Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.
Comments
-
-
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/02/american-atheism-schism-spit-venom
Is American atheism heading for a schism?
A new movement, Atheism+, has prompted non-believers to spit venom at one another rather than at true believers
In the passionate world of American atheism, the venom usually directed at believers has now been turned against the wrong kind of atheists.
The cause of this freethinking furore? A new movement called Atheism+. According to its website, "Atheism+ is a safe space for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime."
A+ was born when Freethought blogger Jen McCreight (the mind behind Boobquake) made a passionate call for a "third wave" of atheism, one that extends atheist activism into progressive politics and calls for a part of the movement to be one where women can exist free from the harassment that has plagued women publicly involved in the atheist movement.
The founders of Atheism+ say clearly that "divisiveness" is not their aim, but looking through the blogs and voluminous comments in the two weeks since A+ was mooted, trenches have been dug, beliefs stated, positions staked out and abuse thrown. A dissenting tweeter is "full of ****", while, according to one supporter, daring to disagree with Atheism+'s definition of progressive issues and not picking their side makes you an "asshole and a douchebag".
It took 700 years from Constantine renaming Byzantium in his own honour to papal legates circulating letters of anathema that split the Roman and Orthodox churches. Atheism, in its public, online life, has started exchanging internet anathemas – perhaps we should call them inathemas – in little more than a decade.
People are being told to wipe the spittle off their chins, take their heads out of their asses. The Life of Brian's lines about the various fronts for the liberation of Judea are being oft-recycled. 140 character brickbats are being thrown on Twitter under #atheismplus.
PZ Myers, soft-spoken in person but trenchant in print, said of A+ critics:
"It really isn't a movement about exclusion, but about recognising the impact of the real nature of the universe on human affairs. And if you don't agree with any of that – and this is the only 'divisive' part – then you're an asshole. I suggest you form your own label, 'Asshole Atheists", and own it, proudly. I promise not to resent it or cry about joining it. I just had a thought: maybe the anti-Atheist+ people are sad because they don't have a cool logo. So I made one for the Asshole Atheists:
A*
"
Fellow Freethought blogger Richard Carrier goes further. When one commentator suggests "atheism does not have the luxury of kicking people out of its movement", Carrier gives him a rare old quilting in most splendid prose:
"Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned."
How like Pope Leo's letter to the patriarch of Constaninople in 1053 accusing him of "many and intolerable presumptions, in which if – as heaven forbid – he persist, he will in no way retain our peaceful regard". Even at this most serious moment for the future of Christianity, the pope managed to resist the urge to call the patriarch immoral scum, an asshole and a douchebag.
One of the joys of atheism's outlets on the internet was that they were clever, deft, funny, tolerant and irreverent. It was certainly robust and not for the faint-hearted.
Those of us who do not wish to extend our atheism into someone else's definition of progressive politics may take rather unkindly to being described as immoral scum, useful but unsavoury body parts, and outdated contraceptive devices. In the week when American atheism made its appearance in the Economist's editorial pages, it seems to have been sowing the seeds of that most religious of events – a schism.
St Paul would be laughing his head off, had a Roman soldier not already deprived him of it. "See," he might now write after reading those modern epistles, the blogs, comments and tweets around the birth of Atheism+, "how these atheists love one another."
I see these Pluses are doing wonders to show the world that atheism is not just another religion.0 -
-
-
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/02/american-atheism-schism-spit-venom
I see these Pluses are doing wonders to show the world that atheism is not just another religion.
I'd love to know how can you be disowned by a group you never joined?
If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned.
wonder how long it'll be before they start claiming they are the "one true" atheist group?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Forgive the lateness of the replies, but was at the meetup last night and have been recovering.
Hope it was a good night and apologies for the equally tardy response...I'm somewhere between busy in real-life and loosing the will to live re this topic.
I think that if people claimed that there was a thread of racism in the community and was unable to back that up, then yes I think there would be a similar reaction.
I can only say I disagree - I just don't think the same level of aggression or out-right dismissal would be anywhere near as prevalent - I suspect there is less impolitic naivety re dealing with claims of racism than with gender issues...but I appreciate that's just conjecture on my part.But the people making the claims are conflating a wide variety of different bahaviours and using them interchangeably.
If some one says for example that being hit on is just a bit of fun or just a part of life this does not equate to that person holding the same opinion about other behaviour such as groping or stalking.
This is why it is important to establish what behaviour is the problem and what needs to be addressed.
