This afternoon I got a strange tweet.
Lol OMG @badrescher freaking out on FB that "PZ" RTd her thread bashing Amy Roth. "Here come the rage bloggers," BUT- pic.twitter.com/ohKuD1woKc
— So-calledAdultFemale (@VitaBrevi) September 10, 2014
Say what? I thought. That’s really weird; I don’t follow Barbara Drescher, I have no idea what she’s talking about here; I haven’t commented on anything she’s written in quite some time. But apparently she dreads the idea that I might notice something she has posted publicly, so I looked to see what it was about.
Apparently, she thinks I retweeted something she posted. OK, but that’s odd. I hadn’t. The sniping about “rage blogs” is mildly annoying — this is how the skeptics dismiss anyone who levies any criticism against them, by belittling any one who disagrees with them as “rage bloggers” (rage entirely optional; you can be calm and polite and rational, and by definition, you are a rage blogger for daring to criticize a Skeptical Thought Leader.)
As it turns out, I hadn’t whispered a word about Drescher. It was a freakin’ parody account, of which I have quite a few — that someone calls themselves “pharyngula” or “pz” has nothing to do with me. I replied to that nonsense.
.@VitaBrevi @badrescher Errm, that’s not my account. I don’t know who is using my name there, but it’s not me.
— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) September 10, 2014
See? Pure, white-hot rage.
Then Drescher said more.
Say what again? This “rage blog” bullshit is getting really irritating. I said nothing, I ignore this Drescher bozo, but somehow I’m a terrible threat for existing. And what’s all this about Amy? What’s the reason for that strange resentment. But I let it slide. I’m going to ignore it all…but then along comes the third strike.
It finally sinks in that I had nothing to do with her sad little fears that I might have noticed her petty tweet, but still, she’s got to bring up her delusions about “rage blogging”. Well, fuck that noise. Now I’ve got to mention it.
Here’s the comment she dreaded being exposed to the wider public, despite the fact that she made it publicly on both Facebook and Twitter.
What’s it all about, with this passive-aggressive veiled insinuation that someone is ‘lining their pockets’ and ‘puffing up their egos’? It turns out that she’s a bit peevish because Phil Plait wrote a nice post praising Amy Roth’s activism, specifically her art installation, “A Woman’s Room Online”, which illustrates the harassment women receive on the internet.
It’s one of the more petty complaints I’ve seen from the hardcore skeptic weirdos. She is unhappy because someone said something nice about someone else. She is aggrieved because Amy Roth has creatively documented the dreadful activity that Drescher wants to believe doesn’t exist. And I suspect she’s at least vaguely aware that she’s being childish and stupid because of her fear that someone might notice her behavior.
That doesn’t stop her from doubling down. In addition to her petty resentment and her mindless lashing out at “rage bloggers”, she goes on to accuse Amy of bilking people for personal profit. This art installation is something Amy assembled at her own expense, and which she is exhibiting with free admission, and Drescher is somehow arguing that she’s doing it solely for personal gain, and that Phil Plait is gullibly colluding with her to con all those people who might sympathize with her cause.
Skeptics. The worst of them are so good at embarrassing themselves.
And just think, if she hadn’t whined 3 times about “rage blogs”, she might have gotten away with it.
So, can we start calling you Rumpelstiltskin? :-)
Who is Barbara Drescher?
Hm, what if … she reverse psycholologied you?
It’s the underpants gnomes all over, ‘cept now apparently the gnomes do free art installations instead. Maybe Drescher can explain how that middle step works.
Barbara Drescher is a former JREF board member, and long time skeptical dogmatist.
I suppose I should have known that.
I didn’t know a career in activism was profitable enough to line one’s pockets with.
