While planning and speaking about this blog to friends, I was warned that I should be prepared for the inevitability of an assault on my site by Social Justice Warriors because of my handle. Specifically, the word Skeptic is met with harsh criticism according to my colleagues. Surely, I thought, sinister will attract more attention than skeptic.
Of course, the site has not been up long enough to establish a following or (better) a community and as such I have no indication that their claims are true. They are however, claims, and as such they hold implications. If true, there are implications about the perception of skepticism in the sphere of activism (or misguided activism, depending on the definition/connotation of Social Justice Warrior). If false, the claim bears implications on the perception of the speaker toward the current sphere of activism, specifically online commenters.
The perception of my colleagues and others on that sphere is not the topic of this post. An inquiry into the perceptions of classifications such as activist or skeptic, however, might be an interesting backdrop for an exploration of my moniker.
There are many classifications with which I might identify: contemplative, moderate, procrastinator, feminist, or trekker – to name but a few. I perceive myself in these groups according to my understanding of these classifications and how I match the criteria for fitting into that group.
These classifications serve a purpose socially: they act as signposts so that we might find others of like minds, they can serve as tools for prioritization of action, they help us to understand who we are in relation to others.
Ultimately, these groupings are labels. As we read a label for food to decide whether or not we want to eat it, we might be tempted to use an identification as justification for prejudice according to our understanding of that label. Thus, SJWs might leap at an identification of skeptic due to their perception of that classification.
I settled upon the pseudonym Sinister Skeptic for several reasons, and have come to appreciate it more as I reflect upon it. It originated as a gaming handle. As a young skeptic, I played the trading card game Yu-Gi-Oh, where I became familiar with a card named Sinister Serpent. Biblical allegory aside, the alliteration in title and recursiveness of the card mechanic appealed to me. Years later when I was brainstorming for an adjective to pair with skeptic, sinister came back around. More on this later.
Skeptic as an identity refers to my epistemological beliefs and general stance on new information and policy. My friends worried that the perception would be that I don’t believe with some certain policy or claim such as climate change or feminism. I do on both counts: the evidence for climate change has mounted to the point that it has justified my belief in it and an ethical inquiry regarding equality drives my belief in feminism.
Skepticism means to subject any claim to a rigorous method of doubt. Epistemic skepticism indicates that I do not believe that humans have the ability to claim certain types of knowledge as we have loosely defined them. This is a very heady subject for a different day, but suffice it to say that as a skeptic I have beliefs. I place value in methods of justification such as testimony, but I scrutinize the hell out of every one of them.
An understanding of ethics that prioritizes accountability leads to skepticism, as I see it. Each proposed “answer” is merely a link in a continuous chain of inquiry. This recursiveness links to the old Yu-Gi-Oh card (the card mechanics have since been subject to errata unfortunately) – it might be perceived as sinister. Sinister Skeptic has no answers, merely questions.
As testament to that, allow me to bury a question in the recess of your mind. How does your understanding of labels, classifications, and identity influence your perception of others?
Most classifications have misunderstood properties. We can be quick to correct or judge others that misunderstand our groups. If you think hard enough about it you might know someone who believes that all gay men are effeminate, all affluent people are snobs, or all Magic the Gathering players smell like toe fungus.
This kind of grouping might seem to be a part of the classification and identity system, but this is prejudice and a logical fallacy. Truth be told, there are many Magic the Gathering players that smell like toe fungus. Go to any game event and there is sufficient evidence to make that claim. Moving from that existential quantifier (the claim that there exists at least one) to the universal (the claim that all are) is fallacious – the logic just doesn’t work that way.
Closing in on 800 words, I will leave you with a challenge: question what qualifies people in groups, how others understand the classifications they put themselves in, and how your understanding of that might be different.
Better yet, question everything.
-SS
Sinister Skeptic's Sensible Scrutinies & Soliloquies 