I started this blog and took on the handle "Schrödinger's Therapist" in response to the rise of Atheism Plus, and in particular its pushing of the ugly and bigoted "Schrödinger's Rapist" meme.
I was disgusted by the fanaticism and hypocrisy of the A+ leaders - in particular their reckless witch-hunting and immature "gotcha" games against allies and leaders who have contributed far more to freethought and skepticism than they could ever dream of. Also their anti-intellectualism and toxic cult of personality, in particular, worshiping a talentless self-serving hack who dismisses whole scientific fields out of hand despite having no scientific credentials whatsoever (and precious few discernible educational attainments of any kind) and not even understanding basic statistics.
I could also mention a prominent plusser who makes threats of violence, and tries to destroy the careers of critics. And in general I'm dismayed that so many prominent atheist bloggers are spreading hysteria and divisiveness, whipping up a false narrative, and manufacturing controversy for the sake of blog hits and to monpolize the conference speaker circuit - at a time when theocrats are redoubling their efforts to shove their religion down our throats using our tax dollars, and roll back the rights of women, gay people and non-believers.
And yet, disturbing and disappointing as all of this has been, at the same time there's something morbidly fascinating about it. It's like watching a slow motion train wreck. At least that's how I've felt, though I suspect I'm not the only one.
But you can only listen to a broken record for so long. (Does anyone remember vinyl records? I'm really dating myself with that analogy - but then, no-one else would date me.) As time goes on, A+ gets increasingly irrelevant. Look at their solid record of achievement in the field of social justice - forcing Justin Vacula to resign from SCA, forcing Ron Lindsay to apologize for his welcoming remarks at WISCFI (though he stays on as CEO of CFI) - and... um... that's about it. And notice how they boycotted TAM, and everyone I know who went there remarked on how enjoyable and drama-free it was. Their fifteen minutes are well and truly over, and the final butt-hurt implosion of Myers, Benson, Watson and company can't be far away.
That is why from now on I am changing the focus of this blog. I don't guarantee that I'll never write about A+ again, but I want to write about topics that are of long-term interest to me, and hopefully other people.
I'm not a philosopher, but I happen to think philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers! I want to steer clear of obfuscated technical discussions and instead focus on the big questions like: where does morality come from? Does it exist objectively? How do theories of morality apply to specific issues, e.g. the use of drones by the US? Does the existence or non-existence of a god make a difference to the previous questions? Is "god" even a coherent concept? What basis do we have for knowing what we know, or think we know?
I've changed this blog's masthead to reflect my ongoing focus, and I plan to write posts related to the above topics in the coming weeks. I hope you (if anyone is reading) enjoy them!
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Feminism R.I.P.
[UPDATE: since writing the post below, I've encountered a number of women on Twitter who are proud, outspoken feminists but who reject the misandrist, all-women-are-helpless-victims feminism I wrote about in this post. I would mention in particular @KelsTheSecular and @AtheistMel among others. This is very encouraging.]
First of all, be sure to read Katie's take on feminism, which is long but well worth reading.
Up to a few years ago, if you asked me if I was a feminist, I would have answered without hesitation: "Of course. Isn't every decent person?" At that stage I bought into the idea that feminism was simply about equality for women, and nothing more. I would have been startled to learn that no man can ever be a feminist, and he should just shut up and listen to women instead of mansplaining. I had yet to be exposed to "Schrödinger's Rapist", Patriarchy theory, male privilege theory and what not.
For me, the red pill moment was when Elevatorgate hit the fan. Wading through the comments in PZ Myers' infamous "Always name names!" post on Pharyngula, I was simply stunned by the sheer mouth-foaming hatred against men - all men. And things went rapidly downhill from there.
Now, I'm aware that there are different schools of feminism. But by far the loudest (if not the largest) is a virulent, doctrinaire, dogmatic strain that has been festering away in the ivory towers of womyn's studies departments for years, nourished by Dworkinesque misandry and dedicated to the radical notion that all men are rapists and that maleness itself is "toxic".
Some extreme radical feminists even call for the elimination of all men, or at least for their numbers to be drastically reduced and the survivors to be made "manageable" somehow. I know such feminists are outliers, but the fact that they get away with openly calling for "gendercide" against men is extremely troubling. Obviously if the genders were reversed, they would be condemned as dangerous lunatics and dealt with.
I'm also seeing more and more women who are alienated by the ideology that all women are eternal helpless victims who are lacking in agency and should be relieved of all responsibility for their actions - "slut walks" being an obvious example. In a nutshell, radical feminism criminalizes men, infantilizes women, and harms and insults both.
When this is the public face of feminism today, it's no wonder that 70% of women decline to label themselves feminists. We can't use the "No True Feminist" gambit - there is no "true" feminism, just (as in any other social movement) different memes that evolve, interact, and grow and shrink in popularity. Right now I would have to say that feminism's brand has been irreparably damaged by the excesses of the radfems.
If you're male and you are sympathetic to equality for women, but you get screamed at that you're a rapist and a privileged oppressor simply because of your genitalia, it's hard to maintain your level of sympathy. And if you're female but you don't march in 100% lockstep with the party line, then of course you're a gender traitor. I regularly see women being dogpiled on by the radfems because they want to be homemakers or sex workers, or they enjoy PIV sex or straight sex in general, or they make some other personal choice that isn't ideologically approved. When did feminism become all about controlling and restricting other women's choices?
