP please note.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I understated the awfulness of Steve Moxon. Google turns up more.

Like the fact that he was dropped by UKIP because he said nice things about Anders Breivik.

Steve Moxon, author of the classic anti-feminist book ‘The Woman Racket‘, was dropped as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in this week’s local elections over comments he made on his blog previously regarding Anders Breivik. Whilst stressing how appalling and insupportable Breivik’s actions were, Moxon had noted that his manifesto presented an accurate account of the spread of political correctness in Europe. This was picked up by a local paper in the city that Moxon was standing in (Sheffield), forcing UKIP to drop him as a candidate – despite the vast majority of UKIP supporters no doubt sharing the same anti-PC views.

He’s too right-wing for UKIP. His special flavor of right-wingness is anti-feminism and belief that women get all the nice things.

He explains everythings on his blog, like for instance the fact that domestic violence is women beating up men.

Make that two pints, and a bottle of gin.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

and punch them in the mouth.

Upcoming event July 21: a talk by a dude called Steve Moxon on Y women R so dumb.

Talk by Steve Moxon. Leeds psychologist Dr Gijsbert Stoet finds no evidence that women under-perform through internalising false stereotypes, a recent major review reveals no sex-discrimination in academia, and ground-breaking field research shows that it is actually in favour of women in recruitment; so why is it women tend not to ‘get to the top’?

It iz becoz they R so dumb.

Recent science confirms the sexes to be not just different but dichotomous, albeit that confounds with other factors often obscures this, and on many measures there is more variation within- than between-sex.

Some dumb woman must have wrote that sentence becoz it make no sense.

Anti-male / pro-female prejudice is reinforced in periods of rapid social change because arrangements in place to privilege women become anachronistic yet are held on to through the very pro-female prejudice that also ensures new arrangements are quickly made. Both the tardiness and rapidity of change contribute to an ‘unfalsifiable’ feminist perception, which is furthermore grounded in the ‘political-correctness’ backlash against the mass of ordinary people by the intelligentsia to salve the ‘cognitive-dissonance’ of its political-Left mindset. The failure of the ethos to have any practical impact led to the blaming of ‘the workers’ for not ‘following the script’, and their replacement by those who are not stereotypically ‘workers’: women.

Our deeply politicised back-to-front perception that women are the subject of prejudice and disadvantage is the greatest fraud in history, but given important facts have never been effectively suppressed for very long, it should be only a question of the time-scale over which it collapses.

Boy I sure do wish I could attend that Skeptics in the Pub, don’t you?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Paul Fidalgo has a post on the next Women in Secularism, and how the last one didn’t actually eat your baby.

By now it’s clear, I’d say, that the Women in Secularism conference put on by CFI this past May was a milestone event in the secular movement’s history, as it raised consciousness for all in attendance—men and women—about all manner of issues affecting women both in and outside the secular and skeptic communities. Discussions and debates were spurred on a huge variety of subjects, from the personal to the political, and even if you had only been able to attend one session, you could not have walked away without a deeper understanding of what was being discussed.

It was such a success, that we’re thrilled to be able to say that a second Women in Secularism conference will take place May 17-19, 2013. After all, there’s so much more to talk about!

Mark your calendar!

But like many important events, some of this past conference’s content has been mischaracterized or misunderstood, especially by some who were not in attendance. That’s understandable; the conference sparked an enormous amount of ongoing discussion that continues today, well after the hotel staff kicked us out of the ballroom. Naturally, chatter on blogs and in tweets can be misconstrued or poorly expressed, and even the smartest and best-intentioned of us can draw the wrong conclusions.

And that’s especially true when the worst-intentioned of us are deliberately talking shite on the subject and misleading the underinformed and gullible. That has been happening. I have watched some of it happening right in front of my astonished eyes.

The main point of contention that we’ve seen revolves, predictably, around the topic of sexual harassment. (I know, you can’t get enough of this subject. Me neither. Just stick with me here.) If I may briefly sum up the idea underlying the biggest misunderstanding, it seems that many are under the impression that the sexual harassment issue—and more specifically, policing sexual harassment—was a central theme of the sessions, with most folks acceding to some kind of draconian solution to eradicate the problem altogether.

So not true. I can’t begin to tell you how not right that is. We talked about a squillion other things! My god, sexual harassment is boring; why would we have spent the whole time talking about it? And didn’t those people read my live blogging? Or Ashley’s, which was so vastly more thorough than mine? You can see what we talked about, and it wasn’t sexual harassment, except for one thing that Jen said.

It won’t be the only or main or large proportionally subject next year, either. I know that because I know the people organizing it aren’t stupid.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Ken has a nice post at Popehat on the strangely hyperbolic reaction to discussion of harassment at conferences.

I am not a feminist.  By that I mean that I am completely uninterested in whether or not I deserve the label “feminist” or “anti-feminist.”  I believe in the legal, formal, and social equality of men and women, I am interested in the ways that laws and social norms interfere with that equality, and I am open to discussion of approaches to changing laws and social norms.

I gotta tell you, Ken, that means you are a feminist. A non-feminist doesn’t believe in those things and isn’t interested in those ways and isn’t open to that discussion. Arguing about definitions isn’t what makes someone a feminist. To put it another way, your “by that I mean” might as well continue “the exact opposite of what any sane person understands by feminism.” But hey, if the word gets on your nerves because it sounds like people defending FGM as someone else’s fragile culture, I’m not going to argue, or paste a feminist button on you when you’re not looking.

On the other hand, I am often astounded by the reaction to “feminism” (self-identified, or so identified by critics) or any discussion of sexual harassment.  The reaction often seems wildly and disproportionately sensitive to criticism to a frankly disordered extent.  I’m seeing that from both men and women in this debate over harassment at skeptic conventions.  In fact I find the reactions more off-putting than the descriptions of harassment themselves.  Take, as a recent example, this recent letter from Paula Kirby, which repeatedly calls her opponents “hysterical” (a loaded term that I would only use trollishly, belligerently, or satirically), defends terms like “feminazis” and “femistasi,” refers to discussions of harassment as “totalitarian,” refers to the “Sisterhood of the Oppressed” and “Approved Male Chorus,” and generally acts like a 14-year-old flaming out upon being banned from a World of Warcraft subforum for comparing Orcs to various racial groups.

