Credibility

Stephanie Zvan

It’s apparently now measured by the people you’ve interviewed. I don’t do a lot of the interviews on Atheists Talk per se. I host and throw in follow-up questions as I have them. But I’ve done a few.

I think that’s all of them, though all the hosting in between makes it difficult to be sure. How do I do for credibility?

Don’t worry. I won’t blow any of it on bad Photoshops or pointlessly insulting rants.

{advertisement}
Credibility

About the author

Stephanie Zvan is one of the hosts for the Minnesota Atheists' radio show and podcast, Atheists Talk. She serves on the board of Secular Woman. She speaks on science and skepticism in a number of venues, including science fiction and fantasy conventions. Stephanie has been called a science blogger and a sex blogger, but if it means she has to choose just one thing to be or blog about, she's decided she's never going to grow up. In addition to science and sex and the science of sex, you'll find quite a bit of politics here, some economics, a regular short fiction feature, and the occasional bit of concentrated weird. Oh, and arguments. She sometimes indulges in those as well. But I'm sure everything will be just fine. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.
{advertisement}

19 thoughts on “Credibility”

  3. Stephanie Zvan
    3

    Ron called in when I interviewed Melody.

    I’ve been an interviewee on the show, but I wasn’t silly enough to try to do it myself. The closest I came was giving an impromptu report on our local American Atheists convention last summer when Jessica’s ride got turned around getting her to the studio. The interview with her doesn’t start until the second segment. :p

  4. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts
    4

    I don’t know, would you say that you have more than proven yourself able to have an adult conversation?

    Do you refuse to let others force their thinking on you?

    When is the last time you have accused someone of eating cat food?

    All of these things are what makes one credible, you look like you have a lot of work to do*.

    *PS, is there any way you could re-write this post with page-long paragraphs? That is how adult, non-catfood-eating skeptics do it.

  12. Lou Doench
    12

    You know what, I have an rss for Planet Atheism that pops up Reap’s blog now and again. I had not before this delved to deep into that mire, but the post in question pretty much sums up how irrelevant this guy really is. The massive persecution complex, the pointless droning, the HIDEOUS color scheme. If it were not for his fervent insistence that he is a Real True Atheist I would assume he was a fringe right wing nutcase.

  13. Improbable Joe
    13

    Lou Doench,

    Probably better not to use terms like “nutcase”… negatively associating being a giant asshole with mental illness isn’t cool. As far as the “fringe right wing” part, why do you think atheism and being politically regressive can’t mix? That’s actually a giant component of the issue we’re having, because a fairly vocal contingent of skeptics/atheists are busing waging a war against the liberal 1960s.

  15. Lou Doench
    15

    You are correct of course Joe… we need better words for what we mean when we critique these people. The sense of erratic behavior I get from reading Paden lends itself to such outdated comparisons. It’s like he’s reading from a different set of RPG rules, untethered from the reality that we all see.

  16. Improbable Joe
    16

    Thanks Lou, appreciate it. And of course you also get to be a perfect example of how less-terrible folks react to gentle, polite criticism. 🙂

    The problem is that Paden’s behavior comes from a very successful sort of “script” that works mostly in professional wrestling and right-wing radio, and is historically accepted as a method of “winning” when you’re on the wrong side of every issue. Just yell and project and yell and project and who cares if anything you say is true or makes sense, because the other side is pure evil and you’re pure good and anything you say or do is therefore justified. Like one time Rush Limbaugh quoted a parody website claiming Obama had done something evil… and when he got caught he said it didn’t matter that he was wrong on the facts because it was something Obama WOULD do if given a chance. His judgment of what Obama would do also based on made up “facts” with no truth behind them. Limbaugh didn’t lose any credibility with his fans, and neither does Paden.

    And we can’t use “rockbox” because that’s the brand of a $350 guitar effects pedal my wife bought me, and I won’t see it sullied. I WON’T! 🙂

  18. hjhornbeck
    18

    Huh, I just noticed this on Paden’s page:

    This doesn’t include everyone, but it is probably about 60% and I think it shows a few of things that contradict the people who want you to believe all I do is scream “motherfucker” into the microphone (PZ Myers) […] I also must be the only person on the planet who gets angry. It could be I’m impossible to get along with for even a short period of time. I’m relatively sure all the people listed below would disagree, that’s why they are not the ones making those claims. […]

    116. PZ Myers

    So he thinks PZ Myers disagrees with PZ Myers?

  19. Lou Doench
    19

    Thanks Joe, I could actually get into an interesting about this kind of word policing (I think that it may be easier to attack the stigma from the other side. People with mental illness aren’t “crazy”, they are sick and need help. That asshole is crazy, as in he is acting erratically and there is no good reason for it. And yes, my life has been affected by MI) but I realize that would be derailing of the current discussion. So I agree to consider your request provisionally because that is the civil thing to do. Also I am not a horrible person.

Comments are closed.