Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I suggested that, broadly speaking, either these complaints were true or the complainants were lying.

You added in some other options

I added other options because you are making a false dilemma and are using to make other people's points seem less reasonable.

Just because we do not automatically believe someone claims, we do not automatically accuse them of lying.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

So, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

Given some of the behaviour of some of the self proclaimed leaders of feminism in atheism, and some of the comments were in a t-shirt is counted as harassment, I think that all of those possibilities are possible.

I am not saying that all cases of reported sexual harassment are not true, just that some could be false, or exaggerated, or misconstrued etc.

Do you think those are possibilities? And if so, why did you offer only two possibilities?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Do you think that the women are making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, or are they making a complaint that sounds credible in the context of people gathering in a hotel for a conference?

I have no reasonable doubt that these complaints are valid. I have seen sexual harassment happen in this type of environment.

But I'm not asking women for extraordinary evidence. Just evidence that could back up claims made against a person, just as I would if sex wasn't involved.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

At one of our conferences, I and another Atheist Ireland committee member had to intervene in one incident to resolve it (this incident did not involve a speaker).

And how was that resolved? Were the authorities called?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Your first response is: If there are people behaving as claimed, the appropriate course of action is to call the authorities and make a complaint.

My first response is: If there are people behaving as claimed, the appropriate course of action is that the people behaving like this should stop behaving like this.

You have no control over the behaviour of either the harassers or the victims, yet you choose to prioritise telling the victims what to do instead of telling the harassers what to do.

Lol, another false dilemma. It's very disappointing to see you using such tactics.
Of course I think that harassers should stop. It's silly to think that I hold any position other than that.
But telling harassers to stop will not work (as you argee). What will get them to stop is to take their behaviour seriously and have it dealt with. The only way to do this is to report it to the proper authorities. And the victims of harassment might listen to that advice.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Naming names publicly, or even making formal private complaints, can have further adverse consequences for the victims, particularly in environments where many men react as if the women are making extraordinary claims.

And having a secret list of accused harassers which is open to abuse is also going to have negative consequences. Especially when such a list is being wielded as a weapon against those who aren't immediately declaring loyalty to a particular camp.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

One of the minimal defence mechanisms that women have in these circumstances is to warn each other about who to be careful of. As I said earlier, my late wife used to work in Leinster House and some of the women there had a similar system.

And did that system prevent or stop harassment? Did it address the cause of the problem?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Why do you publicly judge the behaviour of women who are trying to protect each other as being ‘not appropriate and not helpful’, while not making any public judgment about the men who are harassing them other than to doubt that it even happens?

Because it is not appropriate, it is being abused and it is not helping.
I thought it was a given that I though sexual harassment was bad.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And to repeat what I said at the start, I’m not picking on you personally in this response, as I know your comments reflect similar comments made by many people in this discussion.

Lets do a tally of what you are accusing many people (and me of) just because we expressed a little skepticism.

So far I am as bad as the people who excused paedophile priests.
I think that all accusations of rape or harassment are lies.
I support and encourage sexual harassment.
I blame the victim.

And what did I do to deserve these charges.
Pointed out a false dilemma you had used.
Suggested that sexual harassment should be reported to the authorities.

Do you really think that such tactics and sensationalist language are helping Michael?

tdawg

Michael Nugent wrote: »

There is typically a power imbalance between the men who sexually harass women, and the women who are being sexually harassed.

Naming names publicly, or even making formal private complaints, can have further adverse consequences for the victims, particularly in environments where many men react as if the women are making extraordinary claims.

One of the minimal defence mechanisms that women have in these circumstances is to warn each other about who to be careful of. As I said earlier, my late wife used to work in Leinster House and some of the women there had a similar system.

Why do you publicly judge the behaviour of women who are trying to protect each other as being ‘not appropriate and not helpful’, while not making any public judgment about the men who are harassing them other than to doubt that it even happens?

Sexual harassment is serious and should be reported.

But it is extremely inappropriate to add names to a list and send it around, as things can and will be done out of malice. Very much a school-ground solution to an adult problem.

equivariant

tdawg wrote: »

Sexual harassment is serious and should be reported.

But it is extremely inappropriate to add names to a list and send it around, as things can and will be done out of malice. Very much a school-ground solution to an adult problem.

If this list is private why is it inappropriate? You may not approve but that does not make it inappropriate. As long as said list is kept private then i don't see anything wrong with it

Zombrex

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I suggested that, broadly speaking, either these complaints were true or the complainants were lying.

There is a third alternative that is so frowned upon discussing that I'm hesitant to even mention here on Boards.ie (a relatively "safe space" to this sort of discussion)

That some women (and men) can view harmless sexual advances as unwanted and aggressive sexual advances due not to the reality of the situation but their own pre-developed feelings on male female sexual relations.

