As I mentioned earlier, I’m going to address another part of the blog I commented on concerning skepticism.
I mentioned that the writer took at shot at one of the bloggers on this network. I guess he was using it as an example of not being a skeptic or, in his words earlier in his own piece, hyperskeptical.
To catch up any of those not aware, Matt Cavanaugh of our network wrote a piece recently about a blog where our suspect scanned a letter he recieved and included it in his post. It was a letter about the bloggers book; you know, the one that’s been a huge bestseller on Amazon. The letter was dripping with praise. That’s okay, it’s always nice to get positive feedback.
He starts by, of course, insulting Matt. Well, that’s standard for any scientist, isn’t it? Then he really goes on a rant.
I think he misses the point of the post and never really addresses it in the nearly 400 words he devotes to trashing Matt.
My reading of Matt’s post was this: Isn’t it unusual, in this day and age, for some high school or college student to send a hand written letter to someone? With all the computers, whether at home or school, email readily available, why did this person send a hand written (block letter by the way) letter?
Sure Matt proceeds to dissect. Is he right or wrong? I don’t know. But the question above remains.
Then of course, he assigns some intent that was never in Matt’s post:
He mansplains the psychology of teenaged girls to assert that there’s no way a 15-year-old woman could have written the letter
I see! No one is allowed to question anything and if the person happens to be a girl or woman, it’s “mansplaining”. He’s not finished though:
On the basis of his own foul-minded speculations, he transformed a pleasant fan letter into a come-on from a small town Lolita. It’s a disgusting spectacle of hyperskepticism gone wild. Oh, and skepticism and atheism: Jebus, but you do have a misogyny problem. Please stop pretending you don’t.
Let me see if I have this straight: Matt is, 1) foul-minded, 2) hyperskeptical,and 3) a misogynist.
All of this based on a pretend quote (yes, he made it up) from the letter writer.
So the real point of this trashing was again, to forward his agenda that there’s something wrong in Skepticville, where all of us have a sexism problem and people like Matt are nothing more than misogynists.