I find the snide digs at “rage-bloggers” to be five different kinds of bizarre. There’s a *lot* of shit going on in the world that is worth getting angry about. Some people are angered over certain things more than others. Some of them even blog about it. Is their blogging invalidated because they’re angry? I’ve been blogging about the civil rights violations in Ferguson off and on for a month. I’ve made no secret that I’m angry about it. I’ve also blogged about the horrible family of Daniel Pierce (the young gay man who came out and who’s family got physically & emotionally abusive with him just before cutting him out of their lives). I’ve blogged about numerous topics that infuriate me. Does that invalidate those topics? Is displaying anger when you blog about a topic somehow off limits? Is there an unspoken rule that states “No blogging while angry”?
Maybe I should check with Barbara Drescher to find out what other rules of blogging I need to be aware of. Can I be sad and blog? Is Happy Blogging ok? Dare I risk Horny Blogging? What if I smoke a bowl and blog? Is weed blogging off limits? Will any of that incur her disdain? Will any of it line my pockets (I sure could use something other than lint in my pockets)?
I know I’ve heard her name before. Lemme check something out…
…I thought so. PZ blogged about her back in 2011. She’s one of those True Skeptics that doesn’t appear to like diversity in the movement:
Ah, now I see what she’s on about. She’s one of the people on the other side of the great rifts.
I guess I won’t ask her which topics are off limits to blog about. She’d probably tell me I’m not welcome in the movement.
Well, her prediction came true—I found out about the exhibit via PZ, so now I’m going and bringing friends, and posting about it on Facebook and Twitter. I’ll give LAWAAG some money, too. She should have maybe exercised some skepticism about “PZ” having 4 followers.
At this point I am undecided what social media plague is worse, the parody accounts which are little more than channels for abuse, or the drones who take no effort to distinguish between the parody impostor and the authentic person. Sheesh.
In addition to the BAWWWing about Rage Blogging, she apparently failed to notice that the @pharyngula twitter account basically only retweets shit and has a total of 4 followers.
https://twitter.com/pharyngula
Skeptics gonna “skeptic”.
“Rage blog” strikes me as a similar sneer to “social justice warrior”.
The message: “How DARE you care about things!?”
Ah, now I see what she’s on about. She’s one of the people on the other side of the great rifts.
She might even be growing a nice lawn on her side of the ‘rift’, if all these upstart kids would stop running around on it.
If rage blogging is (I guess? from inference) supposed to be something along the lines of: “posting an online response that is critical of the words or actions of someone, primarily because you’re ideologically opposed to them” …
… then what does Barbara Drescher think she’s doing?
Irresistible urge…to…gasp…donate…ah…to…uh…Amy…nooooo…Roth…. All the pity. I can’t bear it.
I don’t understand why it is wrong to make money from activism. That seems like a bizarre position for someone to take who has been involved in organized skepticism. Is it wrong for JREF to pay its employees?
Minor correction: She is a former JREF staffer.
Second correction: She wasn’t actually upset about Amy possibly making money by building an entire room from scratch for an art installation. She was upset about all those years Skeptoid was for profit.
Third correction: Oh, no. She wasn’t upset about Skeptoid at all.
Even if Amy planned on making money from the online room, so what? She can ask for compensation for her work if she wants, just like any other artist.
I used to like Barbara, but then I realized how reactionary she really was. She used to diagnose some of her opponents as having mental illnesses or suffering for cognitive disorders. I don’t know if she does that now because I decided years ago that she wasn’t worth my time.
As for the whole “rage blog” comment. She used to work for an organization that raised money by raging against psychics, homeopathy, and other “frauds.” I guess she’s OK with rage if it funds her organization.
I just read through her FB thread. She has a lot of “concerns” about some sort of imaginary profit motive for LAWAAG or Amy or somebody with the free art installation. I’m pretty sure Amy used her Surlies and her business account to send women to TAM. Was Barbara upset at “no accountability” then?
I doubt it.
Tony! @7,
I trust you didn’t miss the irony of the first bit of Drescher you quoted:
Rageblogger, heal thyself!
screechymonkey @19:
Actually, I missed that bit somehow. Thanks for pointing out that deeply ironic (and overwrought) line.
