Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

OpheliaBenson

Oh and one more thing, in #1846 -

I hope Atheist Ireland lost a lot of money on this

That's disgusting. I hope they get a flood of donations. They do great work.

Rev Hellfire

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

None of that happened. None of it. Nothing happened to Catherine O'Brien. You guys are seeing dragons under the bed.

Are you suggesting she lied in the interview?

OpheliaBenson

That's an insulting question.

Catherine O'Brien didn't say any of that in the interview. I was addressing the invented nonsense in #1848 -

some people (PZ etc. were so affronted by its "offtopicness" they walked out, usual people tweeted about how she'd ruined "their" conference.

That did not happen. PZ walked out when Justin Vacula made a little speech.

In the interview Vacula read her those tweets as if they were about what she said, and he made her rather upset, but the tweets were much more about the way Vacula and others tried to parlay her comments into something like their own anti-feminism.

Sycopat

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Are you suggesting she lied in the interview?

I might have missed it, but I heard no mention of people walking out or anything. Couple of anonymous tweets that don't seem to agree with her but also don't seem representative of what she was actually saying. None claiming 'she ruined their conference'.
Hard to call anons a 'usual crowd', but I guess for people closer to the event they may not be anons?

I'm very tired today (so very, very tired... Quarterly report day.) I could have just missed it.

But through my weary, bleary eyes, this be one mountainous looking molehill.

Rev Hellfire

My mistake, but an understandable one when you take in the comment made at 3:15 in the interview.

So apologies, didn't intend to offend.

OpheliaBenson

Ok, thanks.

It was a great conference. It's sad to see it misrepresented the way it was by pH in the fact-free comments @ 1846 and 1848.

OpheliaBenson

And while I'm at it - that's not the only untrue thing pH has said about me. There's also this comment a few pages back.

More seriously, yes people like Rebecca Watson/Ophelia Benson get a large amount of internet harassment, in part because they feed the trolls so well, and the drama does them good too. However they seem blind to the vitriol they spew, not at people actually sending them abuse but at people like:

Russell Blackford (A lying f**khead according to PZ Myers)
Richard Dawkins
Abbie Smith
Harriet Hall
Paula Kirby
etc.

So we have a situation where high profile female feminists are being trolled successfully (that's not to say that the stuff they're receiving isn't nasty or upsetting) and in turn spew the most nasty and hateful stuff at others ... people who certainly are not the ones sending them nasty emails.

No I don't. I don't "spew the most nasty and hateful stuff at others." That's a falsehood.

pH

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

And while I'm at it - that's not the only untrue thing pH has said about me. There's also this comment a few pages back.



No I don't. I don't "spew the most nasty and hateful stuff at others." That's a falsehood.

So for example calling Wicknight "a dishonest sh1t", that's friendly stuff is it?

In my opinion it's nasty, and as far as I know Wicknight certainly isn't involved in any online harassment so I'll stand by my opinion of how the FTB/Spepchick/PZ crowd like to conduct discussions, holding on to their right to swear and be as nasty as they like (using whatever words they like) whilst simultaneously complaining about what other people call them!

Turtwig

pH wrote: »

So for example calling Wicknight "a dishonest sh1t", that's friendly stuff is it?

I believe she was only referring to herself? Not others. So the Wicknight thing is hardly relevant. Unless Ophelia was somehow involved.

Sycopat

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

My mistake, but an understandable one when you take in the comment made at 3:15 in the interview.

Somehow I actually did miss that in its entirety.

Zombrex

So this is (unfortunately) a thing

http://skepchick.org/2013/07/questlove-trayvon-martin-and-not-being-****/

Watson seems oblivious that it was the hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime, that lead to Zimmerman "patrolling" his neighbourhood in the first place, and the view of the white female jury that Zimmerman was just protecting the population from a black man up to no good. One wonders what would have been the reaction from a lot of these blogs if Zimmerman had actually been a woman? It was also a fear of rape that it seems lead Martin to attack Zimmerman, rather than simply frustration at being stalked. Martin seemed to believe he himself was about to be raped. Because after all men are probably rapists.

You cannot contribute to a level of criminal suspicion of men and then fain surprise when society at all levels, from Martin to Zimmerman to the women on the jury fall into default mode of viewing a man out and about as nothing more than a likely criminal or rapist.

* it would be remiss to not mention the veiled racist/sexist comment at the start of the article where Watson feels compelled to compliment Questlove on producing a " thoughtful and well-written essay" article. Cause you know he is a man and black so he should get a gold star from a white woman for being able to write properly and have considered opinions about something. :rolleyes:

Nodin

Zombrex wrote: »

So this is (unfortunately) a thing

http://skepchick.org/2013/07/questlove-trayvon-martin-and-not-being-****/

Watson seems oblivious that it was the hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime, that lead to Zimmerman "patrolling" his neighbourhood in the first place, and the view of the white female jury that Zimmerman was just protecting the population from a black man up to no good. One wonders what would have been the reaction from a lot of these blogs if Zimmerman had actually been a woman? It was also a fear of rape that it seems lead Martin to attack Zimmerman, rather than simply frustration at being stalked. Martin seemed to believe he himself was about to be raped. Because after all men are probably rapists.

You cannot contribute to a level of criminal suspicion of men and then fain surprise when society at all levels, from Martin to Zimmerman to the women on the jury fall into default mode of viewing a man out and about as nothing more than a likely criminal or rapist.

* it would be remiss to not mention the veiled racist/sexist comment at the start of the article where Watson feels compelled to compliment Questlove on producing a " thoughtful and well-written essay" article. Cause you know he is a man and black so he should get a gold star from a white woman for being able to write properly and have considered opinions about something. :rolleyes:

....she's on about the poxy lift again.....

