As many of you are aware, A-News has begun an effort to facilitate a civil dialogue between Atheists on either side of the current internal conflict. To ensure the success of these proposed talks we are partnering up with other organizations. Amanda and Adam Brown of www.weareatheism.com have pledged their full support to this effort and have agreed to join us. Flash Kellish, a VP of the National Atheist Party, has also agreed to participate and give the support of his organization.
Flash had the following to say about this effort:
“There is an incredible movement happening in this 21st century, and for the first time in history reason and critical thinking are becoming the norm instead of faith and religion. But as happens far too many times, we as a race are shooting ourselves in the foot. This grand and amazing thing we have helped create is being tainted by the emotions and irrationality of a select few that for whatever reason are willfully ignoring the purpose of our mission and hampering the intent of those that have worked so hard to get us where we are. This infighting between such brilliant minds simply must cease for the sake of our cause, our children and our future, let us not forget about what is truly important here. Please join us in our attempt to reconcile these differences and get us headed in the right direction.”
We have been asked repeatedly why we are making this attempt. In short, many of our bloggers and activists have wasted a great deal of time and energy on these uncivil arguments with one another; time and energy that could have been spent making progress in the fight that brought us all together in the first place. Not a day goes by without a story about why the Atheist community seemed interesting and inviting at first but then became a turn-off when the infighting was revealed. This conflict is pushing away many who would be our allies, not because either side is right or wrong, but because there is a great deal of irrational mudslinging from members of a community that claim to have the final say in rationality. Let us also not forget that all sides are gaining numbers. With more and more being drawn into the conflict, many fear the conversation may shift in totality away from the very thing that brought us together, our Atheism. If there is to be a conversation between Atheists about other important issues and how they effect our movement, let us facilitate it to ensure it is a civil and rational one, and encourage a new spirit of cooperation between all Atheists.
The first of our proposed talks will be focused on a discussion of the points of contention and what we can do to bring about an end to this conflict. We are planning to have two participants from each side.
Amanda Brown and Aron Ra, the American Atheists Texas State Director, have agreed to be moderators for our discussions while we at A-News work to organize and facilitate it. We have secured participants from the various sides but we are still looking for more interested and involved parties to join us.
If you would like to participate in these discussions feel free to email me at Theatheistnews@gmail.com
For details on how you can watch these discussions and updates on our progress you can subscribe to us on Facebook
It is good to hear that people are calling for an end to the bickering among atheists that has been going on lately. I hope it happens one day soon.
It will only work with atheists like you supporting it.
Thanks. I’m looking forward to participate in this. Here’s my post promoting this and hopefully getting some discussion doing in the comments.
http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013/02/06/the-peace-process-will-continue/
[...] I’ll link to his latest post of his so-called “peace process”. It is available here. Unfortunately it still shows that he doesn’t understand the conflict at all. I guess [...]
Open and civil discussion is always to be encouraged. Your goals are admirable.
However, just because there is a disagreement doesn’t mean that both sides have merit. It doesn’t even mean there are only two sides. In this particular case, the FTB/Skepchick alliance is not living up to skeptical values. They have created a self-reinforcing echo chamber that treats any disagreement as evidence of misogyny or worse, and they are not at all hesitant to hurl vicious, unfounded accusations at anyone not in their group. Requests that they substantiate their claims with actual evidence are rejected and, like even the mildest criticism, used as justification for attempted character assassination.
Unfortunately, unless and until the self-styled leaders of that faction start applying some skeptical tools to their own positions, any attempt at reconciliation is doomed to fail.
Fortunately, this really is a tempest in a teacup. The larger skeptical and atheist movements will progress just fine while continuing to disregard the attention seeking drama creators. I encourage Justin Vacula and others who have proven their value to the skepticism in the real world to similarly ignore the empty chattering of those who do nothing but rant online.
Disagreement isn’t the problem. Childish, abusive and harassing behaviour is the problem. And most of it is coming from one side…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/02/02/what-is-more-important-than-peace-nsfw/#more-4606
Until Vacula and his Slymepit sycophants start taking a clear stand against that kind of thing, instead of making excuses for it, I don’t see how there’s really much to talk about.
Oh right. Because it’s not like anyone from the FTB side has contacted people’s employers in an attempt to coerce them into “behaving correctly” with the full, vocal support of the major FTB players…
oh, wait, that happened.
It’s not like anyone on the FTB side has never made threats against people directly (including other FTB folks) or threatened to go to their employers, with full enthusiastic support from the Major FTB players…
oh, wait, that happened.
It’s not like anyone on the FTB side has stated they will dedicate themselves to having people not on their side “drummed out” of the “movement” and made a pariah, forever to be shunned, with full, enthusiastic support from the major FTB players…
oh, wait, that happened.
It’s not like anyone from skepchicks sent out DMCA notices because of misuse of her IP, while she was misusing other people’s IP for her own profit…
oh, wait, that happened.
It’s not like anyone from skepchicks lied about a “stalker” living in FL when they live in the UK so they could be banned from a conference they were never going to be at, so they could raise the concern level to “ragingly silly”…
oh, wait, that happened.
It’s not like the ED for CFI-DC has engaged in a long running series of personal attacks against women bloggers including lame attacks on personal appearance, or attempted to false-flag youtube videos in an attempt to silence dissent and disagreement…
oh, wait, that happened.
No, clearly, clearly, this is 100% the fault of one single group of people…
oh, wait, that’s completely bullshit.
