A-News is continuing its commitment to do all that we can to help bring some of the current infighting within our community to an end. While we still plan to hold our proposed peace talks and are currently working behind the scenes to draft a cease fire agreement, we thought it might be wise to share the perspectives of some who have been involved in this conflict. To that end we have begun a series of interviews of some of these involved community members. To start this out I spent an hour earlier today speaking with Atheist activist Justin Vacula. Here is what he had to say.
A-News
As an Atheist Activist how do you feel about the current infighting within our community?
Justin Vacula
As an atheist activist, I see the online in-fighting as harmful. People are who doing great things continue to be unfairly vilified as misogynists and sexists – people try to ruin their reputations. Additionally, it seems to be the case that those who are offering the impressions that conferences are unsafe places for women, when they actually are not, are drawing people away from participating. Newcomers, too, I would imagine, would get an impression that the atheist community is a hostile place toward women when this isn’t the case.
Rather than working together or, at the very least, spreading positive messages or constructive criticism, character attacks are the order of the day in what seems to be a ‘call out culture’ in which people launch personal attacks and fail to give others the benefit of the doubt, jumping to the worst conclusions about people
AN
You mentioned the issue of conference safety for women, there have been some reported cases of sexual harassment/sexual assault. Many have said that these problems need to be addressed and are the basis of their concerns. How do you feel these safety issues should be addressed?
JV
First, I would encourage all people — not just women — to be assertive and firm with others when needed. If someone feels they are in an uncomfortable situation, they should make their feelings known. For instance, if someone feels that someone is making inappropriate sexual advances, they should considering telling the person something like, “Thanks. That’s very nice of you, but I am not interested.” If advances continue, this may constitute harassment. People should remove themselves from uncomfortable situations at this point, alert others, move to a new group of people and inform them what is happening, or employ other strategies. If need, inform conference or hotel/security staff on premises. Assertiveness may be difficult for people, but this is very helpful and something one should practice. If someone is not assertive, removing oneself from an uncomfortable situation and telling others may be a good option. Sexual harassment and assault, of course, should not be tolerated. Victims should not stand silently and tolerate. Unfortunately, when groups of strangers meet in a conference center or hotel, there is bound to be unfortunate situations – and this is not just something limited to the atheist community. It is most regrettable, I think, that some have seemed to say that this is a huge problem (I don’t see evidence attesting to this) or a problem the atheist community is facing (I don’t see evidence attesting to this). In large groups of people, there may be problems – this is something expected and something people need to address. Not reporting or notifying, though, will not help the issue.
Anti-harassment policies will likely not deter any behavior and can provide a false sense of security for people. They can be seen by many, including myself, as unneeded and infantalizing adults. Laws exist and cover issues like harassment and assault. Persons should inform authorities/conference staff when necessary.
AN
You also mentioned personal attacks. I know that you have been labeled as a sexist/misogynist by some who disagree with your stances. Is there any factual basis for these labels or is it just an attempt to discredit you?
JV
Some appear to be confused, as I see it in many respects. First, they confuse disagreement, voicing skepticism, or asking for evidence with insisting that others are lying about claims they make. Further, one who asks questions is unfairly labeled as a sexist or misogynist. Some writers who identify as feminists, for instance, construe open disagreement with their claims as misogyny. Feminism, after all, is an ideology – a way of looking at things. Some unfortunately construe disagreement with feminist claims as being ‘anti-woman.’ Rather than simply responding to arguments, criticisms, or answering questions, some attempt to vilify their opponents insisting that they are horrible persons who just shouldn’t be listened to or taken seriously – a poisoning of the well. Disagreements I have voiced are not motivated by a hatred of women in any way. It just so happens to be the case that I have disagreed with women; their gender is incidental to the arguments being made. I voice opposition to arguments or claims being made regardless of what gender someone happens to identify with.
Something which really upset me and drove me to making a bad decision was my response to a DMCA claim that was filed against me by Surly Amy which resulted in an auto-takedown of a piece I had written.
I thought this DMCA action was the ‘lowest of the low,’ that a fellow skeptic would resort to legal action which would result in censorship because, presumably, she didn’t like what was being said – not because the image was used. She had filed DMCA complaints against another writer claiming, if I recall correctly, that she was being harassed and asking for the harassment to be stopped.
Rather than her simply asking me to take the image down or better attributing the image, she resulted in heavy-handed legal action which lead to a takedown.
Following my counter-DMCAing, arguing I was under the umbrella of fair use, a conspiracy theory popped up alleging that I counter DMCAd to find Amy’s personal, private details – which was not the case. In response, I posted her publicly available business address and a smear and fear campaign propped up – that I was encouraging people to attack her, that I made her fearful for her safety, that I was intimidating her, etc.
The posting of the address was a poor decision and one which I redacted – I asked for the posting to be edited and the address details removed.