I remain firmly committed to equal rights, respect and responsibilities for women, and for all human beings, but I can no longer call myself a feminist. If feminism is just about gender equality, why does it have a gender-specific name? I understand the historical reasons for this, but I'm increasingly uneasy with the us-vs.-them, single issue, zero-sum implications of the name. This is why I'd rather call myself a humanist or an egalitarian than a feminist.
Also, I am even more adamant about treating people as individuals, and I reject the repellant collectivism and reductionism of the atheism-plus-style feminists who treat people as nothing more than categories - male, female, straight, gay, cis, whatever. The idea that a homeless man sleeping in the gutter is more privileged than the queen of England is simply laughable. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of cases of "male privilege" are actually wealth privilege that hurts men as often as women.
Feminism has had its day. It did great things in its time and had some very impressive and courageous women among its ranks. But now it is being rendered toxic by the extremism of the radfems who refuse to acknowledge that any progress has been made at all, even as they make things more and more unfair for men in certain areas (child custody disputes, rape accusations at some colleges, and so on).
Rest in peace, feminism. Now let's see men and women of goodwill working together to protect everyone's rights. Forward to the future: Humanism!
First of all, be sure to read Katie's take on feminism, which is long but well worth reading.
Up to a few years ago, if you asked me if I was a feminist, I would have answered without hesitation: "Of course. Isn't every decent person?" At that stage I bought into the idea that feminism was simply about equality for women, and nothing more. I would have been startled to learn that no man can ever be a feminist, and he should just shut up and listen to women instead of mansplaining. I had yet to be exposed to "Schrödinger's Rapist", Patriarchy theory, male privilege theory and what not.
For me, the red pill moment was when Elevatorgate hit the fan. Wading through the comments in PZ Myers' infamous "Always name names!" post on Pharyngula, I was simply stunned by the sheer mouth-foaming hatred against men - all men. And things went rapidly downhill from there.
Now, I'm aware that there are different schools of feminism. But by far the loudest (if not the largest) is a virulent, doctrinaire, dogmatic strain that has been festering away in the ivory towers of womyn's studies departments for years, nourished by Dworkinesque misandry and dedicated to the radical notion that all men are rapists and that maleness itself is "toxic".
Some extreme radical feminists even call for the elimination of all men, or at least for their numbers to be drastically reduced and the survivors to be made "manageable" somehow. I know such feminists are outliers, but the fact that they get away with openly calling for "gendercide" against men is extremely troubling. Obviously if the genders were reversed, they would be condemned as dangerous lunatics and dealt with.
I'm also seeing more and more women who are alienated by the ideology that all women are eternal helpless victims who are lacking in agency and should be relieved of all responsibility for their actions - "slut walks" being an obvious example. In a nutshell, radical feminism criminalizes men, infantilizes women, and harms and insults both.
When this is the public face of feminism today, it's no wonder that 70% of women decline to label themselves feminists. We can't use the "No True Feminist" gambit - there is no "true" feminism, just (as in any other social movement) different memes that evolve, interact, and grow and shrink in popularity. Right now I would have to say that feminism's brand has been irreparably damaged by the excesses of the radfems.
If you're male and you are sympathetic to equality for women, but you get screamed at that you're a rapist and a privileged oppressor simply because of your genitalia, it's hard to maintain your level of sympathy. And if you're female but you don't march in 100% lockstep with the party line, then of course you're a gender traitor. I regularly see women being dogpiled on by the radfems because they want to be homemakers or sex workers, or they enjoy PIV sex or straight sex in general, or they make some other personal choice that isn't ideologically approved. When did feminism become all about controlling and restricting other women's choices?
I remain firmly committed to equal rights, respect and responsibilities for women, and for all human beings, but I can no longer call myself a feminist. If feminism is just about gender equality, why does it have a gender-specific name? I understand the historical reasons for this, but I'm increasingly uneasy with the us-vs.-them, single issue, zero-sum implications of the name. This is why I'd rather call myself a humanist or an egalitarian than a feminist.
Also, I am even more adamant about treating people as individuals, and I reject the repellant collectivism and reductionism of the atheism-plus-style feminists who treat people as nothing more than categories - male, female, straight, gay, cis, whatever. The idea that a homeless man sleeping in the gutter is more privileged than the queen of England is simply laughable. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of cases of "male privilege" are actually wealth privilege that hurts men as often as women.
Feminism has had its day. It did great things in its time and had some very impressive and courageous women among its ranks. But now it is being rendered toxic by the extremism of the radfems who refuse to acknowledge that any progress has been made at all, even as they make things more and more unfair for men in certain areas (child custody disputes, rape accusations at some colleges, and so on).
Rest in peace, feminism. Now let's see men and women of goodwill working together to protect everyone's rights. Forward to the future: Humanism!
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
The Stink at Skeptic Ink
[UPDATE: Justin Vacula has posted that he was blindsided by the public announcement of his departure from Skeptic Ink Network (SIN). This is very troubling. I still say that Loftus as co-owner of SIN gets to decide who does or doesn't blog on his network, but his handling of the affair - and his unseemly gallop towards the atheism-plus side since then - definitely make me re-evaluate my opinion of him.]
The news that Justin Vacula is leaving Skeptic Ink Network has set off a Category F-5 shitstorm. Some of the most prominent Slymepitters are throwing around conspiracy theories and demanding the release of confidential communications on Skeptic Ink's "back channel", and of course that little twat @ool0n is gloating. It's all very predictable in a sad and yet amusing way.
I'm going to be the contrarian here. Yes, the situation could have been handled better. Instead of giving the impression that Justin was fired while somewhere over the Atlantic returning from the Empowering Women Through Secularism conference in Dublin, John Loftus and Ed Clint (it seems to me) should have given him the chance to put up a farewell post confirming that the split is amicable.
