Oh god.
click to embiggen
A think tank of thought leaders.
It actually says that. They actually call themselves that.
A think tank of thought leaders.
Thought leaders.
They accept the title “thought leaders.”
Butterflies and Wheels
Gnu atheism, women's rights, internationalism, universalism, and gossip
That is just…..
What the hell did they think the reaction would be. Joy? Relief, because we finally have some fucking THOUGHT LEADERS so we won’t have to do all that pesky thinking any more?
Jesus H. Christ.
And oh my FSM, SHERMER, with his arm over whats-her-name’s shoulder.
I know. Wouldn’t you think they at least would have ditched that photo?? Of Shermer leering into the camera?
They reached out to our local group, and our reaction was something like this.
😀
Perhaps that’s the most appealing photo of Shermer they were able to get O_O
*LOVE* your group’s reaction, Gem Newman.
But I’m wondering – since THEY are the “thought leaders”, does that make us “thought followers”? “Unthinking followers”? “Followers who quietly and patiently wait to be told what to think”??
I’d really like to know how I’m supposed to classify myself :\
They reached out to you? To do what– lead you in thought?
Which is sort, I guess, like leading people in prayer or in a rousing rendition of 99 Bottles of Beer on the wall– you do it for them, and/or do it really loudly.
Geez, I need an editor.
So far, most of their thought seems to have been directed towards changing their name. I don’t think this organization has been in existence for a year and it’s already been the Global Secular Council, the Secular Global Institute, and now the Secular Policy Institute.
I’m embarrassed for them.
Their latest news: “Secular Policy Institute at the CPAC: A Right-Minded Think-Tank at the Conservative Political Action Committee.”
That’s swell.
*Fellows: 23 men, 7 women.
According to the email, they wanted to to “list [us] as a coalition participant”. In exchange, we would apparently get to “influence our national campaign for secular values”, participate in a “weekly call on national issues”, get “individual attention from our superstar thinkers”. We also pointed out, “Um, when you say ‘national’… we’re in Canada.”
Hee.
AHahahahahahahahaha – “Um, when you say ‘national’… we’re in Canada.” BRILLIANT job with the global/world-wide thing.
Hilarious.
For thought leaders, they do seem consistently confused about the meaning of common terms like “global” and “national.”
I’ve got it! We’re “the little people”!
We are the Beloved Followers. It’s an honorable title.
I love the “Our Cause” page, with the group photo followed by “This is what secularists look like.” (…”And by ‘this’, we’re suggesting ‘overwhelmingly white’, though we’re too clueless to realize it.”)
Wow, that is a pretty spectacular PR failure. Does anyone know who is in charge of their social media blurbs? In other words, who in the hell thought that this was a good idea??
Probably the same people who thought it was a good idea last summer? It’s hard to imagine they could have recruited new people who would also think this was a good idea…
You are right. I just don’t understand how they expect to be taken seriously at the ‘global/national’ level.
“I know. Wouldn’t you think they at least would have ditched that photo?? Of Shermer leering into the camera?
Well the weirdest one in that pic is probably Dawkins, he looks like someone did a terrible taxidermy job on him….
Isn’t that the lobbyist Edwina Rogers, she of the money wrapping paper fame?
@SC (#16): The “Our Cause” page is cute, but I love the “Our Mission” page more. 🙂
They have one Major Project™:
Apparently, there’s a Congress of World Decision Makers I was unaware of. Way to go, International Thinkers!
The Other Projects™ are even more hilarious. Particularly this one:
Apparently, secular resources are limited to books, articles, papers, and surveys. Only the thinky stuff can be a resource!
I also found it amusing how narrow the resources are. For example, of the 20 books (yeah, you read that right. Twenty is the new “comprehensive” number!) they list as secular resources:
* 8 are written by Steven Pinker
* 8 are written by Victor Stenger
* 2 are written by Stephen Law
* 1 is written by Lawrence Krauss
* 1 is written by Thune Cerling
Again, that’s the “most comprehensive list of secular resources” there is. 20 books by 5 people, with 16 of them by only two authors.
Comprehensive!Pathetic. Aren’t they the least bit embarrassed to have this publicly viewable?If they lead, I will not follow.