This, though, is not a sexist act by any means, but what I think to be a legitimate grievance people might have against me – although the issue was blown out of proportion…not to mention the fact that Amy linked her own address through her Twitter feed to show that I posted it (she could have edited it instead of posting the details). This makes it seem like she really was not concerned about her safety, but rather seemed to be the case that she was trying to ‘score points’ against me. If she were really concerned, I would imagine that the posted details would have been edited, but perhaps we had both made mistakes.
AN
Fair enough, we all make errors in judgement and you at least did something about yours.
I have also noticed a great deal of personal attacks in a forum calling itself the Slymepit. These personal attacks have some well known bloggers over at FtB up in arms. What are your thoughts on this side of the so called “Blog Wars”?
JV
I’m a regular poster in what is now called the Slymepit. I originally posted in the ‘old version,’ on Abbie Smith’s ERV blog, when one of my blog posts was linked there. I found people, although quite crass at times, who shared positions with me – who disagreed with people like PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson. I was inspired to speak out against the campaign vilifying D.J. Grothe, the James Randi Educational Foundation, and The Amazing Meeting. The level of invective thrown at D.J was quite upsetting and was something I just simply could not tolerate. Following my speaking up and paying more attention to the issues at hand, I had become disenchanted with people like PZ Myers who previously promoted my activism, presumably in approval, and noted that their level of discourse was filled with anger and was based on false assumptions. Rather than encountering ideas, I noticed character attacks being the order of the day at some sites on Freethought Blogs and Skepchick. Where I most differ with most Slymepit posters, as you might guess, is the language used. I tend to steer clear of name-calling and character attacks unlike some of the posters there who have tried being nice, encountering ideas, being diplomatic, etc. Diplomacy, some have said, has failed…so some seem to utilize ridicule and satire in response to what they see as nonsense. It’s quite odd, then, that some at Freethought Blogs and the Skepchick network are so upset with the language and tone of the Slymepit while seemingly ignoring the hostile commenters on their own sites (while also attacking people or levying smear campaigns against their dissenters).
AN
Many Atheists from the most dedicated and celebrated activists to those who are just joining our ranks have chosen to stay out of this conflict. However as time marches on more and more contemplate leaving our movement due to the fact that we are losing our rational high ground. It is obvious to many that this conflict is hurting all of us, what would you like to see done to end this conflict?
JV
I would like to see people refraining from engaging in character attacks against other people. Unfortunately, I don’t see this ceasefire working when some of the persons involved in this — whether they admit it or not — unwilling to have a discussion. I’d like to have a discussion about these issues and move forward to at least give it a chance. Rather than vilifying people from blogs and dogpiling on rational commenters or people who dare to voice skepticism about an issue, more civil discussion can be had. Disagreements, additionally, can be taken off blogs and had in private. People can be mistaken, after all, and even make uniformed comments once in a while. It would also help to treat people more charitably – interpreting their words or arguments in a more favorable light.
AN
Well thank you for sitting down and talking with me on this, is there any closing remark you would like to make?
JV
If you expect or demand civility from others, it would be best to model the behaviors you’d like to see.
You can find more about Justin from his blog here
As always for updates on our peace efforts subscribe to us on facebook


I’ve a better idea, why don’t you yanks go back to believing in Jebus or something as you don’t understand atheism and you haven’t a clue about scepticism. Identity politics is so 90′s I mean seriously you are so bad at both it’s embarressing. Just go away already or we will laugh a you again.
There is so much wrong with what you just said that I dont even know where to begin. So lets try this again only next time dont be an asshole.
Yeah you must be so so busy but indulge me, show me how you yankee sceptics are so on the ball with this atheism thing and not a bunch of emotion blowhards. You will have to take my word for it that am not a troll because you yanks are so pathetic.
And you must be “so so” bored to be bothering to type this kind of random crap.
How are “we yanks” so pathetic. Last I checked our tax dollars didnt go to fund a state religion… something tells me you cannot say the same.
No, I dont have to take your word for it that you are not a troll, you came in here barking like one and are still acting like one. So you might say I am skeptical about your statement.
OK you have got me there as I live in the UK and we are still a theocracy though try and out me as a non god botherer and see how much it affects my employment status. Yet JV gets called out as a misogynist and loses an unpaid job. Emotional blackmail and shades of McCATHEYISM ANYONE. Try and get elected to office when you don’t believe and well forget it. Try your gender feminism 90′s identity politics in Europe and get laugh at. In the USA people can still be doxxed (JV is know stranger to this) as an atheist and lose their jobs or not get them in the first place. The whole atheist movement is still controlled by a few clown shoes who see misogyny everywhere.
You are not Thomas Paine or Ingersoll’s anymore, you are a bunch of tossers held captive by people who shout school yard insults so you jump back in line. How is that atheism and scepticism? Answers on a postcard sent to Santa at the North Pole.