However, at the end of the day, the blog network belongs to Loftus and Clint, and they have the right to set the tone for it, invite who they like to join, and then invite them to leave if the individual's blog is not in keeping with the overall tone they want to set. Let me add though that I have the greatest respect for Justin's activism for church-state separation, and I will continue to follow him on his own site and on Twitter.
This is not another Thunderf00t situation as some are implying. PZ Myers, as the owner of "Freethought Blogs", had the right to terminate his association with Thunderf00t. Nobody has an absolute right to be on someone else's blog network. What was noteworthy about the Thunderf00t situation though was that Myers promised Thunderf00t complete freedom to write about anything he liked, and then quickly went back on that promise while also exposing the hollow lie that FTB is not a hive mind and is open to more than one point of view.
By contrast, Loftus has made it clear all along that he doesn't want to brand SIN as the anti-FTB. He sees Atheism-plus as a passing fad that is already in its death-throes, and he wants to look beyond the end of A+ and deal with wider issues. Indeed, I've always seen SIN as a sanctuary from the endless drama that is roiling the rest of the atheosphere, with more substantial, ideas-driven posts from the likes of Jonathan Pearce, Notung and many others including of course Loftus himself.
Anyway, I will continue to read SIN while those who think Vacula was the only reason to read it can follow him wherever else he goes. Hopefully the dust will settle soon, and while it's a pity to see the online atheist community fracturing further, I'm getting tired of the way the drama has to be injected into everything. Follow who you want to follow, and let others do the same!
The news that Justin Vacula is leaving Skeptic Ink Network has set off a Category F-5 shitstorm. Some of the most prominent Slymepitters are throwing around conspiracy theories and demanding the release of confidential communications on Skeptic Ink's "back channel", and of course that little twat @ool0n is gloating. It's all very predictable in a sad and yet amusing way.
I'm going to be the contrarian here. Yes, the situation could have been handled better. Instead of giving the impression that Justin was fired while somewhere over the Atlantic returning from the Empowering Women Through Secularism conference in Dublin, John Loftus and Ed Clint (it seems to me) should have given him the chance to put up a farewell post confirming that the split is amicable.
However, at the end of the day, the blog network belongs to Loftus and Clint, and they have the right to set the tone for it, invite who they like to join, and then invite them to leave if the individual's blog is not in keeping with the overall tone they want to set. Let me add though that I have the greatest respect for Justin's activism for church-state separation, and I will continue to follow him on his own site and on Twitter.
This is not another Thunderf00t situation as some are implying. PZ Myers, as the owner of "Freethought Blogs", had the right to terminate his association with Thunderf00t. Nobody has an absolute right to be on someone else's blog network. What was noteworthy about the Thunderf00t situation though was that Myers promised Thunderf00t complete freedom to write about anything he liked, and then quickly went back on that promise while also exposing the hollow lie that FTB is not a hive mind and is open to more than one point of view.
By contrast, Loftus has made it clear all along that he doesn't want to brand SIN as the anti-FTB. He sees Atheism-plus as a passing fad that is already in its death-throes, and he wants to look beyond the end of A+ and deal with wider issues. Indeed, I've always seen SIN as a sanctuary from the endless drama that is roiling the rest of the atheosphere, with more substantial, ideas-driven posts from the likes of Jonathan Pearce, Notung and many others including of course Loftus himself.
Anyway, I will continue to read SIN while those who think Vacula was the only reason to read it can follow him wherever else he goes. Hopefully the dust will settle soon, and while it's a pity to see the online atheist community fracturing further, I'm getting tired of the way the drama has to be injected into everything. Follow who you want to follow, and let others do the same!
Monday, July 1, 2013
It's okay when Skepchix do it...
One thing that really pisses me off about the plussers is their double standards. Even when you explicitly call them out on their hypocrisy, they are incapable of seeing it, cocooned as they are in smug self-righteousness.
Case in point: Rebecca Watson's fondness for dismissing her critics as "rich old white guys". Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Ron Lindsay, and others - any one of whom has done infinitely more for skepticism and freethought than Watson and all the plussers and FTBullies put together could ever dream of doing - all have been dismissed in this shallow and ignorant way. And somehow the true believers see nothing wrong with it.
Case in point, from the comments section of Greta Christina's blog:
It's my policy not to link directly to FTB - you can find more details on the exchange here.
I will pass over the conflation of "rich" with "white male" and point out the obvious. When Rebecca Watson says "Thanks, rich old white guy!" and the like, in her usual juvenile snarky manner, she is using "white male" in a pejorative way. I'm sure she would be the first to scream misogyny if the genders were reversed and someone used "female" in a similar context. In fact, remember when Sean Faircloth was Witch of the Week simply for using "female" in a neutral way?
Look, suppose I said, "It's okay to use the N-word against O.J. Simpson because I'm criticizing him for murdering two people, not for being black." Would anyone accept that argument? Nope.
When Watson dismisses Richard Dawkins (e.g.) out of hand because of his gender and skin color, that is prejudice, plain and simple! Oh, and don't bother lecturing me ad nauseum about power and privilege and oppression and marginalized victims and what not. If you have to spout reams of ideological gobbledygook to explain why something is right when common sense says that it's wrong... well, guess what, it's still wrong.
I'm aware that some slymepitters use pejorative terms against atheism-plus women, and I condemn this. I don't use terms like "manginas" or "baboons" because it's dehumanizing. We should be criticizing atheism-plus for its harmful ideology and its divisive and damaging actions, not making ad hominem attacks.