Zombrex

Nodin wrote: »

....she's on about the poxy lift again.....

I think she is in pre-emptive defence mode because Questlove's article happened to detail a situation very similar to what she as complaining about (by coincidence, I imagine Questlove has no freaking idea who Rebecca Watson is), while pointing out the inherent bigotry in assuming that the man with you is a criminal.

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

....she's on about the poxy lift again.....

History could have been so different, with just one little difference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu6QBoDPw9U

Standman

Zombrex wrote: »

So this is (unfortunately) a thing

http://skepchick.org/2013/07/questlove-trayvon-martin-and-not-being-****/

Watson seems oblivious that it was the hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime, that lead to Zimmerman "patrolling" his neighbourhood in the first place, and the view of the white female jury that Zimmerman was just protecting the population from a black man up to no good. One wonders what would have been the reaction from a lot of these blogs if Zimmerman had actually been a woman? It was also a fear of rape that it seems lead Martin to attack Zimmerman, rather than simply frustration at being stalked. Martin seemed to believe he himself was about to be raped. Because after all men are probably rapists.

You cannot contribute to a level of criminal suspicion of men and then fain surprise when society at all levels, from Martin to Zimmerman to the women on the jury fall into default mode of viewing a man out and about as nothing more than a likely criminal or rapist.

* it would be remiss to not mention the veiled racist/sexist comment at the start of the article where Watson feels compelled to compliment Questlove on producing a " thoughtful and well-written essay" article. Cause you know he is a man and black so he should get a gold star from a white woman for being able to write properly and have considered opinions about something. :rolleyes:

I'd say she choose to frame the Zimmerman verdict as making it legal to "..hunt down a black teen and kill him because he was seen as a threat." very deliberately.

Framing it as something terrible like hunting down and murdering a teenage boy with a bag of skittles just because he was black allows her to avoid the uncomfortable question of whether racial profiling may be justified in some contexts, just as she believes gender/strength profiling is.

OpheliaBenson

Oblivious? Really? You think Rebecca is oblivious? It's what the post is about, so in what sense is she oblivious?

Also -

it was the hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime, that lead to Zimmerman "patrolling" his neighbourhood in the first place

Was it? You know that? I thought it was fears about property crimes and break-ins (which can inspire fear in men as well as women) rather than "male sexual crime." Do you have a source for the latter claim?

nagirrac

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Was it? You know that? I thought it was fears about property crimes and break-ins (which can inspire fear in men as well as women) rather than "male sexual crime." Do you have a source for the latter claim?

You are correct, as anyone who followed the trial as opposed to the trial by media would know. It is an unfortunate aspect of life in the US that the media can conduct a trial and convict someone, in advance of the real trial, including inventing or distorting evidence to create their version of what happened. The portrayal of Zimmerman by the media before the case went to trial was a disgrace.

The Zimmerman case is a tragedy, especially for the young man who was killed. However, all the evidence, including ironically the evidence presented by the prosecution, supported Zimmerman's version of events. Not that he was blameless, but he was the one attacked physically and acted in self defense. It is unfortunate in my view that what was a tragic event is being used to further political agendas, including most disappointingly by the President.

Zombrex

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Oblivious? Really? You think Rebecca is oblivious? It's what the post is about, so in what sense is she oblivious?

Also -



Was it? You know that? I thought it was fears about property crimes and break-ins (which can inspire fear in men as well as women) rather than "male sexual crime." Do you have a source for the latter claim?

Ophelia you have a habit of popping on to this forum, requesting clarifications and justifications and then ignoring responses and disappearing again for weeks on end.

Are you really interested in my reply, or is your post merely rhetorical?

OpheliaBenson

Zombrex, no I don't have a "habit" of doing that. I read the responses last time I commented here, and replied when a reply seemed called for, and not when one didn't.

I realize this is a clubhouse for regulars, but on the other hand you've been talking about me on this thread, so I don't think it's terribly intrusive of me to comment now and then, especially since most of what I see about me is factually wrong.

Zombrex

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Zombrex, no I don't have a "habit" of doing that. I read the responses last time I commented here, and replied when a reply seemed called for, and not when one didn't.

I realize this is a clubhouse for regulars, but on the other hand you've been talking about me on this thread, so I don't think it's terribly intrusive of me to comment now and then, especially since most of what I see about me is factually wrong.

This is a "clubhouse" for people interested in discussion and debate. It isn't a clubhouse for what is known as "hit and runs", which we get a fair amount of on this forum, where posters pop in to make a point disguised as a request for information or clarification or discussion, and by the time people have bothered to formulate a considered reply the poster has disappeared again.

I will take you on face value that you are genuinely interested in my reply.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Oblivious? Really? You think Rebecca is oblivious?

I think Watson is oblivious to this point, yes.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

It's what the post is about, so in what sense is she oblivious?

It is not what the post is about. Throughout the post Watson compares the sexual objectification of women with racism black males face when they are stereotyped.

"In the wake of the Zimmerman acquittal, would a black man have a similar threat evaluation about a white man following him late at night? “Can this person overpower me? Is this person viewing me as a racist caricature?”

Sexual objectification and racist stereotyping both lead to the dehumanization of marginalized people that Questlove accurately describes as feeling that you ain’t ****."

Watson is casting women as being in the comparative role as Trayvon Martin or Questlove, victims of stereotypes and bigotry.

What she isn't considering is the effect that the demonisation of men, particularly black men, as perpetual sex offenders has in creating that stereotype in the first place.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Was it? You know that? I thought it was fears about property crimes and break-ins (which can inspire fear in men as well as women) rather than "male sexual crime." Do you have a source for the latter claim?