Hey, I’m a Brit’ too & it’s YOU who’re embarrassing, please stop. I would like it known that in my experience (for what it’s worth) this guy’s opinion is unique over here, i believe he is a Troll & if it wasn’t for the fact that he’s making others (possibly) look bad i’d ignore him & his ramblings. It should at least be clear now, if it wasn’t before that the US doesn’t have the monopoly on Idiots. I don’t hold out much hope for any “Peace talks” or any other initiative with FtB/A+ but i wish you well regardless. My own position is that they should be ignored, especially by the organisations that hire speakers etc’.
A post calling for the end to personal insults, and the first response is a personal insult…
HUMANS, I ARE DISAPPOINT!
I find it absolutely hilarious that in a post decrying ad hominem tactics there is a didactic ad hominem argument being carried out in the comments. It puts me off getting involved with either side of ‘the pond’ and the atheist movements therein located. If we cannot even agree to disagree without resorting to ad hominem tactics then our mission is doomed. I proffer that some of these people must be rabble rousers from the theist dominated section of society, masquerading as atheists to foment such discord; either that or there truly are children running around using words of which they don’t know the meaning nor could they truly comprehend. A sad indictment indeed.
“we are losing our rational high ground”
Atheists never had any “rational high ground”. Atheist have the same failings as all other human beings – as is now more obvious than ever.
This mess didn’t come out of the blue. It was already there, and is now bearing fruit.
Nice interview Lee!
It would be nice if (maybe some have and I have missed it) others would jump down off their ego’s and maybe admit some fault also. Being faultless and perfect is inhuman and not endearing to say the least. Anyway, if we could figure out a way to support each other in skeptical and atheist issues (of their own choosing) and still be critical each other without lies and character assassination. Not everyone will be BFF’s but we can support the things we do believe without liking each other. (I know, dreamy BS but that is what I would like to see)
I thought Justin was upfront about his mistakes (and not ‘straw-man’ reasoning) and a coherent framework of what the issues are, which is refreshing. I don’t understand the venom in the comments before me, but I suspect that they are part of the problem, posting here and there with a ‘drive by’ insult (I’ve done it too, in the short term) complaining all the way, without adding to the conversation. I think Troll is used too much, how about Lame
Vacula’s condescending and clueless comments on harassment policies make it clear he hasn’t listened to a word that’s been said. One of the reasons women don’t report is because of a lack of clear policies and the sense that they won’t be believed or taken seriously. Fortunately this is mostly a moot point since most conventions have adopted sensible anti-harassment policies already.
Fortunately this is mostly a moot point since most conventions have adopted sensible anti-harassment policies already
Which is good, have people have a concern and feel safer with something in place, then rather than argue on grounds of necessity, just be done with it.
That said, the cynical side of wants to say that for the harassment policy advocates it is a win-win. If you now have no reported incidents of harassment then the policy will be said to have been effective and if you DO have a flood of reported incidents the policy can still be claimed to be a success on the grounds it has encouraged reporting!
This is how you win at politics I think
Well the other thing about having a publicized policy is that it is pro-active; people are given a heads up about what kind of behaviour (ie the grown up kind) is expected of attendees and we should expect to see people thinking twice and not being assholes as often. Instead of putting the onus on the person subjected to harassment, as Justin would have us do, let’s put it on the whole community to behave responsibly. Like the rational adults we want everyone to believe we are…
And it’s not that women are in terror of being assaulted, or that this community is particularly bad; but even if the problem is just a small one it’s something that needs to be dealt with, not ignored or dismissed.
It’s not like this stuff is unique to the atheist/skeptic communities, we don’t have to re-invent the wheel here. Professional, academic and business conventions have had such policies for years; hell even swingers and BDSM groups have anti-harassment policies. It makes no sense to me to think that our community is somehow unique or immune to this stuff (in fact just looking at some of the crap that goes around on-line it pretty obviously isn’t) so why wouldn’t we take ideas that have worked well elsewhere and apply them ourselves?
Why the idea of having such policies has been controversial at all is frankly a mystery to me.
I understand that a “pro-active” policy might be needed in some circles but it is sometimes used as a tool to suppress and quiet people, instead of it’s intended function. While those deemed appropriate get a free pass. Much like PZ in this YouTube video of PZ behaving badly.
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=5OhbLDFeE4w&list=UUPm2LBzD1z2hqQE9hQwjRIA&index=2
Actually I think his behavior is fine, he is just kidding around, yet if someone ‘they’ did not like or deem worthy, acted the same way, he/she would be ostracized. The standards Justin talks about are basically what most companies sexual harassment policy follow. (it was almost verbatim of the company I work for.)