If the only way to have a “peace process” is for only one group to take 100% of the blame and all others be innocent in thought and deed, if the only definition of compromise is “you do what we want without dissent or wavering” then that’s not peace, that’s conquering, and it isn’t going to happen.
SO John, are you saying that when someone is violating the terms of use of the National Geographic website to host personal attacks and threats against people they should just be left alone and Nat Geo should be kept in the dark about what their space is being used for?
Are you saying people shouldn’t object when their copyright is violated? Or when someone steal private communications and threatens to use them to “out” people?
You’re not being very honest in your portrayal of events, are you?
And I’m not saying there’s never been any bad behaviour on the other side, but the worst offenders have been kicked out (Greg Laden, eg) and I don’t see anything like the campaign of hate that’s coming from your side; the photoshopped porn images, the threats, the mocking sexist messages, the fake twitter accounts…
Is that kind of childish, vicious crap really the image we want this movement to present to the world?
Isn’t it a shame for you that I wasn’t talking about NatGeo, but rather Laden acquiring Abbie’s work information and emailing her superiors to get her shut down. In fact, I didn’t mention NatGeo at all. Oops, strawman/distraction fail. See, here’s the thing, when you are replying to someone, it is very, very important that you reply to what they actually said. Do try again.
If you are complaining about YOUR copyright being “violated”, then maybe, just maybe, you should not be proudly violating at least two other company’s copyrights, (did you actually think Pac-Man and Ghostbusters were public domain? Of course you didn’t.) Maybe, one should not be a raging hypocrite. Just a suggestion mind you.
you know it’s funny. There are really clear laws about this, both US and International. If Brayton felt that Thunderfoot using still-valid credentials to gain access to email was actually a crime, then he should have, by all means, followed up. I did, and still disagree with what Tf00t did. However, brayton’s ineffectual tantrum about it, given how FTB regularly, and proudly mind you, carries “i get email” posts from people who stupidly thought THEIR email was private, comes off as, again, hypocritical.
If you are going to publish emails sent to you without permission, when someone does the same to you, please spare us the crying about it. Goose, gander, etc.
Oh, someone isn’t, but looks like that someone isn’t me.
Laden was booted, and then, on multiple occasions, Zvan, Thibeidon’tcarehowhisnameisspelled et all loudly and proudly said Laden was RIGHT to threaten him and to attempt to trigger PTSD in Justin. In *fact* other than brayton’s announcement, the only, the ONLY time anyone from FTB said that what laden did was WRONG was Hallq, in a private FB thread. The only thing Laden did “wrong” in their eyes was get caught, and they are far, far more angry at justin for publishing the email and forcing their hand in booting him. That is not up for debate. So how much has laden been kicked out? Really. It’s not like he’s banned from FTB, he just no longer has a blog there. Wow. Hurt. Me. Harder.
In addition, there’s no campaign of hate from your side? Well, given your support for the rank hypocrisy from FTB et al, I can see where you’d think that. However, when Melody Hensley and Surly Amy regularly and constantly bag on Sara Mayhew about her *appearance*, and then when she has the temerity to stand up for herself, *double down* on it, yeah, that’s hate. When women who disagree with them are entitled “chill girls” and “sister punishers” and dismissed as only disagreeing because they want “teh menz” to like them, that is hate. When campaigns are run to manipulate known twitter algorithms into suspending accounts of people who disagree with them, yeah, that’s hate. When Melody Hensley uses the influence her position gives her to false-flag videos and try to get YT channels shut down? That’s hate. When PZ Myers states anyone who is not on his side re: feminism is *exactly* the same as Marc Lepine? That’s hate. When a commenter on Ophelia’s twitter stream offers to track people down so they can threaten people’s jobs, and vandalize their property to intimidate them into shutting up, and she has *zero* problem with that? That’s hate.
So spare me the “I only punched you in the eye, you kicked me in the nuts” idiocy. Your side is not *less* guilty, it is not *more* guilty, it is not even really *differently* guilty. You are just as much in the mud as anyone else.
In other words all you want to do is re-litigate old news, eh John?
All of that stuff has been dealt with in detail elsewhere; and you are being dishonest. When you tell me, for example, that Myers said anyone not on his side is “exactly like Marc Lepine” you are flat out lying. That really doesn’t help.
And like I said, I’m not saying there hasn’t been bad behaviour or over-reactions on both sides, but only one side is condoning this behaviour. There is nothing equivalent to the Slymepit on the feminist side; no where for people to collect and compare their nasty photoshops and compete in inventing sexist slurs about folks on the other side, mostly directed at female members of the community.
The real issue is sexism. It seems to me that the divide here is between those who think that sexism is a real problem and those who think the problem is people talking about sexism.
Can I get you to at least agree that no one deserves the kind of abuse Stephanie Zvan exposed in that post above? Can you do that without making excuses for it, or inventing some false equivalence?
Funny how all of a sudden it’s old news. How’d THAT happen. Man, it’s inconvenient when you get caught trying to strawman, isn’t it.
I most certainly am not. From PZ’s post entitled “Never Forget”, URL: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/06/never-forget/
That is PZ calling out anyone not agreeing with his views on feminism as being no different than a spree killer. His words. Have fun with that.
clearly you haven’t read some of the more awesome radfem sites. Makes the ‘pit look like kindergarteners, and with an added dollop of raging, raging transphobia. (actually, that’s a shit word for that. They don’t *fear* trans folks, they *hate* trans folks. Should probably be “transist”, but that’s too close to transit, so we’re stuck with an imprecise word.) And stop with the “only one side” shit. Your side regularly condones threats when made for your benefit. You condone mansplaining, you condone threats to person, livelihood, and property, you condone vandalism, you condone everything you call your opponents out for. You have zero, nada, zilch moral high ground of any form. Your relentless hypocrisy denies you that status.