But the plussers are the ones who are supposed to be holding the moral high ground, the caring-and-sharing inclusive types who have evolved so far beyond petty tribalism and bigotry! And yet, that's exactly what all their rhetoric boils down to.
Case in point: Rebecca Watson's fondness for dismissing her critics as "rich old white guys". Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Ron Lindsay, and others - any one of whom has done infinitely more for skepticism and freethought than Watson and all the plussers and FTBullies put together could ever dream of doing - all have been dismissed in this shallow and ignorant way. And somehow the true believers see nothing wrong with it.
Case in point, from the comments section of Greta Christina's blog:
It's my policy not to link directly to FTB - you can find more details on the exchange here.
I will pass over the conflation of "rich" with "white male" and point out the obvious. When Rebecca Watson says "Thanks, rich old white guy!" and the like, in her usual juvenile snarky manner, she is using "white male" in a pejorative way. I'm sure she would be the first to scream misogyny if the genders were reversed and someone used "female" in a similar context. In fact, remember when Sean Faircloth was Witch of the Week simply for using "female" in a neutral way?
Look, suppose I said, "It's okay to use the N-word against O.J. Simpson because I'm criticizing him for murdering two people, not for being black." Would anyone accept that argument? Nope.
When Watson dismisses Richard Dawkins (e.g.) out of hand because of his gender and skin color, that is prejudice, plain and simple! Oh, and don't bother lecturing me ad nauseum about power and privilege and oppression and marginalized victims and what not. If you have to spout reams of ideological gobbledygook to explain why something is right when common sense says that it's wrong... well, guess what, it's still wrong.
I'm aware that some slymepitters use pejorative terms against atheism-plus women, and I condemn this. I don't use terms like "manginas" or "baboons" because it's dehumanizing. We should be criticizing atheism-plus for its harmful ideology and its divisive and damaging actions, not making ad hominem attacks.
But the plussers are the ones who are supposed to be holding the moral high ground, the caring-and-sharing inclusive types who have evolved so far beyond petty tribalism and bigotry! And yet, that's exactly what all their rhetoric boils down to.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Anti-utilitarianism
This may seem off-topic for this blog, but maybe I'm just tired of responding to each new manufactroversy du jour and want to branch out a bit. Disclaimer: I'm not a professional philosopher, and it's very likely that I'm reinventing the wheel here, and there is a better name for the concept I want to discuss. But let's plunge in regardless!
Given that God doesn't exist, where does morality come from? Actually, I would argue that even if we knew for a fact that God existed, that would not automatically make him the one and only possible source of morality - but that's another story.
Anyway, philosophers have explored many possible answers to the above question. One well-known approach is utilitarianism: "The greatest good of the greatest number." Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, called it "the felicic calculus."
Utilitarianism is superficially appealing, but we soon see problems with it. First of all, how can we quantify good and harm in order to balance them against each other? Won't the trade-off be different for each individual, and even for the same person at different times?
And even supposing we could agree on a universal scale - a human life is worth a million dollars, say - we still have problems.
Scenario 1: We kill an innocent person, resulting in someone else getting $1,000,001.
Scenario 2: We kill an innocent person, resulting in a million and one people each getting $1.
The first scenario would probably strike most people as problematic, and the second one even more so. And yet both are equally okay according to strict utilitarianism, because they result in the same net increase in benefit to those affected.
I think these examples show that striving for the greatest good of the greatest number has to be balanced with treating each individual with respect and dignity. Scenarios like the ones described above would lead to devaluing human life. Perhaps you could in theory factor this back into a utilitarian calculation by arguing that such scenarios would ultimately reduce the benefits accruing to everyone, by cheapening each individual life. I want to argue in a different direction, however.
I propose the principle of anti-utilitarianism: "The least harm for the greatest number." You should avoid doing harm to anyone, and as far as practical, help them avoid harm. You should only cause harm if it is the only way to prevent a greater harm.
But isn't the least harm the same as the greatest good? Not necessarily. As I mentioned above, what causes happiness depends on the individual. For one person, it might mean having a lot of money; for another, a lot of sex, and so on. And the person who gets his or her wish for a lot of sex might find it repetitive after a while, and move on to other sources of pleasure.
On the other hand, the things that cause harm - hunger, physical pain, lack of shelter, disease - are pretty universal. And when you think about it, what we consider morally praiseworthy acts usually focus on mitigating harm rather than increasing the happiness of someone who is already doing okay. We have charities helping the homeless, the disabled and so on, rather than sending Joe Blow on a vacation to Tahiti.
Of course it's unlikely that any principle can give us an unambiguous answer on how to behave in every situation. How far must we go in saving others from harm, as opposed to simply refraining from causing harm? Many of us have encountered someone who seems determined to ruin his or her life by acting in destructive ways. There's only so much you can do to help such a person without taking away that person's autonomy.
However, the impulse to do good must be viewed with suspicion in the light of history. Think of the Puritans trying to create a utopia, and ending up executing women as witches. Try to mitigate harm instead - there is a better chance you'll actually do something useful, since your idea of what should make other people happy won't always correspond to their ideas!
"Anti-utilitarianism: the least harm for the greatest number" - what do you think?
Given that God doesn't exist, where does morality come from? Actually, I would argue that even if we knew for a fact that God existed, that would not automatically make him the one and only possible source of morality - but that's another story.
