Author Topic: SKEPTIC magazine continues skepticism's descent into a dark, sad, bigoted hole  (Read 11672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline materialist_girl

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Look, that sexual predator's magazine is pro-Milo now! I'm sure the usual suspects will have a freeze peach circle jerk over this review of the book, but the rest of you really have to start asking yourselves if "skeptic" is a label you want to have anything to do with anymore.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/george-michael-reviews-dangerous-by-milo-yiannopoulos/

Offline superdave

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6002
start asking yourselves if "skeptic" is a label you want to have anything to do with anymore.

Literally the question that came to mind when I saw the title of this thread.
I disavow anyone in the movement involved in any illegal,unethical, sexist, or racist behavior. However, I don't have the energy or time to investigate each person and case, and a lack of individual disavowals for each incident should not be construed as condoning such behavior.

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 16130
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Oh no.  An article that makes zero value judgements and explains the perspective of the subject!  As I've been saying in countless threads, the sjws forced this battle within skepticism and they lost because their ideas are retarded.  Get over it.
I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

Offline Enkidu

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
  • It's because of people like me
Oh no.  An article that makes zero value judgements and explains the perspective of the subject!  As I've been saying in countless threads, the sjws forced this battle within skepticism and they lost because their ideas are retarded.  Get over it.

I don't think we read the same article. Milo is a boring pseudo-intellectual, and seeing him fellated in Skeptic magazine makes me glad I don't have a subscription

Offline random poet

  • That's bullshit!
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2047
  • On n'a jamais le temps, le temps nous a.
    • I have a LJ
Oh no.  An article that makes zero value judgements and explains the perspective of the subject!  As I've been saying in countless threads, the sjws forced this battle within skepticism and they lost because their ideas are retarded.  Get over it.
1) There is no battle.
2) SJWs don't exist.
3) Nobody won or lost anything.
4) I'm not retarded, you are!
5) Milo is not worth the ink in that magazine (which is itself not worth its own ink, so, whatever).
Aujourd'hui j'ai vu un facteur joyeux.

Offline Ron Obvious

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 199
As soon as I saw the subject line of this post, I knew with near 100% certainty who had posted it. 

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 16130
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Oh no.  An article that makes zero value judgements and explains the perspective of the subject!  As I've been saying in countless threads, the sjws forced this battle within skepticism and they lost because their ideas are retarded.  Get over it.

I don't think we read the same article. Milo is a boring pseudo-intellectual, and seeing him fellated in Skeptic magazine makes me glad I don't have a subscription

I have the third comment on the article:

Quote
I’m so glad this article summarized Milo’s stances rather than just quoting him at length. At a meta-level I can appreciate what he does, but he rambles on and the narcissism… It’s so much that I can’t be bothered to listen to him (without considerable effort) for more than two minutes at a time. Some people are outraged by him and want him silenced. I think it’s underestimated how many of us just find him to be a bore or annoying at an aesthetic level.

It's as if we read the exact same article, have similar reactions to Milo, but only one describes this article as having "fellated" him.
I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

Offline Enkidu

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
  • It's because of people like me
It's as if we read the exact same article, have similar reactions to Milo, but only one describes this article as having "fellated" him.

As you are well aware I was using sarcasm about reading a different article. We may have similar reactions to Milo (I imagine less similar than you think), but we obviously interpreted that article differently.

Quote

At least in the realm of culture, the New Left had become the new establishment by the 1980s. In the realm of politics, the Democratic Party increasingly reached out to minorities, and although this segment of the electorate was once small, new voters could be imported by way of mass immigration from the third world. To be expected, this development created a large pool of cheap labor as well as a deluge in new welfare recipients who were more inclined to vote for the Democratic Party insofar as it favored an expansion of government programs to help the poor. Thus a built-in constituency for the Democratic Party was artificially created.

In an ironic reversal, the political left now pushes social taboos, seeking to restrict expressions of heterosexuality for its alleged contribution to “rape culture.” In this framework, straight white males have become the new “bourgeoisie.” So-called third wave feminism has been in the forefront in promoting this narrative.


