A couple of weeks ago, I was praising Mick Nugent for pushing Justin Vacula to get detailed on what Vacula considers to be unacceptable treatment even for people he disagrees with.  Sadly, Vacula stopped responding the day I complimented Nugent on getting specific, except for plugging his new podcast:

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/justinvacula/status/313067997675802624″]

and telling Nugent to keep doing what he’s doing even though Vacula has stopped participating:

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/justinvacula/status/313837337295589377″]

Why does Vacula want to see this continue even though he doesn’t find it worth participating in? Well, I’m just guessing here, but that guess is that, like pretty much any discussion that has happened at a third-party blog in at least the last nine months, the folks from the slime pit have viewed this as an opportunity to go after the reputations of “the baboons”; i.e., a shifting group of people who are arguing for practices to make organized skepticism and secularism more generally inviting to women.

Nugent doesn’t see what he’s doing quite that way. Continue reading “A Platform for Reasonable Dialog (Updated)” →

The Onion posted a piece on Friday titled, “New Study Finds ‘The Onion’ Has Never Been More Popular, More Beloved, Or More Respected”. It started in usual Onion fashion:

Following one of the finest and most widely praised weeks in the history of The Onion, a new study published today found that the trusted news outlet has never been more popular, more admired, or more respected among Americans, with record numbers of readers saying the last five or six days in particular constitute a veritable high watermark for the company.

See, now that’s funny, in the laugh out loud sense.

It’s also funny in the “Hmm” sense.

Continue reading “Keeping the Fires Burning” →

Dan Fincke and I were chatting on Facebook last night about the civility pledge that he posted on his blog and that a few others have signed onto. Specifically, I was talking about the shortcomings of a particular paragraph:

When I am having a personality conflict that is making progress in understanding seem impossible, I will drop communications with that person–with or without explanation as seems most potentially constructive. I will not escalate unproductive arguments that are becoming interpersonally acrimonious. I will not participate in ongoing interpersonal feuds between other people but only participate in discussions that stay focused on what is true, what the best principles are, and how such principles may be most fairly and efficiently implemented in the world. I will correct injustices, bad principles, and bad ideas in ways that are maximally productive for changing minds and real world policies while also minimally likely to create or escalate distracting counter-productive interpersonal feuds.

I noted that walking away is not always an option, particularly in cases where one is being persistently harassed, often in public spaces one doesn’t control. As you might guess, I used myself as an example.

Then another friend of Dan’s interjected what I thought was a very good question: Continue reading “When You Can't Walk Away” →

By now you may have seen Ophelia’s posts on the attempt by Lee Moore to arrange talks between the “sides” of the deep rift. You may have seen Justin Vacula’s post on that as well. Or his original post.

I’ve been contact by Lee Moore as well. The idea, as he puts it at the moment, is to sit down for some public discussions of differences. Unlike Ophelia, I have said I would do it if my terms are met.

What are my terms? Any participant from that “side” renounces the slime pit.

As I explained to Lee, anyone who thinks they can settle anything is going to have to leave the slime pit behind, because the entire point of the slime pit is to contain vitriol against Rebecca Watson, FtB, and anyone who acts as though any of us have a point. You either change that (which is an impossible task) or the people you ask to lead a charge toward reconciliation walk away from it and say they’re not running back when they’re done.

What do they get from me in return? Moderated discussion on mutually agreed-upon topics with a mutually agreed-upon moderator. I know at least one professional moderator who has already helped an atheist and skeptic organization a great deal with regard to similar matters. I think anything less would be pointless now.

I have no problem discussing my views for a public audience. It’s…well, it’s rather the point of this blog. That doesn’t change with a camera and microphone on. I just expect something in return for my time and for all the crap that’s been thrown my way. If people are willing to further marginalize those who fling the most crap, that’s more than incentive enough to talk to them.

So those are my terms.

Update: Justin has made a response on Twitter that’s worth addressing.

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/justinvacula/status/296883939698675712″]

Justin, I’m not asking you to renounce Skeptic Ink. That’s your network of independent blogs. This is mine. All your statement does is highlight that our “side” has nothing equivalent to the pit.