Anyway, philosophers have explored many possible answers to the above question. One well-known approach is utilitarianism: "The greatest good of the greatest number." Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, called it "the felicic calculus."
Utilitarianism is superficially appealing, but we soon see problems with it. First of all, how can we quantify good and harm in order to balance them against each other? Won't the trade-off be different for each individual, and even for the same person at different times?
And even supposing we could agree on a universal scale - a human life is worth a million dollars, say - we still have problems.
Scenario 1: We kill an innocent person, resulting in someone else getting $1,000,001.
Scenario 2: We kill an innocent person, resulting in a million and one people each getting $1.
The first scenario would probably strike most people as problematic, and the second one even more so. And yet both are equally okay according to strict utilitarianism, because they result in the same net increase in benefit to those affected.
I think these examples show that striving for the greatest good of the greatest number has to be balanced with treating each individual with respect and dignity. Scenarios like the ones described above would lead to devaluing human life. Perhaps you could in theory factor this back into a utilitarian calculation by arguing that such scenarios would ultimately reduce the benefits accruing to everyone, by cheapening each individual life. I want to argue in a different direction, however.
I propose the principle of anti-utilitarianism: "The least harm for the greatest number." You should avoid doing harm to anyone, and as far as practical, help them avoid harm. You should only cause harm if it is the only way to prevent a greater harm.
But isn't the least harm the same as the greatest good? Not necessarily. As I mentioned above, what causes happiness depends on the individual. For one person, it might mean having a lot of money; for another, a lot of sex, and so on. And the person who gets his or her wish for a lot of sex might find it repetitive after a while, and move on to other sources of pleasure.
On the other hand, the things that cause harm - hunger, physical pain, lack of shelter, disease - are pretty universal. And when you think about it, what we consider morally praiseworthy acts usually focus on mitigating harm rather than increasing the happiness of someone who is already doing okay. We have charities helping the homeless, the disabled and so on, rather than sending Joe Blow on a vacation to Tahiti.
Of course it's unlikely that any principle can give us an unambiguous answer on how to behave in every situation. How far must we go in saving others from harm, as opposed to simply refraining from causing harm? Many of us have encountered someone who seems determined to ruin his or her life by acting in destructive ways. There's only so much you can do to help such a person without taking away that person's autonomy.
However, the impulse to do good must be viewed with suspicion in the light of history. Think of the Puritans trying to create a utopia, and ending up executing women as witches. Try to mitigate harm instead - there is a better chance you'll actually do something useful, since your idea of what should make other people happy won't always correspond to their ideas!
"Anti-utilitarianism: the least harm for the greatest number" - what do you think?
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Open Letter to CFI in Support of Ron Lindsay
To: info@centerforinquiry.net, tflynn@centerforinquiry.net
Cc: rlindsay@centerforinquiry.net
Subject: Open Letter to CFI in Support of Ron Lindsay
To the CFI Board of Directors:
As you are no doubt aware, a certain faction of online atheists is conducting a campaign to pressure CFI into firing Ron Lindsay as its CEO. The ostensible pretext for this campaign is the opening remarks Dr. Lindsay made at the recent conference on Women in Secularism.
I was not present at this conference, but Dr. Lindsay has posted a transcript of his speech, and no-one to my knowledge has disputed the accuracy of the transcript, so I feel safe in commenting based on this transcript.
Originally, the criticism of this speech by several leading voices of the anti-Lindsay faction, most notably Rebecca Watson, was that it was made by an "old white guy." Needless to say, since the conference was sponsored by CFI and Dr. Lindsay is its CEO, it was perfectly appropriate for him to deliver the opening remarks. Furthermore, his speech was very supportive of women and cognizant of the second-class status to which religion has often relegated them. There was nothing in the speech that I find the least bit controversial or objectionable.
Later criticism centered on a particular portion of the speech in which Dr. Lindsay criticized the mantra "shut up and listen" which is currently very much in vogue with the faction which seeks to depose him. This shibboleth which Watson, PZ Myers and others are so fond of invoking is the slogan of an extremist ideology which holds that all "old white guys" are ipso facto oppressors, while all women, minorities etc. are persecuted victims, are the only ones whose opinions have any validity, and indeed are the only ones who should be heard under any circumstances.
I need hardly point out that such a crude, reductionist and bigoted worldview is at odds with everything CFI stands for, as is the anti-Lindsay faction's contempt for free speech (as shown by their other favorite mantra, "freeze peach.")
The amount of rage and hatred expressed against Dr. Lindsay for his reasonable and unexceptionable speech is baffling unless seen in context. The faction behind this campaign is actively engaged in trying to hijack atheism and redefine it so that rigid adherence to their ideology of radical feminism is mandatory if one wants to be seen as a "true atheist". To this end, they have spent the last two years willfully dividing the movement and alienating those who have contributed the most to it.
Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Harriet Hall and many others have been the targets of hate campaigns similar to the one currently being mounted against Ron Lindsay. All of their many accomplishments and contributions are dismissed out of hand while some offhand remark or some insignificant incident is eagerly seized on, distorted beyond recognition, and used as the pretext for what can only be described as a witch hunt.
Many have speculated that the motivation for the near-constant attempts at ideological purges within the freethought/skeptic community is to manufacture controversy in order to increase revenue at the blogs of the leaders of this faction, as well as to monopolize the conference speaker circuit. But whatever the reasons, you must agree that rigid doctrinaire dogma, suppression of diversity of opinion, hive-minded bullying and intimidation, and dehumanizing people by treating them merely as categories - male, female, gay, straight or whatever - is fundamentally at odds with the values for which CFI stands.