And what makes it all the weirder is that in person she seems like the sanest person in the room. She’s Obama-esque in her poise and calm. It feels Invasion of the Body-snatchers-ish. That’s not true of other principle actors in this clash, certainly including me, but Paula is the last person I would have expected to collapse into an extended tantrum.

I don’t get it.  I’m not saying that self-described feminists — or anyone else talking about sexual harassment — are always right.  They’re not.  Sometimes they’re perfectly silly.  I’m saying that they are participating in a marketplace of ideas, and that responding to them with “your criticism breaks the marketplace of ideas” or “your criticism is tyrannical” tropes is unserious and embarrassing.  I sometimes write things that some people think are sexist or offensive.  I own them.  If someone calls me out on them, I will apologize if I think it is appropriate, or refute the accusation if appropriate, or shrug and move on, possibly with a lol u mad bro.  What I will not do is attempt to portray myself as some sort of victim of bullying and censorship — as if someone had sued me, or tried to get me arrested, or physically attacked me.  People hissed at me for non-liberal views in college, people sure as hell hissed at me in law school, and here I still stand, not a victim.

Well, that’s how I see it. I’ve been trying to see the merit of the view that disagreement on a blog amounts to bullying (in the intervals of mocking the whole idea, granted), but it’s a hell of a strain.

I wonder what Paula would think if a few FTB people started doing tweets about #RDFBullies, full of high-minded vows to fight them, stand up to them, challenge them, and whacked-out cries that it is SAFE TO SPEAK OUT and YOU ARE NOT ALONE. I don’t think she would consider that very collegial or even fair – yet she doesn’t hesitate to do it to Freethought blogs. That too is odd.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/

4 July 2012.This morning, officers of the Delhi Police reached Sanal Edamaruku’s house to arrest him. They came upon directions of a Delhi court to execute an arrest warrant issued by a Mumbai Metropolitan Magistrate Court (second highest Criminal Court). If Sanal had been at home, he would be in jail now….

The officers were informed that Sanal is presently out of Delhi and traveling. They insisted on details of his whereabouts, addresses and contact numbers. Some hours later, they came again to press for information, to no avail.

What will happen next?

With this dramatic turn of events, Sanal Edamaruku’s persecution has reached a dangerous new level. Exposing the “miracle” of the water-dripping crucifix at the Velankanni church in Mumbai as a plumber’s problem, he incurred Catholic fury beyond all trademark forgiveness. Highly alarming is the fact that the Catholic side has managed to secure considerable support from Indian government agencies. The Catholic Church is representing only a small minority of believers in India. But it is backed by a powerful worldwide apparatus, driven by great ambitions to conquer India and make up for its losses in the western world. I don’t want the Dark Ages to come to India! Sanal says in the controversial TV program, drawing the battle lines

In the ongoing conflict, Sanal has the evidence-based factual truth on his side – regarding capillary action as well as regarding church history. Moreover, he enjoys the full support of the Indian Constitution that explicitly obliges all citizens to develop “scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”. And then, of course, there is the right to Freedom of Expression (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) on his side of the balance tray.

The revengeful local Catholic leaders, on the other side, have the tacit support of another heavy weight: the powerful Catholic Church. The Pope is keeping mum, ignoring thousands of contemporaries from various parts of the world who are calling upon the Vatican via an Online Petition of the Rationalist Association (UK) to take a stand in this case. But his Mumbai representative, Bishop Agnelo Gracias (whom Sanal encountered in the TV-9 program), does all the talking. Unstinting in his public praise for Sanal’s prosecutors, Gracias “rejoices” about their courage!

It is obvious that the Catholic Church is trying to pull the strings to silence its most vocal and courageous opponent in India. If there is one person who could cross their ambitious plans, it is Sanal Edamaruku. So there is much at stake, for both sides. How far will they be able to go? That cannot be foreseen. We have to be prepared for the worst.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Via Ben Nelson, Jon Bois on Guy on the Internet. You know SIWOTI, someone is wrong on the internet? Like that, but GOTI.

Recently, as you may have seen, a feminist blogger/video gamer named Anita Sarkeesian started work on a project examining the representation, and portrayal, of women in the world of gaming. Anyone who’s played many video games lately knows that this culture isn’t quite an egalitarian Utopia. Sometimes the misogyny is sneaky and casual, and sometimes it’s almost unbelievably flagrant, but it’s perpetuated on an institutional level.

So somebody wants to examine this critically. Not militantly, not threateningly, not like she’s trying to break into your house and steal your video games. Just critically. And holy shit, did this bring out a clone army of Guys On The Internet. They harassed Sarkeesian, insulted her, and repeated “go back to the kitchen, go make me a sandwich” with the same rote, unthinking determination you might observe in the guy selling “mystical life stones” in a mall kiosk.

Imagine my surprise.

Humans have fallen for this gag for thousands of years: they’re tricked into thinking they’re fighting for a revolution, only to do and say the same old shit, the shit that’s shackled humanity ever since we decided to start living next to one another. They see a wave of people saying, “make me a sandwich, bitch,” and holy shit do they want to belong to this party. Holy shit do they want to buttress the status quo that has stood firm for eons before they ever came along, and totally does not need their help at all.

Hipster misogyny.

Maybe this guy is willing and able to think critically, realize that this sort of language is misanthropic and hurts everyone, and decide whether he wants to live as an individual.

If he doesn’t, he is Guy On The Internet. He is thoughtless and gullible. He’s firmly entrenched at the intersection of Mediocre and Cruel, which is just about the most weak, miserable place a person can find one’s self.

And then he gets to the part where he says what I’m always saying.