I have read various news reports that claim that Zimmerman and his neighbourhood became particularly fearful of burglaries and break-ins after a number of break-ins had taken place with women alone in the houses, and this lead to Zimmerman's decision that something must be done.

As one blogger put it

"So when George Zimmerman assumed, based on appearance that Trayvon was a criminal, a big part of why he assumed it was this history of Black boys and men being considered threats to white women. Sadly, though it’s been nearly sixty years, the twisted logic that made Emmett Till’s life worthless and let his murders go free has done the same to Trayvon."
http://www.blogher.com/not-my-name-or-whiteness-goddam

Turtwig

Zombrex wrote: »

Ophelia you have a habit of popping on to this forum, requesting clarifications and justifications and then ignoring responses and disappearing again for weeks on end.

Are you really interested in my reply, or is your post merely rhetorical?

I will take you on face value that you are genuinely interested in my reply.

If you suspect a poster isn't being genuine or playing fair report the post(s). Do NOT make accusations to the poster in thread!

Thanks

OpheliaBenson

This is a "clubhouse" for people interested in discussion and debate. It isn't a clubhouse for what is known as "hit and runs", which we get a fair amount of on this forum, where posters pop in to make a point disguised as a request for information or clarification or discussion, and by the time people have bothered to formulate a considered reply the poster has disappeared again.

Meaning what? People are required to reply to every reply? Or what?

What she isn't considering is the effect that the demonisation of men, particularly black men, as perpetual sex offenders has in creating that stereotype in the first place.

That's probably because there is no such thing. There's no generalized "demonisation of men as perpetual sex offenders."

I have read various news reports that claim that Zimmerman and his neighbourhood became particularly fearful of burglaries and break-ins after a number of break-ins had taken place with women alone in the houses, and this lead to Zimmerman's decision that something must be done.

Right. That's what I said. Not sex crimes, but property crimes and break-ins. So you got that bit wrong, in your eagerness to pin some random accusation on Rebecca. Not very scrupulous, or even very rational.

Zombrex

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Meaning what? People are required to reply to every reply? Or what?

No, meaning only ask another poster questions if you are genuinely interested in their reply.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

That's probably because there is no such thing. There's no generalized "demonisation of men as perpetual sex offenders."

Yes there is, the stereotype of the male predator, particularly the black male sexual predator, is well engrained in society Western society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_brute

This is an example of the modern phenomena around the India gang rapes, which touches on the general phenomena at the end of the piece.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100196384/the-delhi-rape-is-being-used-to-demonise-indian-men/

"A handful of observers have challenged the sweeping demonisation of India and its people in the wake of the Delhi rape – but strikingly they have done so on the basis that we in the West are just as rapacious as the "hyena-like" men of the subcontinent. In the past, progressives would have critiqued the heaping of collective guilt on to foreign nations on the basis that it was inhumane and inaccurate; now they critique it on the basis that rape is not just "a cultural phenomenon in India", but is "endemic everywhere", with verbal or violent misogyny "happening all around us", including in civilised countries like Britain. In other words, it isn't just Indian men who are hyenas – all men are. This is one of the most shocking things about the Delhi rape case – the fact that so many observers aren't especially shocked by it, either because they expect animalistic Indian men to behave like this, or because they view all men, if not all of humanity itself, as capable of such despicable evil."

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Right. That's what I said. Not sex crimes, but property crimes and break-ins.

The situation escalated when the threat of these women being assaulted in their homes was raised. This prompted Zimmerman to take it upon himself to start patrolling the neighbourhood.

After all what is a man, particularly a black man, to do with a woman alone in a house other than rape her, right?

OpheliaBenson

No, meaning only ask another poster questions if you are genuinely interested in their reply.

Why are you giving me orders? Why are you telling me under what conditions to ask another poster questions? I get that you're an insider here and I'm an outsider, but I don't get why you're bossing me around. I'll ask questions as I want to, until/unless someone bans me. I don't need your permission or instructions. As far as I can see you're not even a mod, you're just bossy.

the stereotype of the male predator, particularly the black male sexual predator, is well engrained in society Western society.

Yes, and I didn't say otherwise, but that's not the same as "the demonisation of men, particularly black men, as perpetual sex offenders." Very few people claim that all men are sexual predators.

The situation escalated when the threat of these women being assaulted in their homes was raised. This prompted Zimmerman to take it upon himself to start patrolling the neighbourhood.

Assaulted, yes - I said that - break-ins are threatening to both sexes. That's not the same as "hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime," which is what you said was the issue.

Turtwig

Zombrex wrote: »

No, meaning only ask another poster questions if you are genuinely interested in their reply.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Why are you giving me orders? Why are you telling me under what conditions to ask another poster questions? I get that you're an insider here and I'm an outsider, but I don't get why you're bossing me around. I'll ask questions as I want to, until/unless someone bans me. I don't need your permission or instructions. As far as I can see you're not even a mod, you're just bossy.

Please drop this aspect to the discussion. It's irrelevant and the civility of it isn't exactly heartening.

Zombrex

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Yes, and I didn't say otherwise, but that's not the same as "the demonisation of men, particularly black men, as perpetual sex offenders." Very few people claim that all men are sexual predators.

It is the demonisation of men. It just isn't the overt demonisation of men. But then demonisation is rarely done overtly.

Very few people claim that all black men are criminals, or that all Muslim are terrorists. Those that do are normally dismissed as right wing loons. It might get you a job on a talk radio but that is about it. But a far higher percentage of people participate in the demonisation of stereotyped groups by rationalising a fear of them based on a perception of a high likelihood that they are going to participate in this behaviour.