Both sides consider sexism a real problem. It’s just that one side, made up of both men AND women, do not believe the infantilization of women to be the way to fight it. We do not think that expecting men to cross the street when they realize they’re on the same side of the street as a woman to be anything but creepy as hell. We do not think that every time a man gets on an elevator with a woman, he is but a neuron’s twitch from raping her. We do not think that women are helpless children, unable to function in life without every possible bump, corner, and rough spot smoothed and padded. Some of the most strident holders of that opinion are women. We think that equality of opportunity is critical, and that everyone should be allowed to succeed *or* fail based on their own efforts, not because of what’s in their pants. Maybe you should stop believing in fantasy, because this idiotic meme of “ONLY ONE SIDE OPPOSES SEXISM” is just that: idiotic, and at this point, I place anyone who holds that opinion in the idiot box.
No. I agree to none of that. Zvan has a merry olde time shitting all over people when she finds it convenient and praising people on her side for the same behavior she cries, cries at night over when it is inconvenient. If she has such a problem taking shit, maybe, just fucking maybe she should consider not giving people shit. I have zero sympathy for someone who demands the right to shit all over people and cries when people call her out on it. If she wants people to behave at a higher standard, she needs to *at least* meet, if not exceed the standards of behavior she expects from others.
You do not get to cry because someone attacked you *back*.
“That is PZ calling out anyone not agreeing with his views on feminism as being no different than a spree killer. His words. Have fun with that.”
Yes, lets look at his actual words…he’d addressing “…these anonymous monsters on the internet who shriek affrontedly about women and feminists and moan that any feminist allies are ‘manginas’…”
That’s not “anyone disagreeing with him” as you falsely put it. You can disagree all you want. If you’re not one of the anonymous trolls directing violent sexist harassment to women then he’s not addressing you.
And if you read the comments on that post you’d have had that explained to you.
PZ Myers objecting to violent, sexist imagery and comments being directed to identifiable women in this community is NOT equivalent to the sending of violent sexist imagery and comments.
In fact, it’s the opposite.
This is typical of you slymepitters operate; take a remark like that and misrepresent it and use it to create this false equivalence. For example:
“Both sides consider sexism a real problem. It’s just that one side, made up of both men AND women, do not believe the infantilization of women to be the way to fight it.”
Asking people to not condone the use of violent sexist imagery and comments to harass people is not “infantilizing” anyone. It’s a request for simple, common human decency and respect.
You go on here to again misrepresent the arguments about rape culture and what happened on that infamous elevator. I’m sure this has been explained to you before and yet you’re still stubbornly misunderstanding and misrepresenting them. No one on the feminist side is actually making the arguments you falsely attribute to them here and your refusal or inability to understand that makes it difficult to have a rational conversation with you about these issues.
Was the vilification of DJ Grothe, Harriet Hall, Richard Dawkins or Michael Shermer occasioned by their use of “violent sexist imagery”, Hermit?
Mr. Welch, no, that didn’t happen. As I was the one that ran that conference, I can assure you that isn’t how it occurred. The fact of the matter is, it was NOT Rebecca’s fault how this went down. I will put an end to that lie here and now. If you continue to regurgitate the nonsense, then you are doing it purposefully.
Melody didn’t try to get a youtube channel shut down. She asked that a bullying video be marked as such. Imagine that! Using a tool youtube provides in the manner it is supposed to be used.
And neither Amy nor Melody are “constantly bag on Sara”
But that is how it happened. She *did* claim she was being stalked by someone who lived in the UK, by someone who had never visited the United States, did not live in Florida and had no intentions of attending the conference she was attending. However she still claimed he “stalked her” and barred him from entering. Now why would she do something like that, unless she wanted to further maximise her victim status? I wonder.
However, since you will “put a stop an end to that lie here and now”, how about saying what *really* happened then instead of just saying he’s lying if you want to disprove his claim? You will put an end to that lie? Brilliant, but I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t actually prove him wrong. Great strategy, EllenBeth.
And he didn’t say Youtube channel, he said youtube videos. Full quote:
See, EllenBeth, if you want to disprove claims, you actually have to provide some actual evidence – and if you want to call it bullshit while adding to it yourself, just remember what a famous thinker once said, “what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” As it is, Amy Davis Roth implied unfairly that Sara Mayhew was stupid, shallow and that if she was given a Surlyramic, she would need to buy matching shoes and take “instagrams” so Amy didn’t want to “waste her time” – and Melody Hensley implied unfairly that Sara only criticised Skepchick to get attention, speaking gigs, and affection from “the boys.” A rather odd thing to say for a feminist, wouldn’t you say? Unless they’re “feminists” and on top of that flaming hypocrites? Or they were just trolling to get a reaction, or all of the above. Which one do you think fits best?
But this is only the tip of the iceberg. If all the bad stuff allegedly comes from the opposition, then it’s remarkable that this kind of shaming should come from people you supposedly admire.
Color me shocked. “Pitchguest” is once again an another blog commenting about something that has nothing to do with him.
I am beginning to think “Pitchguest” is actually the guy from the elevator in Dublin. Why else would he be EVERYWHERE all the time commenting so doggedly on these issues? It’s very apparent he takes this personally.
How long before Commander Tuvok shows up and calls us baboons?