Also the interactions between people are, murky at best. Abstract feelings and “creep vibes” are objective things. Women(or men)should feel empowered enough to first talk to the person to express their feelings, some guys(girls) will be embarrassed and apologize and thats it. Some will be defensive but leave them alone, again resolved. Then there are the actual creeps that are serious and dangerous and they will not ‘get it’ and persist. Clarification is key and then move on to supporting the victim/target. This is not a crazy, unreasonable criteria. Every day when we interact with each other we have to clarify to understand. Enough rambling!
“I understand that a “pro-active” policy might be needed in some circles but it is sometimes used as a tool to suppress and quiet people”
Really? Where’s the evidence that one of these anti-harassment policy has been used to “supress” anyone in this community?
Your right, I should have said “could be used” instead. It is the stick method-’fall in line or you will be labeled and accused’ sort of message. From some blogs, I have read, this is the method employed to exile unwanted dissention from their “safe spaces”. Example: Justin goes to a Atheist convention, causes no trouble or harassment yet some are ‘feeling’ harassed, because “everyone” knows he is a “woman hating slymepitter.” So by complaining about him, they rid themselves of the “problem” and feel justified doing it. I admit it is not an exact correlation but it is not unfair to expect the people who use these methods to transfer them to the Atheist Conventions until only those they deem worthy attend.
So again I have to ask; where has this ever actually happened? Is some imaginary/possible/hypothetical/paranoid fantasy like this really a reason for not having a policy that says “don’t harass people?”
The point is that it is unneeded. If a person said they were being harassed do you think the organizer is going to tell her that it is not in the rules so “tough shit”. I doubt that policy’s will stop harassment, supportive communities and organizers stop harassment. It works about as well as the ‘gun free’ zones. Then who will judge harassment? The same people that would handle the situation in the first place,at these meeting, making the additional rules a non point. Maybe next we can get into pedantic arguments about what constitutes harassment.
Messed up my link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OhbLDFeE4w&list=UUPm2LBzD1z2hqQE9hQwjRIA&index=2
If such policies are so useless and unnecessary why do we see them at tech conferences, academic conferences, in the workplace, at universities?
Look, having a policy at the very least tells people that the issue is being taken seriously; that if someone runs into a problem they will be listened to and not have their concerns dismissed out of hand, or be told to just toughen up and deal with it.
No, a policy by itself won’t stop all harassment but having one is a clear sign that the community and the event’s organizers are in fact supportive. How can it be a bad thing to put that supportive attitude in writing and let your membership know about it?
If you want definitions of harassment go and look at some of the policies already in place at CFI or at tech conventions or Sci-Fi conventions.
And while you’re at it see if you can find one single documented case of anyone being unfairly “suppressed” by having such a policy…
You make a good point. Yet as far as know, these issues were not prevalent or tolerated in atheist conferences or meetings. Your are correct that documented cases are good evidence but all we have had is hearsay that people were harassed. It was good to bring attention to the issue by certain Atheist and as far as I know, most people voiced support and agreement. Until it became this “straw-boogy man” argument every time some one discussed it or rationalized it. (Except for the fringe Atheist that are just assholes). The people who discussed it, were thrown in with the assholes just because they did not agree 100% with those speaking out. What I foresee (I’m psychic now too) are the Atheist that vilify and tout the moral high ground, on their blogs, in the name of being “right” do that suppress thing I was rambling about. So my concern is that this would be a tool to thin out certain speakers and people attending. This is a just a theory not fact or dogma.
“…all we have had is hearsay that people were harassed.”
Bullshit; we have prominent women in the skeptic movement telling us they’ve been harassed. That’s direct testimony, not hearsay. It may not be a finely tuned statistical breakdown of the problem, but that’s a costly and time consuming thing to do. We do have some data from the American Secular Survey that reinforces the argument that women are more likely than men to be made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, and we have lots of examples from those other communities I’ve mentioned of how this all works.
So on the one hand we have at least some evidence that sexism and harassment are a problem for at least some people in our community and lots of real world evidence of exactly the same kind of thing happening in other communities and some good models for dealing with the problem.
On the other hand we have a vague, completely unsubstantiated “concern” about having a clear policy about harassment at conventions somehow being used to “supress” people, but no evidence that this has ever actually happened.