So you get people saying things like "I'm not saying that all black people are criminals, but you can't ignore the fact that 1 in 3 black people spend time in prison" or "I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but you can't ignore the fact that violent aggression has been part of Islamic tradition for centuries"

This is an attempt to rationalise the prejudice, make it sound like a reasonable conclusion to make rather than a stereotyping of an individual.

And the same thing is found in how society address males and the crime of rape. I'm not saying all men are rapists, but men are raised in a rape culture that teaches men that raping a woman is acceptable. I'm not saying all men are rapists, but in a patriarchal society women are viewed as little more than sexual objects to taken at will. I'm not saying all men are rapists, but you cannot ignore that a large number of men admit to raping women if you call it something other than rape. etc etc

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Assaulted, yes - I said that - break-ins are threatening to both sexes.

I don't know why you keep making that point since no one ever claimed break-ins were not threatening to both sexes, nor has anyone taken Zimmerman's side that he had a rational reason to be fearful and start patrolling the neighbourhood.

The point is that Zimmerman didn't start patrolling the neighbourhood with a loaded weapon until the threat of women specifically being assaulted in their homes was raised by his neighbours. If you want to believe that has nothing to do with the black brute stereotype go ahead, I think that is a very naive position to take.

Standman

Zombrex wrote: »

"So when George Zimmerman assumed, based on appearance that Trayvon was a criminal, a big part of why he assumed it was this history of Black boys and men being considered threats to white women. Sadly, though it’s been nearly sixty years, the twisted logic that made Emmett Till’s life worthless and let his murders go free has done the same to Trayvon."
http://www.blogher.com/not-my-name-or-whiteness-goddam

That blogger must have amazing psychic abilities to delve so deeply into the thoughts and motives of George Zimmerman.

Impressive, shame she wasn't on the jury!

nagirrac

Standman wrote: »

That blogger must have amazing psychic abilities to delve so deeply into the thoughts and motives of George Zimmerman.

Impressive, shame she wasn't on the jury!

The volume of horse manure written about this case in the media and by bloggers is simply mind blowing, the level of stupidity involved is only exceeded by people who believe what they read and use the case to further their social or political opinions or agendas.

The facts of the case as reported in the courtroom are as follows:

1. A neighborhood watch group was set up in this gated community due to at least 8 break ins / robberies over the prior year. Zimmerman was chosen as the leader by the group.
2. On the night in question he was driving to the store and noticed someone that he thought was acting suspiciously. He called 911 and got out of his vehicle and tried to follow Martin, but lost him (a mistake but not a crime). He was asked by dispatch what race the person was, he never mentioned race up to this point. Contrary to reports, there was no instruction by dispatch to not follow Martin, he was given the standard answer "we don't need you to do that". Dispatch never give specific instructions as they can be held liable if something goes wrong. These are dispatchers on the phone, not police. The jury (interviewed afterwards) did not believe race played any part in this tragic case.
3. While going back to his vehicle he was confronted by Martin (who had told his friend on the phone he was already back at his house, but clearly had doubled back as the confrontation happened much closer to Zimmerman's vehicle than the house Martin was staying at) who punched him, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground, and then proceeded to slam his head repeated into the concrete. This was collaborated by two witnesses, ironically prosecution witnesses, and by the injuries to Zimmerman. Zimmerman pulled his legally carried gun and shot Martin as he felt his life was in imminent danger.
4. Zimmerman was questioned for 5 hours by the police and they determined he had acted in self defense. During the questioning Zimmerman was told by police they had a CCTV of the whole incident (untrue) and he answered "Thank God". Why would he say this if his account was a lie?

This case was entirely based on media hysteria and trial by media. From the beginning the media wanted a white man unjustly killed a black kid story. When it transpired that Zimmerman was Hispanic they then referred to him as a "white Hispanic". It is a tragic case with a tragic outcome and there is no question both involved appeared to use poor judgment, but there is also zero evidence that Zimmerman was racially motivated or intended to inflict any harm until attacked and beaten viciously. The initial prosecutor believed it was self defense and that he could never secure even a manslaughter conviction, he was removed from the case and an overzealous new prosecutor totally overreached by going for 2nd degree murder. If she had gone for manslaughter she might have had a small but unlikely chance of a conviction.

The media and the blogger community have a lot to answer for in stirring up racial tension surrounding this case. The average person has no clue as to the actual facts of the case, they only remember what was initially reported by the media which was sensationalism at best and outright lies at worst. Absolutely shameful but unfortunately typical of an American media abusing their freedom of speech rights without any concern for the results of their actions. Zimmerman is suing NBC for their part in portraying him as a racist and I predict will win a large settlement.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

2. On the night in question he was driving to the store and noticed someone that he thought was acting suspiciously.

Martin was walking home from the shops to his girlfriend's father's house. This prompted Zimmerman to tell the police

"This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

What as Martin doing that made him look "up to no good"?

Zimmerman said he was "looking at all the houses". There is no evidence Martin was doing anything other than walking through the neighbourhood.

How can you say race had nothing to do with it when Zimmerman sees a kid walking through the neighbourhood and jumps to the conclusion that he is there to rob houses and is on drugs?

Zombrex

Standman wrote: »

That blogger must have amazing psychic abilities to delve so deeply into the thoughts and motives of George Zimmerman.

You say that as if the thoughts of Geroge Zimmerman were complex and nuanced.

Rather than here is a black kid coming to rob our stuff and rape our women, I better do something.

DapperGent

Zombrex wrote: »

Rather than here is a black kid coming to rob our stuff and rape our women, I better do something.