Then you need to step up and point out that at no time was elevatorgate living in FL, nor did you have any proof of such, and that as stated, Rebecca’s comment was in fact, incorrect. Instead, you keep letting it stand as correct, and therefore, given the amount of time and copious proof that elevatorgate is not even a resident of the *U.S.* much less FL, someone is not being truthful. You can decide for yourself who that is.
Yes. She had to GO to youtube and watch it. That’s about as much bullying as you coming to my house, listening in the window and complaining I said unkind things. In addition, as you, she, and I know, one of the end results of “enough” people flagging videos as bullying is the deletion of the account. if she just wanted people to disapprove, there is another, less baneful method called “the downvote”. Funny which one she chose.
Sara would beg to differ. Maybe you should acknowledge the validity of Sara’s feelings and stop mansplaining to her how she’s allowed to feel about those attacks. Oh wait, that’s right, when YOU do it, it’s okay.
Actually, Mr. Welch, I am curious as to how you are so certain that he doesn’t live in Florida and never did. At the time of my conference, I had evidence to the contrary.
You know who IS responsible for this? THAT guy. I also have quite solid evidence that his co-blogger lives in Florida.
And FYI, Mr. Welch, please read my comment again. I never disavowed Sara’s feelings nor tell her how to feel. And, as I am not a man, I cannot be “mansplaining”
aach, should have been “told her how to feel”
By all means present it, and I will happily acknowledge that.
How is he responsible for your evidence? Again, present said evidence. I’m easily swayed by actual data, it’s the world I’ve lived in since 1986 or so.
You said they aren’t ‘constantly bagging on her’. Sara has a different view of their harassment. Since I’m always being told I should listen to people who say they are being harassed. Wait, let me guess, that doesn’t apply to people not on your side, because they can’t be harassed? To paraphrase something your lot is terribly fond of, you don’t get to decide whether or not someone else is being harassed.
That’s the club your lot loves to beat on people with. If someone says they are being harassed, then there can be no disagreement, they feel that way, it’s now fact, you must ACCEPT IT AS SUCH. Man, look at how fast you run from that the *instant* it is inconvenient for you. All of a sudden, it casts your side in a bad light, so now of course, well, you can’t be expected to follow your own standards, right?
I dunno, that shoe seems to fit you pretty darn well. I think you should wear it until such time as you stop mansplaining.
John: maybe “gaslighting” would be a better term?
For the record, I’d love for this idiocy to end. But as long as one side requires complete capitulation by all who disagree, my response is three words:
Go
Pound
Sand
When they decide to come down off Mt. Perfect, let me know.
I agree with this 100%, John. After seeing one of the “conditions” put out recently concerning a “cease fire”, I’ve been left with the question “who are they to tell me where I may roam on the Internet?”
They’re not telling you where you may roam. They’ve been asked to participate and they’re defining who they’re willing to negotiate with. It’s not only acceptable, it’s the norm – and it’s a good idea.
If you’re going to debate or negotiate, you want people who are willing to make decisions based on reason and who are willing to denounce slimy attacks.
When people, like you and John, misrepresent the claims from the other side, you exacerbate the problem an inhibit progress.
Matt – misrepresent? Really? Hang on a tick:
From http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/01/30/terms/ – “What are my terms? Any participant from that “side” renounces the slime pit.”
Sounds more than a bit like telling people where they may roam on the ‘net.
No, you can associate with whomever you want. And others can choose not to associate with you if you can’t bring yourself to stand up to the idiots posting that abusive crap. If their approval is more important to you than making peace and resolving the conflict, well, that’s your choice.
tl;dr:
“we have no interest in entering into negotiations or talks we haven’t already won.”
A Hermit, you make quite a few assumptions here. Instead of correcting you, I’ll simply state that I find it hard to believe you’re a skeptic.
“A Hermit, you make quite a few assumptions here. Instead of correcting you, I’ll simply state that I find it hard to believe you’re a skeptic.”
Oh I’m a skeptic all right; I’m skeptical of the idea that complaining about sexism and harassment is worse than the sexism and harassment.
If you think this stuff is no big deal and like things the way they are that’s your prerogative, but don’t be surprised if the people being subjected to those things aren’t interested in talking to you as a result of your indifference.
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=60608#p60608
Nifty, A Hermit. I can cherry pick one thing you’ve said online and make erroneous assumptions about you as well. Nice piece of skeptic work there
It’s a fine tactic. Require someone to accept your demands without question before you even talk to them. It does simplify things, because once they’d done that, you’ve won, no need to negotiate at all.
I mean, it only works if you really think your opponents are completely stupid, which is why it seems to be failing and miserably, but when it does work, it’s awesome.
You do know that if you exclude everyone from negotiations, you’re sitting at a half-empty table, right?
Hey Matt, since you think “mansplaining” is bad, maybe you should stop mansplaining to Renee how she’s allowed to act and feel.
Also, STOP MAKING PODCASTS WHILE YOU DRIVE! THAT SHIT IS DANGEROUS. Do you have to actually get in an accident FIRST?
The Three baboons, see no shit, hear no shit, and speak as much shit as you can get away with.