Now one of the two major taboo issues in this whole discussion is that this is such a taboo suggestion, instantly dismissed as victim blaming, that it is not in anyway possible to discuss this rational. (the other taboo is the suggestion that women can use the position of potential victim of sexual harassment as leverage against men or as an excuse to vent anger at men in general).

This topic is clearly a mind field, as many many opponents to feminism and women's rights have used the excuse that they are being hysterical as an excuse to dismiss genuine reports of sexual harassment.

But equally all women are not automatically rational and level headed in everything they say or do. That is, some what ironically, a quite sexist notion.

This is why some have attempted to explore what is actually happening. But again this is met with charges of victim blaming, or misogyny.

The black communities in America have been dealing with this issue longer, the idea that a black man cannot be racist against a white person was originally accepted and any suggestion otherwise was met with the charges of racism. That is slowly changing, largely due to moves within black communities themselves.

I appreciate it is very difficult to discern motive from behaviors of those on internet forums. Is that person genuinely asking is sexual harassment taking place or are they just trying to say it doesn't by asking questions and being "too sceptical"

This is why the data must be king. That unfortunately is being ignored by a lot of people on both sides, who prefer to use anecdotal evidence to support their pre-conceived notions of what must be happening.

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

If this list is private why is it inappropriate? You may not approve but that does not make it inappropriate. As long as said list is kept private then i don't see anything wrong with it

It is not kept private, it is shared. The reputation of the person on the list is therefore sullied based on ancedotal evidence.

Imagine if the list was Women who may try and steal your husband. I think people would be outraged at the mere existence of such a list, not least any woman who found themselves on that list.

Nodin

Michael Nugent wrote: »

King Mob,

I’m not picking on you personally in this response, as I know your comments reflect similar comments made by many people in this discussion.

I’m going to repeat the specific complaints I am talking about again, just to keep the focus on them, as there is a tendency for this discussion to wander.

What I am talking about is this: some women have complained that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

I suggested that, broadly speaking, either these complaints were true or the complainants were lying.

You added in some other options
.........

....because it's a loaded question which ignores the reality of the situation. Your adding in alleged similarities to the clerical abuse scandal doesn't exactly raise the tone either. If certain people have made "aggressive" advances that are in fact illegal let them be named in a charge made to the relevant police force. Fucking around vague **** on internet fora does nothing positive.

UDP

equivariant wrote: »

If this list is private why is it inappropriate? You may not approve but that does not make it inappropriate. As long as said list is kept private then i don't see anything wrong with it

Because it is effectively slander unless people have proof that the claims made against these people are true. It is much too open for someone (or a group of people) to add an innocent name to the list.

Michael Nugent

King Mob, I'll reply to your other points later. I accept that some of what I wrote is unfair to you, and I apologize for that. And I'll address that later. But in the meantime, can you please answer the most recent version of the question that I asked, which was:

Michael Nugent wrote:

Either some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms, or else the women have a different definition of aggressive or advances to other people, or else they are exaggerating, or others are exaggerating for them, or else they are lying. So, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

And you have replied:

King Mob wrote: »

Given some of the behaviour of some of the self proclaimed leaders of feminism in atheism, and some of the comments were in a t-shirt is counted as harassment, I think that all of those possibilities are possible.

I am not saying that all cases of reported sexual harassment are not true, just that some could be false, or exaggerated, or misconstrued etc.

I am not asking you about your opinions on the behavior of some of the self proclaimed leaders of feminism in atheism, or your opinions on comments on a t-shirt being counted as harassment.

I am asking you about your opinions on the general veracity of the complaint (that is, the complaint generally, not specific examples of it) that male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

I agree with you that, in principle, all of the possibilities on the scale that I listed are possible.

And I accept that you are not saying that all cases of reported sexual harassment are not true (although that double negative seems a very grudging way of saying that you accept that at least some cases of reported sexual harassment are true).

But my question, which you haven't answered, is: broadly speaking, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

As I said, I will reply to your other points later.

equivariant

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not kept private, it is shared. The reputation of the person on the list is therefore sullied based on ancedotal evidence.

Imagine if the list was Women who may try and steal your husband. I think people would be outraged at the mere existence of such a list, not least any woman who found themselves on that list.

sharing the list does not mean that it is not private. In this context I take private to mean that people with access know all (or at least most) of the other people with access. If that is the level of privacy then I see no legal issue.

I am not sure if that (level of privacy) is true in that case but it may be the case.

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

sharing the list does not mean that it is not private. In this context I take private to mean that people with access know all (or at least most) of the other people with access. If that is the level of privacy then I see no legal issue.