“Rage-blogging” and “social justice warrior” appear to gel very well with the ol’ “bleeding hearts!” accusation. Like it’s some kind of wishy-washy, poncey thing to care enough about something enough to express yourself emotionally.
First, “rage-blogging” rings a little hypocritical – I’ve seen plenty of Skeptic Names blog while clearly in a snit about something. However, many of those snits have been about certain other skeptics daring to criticise the kind-of-a-guy-thing attitude that’s tolerated and enabled by the skeptic establishment, so I guess that’s an Approved Rageable Topic.
Next, “social justice warriors” – apparently fighting for justice is also a bad thing and worth turning into a pejorative. So I guess all those Dictionary Atheists fighting for church/state separation, fighting to end discrimination against non-believers in the military, fighting creationist indoctrination in schools and fighting atheist stigma in general are not fighting for social justice? Eh, whatever, Dawkins once tweeted it, giving it the status of Approved Insult, so it doesn’t bear further contemplation.
Finally, “bleeding hearts” – this one’s as popular in Australia as it is elsewhere. Apparently having an emotional reaction to typical arch-conservative behaviour like disenfranchising the poor, unemployed, students, minorities, Indigenous people, women, retirees and LGBT people, persecuting asylum seekers, entering yet another US military escapade without parliamentary debate (much less approval), seeing our government doing its best to destroy our renewable energy market in favour of coal and giving half a mouldy shit about the damage being done to the country and the planet is also a bad thing. Topics might be different but the message is the same – “stop giving a shit, you big girl, you great poof.”
Anyway, it appears that the only acceptable way to express strong emotion as a Skeptic™ is when some uppity Bralek or her Mangina thrall state or even imply that something you said or did (or even just something you like, like – I dunno – video gaming) is sexist or contains elements and examples of sexism. Then it’s practically mandatory to self-immolate in rage as an act of self-defence.
I do wonder sometimes how the True Skeptics are able to read their own words without raising a Spockish eyebrow at their own massive blind spots and clearly unexamined bigotries. Then I remember that self-reflection and admitting error is probably kind of a girl thing and that it’s better to seek approval from an established official list of skeptic points of view than to work out for yourself or through honest dialogue with others if you’re playing with a straight bat.
Hanks_Says @21:
You forgot ‘PC’
“But apparently she dreads the idea that I might notice something she has posted publicly”
Judging from her behavior, I suspect she actually dreads that you might NOT notice something she’s posted.
Tony!
I did, too. I guess I was too busy being a bleeding rage warrior.
I rarely hear “politically correct” very much these days though – it was big in the 90s (like Oasis) then everyone eventually grew up and moved on (like they did with Oasis); mostly when I hear it now it’s via some dinosaur who’s stuck in the past (same as when I hear Oasis).
Since it’s recently been announced that Skeptic Blogs (the Skeptics society blog) is shutting down and being replaced by a NEW blog network with Barbara Dresher and other anti-skepchick writers —
a) we can expect the same kind of rubbish like this on a regular basis from the new network
b) we can expect it to be a new anti-FTB site, doing the same as other low-traffic blog want-to-be’s, slowly losing relevance and interest
c) Phil Plait will promote their new site
answers on the back of a postcard.
It’s meant to be ironic – a “warrior” fighting for something the reactionaries deem not important enough to wage war for.
I guess she should have been more skeptical of that parody account.
And the evidence was right there for anyone who cared to look.
She walked right into the gaping maw of the Confirmation Bias Monster like a chump.
Which sure makes this little screed rather ironic, hmm?
I guess she’s in the “do as I say, not as I do” school of mentoring.
barbara drescher
rageblogger.
From that same thread that tony posted Barbara’s rant from, she actually responded in the comments:
and there you have it.
why bother defending yourself and your position when you can just claim everyone is wrong but you?
…oh, and…
project much?
