I must not be the only one feeling disenchanted, since all of these other people can speak perfectly for me. From PZ, in response to Steven Novella?s piece about the scope of skepticism:
As for that awful, dishonest, destructive claim that ?Political, moral, and social ideology are ?outside the scope? of skepticism because they remove objectivity? ? I ask, OK, so would you claim that there is no rational, evidence-based argument against, say, slavery? That it is impossible to make an objective argument in any domain against treating people as property?
If that?s the case, well then, fuck skepticism. It isn?t relevant or useful anymore. It has abstracted itself into the realm of a private academic circle-jerk, and we can stop arguing, because just maybe atheists, who apparently have more rational minds, can just leave the party voluntarily.
Improbable Joe responds to the second paragraph with this comment:
A-fucking-men! If all that skepticism is for is dismissing the same silly claims that have been dismissed for sometimes hundreds of years, and not for creating positive change in the world, then what goddamned use does it have? ?Hey, let?s all get in a room once a week and talk about how homeopathy is still quackery, and that Bigfoot is a hoax! And then we can pat each other on the back for still not believing the same daffy shit we didn?t believe last week, and didn?t believe the week before either!? Wow, yeah, that?s really inspiring me to join a ?movement? that seems to be fixated on not moving, not budging a single solitary inch, if in doing so it moves beyond smug self-congratulation.
And to close, sawells perfectly summarizes why I?m sick of dealing with the skeptic movement:
I think there are two unspoken arguments which people want to make and can?t (publicly).
Argument 1: skepticism is fine if you point it at things which very few people really believe (bigfoot;alien abduction) because if they get angry we can laugh at them. Don?t point it at things which lots of people believe! There are lots of them and if they get angry that might be scary!
Argument 2: skepticism is fine if you point it at other people who are wrong. Don?t point it at me! I?m not wrong!
Hence the massive pushback against applying basic skepticism to things like mainstream religious claims and mainstream gender stereotypes.
This. Oh, so much this.
I?ve grown reluctant to deal with the egos of skeptic celebrities and politics of skeptical organizations who, frankly, aren?t the great skeptics they think they are. But I?ll still keep writing and speaking about science and skepticism because, well, I find them important and interesting. I?ve realized I don?t need to be an official part of a group or a movement to do those things, nor am I personally responsible for spending my time and energy in improving a movement that is so stubbornly resisting improvement.
Because when my time and energy is spent on repeatedly explaining why diversity matters, why harassment policies are good to have and are already widely implemented at other events, why Obviously Sexist Statement from Skeptic Pope X is problematic, and why certain topics are not exempt from skepticism?then I don?t have the time to write about those certain topics that matter to me. I don?t have time to create unique material about science and skepticism when I?m stuck meta-blogging about how some atheist yet again told me to go kill myself on twitter because I?m an ugly bitch who?s ruining skepticism.
And I didn?t realize how obnoxious this meta-blogging was until I took a break from blogging and spent some time as just a blog reader. All of the blogs I had once loved now hardly ever produce unique material about atheism or skepticism because they?re too busy reacting to trolls or debating some ?big name skeptic? (who is really just some shmuck* only known to a small group of people whose opinions have little effect on the world at large). Even the rare unique posts are frequently filled with snide offhand remarks about people they don?t like or vague comments alluding to past drama. And you know, if that?s what they want to do, that?s fine. One of my main pet peeves as a blogger is when people tell you what you should be writing about, when it?s a blogger?s prerogative to write about whatever they find interesting.
I personally no longer find the meta-blogging interesting.
So consider this meta-meta-blogging my long-winded way of saying that my attitude toward blogging is changing. From now on, trolls and haters will be ignored instead of further publicized, and I encourage my readers to do the same in the comments. I will not feel guilty about moderation or banning in order to make a harassment-free environment for me and my readers. I will only comment on controversies if I feel that they have effects outside of our tiny little skeptical bubble. And most importantly, I will concentrate on writing unique material about the topics I care about instead of just endlessly replying to blogs, comments, and tweets.
That?s what I want to spend my time and energy on, not fixing a stubborn skeptical movement?s academic circle jerk.
*I count myself in the category of ?random shmuck that other people care way too much about.? I wish my haters would spend less time obsessing over what?s effectively an open access creative writing journal for a random grad student, and maybe take up some sort of constructive hobby, like actually promoting science and skepticism, or at the very least, knitting.
march 30 rimm pauly d project adrienne rich autism cesar chavez day raspberry ketone
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.