Well I don't know about the legality of it, but the original suggestion was that it was inappropriate.

The issue is not that the group is self contained and "private". It is that the person sharing the information is slandering the original person to anyone they share it to. The fact that they know this person does not diminish this.

For example, imagine I tell a member of our football team that you molested your children. He then tells the other members of the football team, but they all agree to keep this information just to themselves.

Well, are you relieved that only the football team now think you molest your kids? No one outside of the team know, so does that make it appropriate? Or are you horrified that the entire football team now think you molest your children?

Michael Nugent

Zombrex wrote: »

For example, imagine I tell a member of our football team that you molested your children. He then tells the other members of the football team, but they all agree to keep this information just to themselves.

Well, are you relieved that only the football team now think you molest your kids? No one outside of the team know, so does that make it appropriate? Or are you horrified that the entire football team now think you molest your children?

Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

Nodin

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

...sweet suffering christ......these are adults, who seem to be able to be "upfront" enough to say allege that certain matters took place, and keep covert lists of the supposed perpetrators.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

But my question, which you haven't answered, is: broadly speaking, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

As I said, I will reply to your other points later.

I haven't answered the question because it's not a fair one. It's a false dilemma.

But if you are the rephrase it so that it is between the claims being true and the claims being false (removing any intent of the person making the claims), then my answer is simply: I don't know.
I don't know because I have not seen any good objective data on the matter.

The closest I can find is a survey that only documents "unwelcoming" behaviour, but it does not separate between men and women nor does it separate what is unwelcoming behaviour from what is actual sexual harassment.

So far yourself and others are asking us to accept anecdotal evidence as fact and as evidence of an endemic problem.
And worse people who dare to voice the opinion that such objective evidence might be useful are jumped on like Zombrex was in your post on Skepchick. (Which you have stay very silent about.)
You are even engaging in such tactics by accusing me (or people who don't tow the party line) of all manner of silly stuff.

Rev Hellfire

Michael Nugent wrote: »

a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

Your statement would be more accurate if it read:
a better version of that analogy would be a child who says they have abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

Without proof we can not automatically assume their guilt.

Michael Nugent

King Mob wrote: »

I haven't answered the question because it's not a fair one. It's a false dilemma.

But if you are the rephrase it so that it is between the claims being true and the claims being false (removing any intent of the person making the claims), then my answer is simply: I don't know.
I don't know because I have not seen any good objective data on the matter.

Please stop grouping me together with others, or suggesting that I am promoting a party line. Please just address the points that I am making on their merits.

To use the specific example that I am citing, we both accept that it is a fact that some women have complained that some male speakers have groped them against their wishes and followed them to their hotel rooms.

I am asking you to accept that it is more likely that this specific assertion is true than it is that it is false, to the extent that it is safe to say in normal discourse (as opposed to hyper-skeptical philosophical discourse) that this type of behaviour happens.

I am asking you to accept that this specific assertion is true, to the extent that I have described above, regardless of your opinions about elevators or coffee requests or t-shirts or surveys about unwelcome behaviour or how endemic the problem of sexual harassment may or may not be.

Can you accept this?

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Please stop grouping me together with others, or suggesting that I am promoting a party line. Please just address the points that I am making on their merits.

I'm not grouping together with any one, I am commenting on what you have posted.
I made a point that you were making a false dilemma, this earned me a long list of accusations of very silly stuff.

This is also the behaviour displayed by those who posted on your article on skepchick.
Basic skepticism is responded to with abuse and/or accusations that people are supporting sexual harassment etc.

Do you think that the comments that Zombrex earned on Skepchick were appropriate? Do you think they are in line with your message about being more welcoming and inclusive?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

To use the specific example that I am citing, we both accept that it is a fact that some women have complained that some male speakers have groped them against their wishes and followed them to their hotel rooms.

I am asking you to accept that it is more likely that this specific assertion is true than it is that it is false, to the extent that it is safe to say in normal discourse (as opposed to hyper-skeptical philosophical discourse) that this type of behaviour happens.

I am asking you to accept that this specific assertion is true, to the extent that I have described above, regardless of your opinions about elevators or coffee requests or t-shirts or surveys about unwelcome behaviour or how endemic the problem of sexual harassment may or may not be.

Can you accept this?

I can't accept that because you are asking me to accept something as true without any evidence.

I could perhaps concede that the accusations being true is more likely, but I will not concede that they are more likely to be true to the extent of accepting it happens without evidence.
Asking people to do otherwise is asking them to stop being skeptical.
So again, until you provide better evidence than anecdotes, my answer is: I don't know.

Further simply relying on anecdotes will never give us any accurate sense of the extent of the problem (if it even exists), not will it allow us to understand where the problems are or what the best course of action is.