I  recall Guy On The Internet being around in the mid-to-late-’90s. He’d go to public, visible places on the internet — AOL chat rooms, mainstream baseball chat rooms, etc. — and drop the N-word. As these venues became moderated, and as Guy On The Internet started to get shamed by the community, he cut the act, or at least retreated to some weird, shady corner of the Internet where saying “n—–” made you hot shit.

Later — through most of the 2000s, actually – I saw Guy On The Internet embrace homophobia. Certain large, popular websites dropped words like “f—–” on the reg. Not that this battle — and for that matter, the racism battle — isn’t still being fought, because it sure as hell is. But if Guy On The Internet uses that language these days, he’s far more likely to catch shit for it or be banned from further participation entirely.

But misogynist shit is a WHOLE OTHER totally different thing, and it’s perfectly fine. I was arguing with some dope called gimpyblog about this on Twitter the other day, and he called me intellectually dishonest for comparing “nigger” with “cunt.” Yeah right, I was telling a big fat lie, coz misogyny is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Some other guy on Facebook did the same thing a few days before that – and called me a cunt for good measure.

I don’t see it changing any time soon, either.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Talk about the Streisand effect. The brilliant minds behind the original #FTBullies must be so annoyed. Poor Paula Kirby, who latched onto it and the malevolent people behind it – she must be in despair. Her ardent efforts to get people to join her in hating on us went so spectacularly wrong!

Well, Paula, that would be because it was a stupid idea to begin with. Think about it. Seriously.

Freethought blogs just isn’t an obviously and thoroughly evil thing, unless you’re a theocrat. Even if some of the bloggers are sometimes careless or dogmatic or biased; even if some of the commenters on some of the blogs are that and more; Freethought blogs the network is still not like Nazis or the Stasi or totalitarian. Claiming it is is a stupid and malicious overstatement – in fact it’s exactly the same kind of stupid and malicious overstatement you seem to be complaining about. If I understand you correctly you think I stupidly and maliciously overstated what DJ Grothe did wrong. Maybe I did, but I still stopped well short of saying and then insisting after being challenged that he’s like the Nazis and the Stasi. (I did say that blaming women for talking about harassment was like blaming Jews for talking about persecution in 1936 Germany, and that was indeed a ridiculous overstatement – but then I withdrew it on being challenged. My intention was not to compare DJ to the Nazis, it was to compare blaming group X for talking about its own persecution with blaming group Y for talking about its own persecution; my mistake was choosing a much much much more drastic form of persecution; I withdrew it.) You didn’t stop short of comparing a blog network to the Nazis and the Stasi, and you’ve been doubling down on the comparison ever since.

And now the whole thing is an explosion of creative hilarity on Twitter, that is doing nothing to turn an indignant world against our Terrible Evil. It must burn.

For the rest of us, who enjoy the hilarity – Jason has a selection of the best tweets. Pteryxx posted one here. Here are a few of my favorites -

JoeZowghi‏@JoeZowghi All #FTBullies wanna do is eat your brains.  They’re not unreasonable.  I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes.

Stacy Kennedy‏@MsMondegreen Your MasterCard account has been deactivated. Send your card number and expiration date to #FTBullies for reinstatement.

and

#FTBullies tore off the Captain’s leg and sank the Pequod.

Tom‏@Doubting_Tom For all intensive purposes! The tenants of athiesm! #FTBullies

and

Romney was for #FTBullies before he was against them.

and

#FTBullies is too advanced to have been built by ancient peoples without alien help.

and

My name is #FTBullies, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

(Doubting Tom is good!)

Monte Grumwald‏@feralboy12 #FTBullies are the ones who said your brother was heavy.

Dan Fincke‏@CamelsHammers #FTBullies are Kenyan Muslim Secular Effete French Fascists Who Hate America

Will‏@dysomniak #FTBullies said those pastries were vegan, but I think there might have been eggs in there.

Kammy‏@Procrastinatrx Phase 1: Collect underpants. Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Profit. #FTBullies know what Phase 2 is.

ResearchToBeDone‏@Research2BeDone #FTBullies changed the Higgs Boson presentation font to comic sans

It’s all been worthwhile.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The US government tells us there is no evidence for the existence of mermaids. In other news, the UN issues a press release saying that rain makes things get wet.

There is no evidence that mermaids exist, a US government scientific agency has said.

The National Ocean Service made the unusual declaration in response to public inquiries following a TV show on the mythical creatures.

It is thought some viewers may have mistaken the programme for a documentary.

“No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found,” the service wrote in an online post.

It is thought there might be something amiss with the US education system if people can’t distinguish between a tv show about mythical creatures and a documentary on laydeez with a fish body where their slot is supposed to be.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

So how about those funny people at Barclays, huh?

Lord Turner, the chairman of the Financial Services Authority, described the outrage that has built up over the bank’s actions.

“The cynical greed of traders asking their colleagues to falsify their Libor submissions so that they could make bigger profits – has justifiably shocked and angered people, in particular when we are facing hard economic times provoked by the financial crisis,” he told the Financial Services Authority’s annual meeting.

Oh well, so they moved a decimal point now and then. Bankers will be bankers.

Last week, regulators in the US and UK fined Barclays £290m ($450m) for attempting to rig Libor and Euribor, the interest rates at which banks lend to each other, which underpin trillions of pounds worth of financial transactions.

Staff did this over a number of years, trying to raise them for profit and then, during the financial crisis, lowering them to hide the level to which Barclays was under financial stress.

Oh.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

There’s glory for you.

I’ve never done that before! And doubtless never will again.

I just settled down to a few minutes of joking, and then people joined me, and then it kept going.

#FTBullies

I had to. Because of this one, by Paula Kirby, which is just too funny -

More RTs coming up. If you are sick of the #FTBullies, it is safe to speak up – YOU ARE NOT ALONE. And if you don’t speak up, who will?

