I can see why Gnu Atheists don't like movement skeptics, too

(NOTE: The header to this post should by no means be taken as an assumption that I've moderated much of my general assessment of Gnu Atheists.)

Fortunately, I don't consider myself to be an officially follower of either group.

That said, what started this?

A social media discussion. The person who started it indicated that it was essentially verboten to critique either Brian Dunning or James Randi.

Well, I did, and added Michael Shermer and Penn and Teller in the mix, too. (All links go to blog tags.)

I noted that all of them but Randi tended to fuse libertarianism with skepticism. I also mentioned that I thought Randi knew a lot about his lover, "Carlos," and his true identity, and his identity theft, before it became public knowledge, and said that he had oversold some of his early skeptical claims.

Then, on a social media forum, I got deluged with a demand for evidence. I posted a link to my blog and told all the "movement skeptics" they could look for what I had written about the individually named persons, and evidence for that, by name, right here.

As for relevance?

Dunning's Internet fraud undermines a level of trust, among other things. So, it's of relevance. I've also pointed out the number of overpriced tchotchkes on his website and stated my opinion that only people who had uncritical acceptance of him would think they're not overpriced.

In short, how do you know he's not ripping YOU off with those prices? For that matter, per his criminal conviction, how do you know he didn't rip YOU off on eBay?

(Note: Dunning's sentencing hearing has been delayed until early January. Trust me, I'll post details when I hear about them.)

Finally, I also agree with the Atheism Plus subset of Gnu Atheists that Dunning has had some clearly sexist posts on his website before.

Randi? Assuming he oversold some of his claims as to how much he had deceived Australian skeptics years ago, that speaks to issues of showmanship, which magicians certainly are. That's you, too, Penn and Teller.

Speaking of, in the past, Randi like them has been a climate change denier, just like them.

Penn and Teller also, though eventually pulling back, claimed that secondhand smoke wasn't carcinogenic to any serious degree. So, skeptics can criticize pseudomedicine, then turn around and offer their own pseudoscience?

Shermer? My issues with him start with him having known racialists Vince Sarich and Frank Miele on the masthead of Skeptic magazine for years.

I then mentioned that someeone I did look up to, if you will, was Massimo Pigliucci. At which point, more than one person wondered what philosophy has to do with skepticism.

If you are seriously asking the question, that explains part of the problem with "movement skepticism," and why I'm not a follower, right there.

Afer that, I mentoined that I had been barred from commenting, or banned, from Skepticblog for my degree of pointing out Dunning and Shermer's libertarianism.

I also, to show how I am an independent thinker, mentioned I had been banned from Daily Kos for being too liberal and too Green.

At that point, a couple of commenters treated me like I had surely deserved all of this, on the bans and blocks.

Wow.

And stuff like this why I also invented the blog tag of pseudoskepticism.

And, I haven't even mentioned Center for Inquiry, back in its pre-Gnu Atheist days, and its problems with Al Seckel.

Folks, once you put movement skepticism leaders on a platform and declare them immune, in some way, to some degree, from properly critiquing criticism, you've just forfeited your own skeptical high ground. It's not restricted to these particular skeptical leaders of today, it's the general idea.

That relates to the social media thread in question and me being asked who was a leading idea generator, or whatever. I mentioned Massimo Pigliucci, but don't put him on a pedestal, either.

Instead, the question, and its tone, seemed to imply that skepticism was something to be learned almost by rote, almost by semi-blindly following a school of skepticism, or whatever.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Like Nietzsche, I have no need for idols, either secular or sacred. And, yes, I do take a hammer to others' at times.

Second, I've long said that today's "movement skeptics" should study Skepticism the philosophy (there's that word!) and also look at applying skepticism beyond apparent pseudoscience issues. Modern movement, or scientific, skepticism, actually operates in a shallow pond relative to all the broader issues of critical thinking. (That said, I am not taking the Gnu Atheist side on the idea that skepticism implies atheism.)

I mean, the idea that I would first name a professional philosopher to "turn to," on skepticism? Why was that so incredible? For a non-living one, I'd name Hume.

Thrid, yes, one could consider my comments on the social media thread, like the ones on Skepticblog and Kos that got me banned, as a form of trolling. But, that's defining that word quite broadly and quite vaguely. If your idea of trolling is nothing more than contrary, even contrarian, comments, which nonetheless do not engage in personal attacks, or in vulgarity or profanity, than your definition of trolling is in line with your putting people (or yourself) on a pedestal.