Except since "we" is predominantly male, the whole "we should decide what is appropriate behaviour and what is a non-issue" mantra is playing right into their hands. It's both a complete waste of time (the damage is done PR wise) and you are telling a minority that the majority they are complaining about get to decide what's an issue in "their" organisation...
And that's the really shítty thing about how things have escalated and what makes me resent RW et al far more than any one particular statement they've made - there is no way of making this right by being rational absolutist without looking crass and side-stepping. There's no way to be utterly fed up with women complaining about X in that movement without sounding non inclusive. There's no way of arguing that a minority being hit on is a non-issue at these events without making it sound like a green-light to creeps and off-puting to that minority. RW et al has the movement backed into a complete corner and pretty much every response that isn't a clear statement about wanting to be inclusive and welcoming just gives them more ammunition/proves their point.It is, but there are some behaviours that do not have analogues, such as being hit on or inappropriate touching or stalking.
Except, of course, if you ask anyone (tho obviously not exclusively, women especially, I suspect) who have ever been to a nightclub, etc, one can follow the other...and the lines where one crosses into the other are very much dependant on/blurred by the particular perspective of the pursued/pursuer. So, unless we're getting into legal definitions rather than real life situations, it's going to be a fairly subjective topic at the best of times - and that's before touching on the face-palmingly archaic misogyny "thems there wily wimminz can't be trusted - just trying to ruin the reputation of a good man" type responses. [I'm paraphrasing, obviously
)Then why bring up the "demonising" of any bloggers or people?
Both sides (read the loud-mouths of the two camps) are as guilty of fostering a hostile atmosphere as each other. Pretending otherwise, or avoiding that fact is not helping.
I'm not avoiding anything - I think (hope) I've made my views on both trenches abundantly clear...I'm just trying to add a little perspective in general lest we be left with just poster after poster merrily back-slapping and trying out-do each other with the most dismissive and snide jibe seemingly unaware that THAT is making RW et al's arguments for them...a microcosm of the blog saga/PR disaster, if you will.But no one is deciding what the "real" issue is. I'm simply asking what it is and having an objective definition for it.
Have things really gone from there not being an issue, to deciding what the real, sorry "real", issue is? That is what I was saying above re side-stepping.
I want proof, I want proof, I want proof
you can't get retrospective proof of behaviours
[eventually]okay then...
I want an objective definition.I've asked you using examples of stuff what most people would not see as the same issue being throw in with it.
Bitchy t-shirts are not part of the same issue as sexual harassment.
Speakers having sex with attendees is not the same issue as sexual harassment.
I guess that depends on whether you are grading sexually inappropriate behaviour or judging an organisation/event on it's inclusiveness and general attitudes to women who aren't happy with the status quo...?Do you think those example are part of the same issue?
If not, how can we tell what the real issue is if it's being lumped together with other unrelated issues, let alone figure out a way to address it?
I have no idea what issues TAM has - having never attended. I have no idea of the severity or lack there of re inappropriate behaviours other than what is available to read in the public domain. I have no idea what speakers are having sex with whom but I presume you are referring to the one that seems to have a reputation for (depending on your perspective) being a bit of a creep/demonstrating his legal right to have sex with an adult who is willing to have sex with him.
What I would say is; while creepiness isn't a crime...looking at the present situation rationally - defending what is thought of or is commonly construed as creepy behaviour (whether than involves a prominent speaker with a penchant for groupies or deliberately following women into encloses spaces) is not doing a sterling job of repairing the tarnished reputation of an organisation which is tasked with denying the claims of being a bit of a boorish boys club.
Look, I am in no way defending anything RW et al have come out with...far from it, I don't agree with 99% of the things they have/are coming out with - and in an ideal world, the general perception of atheism or rationalism wouldn't be getting a beating...I'm just slightly taken aback at some of the responses (generally) and the impolitic naivety that has allowed things to get to this stage from people I had assumed were more rational and insightful than many have shown themselves to be.0 -
-
But the problem should be judged and defined in a rational objective way, which would remove any supposed bias that a majority of males might have.
Women are not infallible on issues of gender, and men are not incapable of understanding them.
If some people are trying to spin the idea that an objective rational definition of the issue they want to discuss is not needed, or somehow unfair to them, they are wrong. That's what religions do.
Those who are on the receiving end of negative claims generally do not get the privilege to decide how those claims should be judged and defined, I'm not sure why this situation would be any different. They will be judged and defined by others observing the entire situation, not just those claims but also the reaction and any action with regards to them....as has been happening.If there is an issue the only way to understand it and find a way to address it is to find that definition.