Do admit. Every part is funny. Announcing future RTs, as if to a breathless world. You don’t announce future RTs! You do them or you don’t, but you don’t announce future ones, as if they’re like a book launch. It’s Twitter, people! Well ok if you’re actually trying to topple the mullahs in Iran, fine, you can get all self-important, but short of that – it’s Twitter, not a meeting of the underground.

Then “it is safe to speak up” – well no kidding! Did anybody think it wasn’t? Did anybody think we would murder them if they spoke up? And there was Paula calling me hysterical for being worried about those emails. And then YOU ARE NOT ALONE – again, no kidding! This isn’t The Count of Monte Cristo. No, you’re not alone, there are seventy squillion people on Twitter and no doubt there are some who hate this mysterious blob called FTB.

And the last one is the funniest of all. [breathlessly] I don’t know, who??

Speak up about what? About 35 or so blogs, some of which include articles that say things Paula Kirby disagrees with. Take cover! Pack a lunch! Bring plenty of batteries!

There’s even a post here that disagrees with Paula Kirby herself. Yes it does; yes I do; I disagree with her claim that I’m a totalitarian or like the Nazis or the Stasi. Big woop.

So now it’s trending.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Of the latest FTB hangout. Kate writes at at Teen Skepchicks and the Friendly Atheist.

PZ Myers: Freethought [after now, to be FtB, for my hands] bloggers, and what we decided to talk about this time was all the stuff other than atheism that concerns us in this movement. So we thought, well, one of the things that unites all of us here concern for social justice! So what we thought we’d do is we’d just sit here and chatter about all these wonderful essential things we thought were a key part of the atheist/freethought movement that need to be acknowledged. And that means things like equality, social justice, feminism, anti-racism, anti-sexual harassment—all this grab-bag of things we’ve been chattering about on our blogs recently. And…here’s a panel! You guys….say something!

Ophelia Benson: So what we’re doing is laying out exactly what people mean when they call us the hivemind and the borg, right? Well, we’re making it easy for them, we’re giving them the list that they can deal with.

PZ Myers: Right. And also one way to think about it is, here we are, laying out a sort of ‘general mission statement’ for FtB.

[Ashley Miller, Al Stefanelli laugh]

Ian Cromwell: Uhhhhhhhhhh…

PZ Myers: Yeah yeah, we hate mission statements. But face reality here, people, that the FtBlogs group does have an identity, does have certain values in common, that we’re all expressing all the time. We might as well come out and acknowledge this is who we are, this is what we think.

Russell Glasser: Right. I was mentioning earlier that, you know, there are a lot of good blogs that I read that are political, or about games or TV shows, but we actually have a theme at FtB. Actually, it’s kind of similar to something people think a lot on [The Atheist Experience], which is, “Do all atheist think about XYZ the way you do?” And I say “No, you know the Raliens, the guys who believe the bible was written by space aliens instead of God are technically atheists.” But, having said that, the kinds of atheists who congregate and hang out and talk about their atheism tend to have a shared set of values. And usually I say that is centered around science and rationality, but more and more I think we’re finding that this social justice topic is something we all prefer to have in common also. Because it’s like, we’re all atheists, now what do we do, living in the world?

Ashley Miller: I think that being and atheist, and atheism in general, is a social justic issue. We are a minority, and a lot of what we’re trying to do is make this minority acceptable. And that’s a lot of what social justice is about. It’s aboug creating an environment where minority perspectives are known and understood. I think, by definition, by being an atheist activist, you are a social justice activist. And I think a lot of atheists don’t seem to realize that.

Russell Glasser: Yeah. Good point.

Al Stefanelli: That’s very true. Both Russell and Ashley bring up good points in that because we are a minority, and because those of us who are here, and the rest of us who operate in the blogosphere, or on internet radio or internet TV, or whichever, we get to lend our voices to social justice issues. And like it or not—which I’m guessing most of us do—a lot of people listen to the words that we write, to the words that we speak, and read the words that we write. So we kind of have an obligation to put something out there that;s at least midly coheasive.

Ian Cromwell: So I want to—there’s two disagreements I have so far. And one centers around what I think is a misconception about the way FtB came together, which is that we had this Machiavellian plan to unite the tiny minority of people who care about other people.

PZ Myers: Yes, we did!

Ian Cromwell: Well that’s…it’s mustache-curling nonsense. It started with a few people, and then it was like, okay, whose blogs do you like? It was a few more people, and it was, whose blogs do you like, and by the time we hit about thirty, we said “we should put in some rules.” This myth that it’s those who worship at the alter of PZ Myers is nonsense, just absolutely laughable.

PZ Myers: Wait a minute, come on.

[4:55]

Ian Cromwell: We sacrifice goats at your altar, PZ. We don’t worship at it. That’s for the chapel. Anyway, so that’s the one part. The other is that, at least for me, I see social justice issues in a much more…utilitarian term: that we spend a lot of time recognizing there are a lot of atheists out there, who don’t identify as atheists, or for whom their atheism is unimportant, or a non-motivating factor for their actions. There are people who know they are atheists, but don’t spend the time, who are afraid or inhibited somehow, to get involved. I guess what I’m saying is make a note of all these people who aren’t participating, and then say gee, I wonder why they aren’t participating, and say gee, I wonder why they aren’t participating? And a lot of that has to do with social justice issues. If we improve social justice, make atheism more accessible, we will find more people to join us. I don’t necessarily think it’s just this high-minded “oh well, we should be [muffled] people with diversity, blahbity blahbity blah” There’s a reason for it. It’s useful. It’s important. And I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to talk about it.

PZ Myers: Well, yeah. There’s…you are making it sound kind of Machiavellian, I mean, it really isn’t. You’re right that we see utility in trying to make the atheist movement grow by incorporating a more diverse body of people in it. But also, we like those people, right? So it’s like, several years ago, when I was first starting out going to all these atheist conferences, it was very noticeable that you saw very few women there, and I just wondered wny. And I often asked organizers why haven’t you invited more women. Ad it was this stupid argument that was always made: oh, I didn’t think of that, I didn’t realize that. And that’s the kind of attitude I’m really against. We have to be conscious of the wide range of people we want participating here.