No thanks. I'm not playing that game, or playing along.

(And, I'll admit to being willfully contrarian in some of my comments on blog sites. But, really, that's still not trolling. My objections are always still legitimate, and still on issues of some substance.)

That said, calling me a "hater" for making observations about skeptics, the above-named ones, that I am far from alone in making is ridiculous. So, too, is assuming that, just because I didn't post 50 blog post links, or other URLs, that I don't have evidence behind my claims.

And, now unfriending me?

Ahh, now we've descended into treating me like a child.

I mean, to bluntly say, Brian Dunning is not a criminal, when he's pleaded guilty to a federal fraud charge? OK, whatever floats your boat. Just don't pretend to be a critical thinker around me.

Vis-a-vis Gnu Atheists, I've said more than once that atheism is no guarantor of either moral or intellectual superiority. Well, in the modern "movement skepticism," I'm starting to think the same applies. And, both appear to have their leaders, who often draw blind or semi-blind followers.

Ultimately, it's called "tribalism." That's why I find Groucho Marx's dictum about not wanting to belong to any club that wanted him as a member to be so appealing.

Choo vs Peralta, steroids vs DWI, and selective outrage

The St. Louis Cardinals' free-agent signing of shortstop Jhonny Peralta, around baseball fandom in general, and with a few players, caused a bit of a stir due the fact that Peralta had gotten a new contract just after a 50-game suspension for performance-enhancing drug use caused a bit of a stir.


But, Shin-Soo Choo, not too, too long removed from a DWI arrest, gets a contract three years longer, and 2.5 times larger on money than Peralta, and the outrage isn't really there. Ditto for even more famous DWIer Miguel Cabrera.

Folks, yes, performance enhancing drugs are cheating. They may get you extra money.

But, they don't potentially kill other people.

Period. 

So, if you want to be outraged, let's not be outraged about performance-enhancing drugs as much as other drugs.

And, yes, alcohol is a drug. And when "abused," even if the person isn't (yet) addicted, it's more dangerous than any illegal drug.

This friendly reminder of where to direct your outrage is brought to you just in time for Christmas and New Year's, when your odds of a driver on steroids killing you is just about zero, but a drunken driver is a different story.

I hope Cabrera and Choo are both continuing to deal well with their alcohol issues, whether total abstinence or whatever the necessary answer is.

Peralta, La Russa, and steroids

Wrapping up a few thoughts here based on two polls, both now closed.

Half of voters, on the St. Louis Cardinals' free-agent signing of shortstop Jhonny Peralta, liked it a lot. Approximately 20 percent disliked it a lot, 20 percent weren't sure, and 10 percent liked it a little.

Only among those with a preference, just over 60 percent liked it a lot, and 78 percent liked it either a lot or a little.

Around baseball fandom in general, and with a few players, the fact that Peralta had gotten a new contract just after a 50-game suspension for performance-enhancing drug use caused a bit of a stir.

And that leads to the other half of this post ...

On whether the Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee should have given just-elected managers Tony LaRussa and Joe Torre extra scrutiny due to the number of alleged steroid-using players they managed and wondered about how much they knew about this, 37 percent agreed with me on wanting some tough scrutiny, 52 percent said no, and 11 percent had no opinion. Just among those with an opinion, the split was 45-55 against no strict scrutiny.

Regular readers here know how I feel about La Russa in particular. I can't believe that he had no knowledge of what might have been helping the Bash Brothers A's, particularly Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco of Canseco Milkshake fame, do the bashing they did.

===

And, I'll have another, somewhat related, post up tomorrow.

Choo to Rangers? What about that Yankees deal, Scott Boras?

Shin-Soo Choo, surely the top free agent left in this market, is NOT going to New York. He's instead headed to the Texas Rangers.

Terms? Reportedly seven years and $130 million. But, wait, what about that 7/$140 offer that agent Scott Boras said the Yankees made and he had Choo decline?

Well, Boras was either lying about that 7/140 contract, or else bluffing, or else Choo doesn't want to be on the big stage.

Wow.

Yeah, some writers are already playing up the "no income tax in Texas" angle. But is New York's income tax THAT bad? Just on straight money value, it would have to be above 7 percent. (New York State's top marginal tax rate is 8.82 percent. Allowing for deductions, exemptions, etc. plus lower rates on submarginal income, and we're probably right about that 7 percent. In other words, a wash.) Plus the Rangers contract doesn't have a full no-trade clause.

So, yeah, writers? Instead of the "no income tax" angle, why not focus on the "Boras slapped down" angle. Given all the money that's awash in this year's free agent market, that's a serious story. This on top of draft choice slotting and other things? It's hard to argue that Boras star isn't, finally, in at least a bit of decline.

On the other hand, Tim Brown of Yahoo says the deal includes (unnamed) bonuses. So, stand by. It may turn out to be a wash. But, it still won't be better; not comparing straight salaries.

As for the Rangers?

Nelson Cruz already seemed out the door. This guarantees it. The Mariners are a likely landing spot, perhaps.

And, a speculative trade with the Dodgers for Andre Ethier is also gone, it would seem. I'm venturing other Rangers moves in days and weeks ahead will be minor, on the salary side.

Choo's OBP proclivity aside, given the speed of Elvis Andrus, I think I bat Choo in the No. 2 hole, if I'm Ron Washington. His walks and plate patience can only help in taking pitches for Andrus. Then Adrian Beltre in the 3 hole and Prince Fielder cleaning up. That also lets Wash do the right-left-right-left to start the lineup.

On the Yankees' side, the firmness with Boras has to mean they still hope to get under the lux tax threshold. It's still doable — but, realistically, only if Bud Selig gets to give Alex Rodriguez the whole year off.

The Yankees' worst nightmare would be arbitrator Fredric Horowitz OKing a 100-game suspension or something. The Yankees would still need a 3B replacement, but have part of A-Rod's contract still like an albatross.

It's official: #H1N1 #swineflu hitting Texas hard

If you're feeling ill right now, and it seems to be kind of severe, there's a good, or not so good reason.

A certain strain of the H1N1 virus, often called "swine flu" because many of its strains hit hogs, is a serious issue.

Serious enough for three confirmed deaths in Houston and one confirmed death in greater Austin with another possible. That Austin link also reports four suspected flu deaths in Montgomery County in exurban Houston. 

Those at risk include the very young, those over 50 and especially the elderly, those with immune or respiratory problems and caregivers.

Folks, with this coming at Christmas, be careful. No matter how long its been since you've seen loved ones, if they're "buggy," be careful with the physical affection.

Two principles of liberalism collide in Duck Dynasty kerfuffle

First, this is NOT censorship, and I'm far from alone in saying that. (And kudos to L.Z. Granderson, whose background is in sportswriting, to note this.) Businesses have the constitutional right to control their company's communications, and in various ways, to control their employees' on the job communications.

And, all sorts of related things. Only governments can engage in censorship. And, too many liberals and conservatives alike get that wrong.

Now, per Charles Pierce, whether a corporation should be able to control OFF the job commenting is another thing entirely. As is whether liberals should support an idea like that, or even self-censorship.

In short, we have the idea of tolerance colliding with the idea of free speech.

Well, free speech USED to be a principle of liberalism.

But, with the surge in New Wave political correctness led by the social justice warrior types, it seems to be less and less that way. And, that's dangerous.

First, I'd rather have life real, than in a cocoon. It's good for Robertson to be honest about his statements, rather than hiding.

Second? Not too long ago, employers would fire employees for making PRO-gay remarks. Or, PRO-atheism ones. It's hypocritical to applaud A&E for putting Robertson on ice without wanting the same to happen to you.

The third riffs on this a bit. To use the old Texas phrase, "you dance with them what brung you." Stereotypes about rednecks aside, for A&E to not recognize they were getting a full human package from a Southern, red-state redneck is clueless. Or else lying by no comment.

Do you really want to applaud a corporation for acting like this just because it's worried about the monetary bottom line rather than principles?

So, social justice warriors? Especially those of you in the Gnu Atheism and Atheism Plus movements, who have been doing some dumb things pre-Christmas this year already anyway?

First, learn what censorship is, and is not. (Ditto on this one for wingnuts.)

Second, learn that "tolerance" is a sword that cuts both ways.

Third, learn that "tolerance" isn't the same as "acceptance."