So far, no one can provide one.
Which doesn't change the perception of goal-post shifting, avoidance, dismissal, etc, etc...But most people who take even a bare level of reading on the whole thing can grasp that RW and the A+ crowd are deserving of the mockery and dismissal they are getting, just as they can see that the people who attack them viciously and make disparaging sexist and violent comments are trolls.
Except that's not the case - I really can't see how a rational observation of the numbers of women dropping substantially in attendance and the saga getting more wide-spread is a clear case of A+ crowd versus troll - if that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion, surely? Unless you are inferring I and other people who don't view it that way are lacking in a bare level of reading?
So if you don't want to bring in what trolls are saying about other trolls, why did you bring it up?
As above...But the things have been stuck on those two points as neither evidence has been provided nor has an objective definition.
How can there be a rational discussion if you can't show that this issue actually is happening on any form of scale nor actually explain what you think the issue is.
What I think the issue is? I think the issue is an organisation is being torn in two and getting it's reputation dragged through the mud because two sides are either unable or unwilling to view the situation and the damage it's doing without resorting to petty insults, reactionary extremism and snide dismissal under the guise of hyper-rationality...of course that may be because I lack a bare level of reading.
Surely the "issue" - beyond the general mud-slinging in order to be able to claim being RIGHT - is that the whole thing makes everyone associated with that event/the "movement" look anything but rational and that numbers attending the event are being affected by the fall-out...not the fall out from a few trolls Vs + crowd - the fall out from the "general" reaction...But I asked you if you think those two issues were the same as the issue of sexual harassment. Are they or aren't they, in your opinion?
Are you now saying that the issue is not sexual harassment but just sexually inappropriate behaviour or is it just inclusiveness?
You are trying to shoe-horn the discussion - and me -- down a pre-qualified cul-de-sac of your making. I've said above what I think the issue is. I appreciate there are a number of people who would rather break down everything the + crowd say in order that they can dismiss and ridicule it - but that doesn't deal with the increasing issue of the views of the general reaction to and about "the movement". Of course people are free to just ignore that and keep telling themselves that their hyper-rationality will make it all go away and the general defence of behaviour that many women find unappealing will make them look forward-thinking and inclusive...but it won't.
I'd throw the question back to you - can you understand why someone wouldn't want to be followed into a lift, or to their room? Can you see that some behaviours viewed by some as an innocent come-on can be experienced as unwelcome harassment? Can you see the issue with defending such behaviour in terms of making that event look particularly unappealing to the minority likely to have to experience the majority of such behaviours? And how that then reflects on those doing the defending?But considering that when some people like myself ask for a clear definition of the issue don't get an answer, but then also get tacitly accused of supporting and encouraging sexual harassment, is it any surprise that no one actually knows what the issue you wish to see addressed is?
Except I've been clear - and others have been clear about what the issue is as I/they see it - the fall in attendance and increasingly negative general opinion of that event and those associated with it.
Instead, frustrating, there seems to be a Nero-esque determination to keep going around in circles claiming only a detailed definition will afford the tools to repair some of the damage already wreaked - which is a complete nonsense, as discussed 20 odd pages back.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
So following someone to their room is stalking and should be dealt with by harassment policy/the law but deliberately following them into the lift en route to their room is a completely different kettle of fish? Can you see why it's not as black and white as it seems?
I think we're mostly in agreement. The only point I'd make is that, again, the "you felt threatened but you shouldn't and your feelings on the matter are irrelevant", "stopping following women into elevators would be unfair on women who like being followed into elevators" type responses aren't going to have women making a rush for the doors of the next TAM conference any time soon either - or any other atheist/rationalist event for that matter and that is surely an issue?
I just can't see the logic of a majority aggressively and vehemently dismissing a minority (a minority supported by others in that movement) on an issue as sensitive as being made to feel threatened or unwelcome or awkward - and not seeing the irony in doing so. You feel awkward/threatened? Tough, suck it up, get over it, nothing wrong with what they did, expect more if you come along with our blessing. Inclusive? Welcoming? Kind of event women will be queueing to attend? Probably not. 0 -
I think the problem is where is the line at which Person A should expect Person B to change their behaviour to make Person A feel comfortable i.e. what are good enough reasons. I don't think Person B should automatically have to change their behaviour for Person A even if Person A feels uncomfortable.Ickle Magoo wrote: »So following someone to their room is stalking and should be dealt with by harassment policy/the law but deliberately following them into the lift en route to their room is a completely different kettle of fish? Can you see why it's not as black and white as it seems?