So, she basically never got over middle school where this strange girls walks up to you and angrily demands why you’re talking shit about her because the cousin of A’s ex-boyfriend talked to the sister of Y who said that you had said Z about her and you have no fucking clue who she is, or who A is, who her current or ex boyfriend is but you vaguely remember that you took the same bus as Y once who is a friend of your classmate.
But somehow that’s all your fault.
“Rage blogging” (and vlogging!) is actually one of two things. First of all it can mean blogposts written without much thought while someone is angry and not thinking clearly, i.e. a knee-jerk reaction. Secondly it can mean blogposts written expressing faux anger, shaking fists more for effect/entertainment that for any actual internal emotional reasons. This is a criticism because it implies hypocrisy: either one is pretending emotion or one is forgetting to do due dilligence and think clearly (thus the rage is false as well – if you really cared about topic X you would research it properly first). Rage blogging/vlogging is a genre, and so is often dismissed as being superfluous to productive discussions (like “pwnage videos” – they’re fun, most most often aren’t very deep or thorough).
So actually “legitimiately” angry/raging blogposts are then dismissed as so much performance art/shortsightedness.
For a great example of rage-vlogging, just look at any of TJ “TheAmazingAtheist” Kinkaid’s video rants. He’s not always really as angry as he looks nor does he really care about all the issues as much as he makes it appear. And on the other hand he often has short-sighted emotional overreactions to his pet peeves.
That last Facebook thing is an interesting comment from someone so closely associated with JREF and Shermer.
Just saying …
Was Barbara Drescher the one who wore the “I feel safe at TAM” shirt for three straight days after Amy was harassed enough to make her go home early, and had spoken directly to her about how hurtful the shirt was and she kept wearing it anyway?
PZ:
Oh. Well that clears up the question of who she is, I suppose. You’d think someone who thinks so very highly of their mad skepticism skills would be a bit better about doing a teensy bit of research before bringing on the drama.
I posted about A Woman’s Room Online a week ago or so, I think it’s a brilliant idea, and I really wish I could see it in person.
Carlie:
That was Harriet Hall.
Ah, thanks, Iyéska. Didn’t mean to mix them up.
Hank_Says @ 21
I’d add ‘do-gooder’ to that list. I’ve been called a bleeding heart and a do-gooder more times than I can count. Of course it’s intended as an insult, but I take it as the opposite.
She didn’t even apologize for the mistake, either. Seriously?
Activism lines pockets? Did I miss the ad, “Stay at Home Mom Earns BIG BUCKS!!! Just 100 Hours A Week!!! Pursue Social Justice NOW!!!”
(back to the Lurk)
Well, obviously PZ’s fault. And if that’s not obvious to you then I can’t talk to you, you’re wasting my time, how credolous are you, you’re just a fanboy, stop creating drama.
If PZ didn’t exist, then nobody would make a parody account of him and then none of this would have happened. Q.E.D.
Nevermind that Roth is making no money from this installation. What if people could make money from activism? What exactly is wrong with people doing well by doing good? What are the professional skeptics like Randi doing if not making money and gaining notoriety by exposing frauds for the greater good? Should the requirement for doing something good be that you also have to do it for free?
…and wait… Dresher has to “live with” being blogged about and that’s awful, but she write all about her anger and how women need to pipe down about threats and sustained campaigns of harassment? She thinks being added to the block bot is something she should complain about? Why? Why does she think people should give her their time and attention while she lies about them and downplays their harassment? People donating money to a atheist organization is a bad thing now too?
What an idiot.
correction “She can write”
http://woofighters.org/2010/06/this-is-a-test-please-pass-it-please/
‘Underserving causes’ make them grind their teeth.
I would be honored if someone would call me a Social Justice Warrior. I consider most of my heroes to be Social Justice Warriors. Alas, if I’m honest with myself, all I really am is a Social Justice Armchair Warrior.