And frankly if you can’t agree that telling people not to harass women is a good idea then you shouldn’t be surprised if you get lumped in with the assholes…
And if, as in Vacula’s case, you go hanging out with the misogynists and woo-peddlers at
The He-Man Woman Haters ClubA Voice for Men you shouldn’t be surprised if rational people don’t take you seriously…Just to be clear I’m using “you” in the generic sense in that last comment, not in reference to you, Didgya, specifically…
I appreciate you clearing up the last part, I use the same screen name everywhere and I have posted on PZ’s, Reap, Kylie Stugess,Steve Novella and here about this and you are free to see my post and positions. (on Yahoo I mostly crack bad jokes and quip). If you are speaking about Rebecca, then your right about her saying that something happened to her. I would not use her as an argument for authority though and her initial response was perfect. Dawkins was being a smartass and then Rebecca went off the deep end on banning him and his entire library of important science and skepticism. I don’t agree with Dawkins response and I don’t think that he is beyond critique. But, I do not agree with disregarding someone entirely over insensitive comments. (there is an example)Later on came the shunning of TAM and DJ Grothe (another example). I agree bringing awareness to the movement is a great thing to do and I believe most people were supportive except for the fringe assholes who threatened and harassed on the internet. Unfortunately this turned into a game of “if you do not agree then your are a harasser and can be disregarded out of hand.” If your evidence is valid then when considering these matters, you must address this counter measure to protect people from tyranny. Grabbing and abusing power through ‘good causes’ is a reoccurring theme in history. It seems to me that this is as likely to happen as the harassment itself. I would guess that, this would be the point of the talks on the “Vacula” side. I also agree, as you stated, ” that telling people not to harass women” is a good thing, I would add ‘harass anyone’ to that. Women and Men are not special, they are just people and very fallible. I don’t really understand the “as in Vacula’s case, you go hanging out with the misogynists and woo-peddlers at The He-Man Woman Haters Club A Voice for Men you shouldn’t be surprised if rational people don’t take you seriously” That does not take away from his contributions to the community. It would be like me not listening to the rest of the SGU cast anymore because I did not agree with what Rebecca said or did.(some do). Are their arguments any less rational? Is the content any different than before. It is this disregard by association or character assassination that concerns
me.
” I don’t agree with Dawkins response and I don’t think that he is beyond critique. But, I do not agree with disregarding someone entirely over insensitive comments.” (there is an example)
Doesn’t Watson have a right to ignore anyone she wants too? Is Dawkins work somehow required reading for all of us? If so then I’m in trouble as I’ve never read one of his books or listened to one of his lectures. I was an atheist and a skeptic long before I ever heard of Richard Dawkins. I gather he’s done some good work promoting science and reason, but from what I have seen he’s no Bertrand Russel…
Someone deciding not to bother reading someone else’s work is hardly “suppressing” them. It’s a personal choice, and it’s entirely unrelated to harassment policies at conferences.
“Later on came the shunning of TAM and DJ Grothe (another example).”
Shunning?! Really?
Grothe was criticized, quite rightly in my opinion, for blaming women talking about sexism for an apparent decline in women attendees registering for TAM. He pointed the finger at the Skepchicks in paricular in spite of having no final registration numbers and no evidence whatsoever that any decline was related in any way to anything they had said or done.
And in so doing he was putting the blame for that perceived decline on the very people who had worked so hard for years to raise money and awareness and increase the diversity of TAM’s audience in the first place.
He wasn’t “shunned”, but the people he attacked without cause decided it wasn’t worthwhile to continue putting so much effort into supporting an organization which clearly didn’t appreciate their efforts.
Again, that’s a personal choice, not “suppression” or “tyranny” and it still doesn’t work as an example of someone misusing an anti-harassment policy to falsely accuse another attendee.
I wasn’t talking about Watson in particular, and not about the infamous elevator, (which she never said was harassment anyway) although she has talked about other experiences elsewhere…no I was thinking of Jen McCreight, Elyse Anders, Ashley Miller and Dr. Pamela Gay among others. And they all tell us they hear stories from other women who are reluctant to come forward because they see the kind of crap that s thrown at them for daring to talk about this stuff. Can’t say I blame them. That’s a good indication that something is going on, even if it’s not universal, and we can learn from the experience of other communities that having a clear policy that says this stuff s not OK at our events is a simple, cheap and effective way of at least letting people know their concerns are being taken seriously and we want them to feel included and comfortable in our community.
” I don’t really understand the “as in Vacula’s case, you go hanging out with the misogynists and woo-peddlers at The He-Man Woman Haters Club A Voice for Men you shouldn’t be surprised if rational people don’t take you seriously” That does not take away from his contributions to the community”
Well yeah it does actually. If he was hanging around posting stuff on Stormfront or AIG I’d have a problem with that too. He’s promoting a site where they push some pretty nasty and hateful ideas (eg rape victims are “conniving bitches” who were “begging for it”) and rely on pseudoscience and fake “statistics” to push their agenda. (Some examples can be found here: Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims It’s the kind of stuff rational, skeptical people should be exposing and denouncing, not cozying up to.
