When did the term skeptic start to mean someone who "debunks" ideas that are at odds with the status quo? When did "critical thinkers" stop asking the tough questions and just decide to parrot the official narrative?
It seems that the definitions for these terms have been hijacked by people who demonstrate the exact opposite of their original meanings. People that now claim these distinctions are neither skeptical or critical thinkers.
Just an observation that's been bugging me for a while.
view the rest of the comments →
unit731 ago
Additionally, there seems to be a tendency toward only being skeptical of specific ideas, like all conspiracy related topics. If you look to many of the main skeptic outlets, they seem to conveniently forget to be skeptical of things such as claims of the Bush/Obama administration, or claims made by corporations that have been proven liars in the past.
With that said, I was a skeptic early on in the "skeptic movement," and still am to this day. I just try to apply the skepticism outside of the box of ideas the movement has been concentrating on for the last decade or so. Even though I believe Michael Shermer (popular skeptic talking head) is corrupted somehow, I still recommend his book "Why people Believe Weird things," and the writings of Sam Harris.
"The 'war on drugs' has been well lost, and should never have been waged. While it isn’t explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, I can think of no political right more fundamental than the right to peacefully steward the contents of one’s own consciousness." -Sam Harris
istalkezwhoa ago
I think the "leaders" of the skeptical movement are paid propagandists or part of psy op intelligence community. They are usually hired from academical societies.