Al Stefanelli: Well, that also reflects to the amount of people who are on the other side of their computers, or the other side of the podium that any one of us might be standing—or the video camera. There’s a lot of people who cant, by default, get involved. They can’t even open their mouth. They can’t even tell anyone they’re atheists. They don’t have….if it weren’t for those of us who are out there, doing what we do, there would be really, no venue for people to congregate—for lack of a better word—around, to understand what’s going on in our community. And I know there’s a lot of people who really despise when you put those two words together: secular community or atheist community, but we are a community. Whether we like it or not, how much of an anarchist one might want to be, we’re a group of people who do share some common goals. And we do share some common insights and foresights. And we have that responsibility to put out the things that we do. Particularly what PZ just brought up, the fact that a lot of the female representatives of our movement are under-represented in our conferences. And that reflects to the general freethought, secular, atheist, humanist population feeling that they are not being addressed. And that does need to change. And I think that as a group, FtB has been doing a wonderful job in getting that message out there and letting the women in our movement feel a little bit more represented, and feel like their issues are being brought to the forefront where other important issues are.

PZ Myers: Except for the ones who aren’t. Because we also have a problem that there are conflicts in this, you know, the deep rifts all over the place. Where there actually are atheists who think it’s not so important to promote equality. There are people who have literally come out and said–
[stops to deal with noise interference from Justin Griffith’s microphone]

Russell Glasser: Okay, so now I’ve forgot what I was going to say. Oh yeah! It’s not just a matter of them saying it’s not important. Because I understand that not all issues are of equal weight to all people. But it seems that whenever we blog on any topic that touches on social justice—well, when we blog on anything actually, we get a bunch of people saying “I don’t care about this particular topic, why don’t you change your blog back to something I care about?” But it seems to be especially pronounced lately, when it’s an issue of feminism, or gender equality, or gay rights, or whatever it is that people have not just decided not to care about, but decided to aggressively insist that other people not care about.

[10:26]

Ashley Miller: Well, it’s because people feel like someone is trying to steal their movement. As thought it belongs to them. As though we are invaders, trying to take it over. Which I think is a mistaken way to look at it. Rather than—

Al Stefanelli: It’s not a competition.

Ashley Miller: Exactly. It’s an expansion of interests, not trying to prevent people from talking about what they were already talking about.

PZ Myers: Also, what’s really annoying is all those commenters and bloggers who sit there pounding furiously “I don’t care about this topic! I don’t care about this topic!”

Ashley Miller: I don’t care so much I have to comment 20 times!

[laughter]

Justin Griffith: Actually, I notice that a lot of the trolls are, theyre brutal. And they get a kick out of makings some of us ‘cry’ or whatever. And it’s been sustained for over a year. And if you talk to these people, you find that they say things like “I don’t even attend conferences.”  But they spend a whole year talking about it? What? There’s a big disconnect.

Ashley Miller: I don’t think that’s FtB. I think that’s the internet. Because I haven’t gotten any comments nearly as bad as when I wrote about Ron Paul on my personal blog, like six months ago. You know, I haven’t gotten any rape threats.

Al Stefanelli: You must have wanted a lot of comments—[sarcastic]

Ashley Miller: Yeah, so you know,

Al Stefanelli: The people who want a lot of comments, write something about Ron Paul. It’ll blow up your computer.

PZ Myers: Or zeitgeist. I found that. I wrote about Ron Paul—I actually linked to Ashley—and it just blew up with all these strange people I’d never heard of before, suddenly showing up to tell me I was all wrong about Ron Paul.

Al Stefanelli: Either that or vaccinations. Pick one of those two.

PZ Myers: Oh, yeah. Oh, and also, circumcision.

Ian Cromwell: I just want to make a note that we’ve been joined by Brianne, who hasn’t had an opportunity to introduce herself.

Brianne Bileyu: Hi there.

[everyone says hi, confirmation that Brianne can be heard]

Brianne Bileyu: Sorry I was late. I just got off of the radio. So, a little bit late trying to catch up on the topic, soo.

Ian Cromwell: Well, we’re just giving a once over to why it is that the bloggers at FtB seem to find social justice issues, these issues that aren’t necessarily specifically restricted to atheism and scientific skepticism. Why it is that we seem to find those so important, why it is that we think that they’re relevant to the larger freethought movement.

Ashley Miller: Because they are about scientific skepticism! Let’s start with that. Let’s start with it’s a problem of ignorance of other people’s perspective in life. This is important. It’s not because we care and have big hearts—it’s not just because of that. It’s because it matters from a scientific, rational point of view.

Al Stefanelli: The religious community does not have the market cornered on righteous indignation.

Ian Cromwell: Or delusional thinking or faith based claims. [laughter] No, but seriously. I mean, I spend a lot of time talking about race, because that’s my thing, and you run into these people who have very….first of all, they’ve spent no time thinking about it. So they’re scrambling. Something seems vaguely wrong to them in their worldview, and they spend five minutes thinking about it, and they say, now that I’ve given it a good deal of thought, here’s my informed perspective on things. And they’ll come up with these wacky arguments. Like, ‘you know, just look at Africa. Maybe there is something to the theory that black people aren’t that intelligent.” And you’re like, okay, well, because you don’t know anything, I can see how you would find that. But again, we see the same pattern of reasoning. Take these heuristics, these tiny brain tricks, cram them together on a new topic that’s important, and you end up with the same exact “why are there still monkeys!?” and “what about pygmies and dwarves?”. You get these same kind of, these same pattern of responses. Because it’s the same thought process. When we talk about freethought, when we talk about inquiry, we’ve got tools. You’ve got a toolbox, and we’re using the same tools. And a lot of the same tools used to critique religion apply in exactly the same way to things like sexism, racism, transphobia, &c.

Russell Glasser: And this does come up for atheists a whole lot. Because when you say to somebody “I’m an atheist”, you get one of two kinds of belligerent arguments. They’re like “aha, atheism, that doesn’t make any sense, everybody knows there’s a god, how did the universe make itself?” or you get “you’ve got to believe in God, or you won’t be moral.” I mean those are the two broad categories of things people complain about atheism about. Questions of fact and questions of value. And the questions of value  end up being a lot fuzzier and harder to address for a lot of atheists. Because religion does provide this sort of rigid framework for coming up with right and wrong. It doesn’t generally come up with good answers to that, but it comes up with things people feel they have to follow. And the question about, well, if you’re an atheist, where do you get your morals from, which is both a big philosophical question, and incredibly insulting at the same time. Talking about social justice in a way that’s sort of practical about how this—a decent world to live in for everybody—is a really important question to answer if you’re going to be an atheist and nihilist.

Ophelia Benson: But at the same time, it can be kind of giving a hostage to fortune to rely to heavily on the idea that it’s part of skepticism or part of the scientific method because what if the scientific method finds stuff that seems to be in contradiction to social justice. And the fact is, I think most of us put the commitment to social justice first. And even if we can find facts that pull in the other direction, the commitment is prior. To some extent we sort of have to acknowledge that the social justice thing is a commitment, is a value as opposed to a fact, is an ought as opposed to an is, and argue from there, so we don’t get trapped in trying to defend it as purely a factual position. When it isn’t, really.

[17:10]

Ian Cromwell: Could you give me an example of a time when scientific discovery would conflict with—like, it’s a scientific fact that if we grind up the homeless into chum, we can feed the rest of us with homes? I’m just trying to understand what that would look like.

Ophelia Benson: One handy example of it was done by Plato, in the dialogue The Gorgias [sp?], where you boil the whole thing down to the essence, and the big, strong tough guy stands up and says “What are you talking about Socrates? What do you mean, the virtuous life is actually the best life? I’m strong, I’m big, I can take what I want, and that works for me, and that’s what I’m going to do.” And it’s hard to answer that with facts.

Al Stefanelli: Well that’s—a lot of the disconnect that comes from the foundation of the common goals and points of view that we have, revolve around ‘is it a what or a why?’. I’ve founds that when I’m engaging a religionist, fundamentalists, no matter what question I ask, I’m looking for an answer that’s framed along the What, not the Why. And that’s where I think a lot of the problems come on all of the social issues, is when I ask a question, I always get an answer—or I often get an answer that revolves around ‘this is why I believe this needs to be done’ or ‘this is why this particular group of people should be discriminated against’. I never get an answer that revolves around the What. What is your evidence? And that’s what it all comes down to. I believe what the bible says. My moral base is thus and so. And they fail to provide the What. What is your evidence that says this is true, outside of the bible? And that circular logic is what presents such a problem for us. Because, like Stephanie said, it’s very difficult to argue the factual when youre dealing with someone whose complete and totally worldview and points of view revolve around their belief in deity. And because there’s so many of them, our arguments tend to sometimes get lost in the fray.

Ophelia Benson: But at the same time, if the only question is what is your evidence for that, that’s not a great question to answer if you’re talking about the evidence for equality.

Al Stefanelli: Exactly.

Ophelia Benson: It’s hard to explain what the evidence is that equality is better. You have to come up with reasons. And it is a Why thing, and it is a commitment.

Ian Cromwell: Okay, so Ophelia, what I’m understanding you saying is not that the facts would come into conflict with social justice, but that a stance on social justice may not be able to be informed by rigorous methodological observation…?

[20:08]

Ashley Miller: It’s not primarily informed by that. We have a commitment to humanism and treating people well, instinctively really—

Ian Cromwell: But there’s a difference between—

Ashley Miller:–and we back it up with facts.

Ian Cromwell: Sorry.

Al Stefanelli: But we know that, Ashley. And we’re all very aware of that, and I’m not trying to step on you, Ian, just give me ten seconds.

Ian Cromwell: I’ll step on you, Al.

Al Stefanelli: Well, I’m big and I’ll take what I want, dammit! [Ophelia approves of this reference, others laugh] But it’s just such a fluid and a liquid conversation, because there are aspects of both the What and the Why. The point I was trying to make with what I said just previously is that we have to try as hard as we can to get past their What. Because if we can deconstruct their What—what is the evidence—then we have a solid, a very good foundation to build up on the Whys, the aspects of the issues that we’re talking about, about social justice and civil rights, and whatnot.

Ophelia Benson: I have been able to think of an example of when the evidence might conflict. And that is that there are surveys that show that people who live in societies with low equality are happier than people in liberal societies. And that’s a real stumper for me. And we had to sort of talk about that when we were writing Does God Hate Women? Because it’s not necessarily true that equality makes everybody happier. And then you have to start figuring out, well, is happiness the only value? And can you come up with other values that can compete with that and I think yeah, you can. I think justice competes with happiness in a way because what’s at stake isn’t really happiness, but a sense of fairness. And that’s different from happiness. But it can trump happiness. You know, people will give up a dessert to keep a younger sibling from having a dessert. There are studies that show this. That if, you know, you offer a competitor a bigger thing, the subject will say well, no, I don’t want my competitor to be rewarded more than I am, so I’ll sacrifice myself, just to deny it to [the] competitor.

Al Stefanelli: Who’s happy in those—and this is just a question—in those societies with inequality, who are the individuals who are happy? Are the ones who are getting their way—is the majority happy? Or is…I don’t find it to be a…at least in my experience, a truism that those who are in an unequal society, who are a minority, are happy.

Ian Cromwell: But it’s not a truism, Al. It was a study. This was something that was observed.

Al Stefanelli: Alright.

Ophelia Benson: I don’t find it a truism at all. I find it the opposite of a truism.