I think we're mostly in agreement. The only point I'd make is that, again, the "you felt threatened but you shouldn't and your feelings on the matter are irrelevant", "stopping following women into elevators would be unfair on women who like being followed into elevators" type responses aren't going to have women making a rush for the doors of the next TAM conference any time soon either - or any other atheist/rationalist event for that matter and that is surely an issue?
I just can't see the logic of a majority aggressively and vehemently dismissing a minority (a minority supported by others in that movement) on an issue as sensitive as being made to feel threatened or unwelcome or awkward - and not seeing the irony in doing so. You feel awkward/threatened? Tough, suck it up, get over it, nothing wrong with what they did, expect more if you come along with our blessing. Inclusive? Welcoming? Kind of event women will be queueing to attend? Probably not.
I would think any physical contact that would be deemed inappropriate (obviously includes groping) and any aggressive behaviour that would make a reasonable person feel like they are in danger.
Asking someone in a lift if they want to go for coffee back in their room and then accepting a negative answer without persisting the offer does not cross the line into harassment/aggressiveness territory.0 -
-
All men are not guilty of what they are accused of by virtue of being men.Ickle Magoo wrote: »Those who are on the receiving end of negative claims generally do not get the privilege to decide how those claims should be judged and defined, I'm not sure why this situation would be any different. They will be judged and defined by others observing the entire situation, not just those claims but also the reaction and any action with regards to them....as has been happening.
Claiming that they are actually is sexism.
An objective rational analysis removes any supposed bias from either side. But claim that one side is incapable of doing or unwilling to do that is silly, doubly so if you are claiming that it is because of their gender.
But it's not goalpost shifting when they are both concurrent points that haven't moved.Ickle Magoo wrote: »Which doesn't change the perception of goal-post shifting, avoidance, dismissal, etc, etc...
If people believe that asking for objective evidence and a clear definition is shifting the goalposts, that's their problem.
But again, everyone can see both the A+ guys and the trolls who troll them for what they are.Ickle Magoo wrote: »Except that's not the case - I really can't see how a rational observation of the numbers of women dropping substantially in attendance and the saga getting more wide-spread is a clear case of A+ crowd versus troll - if that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion, surely? Unless you are inferring I and other people who don't view it that way are lacking in a bare level of reading?
As above...
People who are trying to discuss the issue like adults (like us for example) are not engaging in the same behaviour as the loud-mouthed minority.
But no organisation is being torn in two, not even atheism is being torn in two. There's the tiny enclave of FTB and their lot and the trolls who enjoy riling them up, and there's the vast majority of atheists and con-goers who realise that it's all a storm in a tea cup.Ickle Magoo wrote: »What I think the issue is? I think the issue is an organisation is being torn in two and getting it's reputation dragged through the mud because two sides are either unable or unwilling to view the situation and the damage it's doing without resorting to petty insults, reactionary extremism and snide dismissal under the guise of hyper-rationality...of course that may be because I lack a bare level of reading.
Surely the "issue" - beyond the general mud-slinging in order to be able to claim being RIGHT - is that the whole thing makes everyone associated with that event/the "movement" look anything but rational and that numbers attending the event are being affected by the fall-out...not the fall out from a few trolls Vs + crowd - the fall out from the "general" reaction...
I'm not trying to shoehorn you into anything, I'm just using those examples to illustrate how some are conflating silly trivial stuff with stuff that is actually a problem.Ickle Magoo wrote: »You are trying to shoe-horn the discussion - and me -- down a pre-qualified cul-de-sac of your making. I've said above what I think the issue is. I appreciate there are a number of people who would rather break down everything the + crowd say in order that they can dismiss and ridicule it - but that doesn't deal with the increasing issue of the views of the general reaction to and about "the movement". Of course people are free to just ignore that and keep telling themselves that their hyper-rationality will make it all go away and the general defence of behaviour that many women find unappealing will make them look forward-thinking and inclusive...but it won't.
Someone having consentual sex is not sexual harrasment, nor is it behaviour that needs to be addressed.
Someone wearing a bitchy t-shirt is not sexual harrasment and dictating rules about that is silly and childish.
If however the issue is about sexual harrassement, then it is worth addressing. However since people are throwing silly stuff like the above in with real problems, the extent of the issue is being clouded, hence why we need an objective analysis of it before we can even start to think about a way to address it.