Some of the terms that have been put up are a bit questionable in my opinion. Anything to do with the allotment of a person’s time and money..like attending specific conferences…is a bit problematic. What if someone lives no where near any of the requisite conferences, representing a significant increase in resources needed to fulfill that kind of requirement? I don’t know that that’s fair if it’s being pushed as non negotiable.
and the thing about renouncing the Slyme pit….Im in the neutral camp. I read on both the A+ and Pit forums..reading Slyme Pit or even posting there isn’t really representative of monolithic unwavering support..so while i can see why renouncing it seems desirable to that camp…i question the fact that being a member of the Pit automatically indicates supporting things that are posted there…
Wasn’t there some issue a while back were Coughlin on youtube posted some mock up of Thunderf00t in pornographic imagery?
oh yes…there was…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=837h-Cxls1A
what i do think is a reasonable condition is decrying the types of things like what Thunderf00t is taking issue with in the video.
I have to admit I hadn’t seen that. But who is this Coughlin idiot? Is he a member in good standing at FtB? I don’t think so. Has anyone at FtB or Skepchicks set up a forum with threads dedicated to celebrating that kind of thing, as the Slymepit has?
Again, I don;t think so.
That’s the kind of crap that has to stop; it should be condemned, not condoned and coddled.
I in no way implied or was attempting to imply that Coughlin was a member or supporter of FtB. The point is that that sort of behavior..no matter who it’s being done to, is juvenile.
Has anyone from ftb gone back to correct some of the accusations that were completely unfounded? The slymepit cracks jokes, ftb tries to ruin reputations. I had gone through the dungeon list, and picked the first real name I came along, and PZ said he was in the dungeon because he was a stalker, and a homophobe. I asked for proof, a link or something that would make his accusation substantial. At first, I was told PZ’s word was good enough. I explained no it is not, this mans name is listed with serious accusations. It could have a negative response towards his personal life. Job, family, friends. It is irresponsible to say the least. I still insisted on proof. I was attacked and insulted, and finally out of irritation, one moderator asked another for the links. His response. It was deleted by mistake, and no longer existed. I was then banned. Don’t come crying and whining about the slymepit. I see a far bigger danger, and longer lasting effect on this person. I even had one moderator tell me, “oh come on! Do you realize how big the internet is?” (In regards to damage this persons personal life or job) Stunned, I replied, Have you heard of Google. I want this to stop as well, but some of the untruths need to be addressed.
I will also say that I feel like there is legitimate concern with the idea that condemnation is what should happen…namely because accusations generally speaking make people shut down, not want to listen and often drives them into oppositional defiance mode. Sure condemn the BEHAVIOR…but you have to make it clear that you’re not condemning the PERSON. otherwise you’ll get nowhere. Just because someone behaves one way in one context…it doesn’t automatically discount whatever is good about them. Coughlin made those ugly images of thunderf00t and I absolutely don’t approve of that. Much in the same way I dont approve of the memes being punted around about FtB people. But like Coughlin..who does have his high points and isn’t really an idiot..the people perpetrating the meme attacks on FtBloggers aren’t all scumbags and fools either. juvenile playground tactics are unacceptable. but so are rampant generalizations about people’s worth. You don’t have to like someone to be able to recognize that about them.
Fair enough, but on the other hand if these tactics are so unacceptable should we let them go without consequence or comment? Even if we like the person behind them?
It depends on your goals. Which is better…just pointing out the problems or actually addressing them in a constructive manner?
I like the latter. I do it ALL THE FREAKING TIME. I did it last night when I told Lee Moore, who i first met in the 7th or 8th grade…that I thought there were times where he hadn’t acted appropriately in this whole conflict…but then again…he asked me. I grant that not everyone will end up being receptive to civil discussion, but in the end…civil discussion is producing real effect in addressing these kinds of things. Pushing has only really caused a lot of push back.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/02/target/
http://atheistasshole.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/of-butterflies-and-wheels-and-ants-on-hills/
“only one side is condoning this behaviour”
In my opinion, I think it would be more accurate to say “people on one side are condoning this behavior”
not everyone across the fence from you supports it. There are those who do say things about it…and those who are thinking it..
maybe it’s a failure on their part that they haven’t done it more publicly, but then again there are some advantages to one on one discourse where people feel more free and open without eyes on them.
just kind of thinking out loud..
Speaking as a common fellow, it seems to me that there are other venues for the promotion of social justice issues. If you want to attend those, more power to you. I do not believe that everyone who attends atheist, secular and skeptical conferences necessarily want to have half of the topics covered be social justice issues and in particular, feminism.
It’s like if I attend a sports memorabilia conference, I don’t want 30-50% of the speakers talking about after market car parts. That’s not why I’m there. I’m interested in separation of church and state, reducing religiosity, and disproving bigfoot. I could care less about your holley carburetor.
“That’s not why I’m there. I’m interested in separation of church and state, reducing religiosity, and disproving bigfoot”
OK, but why should we be interested in those things? If we want to reduce religiosity, for example, shouldn’t we be able to explain why we think that’s a positive goal? I don’t think you can separate the pursuit of those goals from their social implications.
If you’re content to just look at the surface that’s fine, but don’t tell the rest of us that we have to stop there.
A Hermit, it’s almost like you didn’t even read my post. No, it’s EXACTLY like you didn’t read my post.
Atheism does address the social issues surrounding reducing religiosity. For example: less delusional thinking, less science denialism, less trying to control other peoples behaviors etc. Those are in fact the social issues I’m interested in. We can talk about those things without bringing in political ideologies. If YOU want to be involved in political ideologies, go right ahead. There are dedicated venues for that.
Oh, and please try to read all the words this time.
Nope, you’re just skirting the edges here. Why is it important to reduce religious control of people’s behaviours? Is it just religious control of people’s behaviour that we should be concerned about? Or are there other forms of control that might be a concern? Is it only a problem when religions pout women down or might it be a problem when it happens in our own community?
