Wise words from another board...

[onager]

I found this at the James Randi (JREF) board today. I may print it out and stick it on my monitor...or forehead.

Normally I would give credit to the original poster by naming them, but the posters in that thread might not want a lot of unwanted attention from elsewhere. So I'll leave it anonymous:

I think you observe just like I do that ordinarily rational and intelligent people can lose their heads when they get angry and say or do things they later regret.

One of the important tactics of manipulative people pushing an agenda is to "discredit" their opposition by getting them angry. So you use logical fallacies, patronizing insults and accusations of imaginary crimes, etc. to inspire anger and then point to them saying "see how unreasonable you are... you're just an angry person."

And that is the very reason why you can't let them get under your skin.

[Curmudgeoness]

1. Well said....and

easier said than done.

Yes, we have all been there. And probably will be again. But it is good advice to avoid letting them get to you.

[Warpy]

2. This is very true

It's why I generally allow myself only one post to an ignoramus and grit my teeth and walk away from that thread forever. I know that one post has a chance of educating at least one person who is ignorant but wants to fix it. I don't allow myself to get sucked into those threads that go on forever, getting sillier and sillier if not ruder and ruder.

Well, unless I'm really, really bored.

[cleanhippie]

3. "Well, unless I'm really, really bored."

That perfectly describes my reasons for getting into long, pointless exchanges.

[mr blur]

4. Guily, I'm afraid :(

A couple of times recently I've let someone annoy me to the point of speaking my mind. Waste of time, other than the momentary satisfaction I get from telling someone I think is a real prick to fuck off.

Must try harder.

[Rob H.]

5. I can think of at least a couple of people

in The Group That Must Not Be Named who have the "patronizing insults" part down pat although I'm sure they (and their boosters) believe they're incomparably witty. That kind of behavior and other believers' reluctance and oftentimes outright refusal to call them on their bullshit is a big part of the reason why I finally trashed that group.

[AlbertCat]

13. I can think of at least a couple of people....

...in The Group That Must Not Be Named who have the "patronizing insults" part down pat...




Yes, I can instantly think of one...who needs the Rug pulled out from under him.

[onager]

6. Thanks all. And for my part...

I'm keeping my keyboard shut on one certain topic in That Other Group - let's just call it "non-belief with a mathematical symbol attached."

I can be incredibly dense at times. But eventually I realized that I'm just feeding the trol...er, increasing the drama by posting links giving the other side(s) of that story.

By now anyone sufficiently interested can find those links, read for themselves and make up their own minds.

Some minds are already made up and have no interest in hearing anything other than "great atheist schism!1!" And I really don't want to be part of their advertising campaign, however inadvertently.

[redqueen]

7. Yeah, you didn't really think that would be hard to find, did you?

So yes. It's those manipulative feminists' own fault that rational, intelligent people cal them c***s. Right?

The poor, poor victims. They're not hateful at all... just victims of evil phonies like that feminist Rebecca Watson.

Where have we heard that sort of 'logic' before?

Surprised, I am not. Disappointed, very.

[onager]

8. Yes I did, in fact.

I shouldn't even have mentioned the forum name, and thought about editing after I posted it.

Believe it or not - and I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that - there was no hidden agenda here. I was just passing along something I thought would be useful. No different from posting something I found in any group where I lurk, about old cars or history or whatever.

Disappointed? Yeah, I know what you mean. If you search the archives in here back in July 2011, you'll find a post from right after "Elevatorgate," defending Watson and criticizing Richard Dawkins. I wrote it.

That was sort of before - to borrow a word from the Atheism-Plussers - the intersectionality of fan and feces on this whole subject.

Since then I've re-evaluated the evidence and changed my mind.

[redqueen]

9. Here are some like-minded folks you may enjoy discussing the whole victim-blaming rationale with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=764

"Rational and intelligent", indeed.

[onager]

11. Oh. I see, you're just being insulting. Thanks!

If you want to get into more on-topic "victim blaming," let's take a trip way back to 2010...a year before Elevatorgate.

At TAM that year, some inconsiderate sexist tool hosted a "Wild West Bordello Party." Oh...wait a minute, that party was the brainchild of Rebecca Watson. The same Watson who's spent the past 18 months howling about being sexually objectified, and accusing men in the atheist/skeptic movement of rampant misogyny.

When some women protested about the Bordello Party, of course their concerns were discussed in a perfectly rational manner:

I made the mistake of voicing my opinion regarding the theme of the Skepchick party at this year’s TAM. I found the idea of a Wild West Bordello hosted by a women’s skepticism group a bit distasteful. I tried to make it clear that I am sex positive, that I think women should have a right to be sexy, but just that I thought it was not an appropriate theme for a party at an event where women are already in the minority. By dictating the role of the women (i.e. prostitutes, i.e. sex objects) they basically reduced the women in attendance to their sexuality alone...

At any rate, by voicing my concern with this one issue, I stepped over the party line into the “against us” territory. I was labeled a hypocrite, a femi-nazi, a hater, anti-sex, anti-feminist. I was accused of being a troll, a drama queen and worse. Sure, I had a few people who were on my side, or who at least could understand my point of view, but the loudest, most obnoxious voices threw words at me that stung.

http://skeptopia.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/why-ill-never-return-to-jref-forum-or-the-amazng-meeting/

2010 was also the year Jen McCreight published her "List of Awesome Female Atheists." Some of the women on that list are currently being called "gender traitors" and "anti-feminists," among other fun things.

[redqueen]

12. No, I'm pointing out the giant, gaping hole in your 'it's someone else's fault when one screws up'

logic.

And sorry, but that's another logic fail there with your continued RW trashing.

Yes, RW used to be a fun fem. Yes, she probably said things that were unfair.

I used to be a funfem too.

Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK.

People make mistakes. People change. People are human.

This does not discredit every fucking fucking they ever say ever again on any subject related to said past mistakes.

[AlbertCat]

14. What ARE you talking about?

Trying to get someone's goat?

"One of the important tactics of manipulative people pushing an agenda is to "discredit" their opposition by getting them angry."

[2ndAmForComputers]

10. I'm trying to follow that advice

by treating them all like the purveyours of comedy they unwittingly are.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, does get under THEIR skin.