Russell Glasser: I’ve got actually another social example that some people seem to find convincing. This guy Charles Murray, who wrote, what is it, The Bell Curve, yeah, you know he seems to come out every couple of years, and it’s just that he’s right again. And The Bell Curve basically said that he proved scientifically, I guess, in a nutshell, that black people are inferior to white people. And there’s two problems with that. One is, everybody thinks his methods are horribly flawed, and two is, even if he’s right, in a deeper sense, so what? What does that mean about the way we should act toward this supposedly inferior race? Should we, for instance,  codify hiring discrimination, saying, well, you know, on average, black people are dumber? Even if he were right, which, I don’t think he is—

Ian Cromwell: He’s not.

Russell Glasser: –it would be a terrible—

[laughter]

Ian Cromwell: Just for the record, he’s not.

Russell Glasser: I know. Even if he’s right—

Ian Cromwell: He’s not.

[laughter]

Al Stefanelli: What are you trying to say, Ian?
[laughter]

Ashley Miller: It wouldn’t change the commitment. Even if that was true. Which it’s not!

Russell Glasser: We should still be concerned about non-discrimination. But, like Ophelia might be saying, white people might be happier in a society where they get free perks for being white

Ophelia Benson: Yeah, I wasn’t actually making the argument that the powerful branch is happy, and that makes it okay, because despite everybody else’s misery. The surveys I’m talking about actually show that broadly, in the population,  you know, correcting for who’s up and who’s down, that broadly speaking, happiness is greater. Aggregate happiness is greater. And yeah, it is easy to deconstruct that by saying, well, separate groups aren’t. But if it were shown that, in fact, everybody was a little bit happier in an unequal society, as opposed to one like ours, I would still want to defend one like ours. Or one like ours, only better. One with equality as opposed to an unequal one. Even if it did mean a little bit less happiness for everyone. And I have to think of ways to justify that. And the way I do it—

Al Stefanelli: Well, I agree with you—

Ophelia Benson: The way I do it is that fairness, in some sense, trumps happiness.

Ian Cromwell: But that’s not an issue of the facts and social justice being in opposite. It just means that we have to have a more informed framework than just aggregate happiness, or…  So again, I think it’s not that the facts contradict it. It’s that we have to understand what we’re going to do with those facts. I mean, I just cant think of an example where it would contradict with reality. If reality is what it is, then we have to decide what we do about that, and if our approaches to solving problems—whatever problems we identify—if our approaches don’t comport with reality, then they won’t work…? So I guess I’m just having a hard time agreeing with the statement that my social values trump, you know, cause I don’t see it being possible for them to be in conflict.

Russell Glasser: What’s involved with calculating aggregate happiness? Because you know, if you have a society where like, one percent of the population is horribly tortured for no good reason, but it happens to wind up making the 99% much happier, is that—I mean I think you could argue that that would increase the average happiness. But it just specifically lowers the happiness of a very small group of people by a lot.

Ophelia Benson: Right. Well, and this is the kind of issue you have to think about when you’re trying to justify these commitments. But they’re not simply factual, and they’re not simply based evidence. They’re based on arguments too. I mean, what Ian was just talking about, that’s arguments. Comparing, for instance, justice and happiness, and trying to figure out how you weight them, that’s interpretation, that’s argument. It’s not just factual, and it’s not just evidence based.

Ian Cromwell: Right, okay, yes.

Al Stefanelli: And a lot of that pushback, that we’re getting, especially lately, around all the social issues that we’re dealing with, you know, gender equality, LGBT, the laundry list of issues that we’re dealing with, we’re getting a lot of pushback because the segment of society that is happy, because we are in the situation that we’re in, they are crying persecution. And what they fail to understand is that it’s not persecution when one group is seeking the same rights that the other group already has by default. They’re feeling threatened. And because they’re feeling threatened, they’re lashing out. And the arguments that they’re using when they lash out are all based on their beliefs, on their religious constructs. On the things that they, ignorantly, hold to be self-evident truths. Which they are not. We all know that. Most of the people that are in our—that are activists in one form or another—understand what the situation is. And we work very hard to combat that. But the pushback we’re getting from the believing community, from the religious community, is difficult enough to deal with. But when we’re getting that same pushback from our own camp, it makes our efforts even that much more difficult. Because now we’re arguing amongst ourselves. Nothing wrong with discourse, nothing wrong with disagreeing with each other. But when it gets to the point where it becomes toxic, it doesn’t help us at all. We’re supposed to be the reasonable ones. We’re the ones who are supposed to be able to rise above particular methods of particular arguments.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Someone (handle: tigtog) left a good comment here and then made a blog post out of it for more visibility, so I’ll make a blog post out of it too for more visibility again.

On not buying into the LULZer playbook at FtB (or anywhere) #WeLoveFTB

(This will be teaching many of you to suck eggs, I know – this is mainly for lurkers and newbies, especially newbie lurkers. Apologies in advance for the tl;dr)

The idea that each pocket of cyberspace should be a clean slate for somebody with no reference to what they are known to do elsewhere is a page dusted off from the old USENet alt.syntax.tactical playbook, as is the uber-purist semantic-hacktivist stance that objecting to having one’s argument misrepresented by poo-flinging howler monkeys *really* means that one knows one’s position will not withstand a “rigorous logical challenge”. These faux-purists in fact know very well that it’s not only possible but appallingly easy to rhetorically sandbag *any* line of argument no matter how rigorously supported it may actually be.

This is achieved largely by exploiting the phenomenon summed up as “a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” e.g. their new spin on the meaning of “slimepit”, the year-long lie that “RW cried Rape on EG” etc etc etc. They combine these lies with their other favourite tactic (from the old alt.tasteless playbook) that *nothing should be exempt from being “joked” about*, aiming to provoke an emotional response that buys into their lie instead of scorning it as it deserves. Once someone takes their bait they deploy a hyper-skeptical pose of Just Asking Questions and Just Wanting Evidence to a double-standard far beyond that which they apply to Bigfoot or UFOs.

Repeating the lies and slurs derails any progress in the discussion by diverting the targets’ resources and time to yet again countering the lie/challenging the slur instead of moving the conversation forward, and *that’s exactly what it’s designed to do* (allegedly just for the LULZ of watching yet another thread erupt into a flamewar, which is actually just re-framing getting one’s jollies from bullying and vandalism – disruption for the sake of disruption).