If people like that were approving of anything I was doing I’d want to take a long hard second look at whatever it was…
Interesting article link. The Men’s Right group is too extreme for my taste but if they approve of Justin, it still doesn’t disqualify him, unless he spouted some of that extreme bullshit (and I’m sure you will point it out if he did (that is a compliment). I’m sure he agrees with some of what they are saying but not all of the extremes. I am an atheist and I sure a hell don’t agree with every other atheist group. Free speech advocate for the Westboro Baptist Church rights but do not support their message.
I will agree with you on the harassment policy as long as the awareness that “some people” will use it dishonestly and we must stay vigilant to prevent this by carefully crafting these rules and not letting it become a “catch all” for their definition of harassment.
” The Men’s Right group is too extreme for my taste but if they approve of Justin, it still doesn’t disqualify him…I’m sure he agrees with some of what they are saying but not all of the extremes.
The problem isn’t that they approve of him, the problem is his willingness to be associated with them, to the extent of appearing on their website as a guest columnist 9a column in which he badly misrepresents what women in the atheist/skeptic community have been saying…)
I’m not sure if he agrees with the sentiments in this post or not:
But the fact that he’s happy to associate with people who do think that way while at the same time loudly denouncing women in our community who are simply asking to be treated with respect makes me question his leadership qualities… and his commitment to skepticism.
And it’s not about free speech, by the way, Vacula has the right to say what he wants and associate with whomever he chooses. But he doesn’t have a right to not be criticized for those things. Which is what he’s really upset about…
If he was happily posting and accepting praise from a group which said those kinds of things about racial or ethnic minorities would we be right to take that into account when assessing his place in our community? If so why would we give him a pass when it’s women who are the target?
And there’s beginning to be a bit of crossover between AVfM and the Slymepit with some of the same names popping up in both places regularly. I worry about that kind of anti-skeptical hatemongering making it;s way into this community.
“I will agree with you on the harassment policy as long as the awareness that “some people” will use it dishonestly and we must stay vigilant to prevent this by carefully crafting these rules and not letting it become a “catch all” for their definition of harassment.”
Once again I have to ask what the basis for this fear is? Of course we have to phrase things carefully (have you looked at the policies in place right now? Do you have any specific complaints about the way any of them are phrased?) but the hypothetical possibility of someone falsely accusing another conference goer of harassment and that person somehow being “suppressed” (to use your word) as a result frankly just looks like irrational fear-mongering to me.
[This is the kind of argument the MRA's make about domestic violence laws, by the way. They'll dig up some exceptional case in which a man has been falsely accused for some reason (and yes it does happen, but very rarely, certainly not nearly as often as they would have you believe) and use that exceptional case to argue against having rules and laws about domestic violence.]
To put it plainly; the potential for rare abuse (which thus far is entirely hypothetical in the case of harassment policies at skeptics events) does not outweigh the real benefits of having such policies.
“Well yeah it does actually. If he was hanging around posting stuff on Stormfront or AIG I’d have a problem with that too. He’s promoting a site where they push some pretty nasty and hateful ideas (eg rape victims are “conniving bitches” who were “begging for it”) and rely on pseudoscience and fake “statistics” to push their agenda. (Some examples can be found here: Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims It’s the kind of stuff rational, skeptical people should be exposing and denouncing, not cozying up to.”
this puzzles me. are you putting a distinction between using/posting on an objectionable site and promotion of the site?
my personal philosophy is one where i am ethically obligated to know as many sides to any story as possible. Ive posted on Neo nazi sites, fundie christian sites etc….i am also ethically obligated to not dismiss the valuable things someone says and does just because they do and say invaluable or harmful things as well. Some of my favorite quips and quotes are from screamingly bigoted fundie evangelicals. Ive written a couple articles for this site and I have some philosophical disagreements with the foundery peoples. so..your comment kind of confuses me. using a quote from a fundie does not mean i support his bigotry. Visiting a neo nazi site doesn’t mean i support or promote neo nazism. interacting calmly with people who lean MRA doesnt mean i promote that either. so your comment is a bit..alien. it seems….unnecessarily oppositional. take any given problematic statement of bigotry or foolishness…place a well reasoned, unbiased and articulate response next to it…and sooner or later the better idea will win out simply standing on its own merits. people will discuss, they’ll run into other ideas…etc….it’s a slow cumulative process but more effective in the long run than what is referred to in behavioral science as “an extinction burst”…which is what it sounds like youre talking about. Extinction bursts are when the subject is being contradictory towards the requested action as a way of attention seeking. The operator then denies the attention that is desired. the subject will escalate until he gives in from sheer exhaustion. Extinction is problematic because it doesn’t actually win you anything. you dont get willingness from that kind of tactic…you get sullen defeatist “I have no choice” type of mindset. but matbe i missed some nuance in your comment….if so, please elaborate?
Celia:
You’re overlooking circumstances wherein the “subject” seeks attention outside the “operator,” which in this case is the group/person being targeted by the behavior. Let’s take, for example, the interviewee in this post and the only specific incident he describes.