When Drescher says
Is she talking about her years at the JREF? Seems like a harsh thing to say about Randi. I don’t mind the guy making a few bucks off his activism… /snark
All this talk about rage and blogging.
Why doesn’t someone write a book about this? They could call it:
Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless.
Wait, let’s get Greta Christina to write it. Check out http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/
By the way, the Kindle version of this book is on sale now.
Maybe being angry is sometimes justifiable!
Also, I keep reading her handle as “Bad Teacher”. I have no idea whether she’s good at resching or not, though.
Iyeska @36
Actually, that was not what Harriet’s tee-shirt said. It said something like I’m not a skepchick, I’m somehting else which included skeptic, and concluding with “I’m a skeptic”. I was at that TAM and remember thinking along the line of, “Didn’t she bring any other tees with her?”
Sometime after that TAM, someone (Steve Novella I think) got Harriet and Amy to correspond with each other. After that correspondence, they both said they understood the other person’s position. Harriet wrote about in one of her contributions to the science based medicine blog.
George
Way to spoil the joke, stupid autocorrect …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_A._Hall
front:
I feel safe and welcome at TAM
.
back
I’m a Skeptic, not a “skepchick”, not a “Woman Skeptic”, Just a Skeptic
The more I read, the less I understand. From what I have so far noticed, FTBers tend to ignore the “baiting” of Slyme-pitters and their ilk, until it gets truly egregious. It seems to me as if those who have simply accepted the “great schism” and gone their merry way are somehow MORE rage-inducing than those who actively engage.
Surly Amy, together with her friends, produce a relevant and important (and very cool) work of art, offered to the public for free, and this is somehow a BAD thing?
Will someone please explain it to me?
myeah, what a dunderhead. Yet another example of “skeptics who you wouldn’t want representing the skeptic community”. The irrational, unreasoning hatred is beyond me. She’s mad at Amy for … things. Sounds to me like she has creativity/artist envy or some such. “Oh, now this professional victim is making ART about her victimization … you know .. “ART”. Barbara needs therapy methinks. She’s deranged. From the verbiage about lining the pockets to the paranoia about having rage bloggers ferreting out her public posts, it’s fail all the way around …
I’m… now tempted to stare into a mirror in the dark and say “pz” three times.
I love this.
Also, reading the link to PZ’s article from 2011, I realized that I had forgotten that the Skeptic™ movement had explicitly attempted to dissociate skepticism from atheism, for transparently self-serving reasons: religion is popular, trashing religious beliefs means you get less $MONEY$. They tried to come up with a bunch of properly skeptical-sounding reasons for not applying skeptical tools to religious claims, but it was a smokescreen for their cowardice and/or greed.
If Drescher or ANY of the self-described Skeptics™ really held the values they claim to hold, they would have apologized for taking that dishonest and hypocritical direction tack long ago.
Drescher is a waste. :-p
It does beg the question though, what happens to a Skeptic’s capacity for rational thinking once they burn out? Does skepticism have a tendency to reduce into dogmatism and simple tribal logic?
Being mean and awful and a poor thinker is not evidence of mental illness. Stop throwing mentally ill people under the bus in your drive to insult people who are simply jerks and lazy about thinking.
I’m not really cool with this kind of language either. Can we just focus on actual criticism, as SallyStrange noted above?
@yazikus
Good point. I let my emotions get the better of me and should not have made that statement.
@PZ Would you mind editing out the first line of my #57 comment? It was uncalled for.
ragarth,
Thanks for understanding. It is much appreciated.
All of this crap about “conning” or “bilking” or “scamming” people or whatever is so weird, becasue it’s ultimately self-contradictory. (Side note: this fact alone makes me suspect some to most of it is actually bad-faith arguing, but since people can be incredibly self-unaware and inconsistent, I’m assuming ignorance instead of malice.) These people clearly can’t imagine that anyone would actually care about the issues in question (i.e. the motivation can’t simply be that it’s an intrinsically important issue), so they insist that the people in question are engaging in activism to make money. However, they posit that as a bad thing, which is confusing because everyone I’ve ever encountered who (wrongly) thinks that the only or best way to motivate people is money thinks that this is a very good thing and that capitalizing all human activity is an ideal. So, WTF, scam-concern trolls?