It would set a very dangerous precedent to give in to the demands of these dishonest bullies. They will not be appeased - they will only move on to their next victim. I hope I can rely on CFI to support Dr. Lindsay and continue to uphold free speech, free inquiry and respectful treatment of all people as individuals.
This open letter has been published on my blog, Schrödinger's Therapist
Sincerely,
[Schrödinger's Therapist]
Cc: rlindsay@centerforinquiry.net
Subject: Open Letter to CFI in Support of Ron Lindsay
To the CFI Board of Directors:
As you are no doubt aware, a certain faction of online atheists is conducting a campaign to pressure CFI into firing Ron Lindsay as its CEO. The ostensible pretext for this campaign is the opening remarks Dr. Lindsay made at the recent conference on Women in Secularism.
I was not present at this conference, but Dr. Lindsay has posted a transcript of his speech, and no-one to my knowledge has disputed the accuracy of the transcript, so I feel safe in commenting based on this transcript.
Originally, the criticism of this speech by several leading voices of the anti-Lindsay faction, most notably Rebecca Watson, was that it was made by an "old white guy." Needless to say, since the conference was sponsored by CFI and Dr. Lindsay is its CEO, it was perfectly appropriate for him to deliver the opening remarks. Furthermore, his speech was very supportive of women and cognizant of the second-class status to which religion has often relegated them. There was nothing in the speech that I find the least bit controversial or objectionable.
Later criticism centered on a particular portion of the speech in which Dr. Lindsay criticized the mantra "shut up and listen" which is currently very much in vogue with the faction which seeks to depose him. This shibboleth which Watson, PZ Myers and others are so fond of invoking is the slogan of an extremist ideology which holds that all "old white guys" are ipso facto oppressors, while all women, minorities etc. are persecuted victims, are the only ones whose opinions have any validity, and indeed are the only ones who should be heard under any circumstances.
I need hardly point out that such a crude, reductionist and bigoted worldview is at odds with everything CFI stands for, as is the anti-Lindsay faction's contempt for free speech (as shown by their other favorite mantra, "freeze peach.")
The amount of rage and hatred expressed against Dr. Lindsay for his reasonable and unexceptionable speech is baffling unless seen in context. The faction behind this campaign is actively engaged in trying to hijack atheism and redefine it so that rigid adherence to their ideology of radical feminism is mandatory if one wants to be seen as a "true atheist". To this end, they have spent the last two years willfully dividing the movement and alienating those who have contributed the most to it.
Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Harriet Hall and many others have been the targets of hate campaigns similar to the one currently being mounted against Ron Lindsay. All of their many accomplishments and contributions are dismissed out of hand while some offhand remark or some insignificant incident is eagerly seized on, distorted beyond recognition, and used as the pretext for what can only be described as a witch hunt.
Many have speculated that the motivation for the near-constant attempts at ideological purges within the freethought/skeptic community is to manufacture controversy in order to increase revenue at the blogs of the leaders of this faction, as well as to monopolize the conference speaker circuit. But whatever the reasons, you must agree that rigid doctrinaire dogma, suppression of diversity of opinion, hive-minded bullying and intimidation, and dehumanizing people by treating them merely as categories - male, female, gay, straight or whatever - is fundamentally at odds with the values for which CFI stands.
It would set a very dangerous precedent to give in to the demands of these dishonest bullies. They will not be appeased - they will only move on to their next victim. I hope I can rely on CFI to support Dr. Lindsay and continue to uphold free speech, free inquiry and respectful treatment of all people as individuals.
This open letter has been published on my blog, Schrödinger's Therapist
Sincerely,
[Schrödinger's Therapist]
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
STFU and listen, you privileged silencing oppressor!
I'm a bad blogger - I haven't updated this blog in a long time. I thought I would take the opportunity to step back a bit rather than trying to catch up on all the latest witch-hunts and manufactroversies, and instead talk in general terms about my problems with the Atheism-plus/FTB/SJW movement.
Other the past several months I've been exposed willy-nilly to a great deal of the Critical Race/Gender Theory (CRGT) ideology that underpins the "plus" movement. It's become inescapably obvious that we're not just dealing with two models of communication. Instead, there is a whole different worldview associated with CRGT - one I personally find abhorrent. (Cue PZ Myers crowing "Schrödinger's Therapist finds the idea of treating women as human beings abhorrent" in 5-4-3-2-1...)
I believe strongly in (a) affording everyone equal rights, respect and responsibilities and (b) treating everyone first and foremost as an individual. This is not the same as being "colorblind" (or gender-blind or whatever). The law should be color/gender-blind and treat everyone equally (i.e. everyone should a priori have equal rights and responsibilities), but we as individuals shouldn't pretend that differences have no social impact.
Let me clarify. When you're talking with an individual from a different demographic group, it's quite possible that this individual has had different life experiences than you due to their group membership. You should be sensitive to this possibility and be willing and ready to learn what these differences are and how they inform the other person's point of view - while remembering that the background is only the background, not the whole person.
To give an example, have you every hesitated to turn to the police for help, for fear of how they might treat you? No? Well, some people have, based on how the police have previously treated them or their friends and family. This might be useful to keep in mind if the topic is, say, crime rates in black communities.
I think this is what the concept of "privilege" was originally about - it was supposed to be a consciousness-raising exercise. You would realize that you weren't getting the whole picture due to the difference between your background and the other person's, and you would voluntarily try to educate yourself and be more sensitive to where they were coming from.
