(And yes, I know, this blog is ugly, but it
I made the mistake of posting a semi-clever/semi-childish rant that I trotted out from my old blog, so when I told people to check out my blog, they only saw that. I should have stuck with my original plan.
In the future I will try to stick to ranting about actually skeptical topics and babbling about my utopia.
Moving on, I would like to address something else which troubles me. I told my friend today over our weekly beer that I had started a new blog.
"What's it about?"
"Skepticism and my personal vision of a utopia. It's called Skeptopia"
"Wait a minute, a skeptical utopia? Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Ha ha!"
This is similar to a common response I get when I tell people how I met my husband.
"We met at a skeptics conference."
"Are you telling me you found true love at a skeptics conference? Do skeptics even believe in love? Ha!"
People always seem to think this is really clever for some reason. It's as if only starry eyed optimists with free spirits and open minds can believe in love or have dreams. Or it's as if "skeptics" have to be cranky old farts with bad breath and no people skills.
I am not the first to notice this and, rather than bore you with another "skeptics are a diverse group of people" rant, I would like to simply say that, in fact, having ideals does not preclude one from being a skeptic.
There is indeed a fine line between skepticism and cynicism. I treaded that line rather closely when I wrote my anti-hippie rant. Some would say I crossed it. The difference, as I see it, is one of assumptions. A cynic assumes the worst in people. A skeptic never assumes, but reaches a conclusion after considering the evidence.
In my next post, as it is very late and I'm too tired to do it now, I plan to write a rebuttal to my own anti-hippie rant. After all, if I can't question my own beliefs and assumptions, how can I call myself a skeptic?