Zombrex

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

Ok ... not particularly relevant to the point being made though.

equivariant

I think that there are some double standards going on here with regards to the 'list'. On the one hand, Watson is condemned about overreacting to a sleazeball. On the other hand everyone is getting all proper and snotty about some rumour mongering. You can't have it both ways people. Fact is, people spread rumours about other people - its an unfortunate part of life, just the same as drunk gob****es propositioning women in hotels. Spreading runours among a self contained group is about as close to slander as asking a women in an elevator at 4am for coffee is to harassment.

Michael Nugent

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok ... not particularly relevant to the point being made though.

Sorry if I misread your point. I thought it was about the appropriateness of sharing such information with other people.

My point was, if you know that the information is true, it is ethically appropriate (arguably approaching an ethical obligation) to share the information with others who might be at risk.

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

I think that there are some double standards going on here with regards to the 'list'. On the one hand, Watson is condemned about overreacting to a sleazeball. On the other hand everyone is getting all proper and snotty about some rumour mongering. You can't have it both ways people. Fact is, people spread rumours about other people - its an unfortunate part of life, just the same as drunk gob****es propositioning women in hotels. Spreading runours among a self contained group is about as close to slander as asking a women in an elevator at 4am for coffee is to harassment.

You appreciate that these rumors were that person X had sexually harassed someone, right?

equivariant

Zombrex wrote: »

You appreciate that these rumors were that person X had sexually harassed someone, right?

yup

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

yup

Ok ... you wouldn't mind a rumor being spread that you sexually assaulted someone? So long as they just told women they knew and thus kept it "private"?

equivariant

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok ... you wouldn't mind a rumor being spread that you sexually assaulted someone? So long as they just told women they knew and thus kept it "private"?

I notice that we have moved from 'a list' to 'harassment' to 'assault'

Of course I would not like to have rumours spread about me. Nor would I like to be propositioned by a drunk stranger in an elevator.

Hotblack Desiato

Michael Nugent wrote: »

To use the specific example that I am citing, we both accept that it is a fact that some women have complained that some male speakers have groped them against their wishes and followed them to their hotel rooms.

It goes without saying that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

However it seems we now have at least one man being placed on a shît list (along with the alleged gropers and pervs) for having consensual sex with someone he met at a conference. Imagine if a list of 'slutty' women was circulated, whose crime was agreeing to consensual sex with men they'd met at a conference, wouldn't the compilers of any such list be roundly condemned?

Also, in this thread 'propositioning' is being described as if it's some sort of a crime. It's not. Sure it might not always be in the most socially adept fashion, but in that case it's the propositioner who looks a bit foolish isn't it? And to paraphase Freud, sometimes a coffee is just a coffee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnNH7I07RY

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

But my question, which you haven't answered, is: broadly speaking, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

If you are talking about women claiming to be groped or followed back to hotel rooms specifically then in my case I will state it quite plainly that the truth would lie towards the womens claims in my experience, no question about it.

I don't see the relevance of the question though. What difference does it make ?

In my experience most Irish people living abroad are stupid violent drunks and Chinese people are extremely racist. I presume that you will now agree that whenever accusations are made towards Irish people about been violent drunkards or Chinese people to be racist that the 'scale of truth' lies towards the end which reflects my experience ?

My experience of these groups are just that. My experience. It tells us nothing about anyone outside the people I've met.

In my experience most women I have known who made such claims of abuse are telling the truth. So what ? That tells us absolutely nothing about the women at these conferences making accusations.

My experience is also based on Irish culture. American culture which is presumably the culture of most of the people involved in the accusations is very different.

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

Michael that is ridiculous and insulting.

I don't know what kind of women you're talking about but they bear no resemblance to any women I've ever associated with.

You realise how much like a Muslim what you said sounds ? Women are frail children who need to be protected from men.

The women I know are as capable if not more capable of standing up for themselves than men are to anything except actual physical violence.

Any woman who was abused by a man should report it to the authorities, the same way any man who was abused by any woman should. (and this does happen)

The suggestion that a woman would be afraid that she won't be taken seriously in this day and age is ridiculous. The mere accusation of sexual abuse can destroy men's lives nevermind any actual proof of it. That's the kind of society we live in, that's how unacceptable it is.

Just look at Julian Assange, did he commit rape or not ? It doesn't really matter because his name will forever be associated with it regardless of anything else that happens.

decimatio

decimatio wrote: »

Michael that is ridiculous and insulting.

I don't know what kind of women you're talking about but they bear no resemblance to any women I've ever associated with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kIkm47wUGU

Michael Nugent

decimatio wrote: »

Michael that is ridiculous and insulting.