It's the same with politically correct speech - originally it was a consciousness-raising exercise. Suppose hypothetically you were in the habit of using the N-word because that was the culture you grew up in. Someone comes along and tells you in a non-confrontational way, "Look, you might not mean any harm by using that word, but a lot of people are hurt by it." Instead of arguing that some of these same people use the word themselves, you take on board the fact that there are people who are genuinely hurt when you use it. From that point on, you stop and think before using it, and at some point you voluntarily drop it from your habitual usage. Your consciousness has been raised.
Of course this isn't the way privilege and PC speech codes work nowadays. Political correctness has become all about laying down the law and dictating to people, often in a ridiculously nit-picking and infantilizing way, which words are mandatory and which are forbidden. Likewise, accusations of "privilege" are thrown around in a heavy-handed fashion to dismiss people's feelings and opinions out of hand based on their membership of a "non-PC" group.
Which brings us to the heart of my objections to CRGT. In contrast to my worldview, the CRGT-mongers apparently just don't see people as individuals. Instead, they have a list of criteria to label people with: gender, skin color, sexual orientation, cis vs. trans, able-bodied vs. "differently abled", and what not. Your whole identity reduces to the set of labels that are applied to you. You are not an individual - you are interchangeable with anyone else who has been put in the same little box.
In SJW ideology, your individual life experiences and circumstances are of no significance. For example, if you are a man, then you're automatically privileged and an oppressor - even if your home is a cardboard box under a bridge. You're a member of a non-PC group, and therefore your thoughts are not only deterministic and predictable, but irrelevant. In fact you should not even be allowed to speak - you should simply Shut Up And Listen.
Conversely, if you're a woman, you're automatically an oppressed marginalized victim - even if you are flown out to a conference, put up in an expensive hotel, and paid to speak. No-one has the right to disagree with you. Anyone who does is by definition "harassing" and "silencing" you, even if you have a microphone and/or a widely-read blog and they don't.
Now, I recognize that genuine harassment and threats have emanated from both sides of the Great Atheist Schism, and I condemn them. But I am struck by the dishonesty of the SJW's in conflating all criticism and dissent with the worst actions of a small minority who may or not be on the "other side", while explicitly endorsing the "shove a dead porcupine up your ass and go die in a fire" culture that they encourage and engender on the "plus" side.
It's clear that the odious PZ Myers and his FTB clique have a pretty fucked up view of free speech, or "Freeze Peach" as they childishly sneer at it. My own view is that free speech is as close to sacred as anything can be for an atheist. Free speech is how all ideas get a hearing, and the best ones succeed in the ecosystem of ideas while others gradually go extinct.
But I'm convinced the SJW's simply do not recognize free speech as a universal right. Rather, it's "a tool of Teh Patriarchy to harass, oppress and silence marginalized victims." When a SAWCASM (straight abled-bodied etc. etc.) person speaks, he is, by the very act of speaking, exploiting his "privilege" and harassing and silencing the non-SAWCASM victims. Therefore, he should not be allowed to speak. He should be forced to Shut Up And Listen.
When OVATA (Oppressed Victims And Their Allies) speak, they are under no obligation to support their claims with reason and evidence. Reason and evidence, after all, are (you guessed it) tools of Teh Patriarchy to HO&S MV's. OVATA are allowed, in fact required, to spew out raw anger and invective because of their victim status. I believe this is the explanation for their blatant double standards.
In the SJW/FTB view, there simply is no ecosystem of ideas. Only the OVATA dogma is legitimate, and no dissent from it can be tolerated. The legitimacy of an idea is determined solely by how the speaker has been labeled, which little box he or she has been categorized in.
When you strip away the verbiage and examine the core assumptions of CRGT, it becomes clear that it is utterly incompatible with any notions of freethought, skepticism, or rationalism. This, plus the crude, reductionist, insulting and dehumanizing way it attempts to strip people of their individuality and treat them simply as labels, is what makes it repellant to me.
This is why I question whether it's possible, let alone desirable, to build bridges to the "plus" side. They are determined to wallow in their self-imposed victim status and close their ears to any viewpoint originating outside their echo chamber. They are becoming increasingly toxic to the online freethought/skeptical community as a whole, as well as hurting the very groups they claim to help, by instinctively crying "misogyny" first and thinking not at all.
My view is, to hell with them. Wall them off and don't let them do any more damage. Let them stew in their own juice, while always being ready to extend the hand of friendship to people like Ellen Beth Wachs who get kicked out for daring to think independently, or who leave in disgust at the intellectual shallowness and dishonesty.
Considering the speed and recklessness with which Myers has been burning bridges and alienating allies, it's only a question of time before he and his coterie of SJW's are at each other's throats, and A-plus collapses in a final implosion of butt-hurt. In the meantime, let's just move on and leave them behind!
Other the past several months I've been exposed willy-nilly to a great deal of the Critical Race/Gender Theory (CRGT) ideology that underpins the "plus" movement. It's become inescapably obvious that we're not just dealing with two models of communication. Instead, there is a whole different worldview associated with CRGT - one I personally find abhorrent. (Cue PZ Myers crowing "Schrödinger's Therapist finds the idea of treating women as human beings abhorrent" in 5-4-3-2-1...)
I believe strongly in (a) affording everyone equal rights, respect and responsibilities and (b) treating everyone first and foremost as an individual. This is not the same as being "colorblind" (or gender-blind or whatever). The law should be color/gender-blind and treat everyone equally (i.e. everyone should a priori have equal rights and responsibilities), but we as individuals shouldn't pretend that differences have no social impact.
