4 ms·

I mostly read his paragraph on sexism, which frankly struck me as very silly. What has other skeptics being sexist to do with him being a skeptic? And what has

by Tichy 14y ago

I mostly read his paragraph on sexism, which frankly struck me as very silly. What has other skeptics being sexist to do with him being a skeptic? And what has Star Trek being sexist to do with skeptics? The logic was just very bad, so he didn't convince me as a skeptic. I assumed being a skeptic would involve being rational. His ratings in an community unknown to me don't impress me at all. I mean it is cool, but I still look at what he says with skepticism. The world is full of famous people who are wrong.

btilly 14y ago
If you read it again, you'll see that he did not attempt to lay out his section on sexism as a rational argument, but merely as a series of observations. The Star Trek reference was an analogy to what he observes among skeptics. I think that this is appropriate. If you've thought about sexism, and have observed skeptic communities, then you'll have no trouble recognizing the validity of his observations based on your own. If you have not observed skeptic communities, then you can either take his word for it, or else go out and do your own first hand observations. And finally if you've never actually thought much about sexism, well, how could he reasonably begin to explain? In short, either you get it and further explanation is superfluous, or else you don't and his attempting to enlighten you would take him seriously off course. Either way there is no point in having him try to present an airtight logical argument.
- Tichy 14y ago
  What on earth is a skeptic community? I thought being a skeptic simply means not taking things at face value. Why do I have to be lumped in with random people from the internet just because I like to think about things? Can we say that HN is a skeptic community, for example? Would you say HN is very sexist? Or do only "skeptic communities" that are actually sexist count?

by Tichy 14y ago

btilly 14y ago

If you read it again, you'll see that he did not attempt to lay out his section on sexism as a rational argument, but merely as a series of observations. The Star Trek reference was an analogy to what he observes among skeptics. I think that this is appropriate. If you've thought about sexism, and have observed skeptic communities, then you'll have no trouble recognizing the validity of his observations based on your own. If you have not observed skeptic communities, then you can either take his word for it, or else go out and do your own first hand observations. And finally if you've never actually thought much about sexism, well, how could he reasonably begin to explain? In short, either you get it and further explanation is superfluous, or else you don't and his attempting to enlighten you would take him seriously off course. Either way there is no point in having him try to present an airtight logical argument.

Tichy 14y ago
What on earth is a skeptic community? I thought being a skeptic simply means not taking things at face value. Why do I have to be lumped in with random people from the internet just because I like to think about things? Can we say that HN is a skeptic community, for example? Would you say HN is very sexist? Or do only "skeptic communities" that are actually sexist count?