I don't know what kind of women you're talking about but they bear no resemblance to any women I've ever associated with.

You realise how much like a Muslim what you said sounds ? Women are frail children who need to be protected from men.

If you follow that post back to the post that it is responding to, you will find that you bolded the wrong part of my quote.

It was Zombrex who raised the analogy with child abuse, in the context of discussing women who privately warned other women about men to be careful of. And he was addressing the issues of privacy and defamation when sharing information about other people. He wrote

Zombrex wrote: »

For example, imagine I tell a member of our football team that you molested your children. He then tells the other members of the football team, but they all agree to keep this information just to themselves.

Well, are you relieved that only the football team now think you molest your kids? No one outside of the team know, so does that make it appropriate? Or are you horrified that the entire football team now think you molest your children?

I responded by writing

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

Please don’t extrapolate from this (a hypothetical nuancing by me of a hypothetical analogy raised by somebody else) that I am suggesting that women are like frail children, because not only do I believe that to be untrue but it is not even related to the point that Zombrex and I were addressing with that analogy.

In fact, neither Zombrex nor I even mentioned the gender of the hypothetical people in either version of the analogy.

EDIT: Actually, looking back on it, I was mistaken about gender not being mentioned. Zombrex was talking about a hypothetical man sharing information with members of his football team.
.

Michael Nugent

decimatio wrote: »

The suggestion that a woman would be afraid that she won't be taken seriously in this day and age is ridiculous.

You are joking, right?

It has been like pulling teeth trying to get some people here to accept the uncontroversial assertion that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

And even when you accepted that

decimatio wrote: »

In my experience most women I have known who made such claims of abuse are telling the truth.

You immediately added

decimatio wrote: »

So what ? That tells us absolutely nothing about the women at these conferences making accusations.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It has been like pulling teeth trying to get some people here to accept the uncontroversial assertion that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

So which male speakers have made such advances and sexual harassment?
When? Where?
Were they reported to authorities or just added to the list without evidence?

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you follow that post back to the post that it is responding to, you will find that you bolded the wrong part of my quote.

Michael I'm sorry if I misunderstood you but I would still like clarification as to why exactly you think your analogy, as opposed to Zombrex's, is more accurate to the accusations of women at conferences ?

In Zombrex's analogy the accuser and accused are all adults of more or less equal power.

In your analogy the men are the adults and the women are the children presumably in an unequal position of power.

I've read back through the conversation and I still haven't seen why you suggested this analogy.

Michael Nugent

decimatio wrote: »

Michael I'm sorry if I misunderstood you but I would still like clarification as to why exactly you think your analogy, as opposed to Zombrex's, is more accurate to the accusations of women at conferences ?

In Zombrex's analogy the accuser and accused are all adults of more or less equal power.

In your analogy the men are the adults and the women are the children presumably in an unequal position of power.

I've read back through the conversation and I still haven't seen why you suggested this analogy.

Zombrex's analogy was not directly about the experiences of women at conferences. It was about women sharing information about those experiences with other women afterwards.

I was trying to adjust his analogy so that the person passing on the information had actually experienced the incident that they were talking about, rather than passing on information about somebody else having experienced an incident.

I clarified in another post that my point was, if you know that the information is true, it is ethically appropriate (arguably approaching an ethical obligation) to share the information with others who might be at risk.

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You are joking, right?

It has been like pulling teeth trying to get some people here to accept the uncontroversial assertion that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

First of all my response was to your analogy about a "child who has been abused by an adult" to which I went on to say

decimatio wrote:

The suggestion that a woman would be afraid that she won't be taken seriously in this day and age is ridiculous. The mere accusation of sexual abuse can destroy men's lives nevermind any actual proof of it. That's the kind of society we live in, that's how unacceptable it is.

I think it became a little muddled as to what exactly each of us was referring to.

So let's take each of your cases one by one.

- unwanted and aggressive sexual advances: I would need clarification as to what exactly you mean here but my immediate thought about this is that a sexual advance, unwanted or not, is not abuse. When the advance is turned down and the person continues to try, i assume thats what you mean by agressive, then it's highly inappropriate and rude but abusive ? I think we may have different definitions of what abuse is. To me abuse it highly serious and dangerous.

- groping them against their wishes: I really do not understand why these woman have not called the police ? This should never go unpunished.

- following them to their hotel rooms: Again, highly strange and ignorant behaviour but abusive ? If it was constant yes it would be emotional abuse but I assume you don't mean the same guy was following them to their rooms regularly. If so it would be stalking and again should be reported to the police.

And even when you accepted that

You immediately added

Yes ? And ?

I previously answered your question about women telling the truth in my life experience and I answered in the affirmitive. Almost all of these women also brought it to the attention of the relevant authorities or in some cases the attention of friends. They weren't ignored.