You quite genuinely have no basis for intimating this.

Zombrex

DapperGent wrote: »

You quite genuinely have no basis for intimating this.

What was Trayvon Martin doing other than being black that made him suspicious in the eyes of Zimmerman?

DapperGent

Zombrex wrote: »

What was Trayvon Martin doing other than being black that made him suspicious in the eyes of Zimmerman?

Zimmerman's position is that he saw Trayvon Martin's behavior as being consistent with scouting for opportunities to commit burglaries (there having been a number recently in the area). It is your position that the critical factor for arousing this suspicion in Zimmerman was Trayvon Martin's race, which you are unable to justify. In addition you infer that Zimmerman's state of mind upon following Trayvon Martin included a suspicion that this person was a likely perpetrator of violent sexual assault based again on the his race, this you are also unable to justify even speculatively.

Your position is that if Zimmerman had seen a white or hispanic or asian teenager acting in exactly the same manner as Trayvon Martin at the same time then his suspicion (paranoia?) would likely not have been aroused. Ridiculously you also seem to me to claim that Zimmerman would reserve an additional suspicion that he was dealing with a potential rapist solely for black teenagers.

Why do you maintain that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior (in fact quite the opposite) could only act in this (imo reckless, idiotic) way towards a black person? For what reason do you suggest that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior, views black men as uniquely prone to commit sexual assault?

Zombrex

DapperGent wrote: »

Zimmerman's position is that he saw Trayvon Martin's behavior as being consistent with scouting for opportunities to commit burglaries (there having been a number recently in the area).

There is no evidence that Martin was doing any of those things. There is no evidence that he was there to rob, there is no evidence he was scoping houses, there is no evidence he was there to peruse any criminal activity. The only evidence there is is that he was walking through the neighbourhood minding his own business until he caught the attention of Zimmerman.

DapperGent wrote: »

It is your position that the critical factor for arousing this suspicion in Zimmerman was Trayvon Martin's race, which you are unable to justify.

It is justified by Martin not doing anything to arouse suspicion other than walking through Zimmerman's neighbour while being black.

DapperGent wrote: »

In addition you infer that Zimmerman's state of mind upon following Trayvon Martin included a suspicion that this person was a likely perpetrator of violent sexual assault based again on the his race, this you are also unable to justify even speculatively.

I already did justify this, read my reply to Ophelia.

DapperGent wrote: »

Your position is that if Zimmerman had seen a white or hispanic or asian teenager acting in exactly the same manner as Trayvon Martin at the same time then his suspicion (paranoia?) would likely not have been aroused.

Yes, because Martin was doing nothing more than walking through Zimmerman's neighbourhood. Zimmerman passed other people walking through his neighbourhood and didn't decide to chase them down with a gun

DapperGent wrote: »

Why do you maintain that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior (in fact quite the opposite) could only act in this (imo reckless, idiotic) way towards a black person? For what reason do you suggest that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior, views black men as uniquely prone to commit sexual assault?

What you mean other than he automatically assumed that a black man walking through his neighbourhood was a criminal high on drugs and out to rob the neighbourhood?

There are a witness that says Zimmerman and his family often made racist and derogatory comments about black people, so I'm not sure where you are getting the "quite the opposite" claim from?

Standman

Zombrex wrote: »

There is no evidence that Martin was doing any of those things.

Zombrex wrote: »

It is justified by Martin not doing anything to arouse suspicion other than walking through Zimmerman's neighbour while being black.

Does not compute.

nagirrac

DapperGent wrote: »

Your position is that if Zimmerman had seen a white or hispanic or asian teenager acting in exactly the same manner as Trayvon Martin at the same time then his suspicion (paranoia?) would likely not have been aroused. Ridiculously you also seem to me to claim that Zimmerman would reserve an additional suspicion that he was dealing with a potential rapist solely for black teenagers.

Why do you maintain that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior (in fact quite the opposite) could only act in this (imo reckless, idiotic) way towards a black person? For what reason do you suggest that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior, views black men as uniquely prone to commit sexual assault?

You are wasting your time DapperGent as there are those on the extreme left who have decided this is a race case and nothing will deter them. We had a perfect example a few days again in Houston at a pro Zimmerman rally. A white woman held up a sign that said "We're racist and we're proud" and sections of the media ran with this as evidence of racism among Zimmerman supporters. Then the facts (again those darn facts) emerged that she was a counter demonstrator and her sign was directed at the pro Zimmerman crowd.

Anyone who followed this trial would know that the claim that Zimmerman was a racist is completely unsubstantiated. The FBI who interviewed 3 dozen people who knew Zimmerman concluded he may have had "little hero syndrome" but was not racist. Prior calls to 911 reporting potential burglars (in a community that had lots of them) who happened to be black is not racism, your family making racist remarks does not make you racist. That Zimmerman acted foolishly, even recklessly and overzealously and that precipitated an incident that led to a young man's death is unquestioned. That was not enough to convict him beyond reasonable doubt of even manslaughter in the eyes of the jury.

DapperGent

Zombrex wrote: »

There is no evidence that Martin was doing any of those things. There is no evidence that he was there to rob, there is no evidence he was scoping houses, there is no evidence he was there to peruse any criminal activity. The only evidence there is is that he was walking through the neighbourhood minding his own business until he caught the attention of Zimmerman.

I do not state that Trayvon Martin was casing houses for burglaries, I think it's extremely unlikely that he was.

Zimmerman maintains that he was suspicious because: 1. There had been a number of previous burglaries. 2. He didn't know Martin. 3. He thought Martin was wandering around looking in houses and not going anywhere in particular. 4. He though Martin seemed intoxicated.