Let me clarify. When you're talking with an individual from a different demographic group, it's quite possible that this individual has had different life experiences than you due to their group membership. You should be sensitive to this possibility and be willing and ready to learn what these differences are and how they inform the other person's point of view - while remembering that the background is only the background, not the whole person.
To give an example, have you every hesitated to turn to the police for help, for fear of how they might treat you? No? Well, some people have, based on how the police have previously treated them or their friends and family. This might be useful to keep in mind if the topic is, say, crime rates in black communities.
I think this is what the concept of "privilege" was originally about - it was supposed to be a consciousness-raising exercise. You would realize that you weren't getting the whole picture due to the difference between your background and the other person's, and you would voluntarily try to educate yourself and be more sensitive to where they were coming from.
It's the same with politically correct speech - originally it was a consciousness-raising exercise. Suppose hypothetically you were in the habit of using the N-word because that was the culture you grew up in. Someone comes along and tells you in a non-confrontational way, "Look, you might not mean any harm by using that word, but a lot of people are hurt by it." Instead of arguing that some of these same people use the word themselves, you take on board the fact that there are people who are genuinely hurt when you use it. From that point on, you stop and think before using it, and at some point you voluntarily drop it from your habitual usage. Your consciousness has been raised.
Of course this isn't the way privilege and PC speech codes work nowadays. Political correctness has become all about laying down the law and dictating to people, often in a ridiculously nit-picking and infantilizing way, which words are mandatory and which are forbidden. Likewise, accusations of "privilege" are thrown around in a heavy-handed fashion to dismiss people's feelings and opinions out of hand based on their membership of a "non-PC" group.
Which brings us to the heart of my objections to CRGT. In contrast to my worldview, the CRGT-mongers apparently just don't see people as individuals. Instead, they have a list of criteria to label people with: gender, skin color, sexual orientation, cis vs. trans, able-bodied vs. "differently abled", and what not. Your whole identity reduces to the set of labels that are applied to you. You are not an individual - you are interchangeable with anyone else who has been put in the same little box.
In SJW ideology, your individual life experiences and circumstances are of no significance. For example, if you are a man, then you're automatically privileged and an oppressor - even if your home is a cardboard box under a bridge. You're a member of a non-PC group, and therefore your thoughts are not only deterministic and predictable, but irrelevant. In fact you should not even be allowed to speak - you should simply Shut Up And Listen.
Conversely, if you're a woman, you're automatically an oppressed marginalized victim - even if you are flown out to a conference, put up in an expensive hotel, and paid to speak. No-one has the right to disagree with you. Anyone who does is by definition "harassing" and "silencing" you, even if you have a microphone and/or a widely-read blog and they don't.
Now, I recognize that genuine harassment and threats have emanated from both sides of the Great Atheist Schism, and I condemn them. But I am struck by the dishonesty of the SJW's in conflating all criticism and dissent with the worst actions of a small minority who may or not be on the "other side", while explicitly endorsing the "shove a dead porcupine up your ass and go die in a fire" culture that they encourage and engender on the "plus" side.
It's clear that the odious PZ Myers and his FTB clique have a pretty fucked up view of free speech, or "Freeze Peach" as they childishly sneer at it. My own view is that free speech is as close to sacred as anything can be for an atheist. Free speech is how all ideas get a hearing, and the best ones succeed in the ecosystem of ideas while others gradually go extinct.
But I'm convinced the SJW's simply do not recognize free speech as a universal right. Rather, it's "a tool of Teh Patriarchy to harass, oppress and silence marginalized victims." When a SAWCASM (straight abled-bodied etc. etc.) person speaks, he is, by the very act of speaking, exploiting his "privilege" and harassing and silencing the non-SAWCASM victims. Therefore, he should not be allowed to speak. He should be forced to Shut Up And Listen.
When OVATA (Oppressed Victims And Their Allies) speak, they are under no obligation to support their claims with reason and evidence. Reason and evidence, after all, are (you guessed it) tools of Teh Patriarchy to HO&S MV's. OVATA are allowed, in fact required, to spew out raw anger and invective because of their victim status. I believe this is the explanation for their blatant double standards.
In the SJW/FTB view, there simply is no ecosystem of ideas. Only the OVATA dogma is legitimate, and no dissent from it can be tolerated. The legitimacy of an idea is determined solely by how the speaker has been labeled, which little box he or she has been categorized in.
When you strip away the verbiage and examine the core assumptions of CRGT, it becomes clear that it is utterly incompatible with any notions of freethought, skepticism, or rationalism. This, plus the crude, reductionist, insulting and dehumanizing way it attempts to strip people of their individuality and treat them simply as labels, is what makes it repellant to me.
This is why I question whether it's possible, let alone desirable, to build bridges to the "plus" side. They are determined to wallow in their self-imposed victim status and close their ears to any viewpoint originating outside their echo chamber. They are becoming increasingly toxic to the online freethought/skeptical community as a whole, as well as hurting the very groups they claim to help, by instinctively crying "misogyny" first and thinking not at all.
My view is, to hell with them. Wall them off and don't let them do any more damage. Let them stew in their own juice, while always being ready to extend the hand of friendship to people like Ellen Beth Wachs who get kicked out for daring to think independently, or who leave in disgust at the intellectual shallowness and dishonesty.
Considering the speed and recklessness with which Myers has been burning bridges and alienating allies, it's only a question of time before he and his coterie of SJW's are at each other's throats, and A-plus collapses in a final implosion of butt-hurt. In the meantime, let's just move on and leave them behind!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)