I’d long suspected this, more so after CFI merged with @rdfrs, but to see @center4inquiry’s obliviousness on issues of race & racist pseudoscience so starkly described by @ksenapathy is depressing to me as a longtime CFI supporter.https://undark.org/2020/02/20/center-for-inquiry-race-pseudoscience/ …
-
Show this thread
-
Seriously, I keep hearing leaders of skeptical groups bemoan their inability to attract a more diverse membership and asking why they can’t. The problems listed in the article above are a huge reason why.
2 replies 3 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
Insensitivity to matters of racism and misogyny is the first of these reasons. CFI leadership doesn’t even try to talk a good game on this score. Why would women and people of color support an org that’s dismissive of what’s important to them? Why *should* they?
4 replies 3 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gorskon
Re: Insensitivity to matters of racism and misogyny. Are you referring to racism/misogyny WITHIN the skeptical community (e.g. ignoring claims of sexual harassment at a skeptics meeting) or ways in which people hold false beliefs about race and/or sex?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @carolinacurmudg
Both, but mainly the former. Did you read the article?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon
Did I read it? Yes. Twice. (I wouldn't have asked the question if I hadn't). The article seemed to reference both kinds of issues, but was a little vague on prescriptions (other than adding people who are not white males to the board).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, you could always ask @ksenapathy about anything you found unclear in the article...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.