There is no evidence that any of this is true nor is there any evidence that Zimmerman considered Martin suspicious due to his race. You make an unfounded presumption that Zimmerman's main (only?) reason for calling the police was Martin's race. I do not know what you base this on. A fifth of the families in the community were black, Zimmerman can't have been calling in every black person he didn't know.

The crux of the case is Zimmerman's state of mind. He maintains he followed Martin because he thought he was suspicious (almost certainly unreasonably in my view). You maintain he followed Martin because he was black on the basis of nothing other than the fact that Martin was black. You need some form of evidence to hold this view, there is none. I'm not saying I believe Zimmerman I'm saying there's no evidence to consider him a racist.

It is justified by Martin not doing anything to arouse suspicion other than walking through Zimmerman's neighbour while being black.

You simply do not know this. This directly conflicts with Zimmerman's explanation of his behavior, why do you consider it impossible that Zimmerman genuinely thought that Martin was a potential burglar and that this thought was not racially motivated?

I already did justify this, read my reply to Ophelia.

You state that:
"The point is that Zimmerman didn't start patrolling the neighbourhood with a loaded weapon until the threat of women specifically being assaulted in their homes was raised by his neighbours. If you want to believe that has nothing to do with the black brute stereotype go ahead, I think that is a very naive position to take. "
So Zimmerman's guilt is somewhat established by volunteering for a neighbourhood watch after a spate of burglaries? Seriously? You also intimate a propensity for vigilantism based on nothing and you again seem to me to quite definitively state that Zimmerman believed black men to be more prone to engage in assaults of a sexual nature. For what reason are you sure Zimmerman believed this?

Yes, because Martin was doing nothing more than walking through Zimmerman's neighbourhood. Zimmerman passed other people walking through his neighbourhood and didn't decide to chase them down with a gun

He says he passed other people by because they did not strike him as suspicious. You say he passed them by because they were not black. What are your reasons for saying this? He doesn't appear to have chased him down but to have called the police right away and to have followed him slowly.

What you mean other than he automatically assumed that a black man walking through his neighbourhood was a criminal high on drugs and out to rob the neighbourhood?

Again he says he became suspicious for reasons other than race. We may both consider these suspicions to be unreasonable. Calling him a racist also seems unreasonable. Many people who attempt to defend Zimmerman bring in aspects of Trayvon Martin's character which are irrelevant at best and dog-whistle racism at worst. What is relevant is whether Zimmerman had honestly held suspicions not based on race, I don't know whether he did or not but nor do I see any evidence to the contrary.

There are a witness that says Zimmerman and his family often made racist and derogatory comments about black people, so I'm not sure where you are getting the "quite the opposite" claim from?

These were not raised at trial, could you source this claim please?


I think this case has been badly used by a lot of people to shoehorn in their own agendas into a tragedy. Rebecca Watson did it in the piece you linked and you are also doing it now.

There's also been a couple of really quite despicable pieces in the paper I read every day:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/15/zimmerman-verdict-message
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/open-season-black-boys-verdict

The facts of the case are:
1. Zimmerman was suspicious enough of Martin to call the police.
2. He followed him despite being discouraged from doing so by the dispatcher.
3. He exited his vehicle while carrying a concealed weapon so that he could follow a stranger he considered dangerous in the dark. Like an utter moron.
4. Someone beat the crap out of him.
5. He killed Trayvon Martin.

For me this highlights the insanity of America's gun laws more than anything else, in my opinion the recklessness of Zimmerman's actions should be illegal (i.e. concealed carrying following a stranger in the dark) but they're not. In my opinion carrying a gun for personal defence should be illegal but it isn't. If you make it legal to defend yourself with a concealed gun, then you need to show that the situation was engineered in such a way as to leave one party beaten and the other dead, there's just no evidence no evidence at all to show that that was the case.

nagirrac

Excellent post.

Zombrex

DapperGent wrote: »

I do not state that Trayvon Martin was casing houses for burglaries, I think it's extremely unlikely that he was.

Zimmerman maintains that he was suspicious because: 1. There had been a number of previous burglaries. 2. He didn't know Martin. 3. He thought Martin was wandering around looking in houses and not going anywhere in particular. 4. He though Martin seemed intoxicated.

1 and 2 are irrelevant, 3 is unlikely to be true and 4 isn't true.

So you have a boy walking down a street doing nothing other than walking down a street and Zimmerman singles him out as being "suspicious".

Given there is no evidence Martin gave him reason to find him suspicious, and given Zimmerman's concern about black males, it seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion that Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black.

You keep saying there is no evidence for this. There is no evidence if you will only accept Zimmerman saying "Black people are criminals".

DapperGent wrote: »

A fifth of the families in the community were black, Zimmerman can't have been calling in every black person he didn't know.

Zimmerman made 5 calls to the police in the year leading up to the shooting (out of the 46 calls he had made in the previous 10 years), to report black males to the police.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html

None of the reports were reporting white males other than one report from a few years ago to report 2 Hispanics and a white male having a pool party.

DapperGent wrote: »

The crux of the case is Zimmerman's state of mind. He maintains he followed Martin because he thought he was suspicious (almost certainly unreasonably in my view).

You say it is unreasonable but you don't seem to want to consider why Zimmerman picked Martin.

DapperGent wrote: »

You simply do not know this. This directly conflicts with Zimmerman's explanation of his behavior, why do you consider it impossible that Zimmerman genuinely thought that Martin was a potential burglar and that this thought was not racially motivated?

I don't consider it impossible, I consider it extremely unlikely. There is no evidence Martin was doing anything other than walking home. There is no evidence Martin was a burglerer or had any intention of robbing any of the houses. There is no evidence that Martin was looking into any of the houses.