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Zombrex's analogy was not directly about the experiences of women at conferences. It was about women sharing information about those experiences with other women afterwards.

Ah I see.

I was trying to adjust his analogy so that the person passing on the information had actually experienced the incident that they were talking about, rather than passing on information about somebody else having experienced an incident.

Ah. Sorry I misunderstood why you specifically used the case of child abuse.

Michael Nugent

decimatio wrote: »

I think it became a little muddled as to what exactly each of us was referring to.

Okay, fair enough.

decimatio wrote: »

I previously answered your question about women telling the truth in my life experience and I answered in the affirmitive. Almost all of these women also brought it to the attention of the relevant authorities or in some cases the attention of friends. They weren't ignored.

I assume from this that you mean that at least some of these women told you about their experiences of sexual harassment.

And I assume that you did not respond to them with some variation of “I would need clarification as to what exactly you mean here but my immediate thought about this is that a sexual advance, unwanted or not, is not abuse.”

I assume that you listened to them sympathetically, expressed empathy about what they had gone through and how it had affected them, and were generally supportive about helping them to get through the experience.

For me, that is what is missing in this conversation. Not just from you, but from some other posters here as well. You are discussing these harrowing experiences in a clinical way, devoid of empathy and compassion.

Try to imagine that we are talking about some of your friends having experienced the harassment that we are talking about here, and see if you might approach the discussion differently.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Try to imagine that we are talking about some of your friends having experienced the harassment that we are talking about here, and see if you might approach the discussion differently.

I would approach the situation differently. I would not approach it objectively.

You are making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence.
This is not a rational or skeptical line of argument.

And emotive, subjective and irrational responses to a problem are not going to help anyone.

Michael Nugent

King Mob wrote: »

I would approach the situation differently. I would not approach it objectively.

I'm not even talking here about how you approach the situation.

I'm just talking here about how you approach discussing the situation.

King Mob wrote: »

You are making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence.
This is not a rational or skeptical line of argument.

And emotive, subjective and irrational responses to a problem are not going to help anyone.

I'll respond to this later. I have to leave the computer for a while now.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm not even talking here about how you approach the situation.

I'm just talking here about how you approach discussing the situation.

So what you are saying is we should discuss it in an emotive, subjective and irrational way, but then somehow from that act scientifically, objectively and rationally?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'll respond to this later. I have to leave the computer for a while now.

Please remember that there are other points I've made that you've yet to address. Please do not start using the same tactics the religious people here do.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

So what you are saying is we should discuss it in an emotive, subjective and irrational way, but then somehow from that act scientifically, objectively and rationally?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcxpbhM0DaA

Ickle Magoo

King Mob wrote: »

I would approach the situation differently. I would not approach it objectively.

You are making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence.
This is not a rational or skeptical line of argument.

And emotive, subjective and irrational responses to a problem are not going to help anyone.

There's subjective rationality and then there is crassly obtuse disregard - and as I see it the problem in this saga is that the "give empirical evidence or it didn't happen/it's in your head/I get to decide what you find inappropriate/threatening" mantra is teetering on the edge of crossing, if not regarded by many as having already crossed, from one to the other.

King Mob

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There's subjective rationality and then there is crassly obtuse disregard - and as I see it the problem in this saga is that the "give empirical evidence or it didn't happen/it's in your head/I get to decide what you find inappropriate/threatening" mantra is teetering on the edge of crossing, if not regarded by many as having already crossed, from one to the other.

But the appropriate response to either genuine skeptical enquiry or deliberate obtuseness is to provide the best objective evidence available and/or suggesting ways how that evidence could be obtained.
The inappropriate response is stuff like "**** off troll" and accusing those people of encouraging, justifying or excusing sexual harassment, or believing that all accusations of rape are lies etc.

And without a good objective view of what the problem is exactly, we aren't going to find the best, most effective, most fair way to address the issue.
For example do you think that a speaker having consentual sex with an attendee is in the same category as sexual harassment like groping and stalking? Some people do.
Do you think that t-shirts sporting (albeit bitchy and inflammatory) slogans are in that same category? Some people do.

If stuff like this is being lumped in with the stuff you think is actually the problem, do you think that an effective way to address the problem can be found?

Do you think that secret lists of people accused of sexual harassment without evidence or right to defence is either fair or going to help the issue?

UDP

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There's subjective rationality and then there is crassly obtuse disregard - and as I see it the problem in this saga is that the "give empirical evidence or it didn't happen/it's in your head/I get to decide what you find inappropriate/threatening" mantra is teetering on the edge of crossing, if not regarded by many as having already crossed, from one to the other.