You can’t just assume that talking about atheism is going to somehow magically address these issues; we have to talk about them specifically if we’re going to come to understand and deal with them. That’s not a “political ideology” it’s just plain rational, critical thinking.
And having people screaming “fucking bitch” at women or impersonating people on Twitter to post explicit sexual fantasies or photoshopping porn with people’s faces or sending them rape threats or sniggering about how “fat” and “unfuckable” they are can’t be part of a rational, critical examination of those issues, so can we please at least have people stop making excuses for that crap?
That’s again not political ideology, it’s just common courtesy.
I believe I’ve made a prima facie case for not blending disparate interests in well defined conferences/ arenas, especially as those other interests have their own venues. You have not addressed my point and have been obfuscating at every turn. State a prima facie case for discussing after market car parts at a sports memorabilia venue, or kindly stop replying to me.
“I believe I’ve made a prima facie case for not blending disparate interests in well defined conferences/ arenas, especially as those other interests have their own venues.”
On the contrary you haven’t made any kind of a case at all, just repeated the same assertions. You haven’t answered my questions; if there is no social consequence to atheism or skepticism why discuss them at all?
You say yourself that “Atheism does address the social issues surrounding reducing religiosity.” Then you turn around and tell me that these are “disparate issues.” Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
Either atheism and skepticism have social consequences which we should discuss, in which case we should discuss all of them, not just the ones that don’t make you uncomfortable, or we have no reason to bother with atheism and skepticism at all.
A Hermit do everyone a favor and live up to your name. Speaking of which…isn’t it a bit ironic someone who goes by the screen name ‘a hermit’ expects us to take their advice on social issues? I would assume you are aware of the picture created when someone considers who is behind the title. You obviously were/are comfortable with that. This is not an issue, it is a matter totally up to you. Just as it is up to me to decide if I want to heed the advice of someone who does not wish to interact in a social setting or the amount of consideration it deserves. When I take the facts I have mentioned and content of your posted comments I have seen all around the internet, most of them critical of other people’s social habits, I am left with only one choice. This comment is the conclusion I arrive at. *please note the absence of any cussing or yelling in this reply for future reference in order to prevent past mistakes you have made from happening again. thank you in advance
I see the concept of irony is lost on you Reap…no surprise there.
I’ll ask you again; why would Stephanie Zvan or any other woman, want to actually sit down and talk to someone who has demonstrated by his past behaviour that he thinks screaming “fucking bitch” at someone for twenty minutes is an acceptable way to discuss women’s issues?
Can you think of a way you might fix that impression people might have of you?
Im not having any issues with A hermit.
[...] heard tell that there are some who are still against this, and that’s fine; maybe they’ll change their minds soon. Until then, Moore is building [...]
“Nifty, A Hermit. I can cherry pick one thing you’ve said online and make erroneous assumptions about you as well. Nice piece of skeptic work there”
Hey, I’m prepared to change my mind; so give me a reason to. Tell us right now that you oppose the kind of tactics Zvan and Benson and others have been objecting to; let’s see you take a stand against that kind of harassment instead of dismissing it or making excuses for it.
“if there is no social consequence to atheism or skepticism why discuss them at all?”
intellectual development…community…general interest…why isn’t any of that valid? Teaching people about atheists and atheism because you have a general dislike of bad knowledge and the knowledge most people have about atheists is bad…? Is that invalic? its not a position related to social justice at all…its about knowledge and teaching. Is that somehow wrong because it’s not a social justice position?
“intellectual development…community…general interest…why isn’t any of that valid?”
Certainly you can be interested in all this in as a purely intellectual exercise, but at some point that just starts to look like mental masturbation to me.
Of course that’s still valid, if that’s as far you car to go with it; but look at that word ‘community.” As soon as you start talking about that you’re talking about social issues, aren’t you?
In fact that’s what at the heart of this whole dispute; can we build a community that ignores the concerns of so many of it’s members and potential members? If we’re more concerned about upholding our ability to call people “cunts” and “bitches” and make rape jokes than we are with building a community that at least tries to be welcoming to women then we have a problem, in my opinion.
I’d say that knowledge and teaching are social justice issues too, by the way.
To my mind, social justice efforts are active. they’re engaged in bringing people in. the teaching i do..isn’t engaged..its a thrown out invitation that people can accept or reject as they please.
I send books to a guy that sneaks them to girls in Arabic countries. I’ve done rape counseling and I do animal shelter work. that’s social justice actions.
Sitting around shooting the shit with other atheists to gather and pass out some food for thought is not. atheism and activism are not explicitly linked. and i really dont feel like I should have to trade my subjective definition for your subjective definition because my subjective definition OBJECTIVELY suits my life perfectly and leaves me with no internal conflict or moral conundrums the way linking the two does. If i tie atheism to activism and try to intertwine the two, it would make it difficult to work with all the religious people i do in activist activities. whether you approve of that or not, I choose to value the actions over the ideologies when defining myself.
and no, community doesn’t automatically imply social justice concerns. Sometimes it implies getting a beer and cracking jokes with people who interest you. that’s community too.
All valid points if we’re talking about our own individual space, but we’re not talking about sitting around with a few friends in a bar here, we’re talking about a movement with goals and gatherings and, as far as I can see, a desire to be relevant in the world. Once we move the idea of community past the “sitting around in the bar with a few friends” phase I do think those social issues are unavoidable. We’ve got people doing blogs and radio and podcasts and holding conventions and getting involved in state/church issues…when we talk about atheism in that context it seems to me that it’s pretty hard to avoid the implications of atheism in terms of social justice. After all when we ask for separation of church and state part of what we’re asking for social justice for ourselves, isn’t it?
