post by [deleted] · · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by buybuydandavis · 2013-06-17T08:24:59.040Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The original article looks like part of the ongoing ideological web war between skeptics and progressive feminists. That's an interesting development.

I exhort readers to keep identities small and not focus not on debunking the several over-the-top statements, but rather on the value of having an expressive person cataloging things in popularization of skeptical thought that cause a negative reaction.

IMO, the catalog is ad hominem attack, a litany of rationalizations for hating an enemy one already hates, and thereby not particularly useful (nor accurate) as a source of observed failings requiring remedy.

I do agree with the points on medicine, however.

Replies from: TimS
comment by TimS · 2013-06-17T11:31:27.197Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Bullshit.

More specifically, the linked article appears to be complete trash. But reversed stupidity is not intelligence, so disagreeing with the article doesn't show anti-feminists are correct.

Replies from: Jack
comment by Jack · 2013-06-17T13:14:08.597Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't see where buybuydandavis concluded anti-feminists are correct: or even where he mentioned anti-feminists or suggested what they might be correct about.

comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2013-06-17T08:20:28.677Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

(I just realized I missed the linked Cult of Bayes Theorem post. Perhaps someone can summarize since it appears even more relevant than this article.)

It's RationalWiki on steroids and amphetamines. As is the rest of his blog. I do not mean this as a compliment.

comment by Nominull · 2013-06-17T08:16:07.109Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

There's room for improvement, but this is just a rant. It's useless for the project of improvement, because he's attacking anything he can find a clever turn of phrase for, rather than the things that especially deserve attack.

It's not even useful to see where the PR failure is, because once something set him off, everything suddenly became a PR failure. Look for insight in saner places than this, please.

comment by ArisKatsaris · 2013-06-17T09:30:43.572Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

(I just realized I missed the linked Cult of Bayes Theorem post. Perhaps someone can summarize since it appears even more relevant than this article.)

Just a slanderous asshole, with absolutely no interest in correctly representing the subject he's talking about -- because why the hell should he care about accuracy or truth or fairness when he has found some "cultists" to mock, by any means necessary.

Such vileness depresses me.

Replies from: Mestroyer
comment by Mestroyer · 2013-06-17T14:09:58.763Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Mind-killing-resistance challenge: find a non-trivial criticism of one of these groups which you belong to, which you think is merited. (If you can't find something, and dislike the skeptic community, read his rant about them as a control, and take the same challenge (You could restrict your search space to statements about the members of the community, instead of the beliefs of the community, if you thought LessWrong had better-enough beliefs that it made a difference)).

I can see that this guy is crazy, but based on the sheer volume of stuff he says, at least some of it is probably true.

Replies from: Richard_Kennaway
comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2013-06-17T14:41:00.409Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I can see that this guy is crazy, but based on the sheer volume of stuff he says, at least some of it is probably true.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. But to know when it is right, you need a better clock. If you have a better clock, the stopped clock is of no use to you.

comment by Nominull · 2013-06-17T08:08:52.684Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It looks like he's turned the flawed methodology of the skeptic community (things like pattern-matching against surface features of known bullshit and mockery as an argument) on the skeptic community itself. I'd say "serves them right" except we're supposed to be virtuous identity-free robots who take no pleasure in or offense from anything.

Replies from: MrMind
comment by MrMind · 2013-06-17T08:41:55.827Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I agree wholeheartedly: I've been often misidentified as a skeptic, even if I have written several rebuttal of italian rationalists association methods. Nonetheless, "I'm a virtuous identity-free robots who take no pleasure in or offense from anything" is a great tag for a T-shirt.