There are claims being made of wide spread harassment by men at conferences in the skeptic "community". Yet there appears to be next to no reports of such incidents happening made at the events and people expect the skeptical "community" not to be skeptical of claims that are made with only a very small amount of anecdotal evidence.

Then we hear blacklists are being shared amongst some people of people to avoid including a person whose crime was having consensual sex with an attendee. Do you not see how slanderous that is and unfair that is that someone could end up on this effective sex offenders list without anything other than someone saying this person did x?

I cannot understand how some skeptics are throwing their skeptic reasoning out the window over this. Believing claims without evidence to back them up.

Ickle Magoo

King Mob wrote: »

But the appropriate response to either genuine skeptical enquiry or deliberate obtuseness is to provide the best objective evidence available and/or suggesting ways how that evidence could be obtained.

Is it tho? And this what I suspect much of the issue is. Since you wish to discuss topics in terms of reasonable scepticism, I am entirely sceptical of that statement being true across the board.

I seriously doubt that had it been complaints about racism, complaints upheld by many in "the movement" that anyone would seriously consider it rational to be sitting here:

demanding empirical evidence that racism existed
arguing that racism exists everywhere/we're all adults just accept you have to put up with it
arguing that while it may be viewed as racism to that minority, many just view it as bit of good old fashioned fun

Would you consider those arguments to be rational and skeptic? Or more than slightly obtuse to the point of ridiculous?

King Mob wrote: »

The inappropriate response is stuff like "**** off troll" and accusing those people of encouraging, justifying or excusing sexual harassment, or believing that all accusations of rape are lies etc.

And without a good objective view of what the problem is exactly, we aren't going to find the best, most effective, most fair way to address the issue.
For example do you think that a speaker having consentual sex with an attendee is in the same category as sexual harassment like groping and stalking? Some people do.

I don't think getting caught up in the minutia of specific complaints and claims Vs counter complaints/claims is going to help anything. Again, it seems to be fostering an atmosphere of trying to insist any claim against "the community" is a bigger issue than the basis for the claim itself. Which is fine if you want to ring-fence your organisation as an insular clique that is not willing to take on board any kind of criticism and would rather pounce on and demonize anyone who dares to suggest the status quo is not ideal for them.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think that t-shirts sporting (albeit bitchy and inflammatory) slogans are in that same category? Some people do.

If stuff like this is being lumped in with the stuff you think is actually the problem, do you think that an effective way to address the problem can be found?

Do you think that secret lists of people accused of sexual harassment without evidence or right to defence is either fair or going to help the issue?

I think it's more of the childish tit for tat (no sexual harassment intent meant towards either gender :pac: ) that is dragging that "community" through the mud. All the finger-pointing in the world can't make one side look wholly rational and mature and the other wholly ridiculous at this stage - perhaps it's about time both sides accepted that?

Ickle Magoo

Hey UDP,

I'm not ignoring you, or any other poster I don't respond to personally - it's just that with only one of me responding to several other posters, to save me responding with points I've already made/discussed pages ago or I'm currently discussing same with another poster I work to as much of a one-post-cover-all as possible.

No offence meant.

King Mob

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is it tho? And this what I suspect much of the issue is. Since you wish to discuss topics in terms of reasonable scepticism, I am entirely sceptical of that statement being true across the board.

I seriously doubt that had it been complaints about racism, complaints upheld by many in "the movement" that anyone would seriously consider it rational to be sitting here:

demanding empirical evidence that racism existed
arguing that racism exists everywhere/we're all adults just accept you have to put up with it
arguing that while it may be viewed as racism to that minority, many just view it as bit of good old fashioned fun

Would you consider those arguments to be rational and skeptic? Or more than slightly obtuse to the point of ridiculous?

If the accusations were being made but not being backed up then I would still ask for evidence.

But none of here are saying that sexism does not exist, or saying that it is acceptable, or that it's just good old fashioned fun.

Further the comparison with racism does not hold as incidents of sexual harassment are more than just sexist comments.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think getting caught up in the minutia of specific complaints and claims Vs counter complaints/claims is going to help anything. Again, it seems to be fostering an atmosphere of trying to insist any claim against "the community" is a bigger issue than the basis for the claim itself. Which is fine if you want to ring-fence your organisation as an insular clique that is not willing to take on board any kind of criticism and would rather pounce on and demonize anyone who dares to suggest the status quo is not ideal for them.

Again, who here has been accused of encouraging and excusing sexual harassment? What earned Zombrex the privilege of being denounced as a troll?
If there is an atmosphere, Waston and her clique (and to a much much lesser extent comments like Michaels) are helping to foster it as much as thunderfoot and other trolls.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think it's more of the childish tit for tat (no sexual harassment intent meant towards either gender :pac: ) that is dragging that "community" through the mud. All the finger-pointing in the world can't make one side look wholly rational and mature and the other wholly ridiculous at this stage - perhaps it's about time both sides accepted that?