Thanks Chigau. I obviously only remembered the back of the shirt.
George
funknjunk @54:
Seconding SallyStrange’s comments @58. There’s no evidence that she’s mentally ill, so tying her statements to mental illness is baseless and an insult to those suffering from mental illnesses.
****
annie55@53:
Sadly I can’t help you with this. I’m still trying to understand it myself.
****
brucegee1962 @46:
there’s nothing wrong with being an S-JAW :)
****
trixiefromthelurk@40:
With humor like that, I’d love to see more comments from you. I guffawed quite loudly. Thanks.
****
Hmm, someone could have a tagline for their blog that reads “Bleeding heart, do-gooder, PC, rage-blogging Social Justice Warrior”
Either that, or it could make a really interesting “about” on someone’s dating profile at OKCupid or Match.com.
ragarth @61:
From what I’ve seen, PZ doesn’t edit posts much. The only times I’ve seen it are when he disemvowels some asshole’s comments. Your comment contained questionable language (I felt the same way as yazikus), but IMO, nothing so offensive as to warrant that response from PZ. More importantly, you’ve retracted it (which to my mind, says good things about you).
I suspect she meant ‘rage bloggers and their commenters’ by her ‘rage-bloggers’ remarks.
So let’s have at it! I hereby direct my Pharynguloid rage at this Barbara person:
Grrrr! Snarl! [uh oh, feelings of sleepiness setting in] Zzzzz…..
Maybe next time…. good night
I love the way Drescher invoked confirmation bias as cover for making a mistake. “The fact that you thought I was wrong means I must have been right.”
I’m with Tony! The Queer Shoop @66. I’d rather let it stand because of what it says about you, ragarth. Too many people freak out when called out on stuff like this and it’s cool you retracted it.
More importantly, though, I think letting stand is a nice demonstration to others that you don’t have the freak out when called out on stuff like this. One doesn’t have to derail with a defensive, derailing pity party about how other mean people have limited a full range of expression. You just showed that it’s incredibly simple to own up and move on.
Yeah Tony, I certainly understand when folks have no choice but to engage, yet for the greater part, it seems FTBers have simply moved on., unilaterally agreeing to disagree and going about their business, not generally rising to the trivial and petty (unless it is funny, in which case FTBers have been known to ruin keyboards).
This is blunt stick-poking…childish and “pointless.”
Also, the denial is strong with the far side of the schism. What more proof does one need? Surly Amy’s collaborative effort demonstrates the nonsense in an irrefutable and frankly brilliant way. What rational objection can there be here?
@66, 69. Normally I don’t edit out things either, but its clear that the line takes away from the actual question I was asking, and that question sort of scares me.
I’ve also had rather bad experiences on these threads in the past where I’ve retracted statements but people didn’t manage to read said retractions due to the volume of posting. It then spiraled out of control as people started responding to responses. That wasn’t at all fun, but it also wasn’t the fault of the people, just the result of a huge number of posts coming in fast.
In any case, I’ll trust the judgement of PZ and what he thinks the best message is put forth in my post.
Barbara party. We had the Streisand Effect. Now we have the Drescher Effect: Unwittingly, or by design, calling attention to the thing you just made a public statement about by making repeated public statements about how someone else might make a public statement about it.
@ Sallystrange – like ragarth above, apologies here as well. Poor phraseology and terminology …..