That's just dumb. Hispanics for example voted more for Republicans than Dems until Republicans started attacking them (it was Rs, not Ds that flipped California to blue). There is no Democratic plot to flood the US with imigrants to vote D; R's just keep attacking immigrants (in a country built on and by immigration, which we continue to depend upon).

This isn't a neutral or dispassionate presentation of Milo's views, it is an endorsement of them. If the author is just trying to present Milo's perspective he's doing a pretty good job of making it look like an editorial from himself. My guess is that you agree with a lot of that stuff, so to you it's along the lines of "water is wet."

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 16130
  • Aspiring Super Villain
It's a book review.  I feel like you're just stating the obvious here about opinion pieces or editorial of that nature:

I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7736
  • DEEZ NUTZ
"it was neutral" turned into "it was a book review" pretty quick, huh?
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 16130
  • Aspiring Super Villain
"it was neutral" turned into "it was a book review" pretty quick, huh?

No.  I stated that he was presenting Milo's position.  Enkidu said that it could very easily be read as the author's position (and therefore an implicit endorsement) instead.  My response was granting that as a premise for the discussion to continue.  Try to keep up.
I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7736
  • DEEZ NUTZ
"it was neutral" turned into "it was a book review" pretty quick, huh?

No.  I stated that he was presenting Milo's position.  Enkidu said that it could very easily be read as the author's position (and therefore an implicit endorsement) instead.  My response was granting that as a premise for the discussion to continue.  Try to keep up.
Your exact words were "makes no value judgements" but the article continually presents without question Milo's claims as true while presenting a view of his importance and behavior that is nothing if not praising him. That is a value judgements. The thing you have said is the opposite of the thing that is true, now avt like an adult and admit it.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 16130
  • Aspiring Super Villain
"it was neutral" turned into "it was a book review" pretty quick, huh?

No.  I stated that he was presenting Milo's position.  Enkidu said that it could very easily be read as the author's position (and therefore an implicit endorsement) instead.  My response was granting that as a premise for the discussion to continue.  Try to keep up.
Your exact words were "makes no value judgements" but the article continually presents without question Milo's claims as true while presenting a view of his importance and behavior that is nothing if not praising him. That is a value judgements. The thing you have said is the opposite of the thing that is true, now avt like an adult and admit it.

No it's makes a statements, without citations, in ways that seemed clear to me were representations of Milo's views, but which others are stating are the author making assertions about their own view.  To move forward with the conversation I made a response assuming their interpretation.  You are not capable of comprehending this conversation.  You should back out gracefully.
I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7736
  • DEEZ NUTZ
"it was neutral" turned into "it was a book review" pretty quick, huh?

No.  I stated that he was presenting Milo's position.  Enkidu said that it could very easily be read as the author's position (and therefore an implicit endorsement) instead.  My response was granting that as a premise for the discussion to continue.  Try to keep up.
Your exact words were "makes no value judgements" but the article continually presents without question Milo's claims as true while presenting a view of his importance and behavior that is nothing if not praising him. That is a value judgements. The thing you have said is the opposite of the thing that is true, now avt like an adult and admit it.

No it's makes a statements, without citations, in ways that seemed clear to me were representations of Milo's views, but which others are stating are the author making assertions about their own view.  To move forward with the conversation I made a response assuming their interpretation.  You are not capable of comprehending this conversation.  You should back out gracefully.

So your position is that if Skeptic Magazine reviewed the Bible, they should state as fact that the Bible is the inspired word of God and important because of the truth of sin and hell?

Funny how it's okay for you to personally attack other people, after complaining about it yourself last week.

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,48982.msg9512341.html#msg9512341

Remember folks, the rules don't apply to Andrew. Rules of logic, his own personal rules, forum rules, doesn't matter because Andrew is a special boy the rules don't apply to.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 16130
  • Aspiring Super Villain
I am not insulting you.  I am explaining something, and you repeatedly show you do not comprehend it.  I am informing you in simple language that you are not capable of comprehending this point (as evidenced by your responses).  There is no insult here.  This is fact.  Your posts are the evidence.
I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

 

personate-rain