But I'm not saying that the argument is invalid because of those claims, I'm simply using them a public examples of stuff that is clearly separate from sexual harassment but is being lumped in with it.
I'm making the point that without being objective and analysing the issue skeptically, stuff like that will obscure the real issue and hinder any attempt to find a way to address it.

Ickle Magoo

King Mob wrote: »

If the accusations were being made but not being backed up then I would still ask for evidence.

Perhaps you would, I have no right or reason to suggest otherwise - I'm still skeptical that the over-all reaction would be anywhere near similar.

King Mob wrote: »

But none of here are saying that sexism does not exist, or saying that it is acceptable, or that it's just good old fashioned fun.

But you [we? they?] have a situation where people are claiming they find certain behaviours threatening/unwelcoming/negatively impacting on their experience of these events and others are declaring those behaviours are unilaterally perfectly acceptable and that it's just good old fashioned fun.

Are we discussing just this thread or the wider issue re the online saga of "that" TAM attending community, btw? It would be even sillier than discussing the general points of the saga to start debating the issue in terms of the minutia of what specific posters have posted in this thread alone.

King Mob wrote: »

Further the comparison with racism does not hold as incidents of sexual harassment are more than just sexist comments.

Surely racism can also be/is also a form of harassment?

King Mob wrote: »

Again, who here has been accused of encouraging and excusing sexual harassment? What earned Zombrex the privilege of being denounced as a troll?
If there is an atmosphere, Waston and her clique are helping to foster it as much as thunderfoot and other trolls.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

...
I've stopped reading the blogs because it's so much like being back in the primary school playground, "She did this!", "Well, they did that!", "Well she did that first, wah, wah, wah".

Each side entrenched in their position and claiming the other has "no way back" - meanwhile the rest of the world think the whole lot are ridiculous. Ugh.

I would repeat - getting wound up over a single post/poster achieves nothing when discussing how to get a large event/"community"/"movement" back from being on the brink of imploding en masse.

I also fail to see any rationalism/skepticism in playing ever decreasing circles with any issue...so it's kind of bizarre to hear an argument that doing that is just being rational/skeptical.

King Mob wrote: »

But I'm not saying that the argument is invalid because of those claims, I'm simply using them a public examples of stuff that is clearly separate from sexual harassment but is being lumped in with it.
I'm making the point that without being objective and analysing the issue skeptically, stuff like that will obscure the real issue and hinder any attempt to find a way to address it.

So it's just an argument over what the "real" issue is? A kind of true scotsman of social nuance/behavioural acceptabilities? You don't think the perception that a majority male organisation/event demands to unilaterally decide what some of it's minority attendees/members should find a "real" issue could be part of the problem?

mikhail

Ah, tis a sad day. I feel I have to add Michael Nugent to a special list of mine. My ignore list.

equivariant

King Mob wrote: »

I would approach the situation differently. I would not approach it objectively.

You are making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence.
This is not a rational or skeptical line of argument.

And emotive, subjective and irrational responses to a problem are not going to help anyone.

I don't agree with this reasoning. I don't see any appeal to emotion in Michael's comment - merely a request to understand a different pov on this issue.

Also, emotive and subjective do not imply irrational (although you seem to conflate these things). It is too easy to assume that an emotional response must be wrong. Having followed this debate for a while I am now much more convinced that there is nothing wrong with the request that organisations and conferences put in place a policy regarding harassment. From a purely rational point of view, what is the problem with that? I don't particularly like the tone of skepchick or FTB, but whether or not one approves or dissapproves of skepchick/FTB has no real bearing on whether or not harassment policies are a good idea

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But you [we? they?] have a situation where people are claiming they find certain behaviours threatening/unwelcoming/negatively impacting on their experience of these events and others are declaring those behaviours are unilaterally perfectly acceptable and that it's just good old fashioned fun.

Others who? What exactly did they say and what exactly was it in response to? And why equate threatening behaviour with unwelcoming behaviour with negative behaviour?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So it's just an argument over what the "real" issue is? A kind of true scotsman of social nuance/behavioural acceptabilities? You don't think the perception that a majority male organisation/event demands to unilaterally decide what some of it's minority attendees/members should find a "real" issue could be part of the problem?

If its a minority of the minority that has these problems, then maybe they are creating them (or some of them) themselves? If the majority of the minority see no issue, then maybe there isn't one, at least on the scale claimed?
If the real issue is some men groping women and following them, uninvited, to their hotel rooms, then going after men who don't grope and have been invited is not going to do much to stop the first group of men, will it?