I read the comments on Phil Plait’s article on Amy Roth’s project, and, I know, I know, I shouldn’t read the comments. A lot of the comments seemed to be saying that because Amy Roth and the Skepchicks were mean to me or mean to other people, nobody should go to her show. Those same people just didn’t want to discuss how the problems of harrassment on the internet. Fortunately, a lot of people were praising the project. It is a great idea, to take all the negativity and make something creative and/or useful
I skimmed the comments above, did no one talk about The Skeptic Leader Barbara Drescher’s concern about how Amy is using the donations? I assume Ms. Drecher is concerned how the donated bile, hate, and ignorance of the tweets, emails, and posts donated by her pals towards Amy, the Skepchicks, and all other women were used for the Art exhibit. That is the “donations” she is concerned about? Does Ms. Drescher wish Amy to provide attribution to the “donations”?
Barbara has “hidden” the FB discussion, but it can be found via twitter. What is heartening is that there were folks gently challenging her, and she appears to be a little desperate in justifying her remarks.
This really is petty.
Donnie, if I am following correctly, Barbara is upset that Amy has not set up a separate paypal for LAWAAG, and inferentially this must mean that Amy is pocketing the donations.
So what is Bad Researcher’s position on convicted fraudsters like Skeptoid’s Brian Dunning?
Here’s what I see: every time there’s a positive article about anyone on a certain list, the same crew of harassing assholes show up in the comments to spread lies and hate. They claim that they HAVE to do this because that list is of people who do/have done terrible things. You know what you rarely see though? You never see PZ or any of the other FtBloggers or any of the Skepchicks looking for every mention of the harassers and their heroes online to even say horrible TRUE things about them.
And let’s be honest: in the wide world, nobody gives a shit about those harassers. They only reason anyone really knows them is that they constantly attack more popular, more interesting, flat-out BETTER people than they are. A couple of years into this, and FtB and the Skepchicks are doing fine. JREF is imploding, Dawkins has destroyed his reputation, and fewer and fewer people are interested in the “old guard” and their desperate attempts to hold on to relevance.
“skeptical dogmatist.”
Those are two words that should never go together in any sentence. It is like calling someone a Christian atheist.
“Being mean and awful and a poor thinker is not evidence of mental illness. Stop throwing mentally ill people under the bus in your drive to insult people who are simply jerks and lazy about thinking.”
I will keep that in mind for the future. So……what WOULD be evidence of mental illness?
@carlie #30:
No, Drescher was the one who called Jen McCreight “a shallow, anti-intellectual narcissist” over Atheism+, criticized her for raising money to go to TAM, redefined “women’s intuition” just so she could write a “nuh-uh!” post responding to Rebecca Watson, and oh, was a frequent and enthusiastic participant in the comments on the You’re Not Helping blog. Her whole schtick for the last several years has been playing professional gadfly to the pro-social justice wing of the skeptic community, and that’s because playing professional gadfly to the anti-New Atheist wing of the skeptic community doesn’t have the same cachet that it used to. As far as I know, she hasn’t done anything of note within skepticism for years and years.
Incidentally, there are legends that she’s who Phil Plait originally had in mind with his “Don’t be a Dick” speech, and that everyone (including her, as she was one of the enthusiastic accommodationists afterward) just misinterpreted it, but I’ve never put much stock in them. If Drescher’s familiar with them, though, it may be part of why she’s picking this fight now. Really, though, I just think she hates seeing people she irrationally hates getting positive press from people who are still generally respected among skeptics.
dalehusband:
How about we just don’t go there and leave the mental health diagnoses for the mental health professionals.
Hey, Barbara just wants to be alone…. I can tell, because she just recently tweeted:
well, there you go.
buuut shakesville kool aid is a hate site because your friend said so and why question that?
the hypocrisy here is just stunning.
So I’m mainly just commenting to subscribe to the thread. Everything I want to say (including the hand-smacks for the ableism and the thank-yous for the retractions) has already been said.
Will say this, though… personally, I think all of this is really a sign that things are changing in these communities for the better. While I’m not one for optimism, it’s nice to think that Old Ways are dying out and inclusion is becoming the norm.