Yes, pull the feminism victim card. That’s not what anyone is suggesting. If MRAs did the same thing, there’d be resistance to that equally. No one wants someone else’s ideology stuffed down their throats. That is what the social justice “warriors” are doing – they’re demanding that their ideology be a part of conferences, whether the conference is about that issue or not. As of now, the only group I can see doing this is feminists, and they aren’t stopping at mere awareness. They want everyone to adopt their attitude, ideology, and abide by their behavior demands, whether they want to be part of that movement or not. In other words, they want every place to be A+. Well, not every place is A+ – there are other people in the world who don’t share their kind and level of activism and who may see how to tackle those social justice issues a little differently.

What you’re doing is VERY typical of FTBs. Twisting words, misrepresenting, and turning it around to make it look like feminism is under attack and the posters there are all just victims. Sorry, but not every criticism is an attack, not every dissenting opinion is invalid.

NO subject should be above criticism or be beyond scrutiny. NO statement should be beyond evaluation, and no valid, non-abusive opinion should be silenced. That’s why I have no desire to reside in the echo-chamber that is FTB.

And the matter of the so-called slymepitters here, no, they didn’t acknowledge that they’re slymepitters. And so what if they were? I still don’t see them coming here trying to change this blog and force everyone to abide by their rules or adopt their ideology. That’s what apologists like you do.

I think you’re exaggerating just a little aren’t you? Suggesting that conferences consider other topics and be more inclusive is not the same as forcing an ideology on anyone.

“I have yet to see any actual slymepit representatives here.”
.
Then you haven’t been paying attention; I named three of them earlier and pointed out to you that I was only talking about the slymepit because I was speaking to people who hang out there.

“So, it’s fine to have more consideration for a point of view, but not at the cost of every other point of view out there, much less the silencing of alternative points of view or of criticisms.”

And criticism is fine, I’m all for it. Photoshopping people’s faces onto porn, calling them fat, making up nicknames based on their genitals and harassing them with abusive e-mails, tweets and blog posts isn’t what I would call criticism. It’s that kind of behaviour, the things Dr Hall refers to in her letter as “venomous over-reactions and egregious abuse” which I’m objecting to, nothing more.

” it’s fine to have more consideration for a point of view, but not at the cost of every other point of view out there, much less the silencing of alternative points of view or of criticisms.”

Except when the alternative point of view is a feminist one I guess…since any suggestion that such issues get a hearing are met with such fierce resistance…

I have.

Ok, I should have been more specific. I have yet to see that done here, or at any other skeptic blogs. No, the only time the word “misandrist” has been used is in the context I’ve used it above. However, “misogynist” has been thrown out several times, erroneously and maliciously, as an accusation for anyone simply critical of FTB, not even getting into the subject of gender equality.

If I were to go to a MRA forum, I would expect to eventually be called a misandrist. If I were to go to FTB, or any other intractable feminist forum, I too would expect to eventually be called a misogynist (which I have). What am I, a misanthrope then?

However, a real skeptics forum would first establish whether I’m one or the other, or both, through the use of reason and perhaps asking me what my specific views are, before drawing any conclusions. I would also expect that a skeptics forum would not deride, ban, and quickly erase all but the hostile rebuttals, any sort of disagreement, criticism, or facts contrary to popular opinion, especially in matters of opinionated ideology.

Case in point: I was accused, here on Neurologica, by a FTB apologist, of being a misogynist, without ever uttering a word about the subject of gender equality, simply for being critical of how FTB handles content and their readership. There was no way anyone could have concluded what my stance was on feminism (other than I had mentioned in my original post that I consider myself, by definition, a feminist). That didn’t stop them from calling me a misogynist. Yes, great example of skepticism – that’s what ideology brings.

It’s all in how you characterize it, isn’t it? I see women asking for more consideration for their point of view, you see feminists trying to shoehorn themselves in and pushing their ideology. Which one of us is over-reacting I wonder…

Yes, leave it to an ideologue to twist words and otherwise entirely miss the point. It’s all fine and good to ask for equal consideration and treatment, as long as that doesn’t mean that all other considerations and treatments aren’t put on the backburner or that everyone adopt a specific ideology, or get out. Furthermore, if a particular skeptical conference is about specific subjects that are not feminism or atheism, what’s the problem with that? One of the big criticisms coming from PC, RW, and others at FTB is that many conferences don’t feature, or at least include, their ideology, as if EVERY topic revolves around that.

The reason I don’t care what they do or say at slymepit is because they haven’t made it a public campaign to change the face of skepticism into something that isn’t really skepticism. They haven’t gone out of their way (at least from what I’ve seen) on OTHER people’s blogs to change the very nature of the blog to be more like FTB. They haven’t systematically attacked certain persons at other, unrelated blogs, for “not being feminist enough”, whatever that means.