Yes I can see why someone would not like those things, but they are different situations with different connotations.Ickle Magoo wrote: »I'd throw the question back to you - can you understand why someone wouldn't want to be followed into a lift, or to their room? Can you see that some behaviours viewed by some as an innocent come-on can be experienced as unwelcome harassment? Can you see the issue with defending such behaviour in terms of making that event look particularly unappealing to the minority likely to have to experience the majority of such behaviours? And how that then reflects on those doing the defending?
It's silly to equate pointing that out with "defending" them.
And again, these are both different and separate issues to cases where people are groped and stalked. Throwing peoples discomfort with awkward social situations in with cases of actual sexual harassment is not helping and just clouding the issue.
So what caused the fall in attendance and provide the evidence you are using to conclude that?Ickle Magoo wrote: »Except I've been clear - and others have been clear about what the issue is as I/they see it - the fall in attendance and increasingly negative general opinion of that event and those associated with it.
Because there are many different explanation for this and each of them have separate, very different issues behind them.0 -
-
All men are not guilty of what they are accused of by virtue of being men.
Claiming that they are actually is sexism.
Where are you pulling this stuff from KM? Where did I say anything relating to men being guilty by virtue of being men?An objective rational analysis removes any supposed bias from either side. But claim that one side is incapable of doing or unwilling to do that is silly, doubly so if you are claiming that it is because of their gender.
And again - where did I state that anyone is unwilling to do something due to their gender?But it's not goalpost shifting when they are both concurrent points that haven't moved.
If people believe that asking for objective evidence and a clear definition is shifting the goalposts, that's their problem.
Excellent - and it's a well known fact that the "feck it, that's your problem" works a treat in PR...But again, everyone can see both the A+ guys and the trolls who troll them for what they are.
People who are trying to discuss the issue like adults (like us for example) are not engaging in the same behaviour as the loud-mouthed minority.
I'll say it again, I think it's clearly more than just the loud-mouthed minority at this stage. I think there is much more to this than merely a handful of bloggers and a few trolls - as the reems of pages here and on other sites which are unrelated to TAM or X-crowd would surely be testament to that?But no organisation is being torn in two, not even atheism is being torn in two. There's the tiny enclave of FTB and their lot and the trolls who enjoy riling them up, and there's the vast majority of atheists and con-goers who realise that it's all a storm in a tea cup.
Are you now deeming to speak for all atheists/rationals...and the following post disdainfully refers to RW doing much the same. :eek:I'm not trying to shoehorn you into anything, I'm just using those examples to illustrate how some are conflating silly trivial stuff with stuff that is actually a problem.
Someone having consentual sex is not sexual harrasment, nor is it behaviour that needs to be addressed.
Someone wearing a bitchy t-shirt is not sexual harrasment and dictating rules about that is silly and childish.
So now we're back to you deciding unilaterally what is silly and what is actually a problem...If however the issue is about sexual harrassement, then it is worth addressing. However since people are throwing silly stuff like the above in with real problems, the extent of the issue is being clouded, hence why we need an objective analysis of it before we can even start to think about a way to address it.
Except you don't - and we did that 20-odd pages ago.Yes I can see why someone would not like those things, but they are different situations with different connotations.
It's silly to equate pointing that out with "defending" them.
So you acknowledge why someone wouldn't like them - and yet you call it silly, not a problem, etc, etc. IF you can see why someone wouldn't like them - someone who is in a minority and likely to experience the majority of that behaviour...can you not also see why giving the impression that women are fair game at TAM's and should expect zero support if they are feeling threatened or uncomfortable unless they come armed with photographic evidence of physical assault is problematic?And again, these are both different and separate issues to cases where people are groped and stalked. Throwing peoples discomfort with awkward social situations in with cases of actual sexual harassment is not helping and just clouding the issue.
So your bottom line is that unless an actual sexual harassment in the legal sense takes place, there is no issue...that's fine, I just can't understand how you don't see why that kind of stance is terrible PR.So what caused the fall in attendance and provide the evidence you are using to conclude that?
Because there are many different explanation for this and each of them have separate, very different issues behind them.
If everyone knows it's just a storm in a tea-cup it does beg the question why a drop in attendance at all...?
I'm just going on what I've read in the numerous articles, blogs, sites, etc about this topic - and in conversation with people. I'm not going to spend hours linking you to everything I've read/heard, I just don't feel that strongly about convincing you, or anyone else for that matter. I'm giving my perspective on the situation - you are, of course, free to dismiss everything I say just as you are free to dismiss everything else.
