Haha, Hemant. Haha, Reed.

Reed made a toast today proclaiming “I’m Winning!” talking about how he had beat Hemant at number of readers on the “Blog Networks” application on Facebook.

Hemant responded with a toast trying to get readers to join his blog network.

Well, I’ve joined both blog networks but, at the time of writing this toast, I’ve actually been winning the whole time.

Oh, and Teen Skepchick? What about that?

Now, I’m not out to really get into this little competition between the Friendly Atheist (who wants to destroy Reed) and Reed (who wants to destroy everybody), but if anybody wants to support this blog, you can join my network here.

And if you want to help support me on my mission to indoctrinate teenage girls with critical thinking, you can join the Teen Skepchick network here.

6 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Joy Wang on August 5, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Muahahahahaha!!! Teen Skepchick conquers all!!! Muahahahaha… I don’t have a Facebook account, but I’ll try to get the word out to my friends and teachers.

  2. Posted by skep on August 5, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    The last thing you should be doing is claiming to ‘indoctrinate’ people. Bad choice of words, bad choice of attitude.

  3. Sigh. Some people don’t understand what the phrase ‘tongue-in-cheek’ means.

  4. Posted by skep on August 7, 2008 at 4:01 am

    No, Evolved Rationalist, some people actually understand the power of language. And know what you’re up against when this casual attitude is seen as ‘the best approach’.

    If you use words like ‘indoctrinate’ and then try to sell a concept to people who are resistant (e.g, people who are tending to be critical of skeptics or doubtful of what might be the value) – then you’re already starting off on the wrong foot.

    Especially the very dangerous approach of skepticism = atheism, when that is the last thing skepticism should be touted as. Want to have people who are of an agnostic or faith-based mindset to shut down even before they are considering supporting it? Want to have teachers see it as ‘more trouble than it’s worth’ when it takes the approach of alienating the majority of faithful despite the (uncertain) benefits it claims to have for critical thinking skills?

    Then go ahead. Use words like ‘indoctrinate’. Fail to have a proper mission statement. Better yet, have no obvious educational links or educators attached to the project or site.

    Being just another minority-based website with opinions and views… nothing new. And ‘tongue-in-cheek’ isn’t something that wields much weight when you’re trying to explain to students and parents why they should check out a site or assert its authority (on what, exactly, by the way? Opinions of people on topics, with few to no relevant qualifications of the people, none education-based?).

    Content is key, Evolved Rationalist. I look forward to evidence rather than more rah-rah advertising. In fact, a solid game plan with realistic ‘what is intended to be achieved’ would be better – than just ‘join for the popularity of joining sake’. If anything, that’s the most constructive criticism I can have of this rush to be popular amongst the already-skeptic-set. Start setting goals and designing the site as such. Start having some product for educators, with their input and understanding of the school systems, if that’s what they want to attract. Start figuring out what they really want to do for students and educators – rather than thinking that getting into schools is that easy. Why should this or other sites benefit? What have they most definitely have to offer?

    In comparison to women’s magazines, popular books linking feminism to wiccan expressions, alternative cures, popular TV shows, which are resourced and funded to appear with glossy appeal and infinite social support groups. Where are the links to specific educational outcomes, exactly what classes will it suit – any idea of the curriculum strains to fit in content as it is? – and what range of ability will it better address in comparison to textbooks, documentaries and programs that either do the job better or, more challenging, ‘work for the other side’?

    Because it’s going to take more than ‘hey, let’s indoctrinate! Tee hee hee!’. Is this really meant to be serious, or is this just more in-joke in-house fluffing about? Personally, I’d be checking out the work of the National Center for Science Education in preference.

  5. […] in education and training, especially with teens and children. There’s a lot of ‘cheerleading‘ and a lot of great ‘future plans to do x and y and partnering with the educational […]

  6. […] my use of the phrase “support the indoctrination of critical thinking” at the bottom of one of my toasts which had more to do with the blogging networks application on Facebook than that. And if you want to help support me on my mission to indoctrinate teenage girls with […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: