Thursday, January 31, 2013

An AtheismPlus Axe to Grind

Thread: PZ: if Soc&Pol are off agenda "well then, fuck skepticism"

Contained: a bunch of discussion about how it's high time to take down those evil libertarians.

Setar writes:

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 retarded (sorry, ablelist language)

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.

Richard_Austin adds:
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?

1 comment:

  1. This is typical Setar, who makes no secret of the fact that he wants an ideological purge, and has been particularly focused over the last few months on "getting rid of the libertarians".

    The guy is basically an exponent of Vancouver's far left, which is very prone toward extremist views like this. Ironically, he claims to lean more toward anarchism and against Leninism, though he often sounds an awful lot like a Leninist in the stances he takes. Now according to many definitions, anarchism and similar philosophies are forms of "libertarian socialism", which if he really looked at it closely, might indicate a certain degree of cognitive dissonance on his part. In any event, the Atheismplus mods have been quite explicit in pushing the idea that "there's no such thing as left libertarianism" and putting the nix on such discussions there. What exactly Setar means by "anarchism" is anybody's guess, since in the context of Vancouver social justice warrior ideology, it pretty much means extreme leftism and a willingness to break laws in pursuit of their goals, but seems devoid of any real anti-authoritarian goals.