Slán0 -
I don't think anybody has any problems with that.
The main problem I do see is the nasty and divisive way in which Watson has promoted the issue, and also apparently used the issue successfully to promote herself.
Just to pick one post -- unlike what Watson has clearly implied here, I've never said that women are "not logical like us" nor that "we" male atheists would like more women around "so we can fuck them".
She's welcome to have a discussion about the former, but not with me from a basis of the latter.
Who cares about RW? Seriously? We're back to missing the woods cos we're staring at a single tree again. There are a whole plethora of women (And men!) completely unrelated to the X-crowd posting about this topic and the reaction to RW, from this forum to their blogs, to e-mail to general conversation and all that's being given in response is some cheap jibes at/about/re RW. Like "the schism" or even the general surprise or disappointment regarding the reaction can be instantly and magically dismissed based on a single line from a single blogger... 0 -
I did not state that you say anything of the sort.Ickle Magoo wrote: »Where are you pulling this stuff from KM? Where did I say anything relating to men being guilty by virtue of being men?
And again - where did I state that anyone is unwilling to do something due to their gender?
You are claiming that some women would be unhappy with men trying to find an objective definition or analysis of the problem, presumably because they would be incapable of understanding the issue or are part of the problem.
However this objection assumes that all men are one or the other by virtue of their gender, hence such an objection is just sexism.
But that's not what the position of "please provide objective evidence and a clear definition of your claim" is.Ickle Magoo wrote: »Excellent - and it's a well known fact that the "feck it, that's your problem" works a treat in PR...
It's the same position that many of the organisations in the middle of this kerfuffle are trying to promote in all other issues.
Again if people have a problem with skeptics and skeptic organisations using skepticism, that is their problem.
But all of those pages, including the overwhelming consensus here (which you agree with) is that the trolls diverse each other.Ickle Magoo wrote: »I'll say it again, I think it's clearly more than just the loud-mouthed minority at this stage. I think there is much more to this than merely a handful of bloggers and a few trolls - as the reems of pages here and on other sites which are unrelated to TAM or X-crowd would surely be testament to that?
Are you now deeming to speak for all atheists/rationals...and the following post disdainfully refers to RW doing much the same. :eek:
All of those reams of pages are either people pointing out how silly the whole thing is, or trying to discuss any issues there might actually be in a more rational and polite manner.
No we are not. I've asked you twice to explain whether these examples of issues actually brought up and thrown in with issues like sexual harassment are of equal importance to illustrate how the issues are being muddled.Ickle Magoo wrote: »So now we're back to you deciding unilaterally what is silly and what is actually a problem...
You have yet to answer this.
But it's clear that these issues are not the same as sexual harassment and that by being thrown in with that, they are muddling the issues.
I did not call either some one following you to your room or into an elevator silly. I just stated the fact that they are different to each other and different to stuff like stalking and groping.Ickle Magoo wrote: »So you acknowledge why someone wouldn't like them - and yet you call it silly, not a problem, etc, etc. IF you can see why someone wouldn't like them - someone who is in a minority and likely to experience the majority of that behaviour...
Again where did I give the impression that women are fair game?Ickle Magoo wrote: »can you not also see why giving the impression that women are fair game at TAM's and should expect zero support if they are feeling threatened or uncomfortable unless they come armed with photographic evidence of physical assault is problematic?
What specifically did I type that even hints that I believe that this is the case?
Where did I say that they needed photographic evidence for their individual cases?
What you are doing is conflating individual incidents with the issue as a whole.
I have stated clearly that I was not looking for evidence about those individual incidents, but evidence to back up the claims made about the issue.
Not what I said.Ickle Magoo wrote: »So your bottom line is that unless an actual sexual harassment in the legal sense takes place, there is no issue...that's fine, I just can't understand how you don't see why that kind of stance is terrible PR.
But if people are willing to twist what I did say to make it sound like I did say that, then yes it would be terrible PR.
What I actually said was that sexual harrassment was a different issue that requires a different way of addressing it from the other issues that are being lumped in with that.
Please stop twisting what I say.
That's the question I asked you and asked you to back up with evidence.Ickle Magoo wrote: »If everyone knows it's just a storm in a tea-cup it does beg the question why a drop in attendance at all...?
You did not do this. Instead you came back with an argument from ignorance, something with most atheists and skeptics would not buy for an instant.
If you believe that the drop in attendance is due to the bad blood between bloggers and trolls, then supply the evidence for it.