… Except from a safe distance out of curiousity for the lulz.
Isn’t that the lobbyist Edwina Rogers
Yep.
Is that Sam Harris? Mr. ‘My fans are being shitheads? What’s it got to do with me?’ calls himself a thought leader now?
So, didn’t Rand Paul create his own ophthalmology certification board to certify him as an ophthalmologist? How is this really any different?
It’s a misprint. Should read ‘Thought Lederhosen’
I was actually confused and thought this was somehow a really old post being brought up as new thanks to them using that same awful photo. Now I’m left wondering if their reaction to all the criticism of their use of “Global” while being mostly white and American or British was to drop the “Global” instead of actually working on being global and diverse. These people are just awful.
Also worth noting – they have a scrolling portrait gallery that lists all the fellows… And Taslima Nasrin who is conspicuous as being the only one listed without “Fellow” after her name.
Where it says ‘click to embiggen’ It’s embiggen nuff already.
On the “Who We Are” page it is interesting to read each blurb. Some are descriptive like:
or
and then you have some that are just odd, like
or
You would think they have an editor who is looking out for things like consistency.
They don’t have Taslima as a Fellow?
Jesus god.
I have to admit, I find this morphing organization and its various sites no end of amusement.
I noticed on that page that one of their “Objectives” was to “Gather the world’s leading secular books, academic papers, demographic studies, and articles and make them available for decision-makers.” I was wondering what that could mean in practice.
There’s a backstory to all this morphing, which I’ve been told but can’t keep straight, because…yawn. Somebody offered a big lump of cash to set up the first incarnation, then all the wheels fell off, then there was some kind of reboot, and – here we are. But it seems to be exactly the same along with a few additions, so…I don’t get it about the reboot. They started over, but nothing is different.
The whole thing is riddled with errors. From the home page:
Some of the inconsistency in the site and its message no doubt reflects the continuing incoherence of their goals (other than the constant of self-promotion). But just in general so many paragraphs look oddly cobbled together:
@otrame #2, Ophelia #3: Right?!?! First though: Man, that’s a lot of White people. Second thought: Of course Shermer has his arm around… I think that’s Edwina Rogers?
Is this intentional parody or unintentional self-unaware self-parody?
Ugh, that coy Bella and Stella Foundation business. (I continue to be confused about all of this. I mean, Rogers and Dawkins alone are absurdly rich. I don’t understand why they would need money from outside, secret sources. I’ve always despised the lack of transparency in many atheist-secular-humanist organizations. I can’t trust an organization when I can’t find out who’s funding it, even if it doesn’t look – as this does – like an ineptly run vanity project.)
Yes, it’s exactly the same.
To paraphrase my friend’s dad, rich people don’t get rich by spending their own money; they get rich convincing other people to spend their money.
Yes, that’s Edwina Rogers. It’s all so…so…
Yep, OPM: Other People’s Money. And that abbreviation is very deliberate: to some folks, OPM is just as addictive as opium…
*yawn*
Um, I almost had some comment to make about this Thought Leader thing, but….
*yawn*
I forget if there was someone who was in it and dropped out, but there’s definitely an extra shoulder on the far left of the picture that they didn’t photoshop out.
I’m surprised they don’t have the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz movie as a fellow. He’s got a ThD degree. That’s Doctor of Thinkology, which should make him a thought leader.
carlie @41
That’s Bill Nye, who posed for the picture but then dropped out of the thought leadership.
Yes, Bill Nye.
Al Dente @43
Oh kudos to the Science Guy!
Atheists: Atheism has no leaders
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins: Declare themselves to be thought leaders.
(P.S. Anybody else notice they are all white?)
I’m laughing at the bio of Policy Director Madeline Schussel:
SGI is the prior name of this organization. To which she was “compelled” (gasp!) by the secular movement to contribute.
LOL
(a) I can’t believe I haven’t noticed before now that Sam Harris is trying out Zoolander’s “Blue Steel” look in that picture.
(b) Maybe if they need yet another new name, they should try Global Oblivious-to-the-image-this-gives-off Council.
Ha! That’s exactly it. I was thinking like David Copperfield, then New Age guru. But you’ve got it.
My turn to pile onto the dreck of “Thought Leaders”.