There is evidence that Zimmerman was deeply suspicious of black males in his neighbour. There is evidence that Zimmerman believes, for apparently no reason, that Martin was both intoxicated and there to rob houses.

DapperGent wrote: »

So Zimmerman's guilt is somewhat established by volunteering for a neighbourhood watch after a spate of burglaries? Seriously? You also intimate a propensity for vigilantism based on nothing and you again seem to me to quite definitively state that Zimmerman believed black men to be more prone to engage in assaults of a sexual nature. For what reason are you sure Zimmerman believed this?

I'm not sure Zimmerman believed this. I think it highly likely he believed this based on the pattern of his behaviour.

DapperGent wrote: »

He says he passed other people by because they did not strike him as suspicious. You say he passed them by because they were not black. What are your reasons for saying this? He doesn't appear to have chased him down but to have called the police right away and to have followed him slowly.

Zimmerman claimed Martin ran away, and Zimmerman followed him. Martin reported to his friend on his phone that a man was following him, but he thought he got away. He then let out an explicative when he found out that Zimmerman had caught up to him. Martin is reported to have shouted "Get off! Get off!" down the phone before the phone went dead.

DapperGent wrote: »

Again he says he became suspicious for reasons other than race. We may both consider these suspicions to be unreasonable. Calling him a racist also seems unreasonable.

I'm really not following this. You say his reasons were unreasonable, but you say there is no evidence he was racially profiling Martin. Ok, what were these unreasonable reasons?

DapperGent wrote: »

These were not raised at trial, could you source this claim please?

The defence successfully squashed the testimony under the argument that it was not relevant to the charges Zimmerman faced.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/21/1225435/-The-Racism-of-the-Zimmerman-Family

DapperGent wrote: »

The facts of the case are:
1. Zimmerman was suspicious enough of Martin to call the police.
2. He followed him despite being discouraged from doing so by the dispatcher.
3. He exited his vehicle while carrying a concealed weapon so that he could follow a stranger he considered dangerous in the dark. Like an utter moron.
4. Someone beat the crap out of him.
5. He killed Trayvon Martin.

Why was he suspicious enough of Martin to call the police? Martin hadn't done anything other than walk through a neighbourhood. Given Zimmerman had a history of identify black males as suspicious, and given that he singled out Martin for no apparent reason.

1 A witness claims that Zimmerman's family held negative stereotypical view of black people, particularly poor black people
2 A witness claims that Zimmerman harassed him at work with racist and derogatory language, making jokes about him being a terrorist
3 Zimmerman repeatably called a police hotline to make reports about suspicious black males in his neighbourhood
4 Trayvon Martin was walking home through Zimmerman's neighbourhood. There is no evidence he was doing or planning any criminal activity, nor that he was drunk, nor that he was looking in houses.
5 Zimmerman singled him out as looking "up to no good" and followed him, catching up to him after Martin ran away.
6 Martin is reported to have expressed fear that Zimmerman was stalking him, and is reported to have shouted "Get off, get off"
7 Witnesses have that the screams on the police call made to report the fight were Martin's and that they stopped cold once the gun had gone off.

Turtwig

Zombrex, I know absolutely nothing of this case and from reading your posts I've seen nothing to even indicate that it was racial thinking or racial profiling by Zimmerman. Just thought I'd let you know. If you're trying to make a point it isn't really coming across too well.

Zombrex

Jernal wrote: »

Zombrex, I know absolutely nothing of this case and from reading your posts I've seen nothing to even indicate that it was racial thinking or racial profiling by Zimmerman. Just thought I'd let you know. If you're trying to make a point it isn't really coming across too well.

Well frankly I'm at a loss as to what would be considered evidence for this. I'm not saying I know for 100% this is what motivated Zimmerman. But a number of posters have said there is absolutely no evidence Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. I find that ridiculous. You have a man who has repeatably called 911 to report black males in his neighbourhood singling out and chasing down a black kid who is apparently doing nothing in his neighbourhood other than walking though it.

You might say that doesn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt, or isn't enough to convinct Zimmerman.

But can you really say it is "nothing to even indicate" that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin?

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Zombrex, I know absolutely nothing of this case and from reading your posts I've seen nothing to even indicate that it was racial thinking or racial profiling by Zimmerman. Just thought I'd let you know. If you're trying to make a point it isn't really coming across too well.

Everything you need to know about the race aspect of this case Jernal is to be found in how the media portrayed the case from the beginning. NBC released a spliced version of the 911 call that suggested Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin (they cut out the bit where the dispatcher specifically asked him the race of the person he was watching form his car). They are being sued by Zimmerman for this and he will most likely win a large settlement.

If everyone in society was exposed to the journalistic investigation that Zimmerman has been subjected to, everyone in society could be labeled a racist.

robindch

Caroline Criado-Pere, a women's rights campaigner in the UK who received a significant dose of online harassment starting last week, decided to deal with the problem through official channels. This morning, five days later, police in Manchester arrested a twenty-one year old man on suspicion of harassment.

http://www.thejournal.ie/caroline-criado-perez-twitter-threats-man-arrest-1012725-Jul2013/

Kudos to Caroline Criado-Perez for pursuing this and I trust it will lead to a successful prosecution, but I'm wondering why the people complaining about harassment by skeptics and atheists either haven't approached the police, or if they have, haven't seen any arrests, even after two and more years?

Doctor DooM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Watson should start naming and shaming these people who send her these over the top tweets et al. All the evidence I see in that article is a parody twitter account, an anti Watson website (which she seems to think is a crime itself) and a poor taste tweet which is turned into a threat of assault.

