• zqps@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    The community’s use isn’t the correct point of reference. It is also naturally biased, because the community seeks to avoid association with these people.

    It’s not crazy or outlandish to label Harris or Dawkins as skeptics in the common use of the term. It’s core to their branding whether you like it or not. That’s what matters when you talk to people outside the community, not the insular definition you treat as objective fact.

    I don’t even see a point in litigating this, other than the one I mentioned already. It was clear from context what they were talking about.

    • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The community has explicitly rejected the people you named because they aren’t in keeping with positions the community holds. If the community says they don’t want these people in the group but you insist on saying they are part of the group then you are making a bad faith argument.

      Communities get to decide who is an isn’t part of the community. You specifically mentioned trans issues. Two of the pods I named had trans hosts. Dawkins had his AHA award pulled because of trans comments. Skeptics aren’t being the people you said they were. You can either change your mind or stick to your beliefs despite the evidence.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-trans-humanist-aha-b1835017.html