Fun talk:Grueface and Gallant do skepticism
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
huh?[edit]
I Don't get it--il'Dictator Mikal 06:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's a work in progress. Look up "Goofus and Gallant" for the basic idea. The broad point, though, is that there are too many skeptics who draw a line at holding their own prejudices up to the light; that's how we wound up with the evo-psych shit show. Essentially Gallant is what we try to be here at RW, while Grueface is a mishmosh of all the misogynist, racist, Libertarian, and Fortean idiocy we have kicking around the community. EVDebs (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention many skeptics' categorical dismissal of every religion except atheism. The purpose of this article is similar to that of the Nicene Creed, viz., to draw a line between those skeptics who agree with the author skeptic on certain tangential points, and those who do not.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, one fundamental point here is that you're only entitled to be smug if you're correct, and if you're willing to cut the smugness out when you're not. EVDebs (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Many of the points on this list do not involve differences of fact, but of opinion. ListenerXTalkerX 06:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that if people who know more about the field than you do are telling you that you're doing it wrong, it's very likely you're doing it wrong. That's the fundamental difference between Grueface and Gallant -- Grueface doesn't know when to stop and reevaluate. And that's about all I'm going to say on the matter; I'm not keen on getting in a pomo pissing match. EVDebs (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Where in the article does Gallant re-evaluate a point and Grueface not? ListenerXTalkerX 07:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not going to hold your hand through an explanation of a humor article that is a parody of a feature in a children's magazine, LX. EVDebs (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- When the article does not appear to be making the point it is intended to make, the fact that it is a riff on a children's magazine feature is irrelevant. ListenerXTalkerX 07:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- When the article does not appear to be making the point it is intended to make, the fact that it is a riff on a children's magazine feature is irrelevant.
- I'm not going to hold your hand through an explanation of a humor article that is a parody of a feature in a children's magazine, LX. EVDebs (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Where in the article does Gallant re-evaluate a point and Grueface not?
- It is my opinion that if people who know more about the field than you do are telling you that you're doing it wrong, it's very likely you're doing it wrong. That's the fundamental difference between Grueface and Gallant -- Grueface doesn't know when to stop and reevaluate. And that's about all I'm going to say on the matter; I'm not keen on getting in a pomo pissing match. EVDebs (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Many of the points on this list do not involve differences of fact, but of opinion.
- Well, one fundamental point here is that you're only entitled to be smug if you're correct, and if you're willing to cut the smugness out when you're not. EVDebs (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention many skeptics' categorical dismissal of every religion except atheism. The purpose of this article is similar to that of the Nicene Creed, viz., to draw a line between those skeptics who agree with the author skeptic on certain tangential points, and those who do not.
Two thumbs up! Blue (is useful) 06:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)