Did anyone else notice the followed by Atheist Ireland. When I saw that, my first impression was, “The Nuge (Ireland)” really wants to be part of the Thought Leaders”. I am thinking that The Nuge (Ireland) is like, “Hey, I am a white male. I do thinky thoughty things. I have harangued the unbearable SJW PZ Myers. Why don’t you let me in your thinky thoughty club! Pick me! Pick me!”
So, essentially, the Secular Policy Institute doesn’t actually do anything for secularism – just thinky thoughty things? The new marketing slogan for SPI. “We think deep thoughts. You do the work!”
@Ophelia : I want to apologize for referring to Michael Nugent as “The Nuge (Ireland)”. I was working on baking my morning bread, and reflecting. Using school yard naming tactics is the stuff that Abbie Smith does, and provides no useful critique of the cluelessness of the Secular Policy Institute. I stand by my criticism, but using sophomoric taunts via a person’s name is not appropriate or helpful.
I apologize to the readers of your Blog as well for lowering the conversation.
Donnie @51: You’re not the only one who had that thought, I was just unable to put it into words. 😉
Donnie @52
I accept your apology for referring to The Nuge as The Nuge.
OK, that explains the feeling of deja vu I got when I saw this. I’d have sworn I saw this on PZ’s blog a couple of years ago. Most likely I did. Nothing has changed, including the picture.
You could have seen it here last summer.
They were the Global Secular Council. Now they’re the Secular Policy Institute. What do you want, egg in your beer?
Well, if they keep changing the name we’ll still know it is them by their use of the terrible title of ‘thought leaders’ for their fellows. Pretty sure no one else does that.
Don’t give them any ideas, yazikus. Next thing we know, they’ll be calling them Intellectual Innovators.
If this is supposed to be some sort of lobby group, doesn’t CFI-US already do that, and equivalent groups elsewhere? Just what value is this thrice-rebooted (by my count) bunch supposed to add?
The term “thought leader” (which shows up in all sorts of contexts) seems to mean someone who has said or written something influential. That’s reasonable enough, as a phenomenon — after all, isn’t that what we’re all doing here, in our own small way? But promoting oneself as a “thought leader”, especially in a freethought movement, seems just a bit, um, presumptuous.
Yes, CFI and other groups do already do that. Yes, this does look like a completely pointless duplication of effort. Yes, these are the wrong people to choose to lobby Congress and the like.
Lady Mondegreen, how about The Pondering Pontiffs?
Isn’t Edwina Rogers the Republican who took over the Secular Coalition of/for America and said atheists need to show more respect for Republicans?
In any case, what a jucking foke.
“Le Tigre’s a lot softer. It’s a little bit more of a catalog look. I use it for footwear sometimes.”
Oh, here’s another delightful bit about Edwina Rogers:
Ed and Edwina Rogers, the Republican couple who threw twenty years of marriage down the drain over things like not telling each other their whereabouts and, allegedly, having affairs, have now listed their McLean palatial digs for $8.5M. This is the same house where Edwina proudly demonstrated how she wrapped presents in dollar bills while preparing for one of the many events the couple is said to have hosted at the “Republican Shangri-La”. The five bed, eleven bath takes up 15,300 square feet on over four acres of precious McLean land, most of which is devoted to a putting green. But the owners did leave some space for a pool and guest house.
That was from March 2012. And SCA still thought she’s be a good leader? I guess she had everyone beat in the “materialism” department…
They’re still pestering our group to join. The group’s organizer finally got fed up and said that we wouldn’t, because a lot of these guys were “gross”. That prompted this response from them:
I’d had enough at this point, so I had to chime in again:
This apparently annoyed them a little, because they fired back:
Hey, facts are facts, I guess.
Urgh.
They’re still doing that awful smarmy fan-mag way of talking – “luminaries”??? Who does that, apart from unsubtle advertisers and PR people?
Also the truth=popularity routine. Dawkins is popular therefore we may not evaluate him, we may only worship and fawn.
Gem Newman @66, I am fond of the part where this person speculates that you have fallen victim to groupthink only to then cite 400 other folks they have corresponded with and Dawkins’ massive popularity. Who has fallen victim to groupthink, again?