And even if we’re just sitting in the bar with friends there are social dynamics at work; if I start calling my friends “cunts” and “bitches”, screaming angrily at them and mocking them behind their back when they say something I disagree with (or because they want to discuss social issues as well as atheism and whether bigfoot exists) are they going to want to be friends and sit and the bar with me? Yet we’ve got people in this community who seem to think that’s acceptable behaviour…
I’ve no objection to working with progressively minded religious people, by the way, in fact I applaud that and I think we could do with being a little more civil to believers as well. But I’d like them to know that concern for others isn’t exclusively a religious thing; that unbelief, doubt and skepticism can inform our view of the world and our actions in a positive way.
This is my “bar” so to speak. Im a full time college student and single mom pursuing a degree in biology and doing volunteer work. the frequency that i get to go to an actual bar and talk about things outside of my kid and my work that interest me is equal to the frequency that I get to jet to Gliese in a warp capable starship. Add to that the fact that i live in the honky tonkin South…where else am I going to find like minded people to talk theology and philosophy with except online?
anyway…
It’s like…if i start pushing atheism into my activism, it’s going to cause discord. I can work with these people because we all agree that beliefs within the group belong to the individual and we have bigger things to pursue. I lose bigtime help and support if I mix atheism with activism…I’d not be able to do anything relevent. And helping those I help is far more important to me than ideological differences. So in a very real way, for me personally, atheism and activism are NOT compatible. Not saying it’s that way for everyone of course. I dont think they have to be incompatible…but depending on what activist causes a person supports and what opportunities they have to pursue them…it can be.
“It’s like…if i start pushing atheism into my activism, it’s going to cause discord. I can work with these people because we all agree that beliefs within the group belong to the individual and we have bigger things to pursue.”
I’m not suggesting you have to push the atheism in that kind of situation, this isn’t about evangelizing. I hated that when I was a Christian too. If you have “bigger things to pursue” that’s great. All I’m saying is that we should be able to pursue those kinds of things in a secular, non-religious context as well.
This is about organizations like CFI which are skeptical, secular organizations and what their focus and activities should be, isn’t it? So the question is, should skeptical, secular organizations have a broader interest than debunking Bigfoot; do we have an interest in larger social issues? It seems to me that if we want to make the case that things like skepticism, critical thinking and secularism are important values we need to do more than just get together and pat ourselves on the back for being clever enough to see through creationism… We have to apply those values in a way that makes a real, positive difference. Otherwise, what are they for?
And we should be able to do that without tearing each other to pieces in the process. This is what gets to me; supposedly rational people behaving like drunken frat boys over the suggestion that we have things like sexual harassment policies at conferences. Surely we can be better than that.
there’s nothing wrong if you want to pursue activism within a secular sphere. However, issues do crop up when people start saying that others HAVE TO operate on that basis. And while that may not have been the intention to imply that…many things read that way. That’s an issue that really needs to be cleared up. People dont want to be forced into commitments that don’t fully align with how they perceive the world and if they think people are attempting such a thing, they’ll lash out. And while you may not agree with their perceptions, I hope you can at least consider that they should be able to make that decision on their own.
“So the question is, should skeptical, secular organizations have a broader interest than debunking Bigfoot; do we have an interest in larger social issues?”
some do, some dont. some do only to a certain degree. some are completely oblivious by choice and just are looking for something interesting to check out. I don’t see why it has to be one version or another…I for one would like to see those types of establishments at least make a stab at providing a richly variable environment that provides for all. I will be frank here and say that the idea of Atheism Plus makes me very uncomfortable thinking about venturing out into the larger atheist sphere because I dont have the resources to live up to the expectations of Atheism Plus and I dont really have a desire to mix atheism and activism. I’d like to be able to venture out, go hear some interesting talks, meet some interesting people and then go home. I already have activist commitments. Im not going to abandon them in favor of something like Atheism Plus..which doesn’t align with my conception of issues like skepticism and activism.
“It seems to me that if we want to make the case that things like skepticism, critical thinking and secularism are important values we need to do more than just get together and pat ourselves on the back for being clever enough to see through creationism”
this touches on something I haven’t settled on. I recently discussed the issue of creationism with a youtuber named Atheistcoffee. He’s a former creationist and minister. Now he’s an avid and outspoken anti creationism voice.
his very existence indicates to me that some of my previous stances on creationISTS…are problematic. I absolutely disagree with it being taught in science classes but oddly Ive never had an issue with it being taught in religious studies courses. I do think it should be taught..as the religious position that it is. My objection to it is SOLELY based on the fact that it does not qualify as science. The part im questioning, because of Atheistcoffee and his very polite and intelligent composure…is how creationists are regarded. I dont really see that as patting myself on the back. In fact its been troubling me…
as for skepticism..Im not convinced skepticism is really a fully active thing. I have suspicions about it being something you are..i kind of see it as a natural extension of curiosity. Not sure that’s really a value. I dunno…
as for critical thinking…that’s some i feel is an academic thing not restricted to any particular ideology. and something that is kind of variable…I guess it’s something i do actively value..refining my ability to think critically…but that’s part of why I went to college…not really anything to do with my position as an atheist.
secularism…Im going to have to say that secularism isnt restricted to atheism and as a result I can’t explicitly link the two.
perhaps my difference of opinion (and they are opinions, nothing more)….stems from the fact that im not an antitheist like so many seem to be. I believe the correct term for what i am is apatheist though I might have gotten that wrong. I dont care whether or not there’s a god. Im disinclined to believe that there is one but ultimately i think it’s a moot point. I also don’t care whether people believe in a deity or not. My big issues in the religious sense are related to organized religion. i dont think hierarchical social communities are healthy.
