Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
I’m very skeptical of “skeptical materials”. most of that shit went on to a misogynistic, transphobic and xenophobic route. and that’s not captain disillusion.
See my reply to Diplomjodler3. One of the temporary hosts of Skeptoid was trans. You have some very uninformed ideas about what skepticism is and what it isn’t.
no I don’t. I said nothing about what skepticism is. My comment was about YouTube “skeptics” and the people they idolized, like Sam Harris and Dick Dawkins.
Given your unwillingness to accept that you aren’t as informed on the topic as you think you are I can see why you have the ideas you do.
Sam Harris has never been part of the rationalist or skeptical culture. He is much better known in the atheist and the “intellectual dark web”. In the skeptical community he is generally regarded as a close minded person who is too busy kissing the butt of people like Ben Shapiro and selling meditation.
Even before Elevatorgate Dawkins was on the outs for being a sexist & misogynist who was contributing nothing to the movement except harm. If you are using him as an example you are operating on information that is more than a decade out of date and it might be time to update your priors.
“I utilize a narrower definition of the word, shame you are too closed-minded to comprehend that I’m right. Now let’s force a debate on semantics to maximize our time wasted.”
Don’t you find it’s usually better to frame your opponent’s position in terms they would agree with? You’re using skepticism in a way that does not comport with today’s use by the community. Community exchange over time. Community exchange over time.
The community’s use isn’t the correct point of reference. It is also naturally biased, because the community seeks to avoid association with these people.
It’s not crazy or outlandish to label Harris or Dawkins as skeptics in the common use of the term. It’s core to their branding whether you like it or not. That’s what matters when you talk to people outside the community, not the insular definition you treat as objective fact.
I don’t even see a point in litigating this, other than the one I mentioned already. It was clear from context what they were talking about.
The community has explicitly rejected the people you named because they aren’t in keeping with positions the community holds. If the community says they don’t want these people in the group but you insist on saying they are part of the group then you are making a bad faith argument.
Communities get to decide who is an isn’t part of the community. You specifically mentioned trans issues. Two of the pods I named had trans hosts. Dawkins had his AHA award pulled because of trans comments. Skeptics aren’t being the people you said they were. You can either change your mind or stick to your beliefs despite the evidence.
I’m very skeptical of “skeptical materials”. most of that shit went on to a misogynistic, transphobic and xenophobic route. and that’s not captain disillusion.
See my reply to Diplomjodler3. One of the temporary hosts of Skeptoid was trans. You have some very uninformed ideas about what skepticism is and what it isn’t.
no I don’t. I said nothing about what skepticism is. My comment was about YouTube “skeptics” and the people they idolized, like Sam Harris and Dick Dawkins.
Given your unwillingness to accept that you aren’t as informed on the topic as you think you are I can see why you have the ideas you do.
Sam Harris has never been part of the rationalist or skeptical culture. He is much better known in the atheist and the “intellectual dark web”. In the skeptical community he is generally regarded as a close minded person who is too busy kissing the butt of people like Ben Shapiro and selling meditation.
Even before Elevatorgate Dawkins was on the outs for being a sexist & misogynist who was contributing nothing to the movement except harm. If you are using him as an example you are operating on information that is more than a decade out of date and it might be time to update your priors.
“I utilize a narrower definition of the word, shame you are too closed-minded to comprehend that I’m right. Now let’s force a debate on semantics to maximize our time wasted.”
Don’t you find it’s usually better to frame your opponent’s position in terms they would agree with? You’re using skepticism in a way that does not comport with today’s use by the community. Community exchange over time. Community exchange over time.
The community’s use isn’t the correct point of reference. It is also naturally biased, because the community seeks to avoid association with these people.
It’s not crazy or outlandish to label Harris or Dawkins as skeptics in the common use of the term. It’s core to their branding whether you like it or not. That’s what matters when you talk to people outside the community, not the insular definition you treat as objective fact.
I don’t even see a point in litigating this, other than the one I mentioned already. It was clear from context what they were talking about.
The community has explicitly rejected the people you named because they aren’t in keeping with positions the community holds. If the community says they don’t want these people in the group but you insist on saying they are part of the group then you are making a bad faith argument.
Communities get to decide who is an isn’t part of the community. You specifically mentioned trans issues. Two of the pods I named had trans hosts. Dawkins had his AHA award pulled because of trans comments. Skeptics aren’t being the people you said they were. You can either change your mind or stick to your beliefs despite the evidence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-trans-humanist-aha-b1835017.html