Contained: a bunch of discussion about how it's high time to take down those evil libertarians.
It would be a good thing, but of course, while it's okay to just ignore all the harassment thrown at the leftists, we can't even consider turning a reality-based spotlight on the libertarians. That's a purge. It's always the right-wingers who have to get a pass on their horrible beliefs. Always.
Seriously, fuck that noise. Someone needs to go after Shermer and the libertarians publicly. Otherwise, skepticism is nothing but a bunch of ivory-tower-dwelling privilege defenders =/
An interesting phrase: "someone needs to go after Shermer" - if a similar wording were found elsewhere, AtheismPlus would have an endless discussion about the "threat".
By the way, on what subject do you intend to school "Shermer and the libertarians"?
User HugoRune adds:
Surely you can listen to what other people have to say and then form your own opinion. Just because you admire someone it doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything they say.
Why should we only discuss subjects that everyone agrees on? Skepticism is not a religion and we should not expect to have opinions dictated to us from authority figures.
Yes, I agree completely. Being told what you can and can't say is
It will be a dark day when our friend HugoRune finds out Atheism+ moderates out anything approaching gender studies/evo psych/anything 'unsafe'.
Mr Samsa writes:
Skepticism isn't, and shouldn't be, tied only to that which can be scientifically or objectively demonstrated. It's obviously and necessarily true that it's impossible to provide an evidence-based argument against slavery, but it is also true that it's possible to make rational arguments against it. Just because a topic can't be touched by science doesn't mean it's irrelevant or useless, that's scientism at it's finest (which is in itself a concept that skeptics should actively work against).
Apparently there are loads of 'rational' arguments to be made that have no basis in facts. I'm wondering what those are.
Deciding that we should tolerate discrimination or oppression simply to avoid conflict is harmful.
That's funny, because nobody has made the argument that we should tolerate discrimination or oppression. Nobody said we needed focus merely to "avoid conflict" as a goal. Novella did not make that argument.
Who are these people arguing with?