One of the reasons they hate Pharyngula so much is that there are a lot of ‘net veterans there amongst the regulars (largely because PZ is also an old ‘net vet), and the vets see very clearly what is happening when the lies start being told and spoil the LULZ-fun by flatly identifying a comment as a lie without getting sucked into a derailing defence. Denied their jollies there, the LULZers have decided to target the rest of FtB because many of the other blog-owners and their commentariats have not yet become sufficiently acquainted with the LULZ playbook to cut the thread-derails off at the knees i.e. the LULZers are *relying* on their behaviour elsewhere not being known on the target blog, and thus being given more leeway than they deserve.

Ophelia’s Rules spoil the LULZ-fun, thus they’ve added her to their special extra-shitpiling list. Accusing her of “intellectual dishonesty” for refusing to let them fling shit all over her cybersalon is just the cherry on the top of the LULZers’ cake of pointless bile.

Anyone who comes onto an FtB blog and starts repeating the LULZer lies and slurs as part of their oh-so-noble groupthink challenge has already identified themselves as intellectually dishonest. Checking to see whether they’ve misbehaved using the same nym elsewhere before banhammering is actually extending them a benefit of the doubt that is IMO excessively generous.

tigtog

There’s more on the post, so check it out.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Good about Anderson Cooper, huh?

I’ve also been reminded recently that while as a society we are moving toward greater inclusion and equality for all people, the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible.  There continue to be far too many incidences of bullying of young people, as well as discrimination and violence against people of all ages, based on their sexual orientation, and I believe there is value in making clear where I stand.

Yep, and the same applies to atheists. Boy do young atheists get bullied in this country. Any hidden Name atheists out there? Speak up!

Anderson himself (he doesn’t mind if I call him Anderson, does he? I’ve considered him a close personal friend ever since he interviewed my friend Josh, so he can’t mind) ends with some ooky god-talk, which is unfortunate, but still – good about what Anderson said to Andrew.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Ok so what about Paula’s Google doc?

Sigh. Do I really care?

Oh well. Maybe a point or two.

First, since I gather this has touched a nerve in some quarters, I shall deal with the terms “feminazi” and “femistasi”. As a general principle, I oppose the use of any kind of name-calling.

Well don’t we all, provided we get to resort to it when we really want to.

For the record, I am categorically NOT suggesting that the people I have applied these terms to are, in fact, Nazis or Stasi members, or would ever have sympathized with either of them. There are many of us who are proud to be called Grammarnazis and who know perfectly well that no aspersions are being cast on our intentions towards either Jews or Poland. It might be considered distasteful that the suffix -nazi has come to be used simply to mean “extremist” or “obsessive”, but nevertheless, it has come to be so used, and The Sisterhood of the Oppressed cannot legitimately chalk it up as yet another example of their alleged victimization.

She says, carefully avoiding name-calling as a general principle. But notice that the suffix -stasi has not come to be used simply to mean “extremist” or “obsessive.” Notice that an epithet one can be proud to be called, like Grammarnazi, is not the same thing as an epithet applied out of hostility, like Femistasi. Remember that Paula included the fact that she had spent two years in East Germany to back up her claim that FTB shows “strains of totalitarian thought.” In short, what she said was not similar to saying someone is a grammarnazi. It was an accusation that a few feminists and Freethought blogs are like Nazis and the Stasi.

In the case of the -stasi suffix, it draws attentions to behaviours associated with the thought police, for whom anyone who dares to hold non-approved attitudes is automatically persona non grata and to be treated as an enemy of the people. I am referring, of course, to the unfailing response on certain blogs whenever someone has had the temerity to challenge the claims that have been made there.

Yes, but that’s just it. The comparison is over the top. (That’s an example of understatement, pupils. Make a note of it.) The thought police don’t stop with comments on blogs. The Stasi – as Paula knows far better than I do – didn’t stop with comments on blogs. (Blogs didn’t even exist then! Can you imagine it?)

Sure, comments on blogs can be annoying, or even worse than annoying. When they get very personal and very malicious and go on for months or even a year, they can be a lot worse than annoying. But they’re still not the Stasi! They’re still different from the Stasi in many salient ways. I get a lot more shit in blog comments than Paula does (and who knows, maybe I deserve every bit of it, for being so evil), but I still notice the advantages I get from not being a victim of the Stasi. They are many and various, and I enjoy them a lot. I think Paula should be more alert to this difference – alert enough not to try to defend the idea that comments on blogs are in any way like the Stasi.

Now Paula gets personal.

Good heavens, we have even seen Ophelia Benson describe DJ Grothe’s call for more balance in the discussions as “sticking a metaphorical target” on her!

No, we have not seen that. Bad work, Paula. Be fair. This is what I said:

A few people think I’ve been unfair to DJ Grothe. I don’t. I think it’s the other way around.

I’ll explain why, as succinctly as I explained it to DJ (and Carrie) the day after threat-day.

I think he stuck a metaphorical target on me. He didn’t do anything to take it off. He didn’t do anything to assure me that he still welcomed me to TAM. He triggered a shit-storm, and then let it get worse and worse and worse.

That’s it.

He stuck a metaphorical target on me (in my view) when he blamed the fall in women’s attendance at TAM on

irresponsible messaging coming from a small number of prominent and well-meaning women skeptics who, in trying to help correct real problems of sexism in skepticism, actually and rather clumsily themselves help create a climate where women — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe.

You see where she went wrong? I quoted exactly the part I meant when I said DJ stuck a metaphorical target on me, and in that passage he doesn’t “call for more balance in the discussions”; he blames a small number of women skeptics who probably include me. There’s not a word about balance in that passage.

Really, Paula. Is that “skepticism”? Not in my book.

That’s the first item. (Yes that was all one item. Don’t be such an itemnazi.) Second item later.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)