Does Justin Vacula make mention of anything that has happened in the months since his example with Surly Amy was over? No. Has she had contact with/from him? Yes–in one case, it was virtually the same situation he describes: he used one of her pictures–on his WiS2CFI donation page.
Just a month before this interview, she gave him Jan. 19 via Twitter EXACTLY what he describes above: “simply asking me to take the image down or better attributing the image.” He attributed; she said thanks. I’d appreciate directions to the additional tweets, blog posts, podcasts, and interviews he’s done bringing this information forward because I can’t find them. Retweets of articles indignant over the old-news part of the story? Yes, two of them. But telling people their information is out of date? Nope. Retweets of other’s disagreements with Amy that have nothing to do with him? Yep (Jan 22).
It’s a shame that in this post–the latest focused on the cease fire/peace process–that the “bad” about Amy is still all he can think to relate. It’s also a shame that the interviewer hadn’t done enough homework to ask anything specific or probing himself.
” using a quote from a fundie does not mean i support his bigotry. Visiting a neo nazi site doesn’t mean i support or promote neo nazism. interacting calmly with people who lean MRA doesnt mean i promote that either.”
Hey, I have conversations with people in Christian forums and debate Holocaust deniers too; and I try to be polite and civil in the process. That’s not what we’re talking about here.
Vacula didn’t post an article on AVfM as part of a dialogue with them about their ideas. He went there, to a misogynist forum, not to “place a well reasoned, unbiased and articulate response” to their irrational bigotry but to whine and complain about women in the skeptical/atheist community.
That’s not the kind of behaviour I expect from someone who want to be seen as some kind of a leader in the rationalist community.
And I honestly don’t see how “extinction bursts” relate to anything I’ve said here…you’ll have to explain that to me…
“Anti-harassment policies will likely not deter any behavior and can provide a false sense of security for people. They can be seen by many, including myself, as unneeded and infantalizing adults. Laws exist and cover issues like harassment and assault. Persons should inform authorities/conference staff when necessary.
Gosh Justin, what a good idea. And when something happens that doesn’t warrant calling the police, but does warrant telling the conference staff how should the staff respond? Should there be some forethought on this on the part of the organizers? Some kind of guidance for the staff on how to deal with the situation? Maybe some kind of procedure, or protocol or…oh what’s the word I’m looking for …? Oh yeah…a POLICY! That’s it!
Lee Moore:
You said on Episode 30 of the A-News podcast that you were going to invite Ophelia Benson on to talk about women in secularism and cyberbullying. You contacted her the same day (Jan 28) that you posted that Episode. Two days later you wrote your first cease-fire post.
You didn’t bother to tell her before she agreed to come on that Reap Paden was one of your co-hosts. Maybe you wouldn’t have extended the invite if Reap had done you the favor of telling you that he’d made super skeptical and “idea-focused” comments on her blog about, among other things, her eating cat food. You didn’t bother to tell her that Episode 30 contained ~30 minutes discussing a 19-minute video made about 5 tweets from her to a fellow you described as “guest host and good friend of ours” Anton Hill.
In the name of Anton Hill, your “guest host and good friend,” I call you blatantly hypocritical on your peace process.
It’s fucking ridiculous that elsewhere you talk about the “truce” between Anton Hill and Ophelia Benson as something for which you can take partial credit. You won’t even check on the status of that truce–like Anton Hill’s tweets (Feb 15–yes, as late as that) when he openly states that his truce was a “declaration not a negotiation” and that the aw shucks acceptance he’s giving people for calling him “Brave Hero” is for the time and invective he put into his hatchet-job video rather than the truce.
You have no credibility to foster any wider process when your “guest host and good friend” can’t go more than three days without some Twitter comment or mocking video link and “bully” tag about Ophelia Benson.
You have no credibility when you write about Ophelia Benson being harassed (your word) in your first cease-fire post, but you won’t take steps with Anton Hill your “guest host and good friend” to alleviate the continuation of that behavior which was the proximate cause of your peace process initiative.
You have no credibility when you ignore Anton Hill–and thereby let Anton Hill ignore in your name–that the definition of “truce” begins with the words “an agreement” or that a synonym for “truce” is “cease-fire.”
Stay silent. Let him look like a lickspittle for those who want him to continue to “poke the bears, Anton!” Let others see the behavior you accept from Anton Hill, your “guest host and good friend,” as he tweets “I’d feel unethical about that since I said I wouldn’t attack OB,” from one side of his keyboard while continuing from the other, “but if you check out a pingback on http://AtheistAsshole.com …”
Stay silent and let Anton Hill show us what you’d condone to tap-dance around the term “cease-fire” so that it includes “backsies.”
athyco (or whatever your actual name is)
Yes I asked OB to be on my show, well before the show started I made sure she knew who would be on it. Usually when I ask someone to be on our show I dont give them all of the details until I see if they have an interest or not. Once someone expresses an interest I share all of the details long before we record. After all I have no interest in ambushing fellow atheists.