In other words, FTB isn’t satisfied with having their own forum – personally, I can live with that. I may not (ever) want to go there, just like I wouldn’t ever want to participate in, say, a “race realist” blog (aka racists)(other than to see where the problems are). That doesn’t seem to be good enough for FTBers, though.

I have yet to see any actual slymepit representatives here. I’ve seen MANY FTBers here, activists who bring their brand of shaming, silencing, and defaming tactics with them. If slymepitters came here brandishing their ideology the same way, using similar tactics, I’d be just as resistant to them as I am with you and your kind.

So, it’s fine to have more consideration for a point of view, but not at the cost of every other point of view out there, much less the silencing of alternative points of view or of criticisms. NO idea or claim should ever be above scrutiny or criticism – that is the nature of skepticism – yet that is what is demanded at places like FTB.

Sorry, but FTB is not a valid model of skepticism, and it’s a travesty that many of their speakers have become so prominent of the movement. It is THEY who have created this schism.

It’s all in how you characterize it, isn’t it? I see women asking for more consideration for their point of view, you see feminists trying to shoehorn themselves in and pushing their ideology. Which one of us is over-reacting I wonder…

“I have yet to be called a misandrist, feminist, or male rape supporter by anyone from the slymepit, or any MRA whatsoever, even when I’ve disagreed with them and declined membership into their little movement

I have.

So you knew about those discussions, yet you came here and represented the argument as “one side is asking for civility…

Yes, because I have yet to see anyone from the slymepit side asking for civility. They seem to more concerned with preserving their right to call women cunts…

Yes I have, that’s how I know you’re oversimplifying…there’s a quite a lot of discussion about how far civility extends and under what circumstances it might be used as a cover for inaction etc.

So you knew about those discussions, yet you came here and represented the argument as “one side is asking for civility…”, and then accuse me of oversimplifying. I don’t think any more needs to be said.

Hermit, I agree that civil, HONEST discussion beats incivility every time. Try it sometime.

What you’re saying is that you want to keep people whose opinions differ from yours out of the movement.

Nope, that’s what FTB does and I have no interest in it. You don’t see very many people here being derided, shamed, and banned for simply disagreeing. There have (recently) even been staunch creationists debating us here, responses in the thousands, that I suspect would have gone no further than one or two posts on FTB. No, you’re projecting.

You complain about slymepit, but we don’t see them coming around here pushing their ideology or agenda, pushing their agenda at conferences, bullying other bloggers for supposedly not including them at conferences (in other words: not taking up their mantle and walking in perfect lockstep to the same degree and intensity they do) or having their blogs be someone else’s ideology. You don’t see them foisting their ideology on others or trying to make others behave the way they want them to. I have yet to be called a misandrist, feminist, or male rape supporter by anyone from the slymepit, or any MRA whatsoever, even when I’ve disagreed with them and declined membership into their little movement. Yet I’ve been called all those things for no good reason other than not agreeing with everything.

It’s not about differing opinions, it’s about how those opinions are delivered and how those who are critical of those opinions are received. Not everyone is going to see it your way, or FTB’s way, and they aren’t always bad people and their views aren’t always wrong views.

I really don’t have a problem with slymepit, not because of what they’ve said, done, or stand for, but because, unlike FTB and many of the feminist activists, they aren’t trying to shoehorn themselves into the skeptical movement and all but force their ideology on everyone else.

What you’re saying is that you want to keep people whose opinions differ from yours out of the movement.

And you call ME an ideologue? What nonsense.

As I explained to you I brought it up in response to members of that place who was talking to. Seemed relevant in that context…o_O

“I really don’t have a problem with slymepit, not because of what they’ve said, done, or stand for, but because, unlike FTB and many of the feminist activists, they aren’t trying to shoehorn themselves into the skeptical movement and all but force their ideology on everyone else. “

No, they’re just trying to get people who would like to talk about those subjects to shut up and go away…I personally have a problem with people who do that sort of thing.

And the feminists aren’t trying to “shoehorn themselves in” (it’s interesting that you put it that way…) They are already here. And they are asking that we try to make things more welcoming fro women and minorities. Is that a problem for you?

“You can hardly accuse me of oversimplifying after I pointed out you had left one “side” out of the equation altogether!

Have you read this post for example:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/14/the-desert-tortoises-with-boltcutters-civility-pledge/“

Yes I have, that’s how I know you’re oversimplifying…there’s a quite a lot of discussion about how far civility extends and under what circumstances it might be used as a cover for inaction etc.

See also here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/02/21/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-civility-pledge/

and here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/19/actually-i-hate-the-word-moron-used-as-an-insult-thank-you-very-much/

and here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/02/unmeasured-vituperation-on-the-side-of-the-prevailing-opinion/

and no doubt there’s more, but you get the idea. There is no one-size-fits-all opinion over there. You are oversimplifying.