If people are saying the scummy things she says they are, they should be outted.

UDP wrote: »

Even more important is she should be reporting the assaults she was subject to at some events to the police and she should be encouraging the others who were assaulted to do likewise. Being assaulted at events is a very serious allegation to be making - she hasn't mentioned anything about reporting it.

robindch wrote: »

Caroline Criado-Pere, a women's rights campaigner in the UK who received a significant dose of online harassment starting last week, decided to deal with the problem through official channels. This morning, five days later, police in Manchester arrested a twenty-one year old man on suspicion of harassment.

http://www.thejournal.ie/caroline-criado-perez-twitter-threats-man-arrest-1012725-Jul2013/

Kudos to Caroline Criado-Perez for pursuing this and I trust it will lead to a successful prosecution, but I'm wondering why the people complaining about harassment by skeptics and atheists either haven't approached the police, or if they have, haven't seen any arrests, even after two and more years?

We've been saying that a long time.

Online abuse- and I'm sure Watson et al receive FAR too much of it- is not on. It shouldn't be tolerated, or celebrated.

I would like to see the culture of online abuse die, but at some point it becomes difficult not to hear boys who cry wolf.

OpheliaBenson

What? Seriously?

1) Rebecca has reported the more violent threats to the police. So has Jen McCreight, for one. (Those are the two that I know have.)

2) The harassment I (for example) get is mostly sub-violent and not a police matter. Is the implication that if it's not violent and thus not a police matter, it's nothing? That I shouldn't object to it or document a small fraction of it or talk about it?

3) Part of the issue is that Twitter and Facebook refuse to do anything about it. That's quite separate from whether or not the police do anything about it.

4) Have you not noticed that the Priado-Perez abuse got a lot of media attention? That the fashion for verbally abusing women has been a growing issue for the last year or two, in large part because journalists like Helen Lewis and columnist/academics like Mary Beard have been drawing attention to it? That that could have a lot to do with why the police reacted so quickly in the Priado-Perez case?

5) It's the UK police who made an arrest in the Priado-Perez case. Rebecca is in the US. The laws are different in the two countries.

---

Maybe I misunderstood the question. Maybe it was just wondering about reasons. But I'm drawing on the previous samples of this thread that I've seen, which are all devoted to sneering at Rebecca and other women for objecting to harassment and abuse, so...I'm not able to be confident that that was the meaning.

kiffer

Is sub-violent the same thing as non-violent?
I tried google but the two pages of results weren't helpful, many were about a song and one or yeo results mentioned it in the context of conflicts being near-violent or sub-violent...
It's not a term I am familiar with... I'm guessing that it refers to situations that are non violent but people feel could turn violent? ... because otherwise you'd just use nonviolen?

OpheliaBenson

No, I just meant "doesn't rise to the level of violence." I put it that way, I suppose, because "non-violent" can imply principled non-violence, as in Gandhi and similar.

Maybe also because I don't consider really extreme verbal abuse entirely "non-violent". It's intended to be psychologically violent, and it can have that effect. Like what some young guy tweeted at Mary Beard today - "retweet this you filthy old slut. I bet your vagina is disgusting."

That's sub-violent. But non-violent? Like Martin Luther King? Doesn't really fit.

Doctor DooM

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

What? Seriously?

1) Rebecca has reported the more violent threats to the police. So has Jen McCreight, for one. (Those are the two that I know have.)

2) The harassment I (for example) get is mostly sub-violent and not a police matter. Is the implication that if it's not violent and thus not a police matter, it's nothing? That I shouldn't object to it or document a small fraction of it or talk about it?

3) Part of the issue is that Twitter and Facebook refuse to do anything about it. That's quite separate from whether or not the police do anything about it.

4) Have you not noticed that the Priado-Perez abuse got a lot of media attention? That the fashion for verbally abusing women has been a growing issue for the last year or two, in large part because journalists like Helen Lewis and columnist/academics like Mary Beard have been drawing attention to it? That that could have a lot to do with why the police reacted so quickly in the Priado-Perez case?

5) It's the UK police who made an arrest in the Priado-Perez case. Rebecca is in the US. The laws are different in the two countries.

---

Maybe I misunderstood the question. Maybe it was just wondering about reasons. But I'm drawing on the previous samples of this thread that I've seen, which are all devoted to sneering at Rebecca and other women for objecting to harassment and abuse, so...I'm not able to be confident that that was the meaning.

Well, in my last post I clearly state that I feel all online abuse is wrong and I feel it's time for us to try and end the culture of it.

However, as a moderator and as a small youtuber, I have over the years faced online harrassment too. I have seen some of the examples Rebecca Watson has given, and to be honest they have paled in comparison to what I have faced (including people ringing up family members and threatening me to them). I do not feel the ultimate cause of this abuse has anything to do with my sexuality, or the fact I have a penis: I think it because we are on the internet, and unthinking, nasty people are too.

I don't feel, in that case, that I really need to justify myself, or my position: All online nastiness is wrong, and yes we should work it out. I do feel turning it into a sex based thing is dealing with the symptom, not the cause. If I am frustrated with Rebecca, it is for that reason.

pH

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100228442/if-were-cracking-down-on-twitter-abuse-can-we-include-richard-dawkins-and-the-atheist-trolls/

At first I was ... not sure if serious ... but turns out he is.

tl;dr

Dawkins and anyone who undermines my faith should be banned from twitter ... well not really (unless they don't voluntary stfu ... then really)

Turtwig

The sad thing is an article like that will just attract even more attention and unsavoury remarks. Creating a negative feedback loop where the author's opinion will appear to become increasingly validated to himself.