There are many other explanations for why the attendance might have drop, all of which need to be addressed in different unique ways.
The drop in attendance might be due to experiences of sexist behaviour, or to experiences of sexual assault.
Or it could be the false perception of those things.
Or it could be because of less than diplomatic statements made by the organisers.
Or it could be a lack (real or perceived) of female or minority speakers.
Or it could be a combination of all of the above. Or it could be none of the above.
And that's why we need a clear objective definition of the problem and evidence to support it before a way to address it could be found.0 -
Advertisement
-
No it's not really black and white. You would have to expand on what you mean by following to their room. Were they staying on the same floor ? in the next room ? Did they previously try it on and were rejected ? It's quite important to get the details right because it makes a lot of difference.
Following someone into a lift (a public area) and politely propositioning them and then politely accepting their rejection is different. There's nothing wrong with trying to have a quiet word with someone away from others.
Except clearly that stance is not universally agreed. There are some very grey areas, some blurry lines which you acknowledge exist even between your definitions and if the aim is to have an inclusive event which one gender isn't put off attending en masse, then arguing for the right to (and I'm not just referring to your posts) proposition women whenever, wherever and calling issues that minority bring up silly and non-issues just isn't going to do that.People have talked about various scenarios to explain his behaviour;
- He clearly was looking for a quiet opportunity to proposition her away from others to save embarrassment.
- He was a weirdo who could have attacked her.
- etc.
None of these matter in the slightest.
Except they do if the general aim is to make your organisation look attractive - or at least avoid making it look appallingly unattractive - to the minority you are trying to encourage to attend/keep attending your events. Can you really see no public image issues when someone says [generic] your event which already has a gender imbalance has multiple reports of women feeling threatened/uncomfortable/whatever and the resounding response ranges in the main from "there is no problem" to "that's their problem"...I didn't say she shouldn't feel threatened. She could very well feel threatened in any situation where she is alone with a man. The guy could have been Roman Polanski. It doesn't matter. He did nothing wrong to her.
Her feelings are irrelevant regarding what to do about it.
Well, everyone's feeling are irrelevant if you don't think anything should be done about it...My point was that Watson is making claims for all women. She is superimposing her feelings on all women. That's not realistic.
RW is not the only person having this discussion - or making claims for or about other people for that matter. In order to categorically state there is no issue of any kind then it's really a question of ignoring everyone who has made comment, reacted to comment, ignore those voting with their feet, ignore the neutral commentators and pretending it's just about a single blogger. That doesn't sound very rational to me...Ickle I fully understand how people can feel uncomfortable in certain situations. Imagine you are at a bar and some guy is staring at you, he looks like a dodgy character and appears drunk. You leave the bar and go to the lift to go to bed. Suddenly he's there in the lift and he asks if you want to come to his room for coffee. You say no and he says OK and you go to bed.
I do understand why that would make you uncomfortable. But what exactly is the solution to this discomfort ?
What if the guy was really handsome, you fancied him etc.
Yeah, that's another great PR line -
"ladies, at TAM we fully support any drunk man staring at one of our minority of women not because we don't understand but because we have your best interests at heart". Genius.I'm not been dismissive. I fully understand the issues. I simply don't see what can or should be done about it. Could you give a solution to the elevator incident ?
TBH, unless people are prepared to come out of their trenches I don't think anything can be done at this stage which isn't going to be a band-aid solution proposed by a few and resented by many...one side is going to keep arguing that it isn't healthy for an event/movement to endorse a minority being made to feel threatened/unwelcome/whatever and the other side is going to argue for the right to indulge in behaviours that [incidentally] make others feel threatened/unwelcome/whatever because they view the other side as having the issue...how do you marry those? You can't.
It has really reflected badly on a lot of people and I guess - as usual - time will tell how/if it ultimately get written up in the history books.0 -
Please stop twisting what I say.
I'm not meaning to twist what you are saying - any more than I think you mean to twist what I am saying...as I said earlier, I don't feel strongly enough about the reputation of skeptics I neither know nor in some cases particularly like to keep going around in circles like this.
I am one poster and I'm getting multiple responses to every post I make, some of which are selectively quoting me and much of which are ignoring points I've made copious times previously...so I'm going to politely bow out now having said my piece...many times....and go back to being a bemused observer. 0 -
Except they do if the general aim is to make your organisation look attractive - or at least avoid making it look appallingly unattractive - to the minority you are trying to encourage to attend/keep attending your events.
