If you are a regular of Free Thought Blogs or Skepchick, you’ve probably heard by now that Surly Amy went to TAM (The Amazing Meeting which is a skeptics conference) and because of various reasons, became upset and left the conference early.

Now, I don’t presume to judge her actions as either justified or unjustified, or her feelings as either justified or unjustified.  I don’t know.  I can’t possibly know.  Even if I could know, I am not her and judging someone’s emotional response as either valid or invalid is really messed up.

However, that doesn’t seem to be stopping some other people from expressing very strong opinions on the pressing matter of whether or not she should have been upset.  This is in-line with the skeptic topic of the year: At what point should we allow women to be upset about something without punishing them?

Now, I was going to just post this as a comment to this blog post by Thunderf00t, but I’m posting it here.  I gave into parental-style rage…um….just a little bit.

…because when you get upset about something it completely invalidates you as a human being?  Grow up.

I think it was sometime around middle school when kids stopped laughing at people for crying.

Please quit with the hollow crap.

You’re completely forgetting the FIRST rule of debate which is “Attack ideas, not people”.

Just because others fail at this as well, does not mean that you are off the hook.

Some people commenting here seem to think that is the case.  For some reason, if someone (whoever, doesn’t matter who) called them or someone else a name on FtB or Skepchick (doesn’t even matter what blog), it somehow gives them a magic license to be awful to anyone associated with them.

For example, John says: “There has been a lot more bullying, strawmanning, and name-calling against others who disagreed, from Skepchick and FfTB, and it’s funny that they end up crying…”

No.  That’s not how that works.  You should still feel guilty about thinking someone crying is funny.  You’re justification fails.

When you work in vaguery and parody; and assertions of “ridiculousness” over and over again without either giving more information or actually engaging with the topic; it is nearly impossible to attack specific ideas or stances.  It’s like trying to paint a house with a helicopter and a bucket.

You’re not even making a point here – AT ALL – just attacking.  You don’t bother to pick apart what other people have actually said and direct your criticisms at their ideas – but just parody the monolithic hypothetical vague “them”.

For F sake you are reduced to attacking someone for having an emotion you don’t agree with?

I deny your self-assessment as valid.  “Seriously, this is not being mean…”  Yes it is and you know it.  You’re an adult – please act like one.

Advertisements