As far as extending that invite goes, I had wanted to have her on for a long time, long before I knew of anything between her and Reap, that little tiff was just a reminder and having Anton go off about his interactions with her made me want to get her to share her perspective on this, I like the idea of being fair after all.
As far as the truce between Anton and OB, not sure what the fuss is about, Anton isnt talking directly to her or about her as far as I am aware. I dont know if they set any concrete rules down for whatever truce they have or had. I havent had much free time to ask either of them how it was going.
You can call me a hypocrite all you like, doesnt change my view.
Now whats all this about my credibility and staying silent? I dont have any control over anyone, friends or not. I am just trying to spread the idea that civil discourse will do us all a favor. That there is a better way for atheists who disagree to interact. That criticism doesnt need to be personal. I am just trying to facilitate such civil discourse, I have no control over how it turns out but it seems to me that not doing anything certainly isnt changing a damn thing.
You dont like me or this project, thats fine. It wont have any impact on my attitude to continue and for every person I have met who is against this attempt I have met many more who are in support of it.
Is there anything else?
Depends on what you consider within your capability to do. This is a much smaller situation, but both its smaller size and proximity to your call for peace could make it a step up rather than just another stumbling block.
For example, gaining the information to change “not sure” and “as far as I’m aware” and “I don’t know” to positive statements would be a start. Then use that information to discuss what would help you in your project with Anton–someone who’s written blog posts and gone on ReapSowRadio to announce a truce in support of your project. Then ask him to fulfill that truce or renegotiate it or drop it so that everyone–especially the other party–fairly understands everyone’s position. Sure, your friend may not agree as you’d like, but the situation is clarified. Are you envisioning steps wildly different for your project?
Otherwise, as you say, your “not doing anything certainly isn’t changing a damn thing.”
Hi Lee,
Athyco is obviously right, because there is only one way to do it. Athyco’s way. Obviously he/she would do a much better job of setting up these agreement, because it is SO simple and straightforward. A trained seal might be able to do it. I have one and I might have him start blogging. You should make “positive statements” or in other words talk out of your ass since no one wants to hear an honest answer. *wink*
1. Gaining information pertinent to your project. (negative “I don’t know about Points A-G” become positive “I know about Points A-G.”)
2. Discussing information with those who support your project.
3. Ask those who support your project to act on discussed points.
4. Accept lack of control over results with one exception: clarity.
For example, if Lee had gained information pertinent to Justin Vacula and Surly Amy after the DMCA on her side and dox on his side, what questions might have arisen in this interview? What requests might the interview have included, based on the information? With the new information included, wouldn’t there have been more clarity and transparency so that others could make educated decisions about their opinions and behaviors?
Of course there’s not “only one way to do it,” and that’s why the last sentence in the last full paragraph was a question:
Are you envisioning steps wildly different for your project?
January 30 – first peace process post
February 6 – second peace process post
February 12 – third peace process post
Today’s date is February 27. Is there an update?
♦ I’ve heard that there are 70 possible participants listed on “one side” and 0 on the “other side.”
♦ I’ve heard that Brian Allen forwarded an email on this topic from a reporter with Time Magazine, Inc to Lee Moore.
♦ I’ve read that Lee Moore has done the interview.
♦ I heard on Ep. 47 of ReapSowRadio that Lee Moore thinks “But the crazy people in our movement who want to try to make us some kind of fringe movement, who do not want to have rational and civil discourse with the rest of us, we have to do everything in our power to [sentence garbled as Reap Paden talks over the end of the sentence] but Lee Moore had said earlier in the podcast “needs to stop being a leader in our movement.” Identified during that podcast by name were PZ Myers, Greta Christina, and Rebecca Watson.
♦ On that episode, Brian Allen said that after Lee Moore/A-News “publicly extend the offer,” a refusal is to be regarded as “Then that makes them seem like assholes because that’s what they’re being.” Reap Paden, wondering “How do we graduate from” the refusal and what he sees as a continued “hypocrisy and lack of skepticism” counters Brian Allen’s “They won’t be able to garner money to do things” with the statement “You never get rid of Peter Popoff.”
Is there an update elsewhere or in the works here to identify and confirm fact from commentary and rumor? Who are the organizers/moderators who do not identify one side as “crazy people,” or “assholes” and the other as “the true skeptics”? What have you asked of/provided to the Skeptical Libertarian and the National Atheist Party who support you? What role do you see for Dusty Smith after his message of support?
From this comment thread:
Aside from the Episode 47 ReapSowRadio podcast, are there other examples–in the 2 weeks since your last post here–of your trying to facilitate such civil discourse?