So you want to limit one sexes freedom of speech to make (many/most of) the other sex feel more comfortable?Well, everyone's feeling are irrelevant if you don't think anything should be done about it...
I didn't say nothing should be done about it. I specifically asked what could be done about it. Because the only thing I can see to do about it is unacceptable.
Theres a girl sitting close to me in a coffee shop as I write this. I could go and ask for her phone number. There are many possible outcomes but let's go with these two;
1. She is interested and gives me her number.
2. She is uninterested and feels uncomfortable/annoyed etc.
Regardless of which one is more likely, are you suggesting I shouldn't ask? That asking is wrong?
If she is interested does it mean my asking was right? If she isnt does it mean my asking was wrong?
I'm not saying all women want to be propositioned all the time and I fully understand that many don't want to be propositioned, maybe ever. But how exactly do you police that? How do I know that she is going to feel good or bad before I actually ask?RW is not the only person having this discussion - or making claims for or about other people for that matter.
I was talking specifically about the lift incident.In order to categorically state there is no issue of any kind then ....
I Never said nor even implied that there was no issue."ladies, at TAM we fully support any drunk man staring at one of our minority of women not because we don't understand but because we have your best interests at heart". Genius.
So what's the solution? If there's a drunk guy staring at some girl in a bar what exactly is the correct response?
You keep talking about problems and offer no solutions.
What can be done about this man? Should he be told to stop staring or leave?
Ickle I am not saying there is no issue. I am not saying that women shouldn't feel a certain way. I am not saying that groping/harrassment is ok.
I'm asking you what can be done about a situation like the lift issue? About a drunk staring?
That's my point.0 -
-
-
-
Michael Nugent wrote: »You don’t have to think of it in terms of other people limiting your freedom of speech. You can choose to self-regulate your freedom of speech to help make other people more comfortable, because it is a nice way to behave even if you don’t legally have to.
Absolutely. No problem with this at all.You already do that in many areas of your life, so why not do it this instance also?
In what instance in particular ? I'm asking because so many people here are conflating so many different things.What is this only thing you can see to do about it?
Putting some kind of rules policy on normal human interaction.If that is a serious question, I would suggest you start a small-talk conversation about something other than her phone number, that allows either of you to end the conversation easily without embarrassment, and see how both you and she respond to that conversation.
Michael, I didn't literally mean I was going to walk over and say "Hey what's your phone number". Come on now, did I really need to point that out ?If it seems that you are getting along okay, either you or she could end the conversation by asking if the other person wants to keep in touch. If you are not getting along okay, you have saved both of you the embarrassment of an unwanted out-of-the-blue proposition.
Hang on a second. You mean the whole bloody miserable pathetic mind numbing issue with the elevator incident isn't that he propositioned her but how he did so ?
Well now I'm even more against the nonsense coming from Watson about this.
Here's a scenario;
Man likes woman he sees in bar. Suddenly she heads off to bed before man managed to pick up the courage or got an opportunity to make a move. Man decides to make a desperate attempt to salvage the situation and heads out of the bar to try and proposition woman. Man makes an awkward attempt at a proposition in a lift, man is rejected. Man and woman go their seperate ways.
Now personally I wouldn't proposition a woman outright like this because I think A) it's rude and
there's a very high chance of failure and looking like an eejit. But how can you suggest for one moment that people shouldn't be allowed to do this ? Don't agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it etc.
I know men and women who do appreciate getting directly to the point. I know one girl who will walk up to men and ask them in no uncertain terms do they want to go back to her room. I know men and women who want to engage in all kinds of hanky panky in the bedroom and make polite but direct requests like this regularly. I've even been on the recieving end of a few requests like this from women, not to blow my own horn or anything, and a man in a gay bar.
Should they not be allowed to do so ? Who is going to decide what is decent behaviour ?
Quite likely the vast majority of women and even men wouldn't appreciate it but that is irrelevant to whether or not it should be allowed.0 -
-
Yes. Rebecca made that clear at a very early stage of this conversation. Nobody has been suggesting, as either a principle or a rule, that people should not proposition each other. If you misunderstood this basic point, you may also have misunderstood other aspects of the issue.Hang on a second. You mean the whole bloody miserable pathetic mind numbing issue with the elevator incident isn't that he propositioned her but how he did so ?
Why? I thought finding this out would have the opposite effect on you.Well now I'm even more against the nonsense coming from Watson about this.
Surely it is more reasonable to suggest that people should be considerate when propositioning other people, than it is to suggest that people should never proposition other people?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement