Give a Little to Skepticon (Make Weird Things Happen)

Skepticon is a free conference, and a recognized nonprofit (so donations are tax deductible). If you have means, you can help people who don’t have means attend a major and fun atheist conference in the buckle of the Bible Belt where it’s most desperately wanted and needed.

They are half way to their budget target, and now need help getting the rest. There are a variety of games you can participate in, where donations can make something happen that you might find interesting or amusing, and a hundred bucks or more gets you a “super secret awesome gift” (although I have no idea what, so I can’t vouch for how awesome it actually is). Or you can just give a little. Anything. Details here.

In fact, if you will be attending Skepticon, and don’t really need it to be free, then just pay what you think it’s worth and you can afford. Even if it’s just ten bucks. Or twenty. Or fifty. Or totally TAMinize it and give five hundred.

I will of course be speaking and drinking at Skepticon. Among many other awesome folk. Those details here. It will be an awesome convention, as it has been every other year before. Help make it happen!


  1. tiberiusbeauregard says

    Since 5 out of 18 speakers are radical feminists, can we assume that this event is leaning towards a certain political opinion ?

    • says

      Define “radical feminist.”

      Also, explain how less than a third of a set defines the set. That especially. Because this must be some sort of new math I haven’t heard of.

  2. tiberiusbeauregard says

    (1) Everyone who says “Patriarchy” with a straight face. Was I wrong for assuming you were one of them ? If so, sorry for that.

    (2) 5/18 is a suspiciously high number when their average percentage in the skeptic community is more around 5/100 (if not far less) – that’s why I asked if this conference is LEANING towards a certain political opinion ?

    • says

      (1) So anyone who says this is a radical feminist. Got it. That means you are disconnected from reason and reality.

      Continue any discussion of what “patriarchy” means and whether it is a real phenomenon there in that thread, not here–and only after reading everything I say about it (and link to on it) in that article.

      (2) The source for your data is?

      I’m sure you have none. You’re just making shit up.

      But if we had 5 liberals and 10 moderates, would you say the set was leaning towards liberal? That would be illogical, so no. You would need some other information besides the minority being in one category.

      That’s moot, though, I suspect, since I am starting to suspect you are an MRA, and thus you are like the KKK complaining about a conference being “race traitors” because they have 5 people of color on their roster (oh, and lo, they do!).

      I would have started to think the two of you are sockpuppets for the same person. You sound identical. But alas, you are in Germany, WtFWhatever is in the US. It’s at least amusing to see a German comment on what the percentages of political and moral views are among conference attending atheists in America.

  3. Shawn S-Z says

    Who cares if they’re radical or not? or feminists for that matter? If my wife and I can manage the trip we’re going. It takes “radicals” making a lot of noise to get people to pay attention. Even if I didn’t agree with most of them on the feminism issues, I certainly agree with their methods because as a radical atheist-humanist I think making noise to point out gross injustice is the way to go. Amazing how so many people against the Watson’s and Christina’s sound just like the anti-atheist folks. Replace ‘feminist’ with atheist and you’d be seeing the same stuff on PZ’s blog (and Dr. Carrier’s blog as well! I don’t want PZ to get all the street cred for having anti-atheists prowling his comments section). I have my nits to pick with some feminists position the same as with some atheists positions, but I take every argument individually. I sure as hell don’t go pigeon holing these people as ‘radical feminists’, which honestly I think is a fine thing to be as long as your arguments are sound (i.e. don’t say “Corporation X is oppressing women” when there is no evidence to support the claim). There is plenty of reason to believe that misogyny and racism are still alive. I think a lot of people are just tired of hearing about it and want it to be ‘done with’. “Didn’t we fix those things? I’m tired of being white and male and still getting hammered by these people!” Sorry, I personally may not be to blame but I’m marching with them and I’m a friend to them. Equal rights? Blind rights is better. Blind to gender, skin color, heritage, and creed. When we are blind to all those things only then will the problem be fixed. Blind to the problem, though, is what too many are saying. (Didn’t mean to go on about this for so long… I shut up…. now.)

    • says

      Just to be fair, when they say “radical feminists” what they want people reading them to imagine is “man-hating, anti-sex, woo-woo-endorsing, postmodernist-truth-denying, pseudoscience-loving, fascism-endorsing PC police.” If that were true, then I would care whether they’re radical or not, and so should you. The problem is, none of the people they call “radical feminists” are “man-hating, anti-sex, woo-woo-endorsing, postmodernist-truth-denying, pseudoscience-loving, fascism-endorsing PC police.” And that’s the issue. We can’t let them get away with that equivocation fallacy. Getting away with it is their very objective.

  4. Stephen MacKenzie says

    I am just an observer and one who enjoys listening to an articulate humanist such as Dr. Carrier, not one who has any hard data on the subject, so I say this without a terrible amount of conviction or confidence and in all deference. However, I do want to contribute my thoughts.

    Seems like common sense that those who have been explicitly marginalized and/or persecuted by religion would have the make-up to develop into compelling speakers. Seems like one could argue that this is the norm and therefore more reasonable.

    I personally would prefer a diverse community that can rise above the differences rather than having either: a.) a rationalist pecking order imposing an unwritten creed; b.) splits and divisions as in religious denominations.

    Perhaps if you can get beyond the labels, the impetus of the original post might have been concerned about my point “a”.

    I would suspect that much of this could be happening already, but hopefully communities will “evolve” with a healthy checks and balance system.

    • says

      I don’t know what you are talking about. Are you saying you think we should invite atheist members of the KKK and NAMBLA and the American Nazi Party to speak at our conferences? And that that attitude of non-divisiveness would improve our movement?