Comments on: Ep#102 – Mythcon IV Controversy Debrief

By: O. Eraser

O. Eraser — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:07:22 +0000

Great interview Stephen. The Sargon issue is ridiculously overblown. At no point did he threaten anyone at any point in time. If I remember correctly, he made a purposefully offensive point to illustrate the point that no speech, regardless of however offensive it is, should be criminalized in any way. And it was a fair point. No speech should ever be criminalized. To use a statement that wasn’t offensive would defeat the purpose.
People who are too stupid to understand this (either deliberately or through an accident of birth) and just keep on repeating their dumb emo-blackmail are betraying their own inability to think. Not a credit to the ‘Skeptic Community’ (whatever the hell that is), and not much of a loss, to be honest. I would look at it as jettisoning extra, useless weight.

By: #MythCon Disagreement And Thomas Smith’s Online Abuse | Godless Spellchecker's Blog

Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:40:10 +0000

[…] reached out to the organisers after this whole debacle to try and get their side of the story on record. I wanted to find out […]

By: skepticcanary

skepticcanary — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:55:49 +0000

What have they got to do with anything?

By: Rich Sanderson (@RichSandersen)

Rich Sanderson (@RichSandersen) — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:47:08 +0000

We have yet to see the likes of Steve Shives and Kristi Winters satisfactorily defend their association with Dan Arel, a bigoted antisemite who endorses physically assaulting women.

People without that kind of baggage are free to criticise Sargon and retain credibility. Obviously, Shives, Winters, and Arel, pretending they have some sort of moral high ground is laughable.

By: skepticcanary

skepticcanary — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:04:31 +0000

If they’ve sold a bunch of tickets *because* they invited a two-bit contrarian who unrepentantly tweeted “I wouldn’t even rape you” at a sexual assault victim, then that’s very very sad. Hopefully everyone who bought a ticket has done because the rest of the conference was good.

By: Stephen Knight

Stephen Knight — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:41:48 +0000

But that is the point. The whole point in fact. It’s my only contention. People aren’t free to do these things if they are shutdown or de-platformed, are they?

Good point about actions and consequences though. The hysterical moral outrage over this conference has made it the most successful one yet and ensured its return next year. https://twitter.com/GSpellchecker/status/920615332678717440

By: skepticcanary

skepticcanary — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:36:47 +0000

Yes, they are free to do it, that’s not the point. They can do what they want, and everyone else is free to judge them for it. Actions have consequences.

By: Stephen Knight

Stephen Knight — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:25:48 +0000

Once again, they are free to do what they wish. See my previous response

By: skepticcanary

skepticcanary — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:24:33 +0000

If someone is so shitty that they’ll tweet “I wouldn’t even rape you” at a sexual assault victim, then they would not be worth having a conversation with, let alone being put on stage at a conference. I’ve reached that conclusion based on basic humanity.

You might want to listen to the “Skeptics With a K” take on it. Two of them are QEDcon organisers, and they’d never resort to inviting a pound shop Milo Yianopowotsit in order to generate a bit of controversy. All of the speakers they invite are talented and have actually done things.

http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/2017/10/skeptics-with-a-k-episode-208/

By: Stephen Knight

Stephen Knight — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:16:15 +0000

Then don’t invite him into your conversations. It doesn’t give you (general use of ‘you’) the right to tell others who they may have a conversation with, or decide for others who they may hear should they wish to.