“We have to apply those values in a way that makes a real, positive difference. Otherwise, what are they for?”
if you’ve settled on those things as your values, sure. I applaud your effort. But I haven’t and given the trend of my life and how my brain processes things…I dont think I will. I value discourse. I value respect. I value the quest for knowledge and understanding. I value freedom. These are the things that drive me to activism.
“there’s nothing wrong if you want to pursue activism within a secular sphere. However, issues do crop up when people start saying that others HAVE TO operate on that basis. And while that may not have been the intention to imply that…many things read that way. That’s an issue that really needs to be cleared up. People dont want to be forced into commitments that don’t fully align with how they perceive the world and if they think people are attempting such a thing, they’ll lash out. And while you may not agree with their perceptions, I hope you can at least consider that they should be able to make that decision on their own.”
Of course they can; if they don’t want to part of organizations that take sexism seriously, for example, they can go somewhere else.
And that’s been the big divide as I see is; people on side talking about sexism and the other side complaining about people talking about sexism.
“I for one would like to see those types of establishments at least make a stab at providing a richly variable environment that provides for all.”
And I think that’s exactly what the goal is here; let’s not limit the environment to easy targets like bigfoot and creationism. If that’s where your interest lies that’s great, no one is putting a gun to your head and telling you to do anything else, but those who are interested in going further should be free to do so without being subjected to the kind of harassment and online abuse we’ve been seeing in response to the movement towards that broader environment.
This characterization of the Atheism+ idea as some kind of coercive movement that’s going to force everyone into some sort of rigid political pigeonhole frankly baffles me; I know that’s how some of its opponent’s have painted it that way but that’s not what I’m seeing.
I’m frankly a little puzzled though; if you support activism why not encourage it in this community? If you value respect and freedom and the quest for knowledge then what is your objection to people pursuing those things in the context of the atheist and skeptical communities?
“perhaps my difference of opinion (and they are opinions, nothing more)….stems from the fact that im not an antitheist like so many seem to be. I believe the correct term for what i am is apatheist though I might have gotten that wrong. I dont care whether or not there’s a god. Im disinclined to believe that there is one but ultimately i think it’s a moot point. I also don’t care whether people believe in a deity or not. My big issues in the religious sense are related to organized that
religion. i dont think hierarchical social communities are healthy.”
Well we think a lot alike in that regard then. And for me that applies to this community too. There’s been a middle aged, white male academic hierarchy in this community which is giving way to a new generation; one which sees it as desirable to broaden the base; to make this community more welcoming and more socially conscious. I think that’s a good thing.
Oh, and even if YOU aren’t interested in social justice issues does that mean the rest of us should ignore them too?
I’d like to recommend to everyone here reading Jennifer Michael Hecht’s excellent book “Doubt.” The idea that atheism and skepticism are purely intellectual exercises with no history of social or political consequences is incredibly naive. Read about freethinkers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Robert Ingersoll, Susan Anthony…were their struggles against slavery and for women’s rights somehow antithetical to their skepticism and atheism? Would it have better for them to keep silent about those issues? I don’t think so.
I read the Woman’s Bible for the first time in the 3rd grade. I own copies of Ingersoll. and Ive already been recommended Doubt.
My atheism isn’t related to me being a skeptic. My atheism is related to my desire to explore that label amongst thousands of others. Curiosity, not skepticism made me an atheist.
Even if you don’t think atheism and activism are inseparable can we at least agree that they are not incompatible?
Since Lee can’t be arsed to do more than drive-by comments, I thought I’d leave this here to see if he will deign to explain himself.
Quote is from commenter Noxiousnan:
“I just refreshed and that is your single comment. You haven’t responded to any of the ensuing concerns or questions. I also checked the previously linked Almost Diamonds post where you also made one comment and failed to address the ensuing questions. Finally, I went over to the Slymepit and ran your name through the search engine. Unless you’re using a pseudonym over there, you haven’t posted anything over there at all. And the only reference to you besides this cease fire (they’re agin) is the promotion of a video you did in August with Paden & Vacula said to be “voicing criticism of A+.”
Care to explain yourself?”
I dont usually stick around to answer every comment on every blog that brings this subject up, If I tried I wouldnt be able to get much else done, I did provide an email addy for anyone who wished to voice their concerns directly to me.
I only recently registered over at the slymepit so I could have a better idea of what was being said. I have never once posted there. I dont see why that should be an issue.
I released no video in august and havent been on video in almost a year. I have also never been on a video with Paden and Vacula to my knowledge.
I have however voiced criticisms on A+ in the past, if you read the last article I wrote on this cease fire plan you will find that I freely admitted it, regretted it, and apologized for it. I was basing my criticisms on erroneous information. Hence the public retraction.
Does that address your concerns?
No. The criticism is, if both sides are at fault (according to you), then why are you directing your criticism mostly towards one side?
And then there’s the basic fact that this 4chan style which you claim is alienating to newcomers is not originating from the side towards which you’ve been directing your criticism.
Drive-by posts are rude.
Where do you get the idea that our criticism of this conflict is mostly directed at one side? Do you not think I have been speaking to involved parties on all sides of this about these problems?
If someone posts about this on the slymepit and I am made aware of it you can be sure I will pop in there and defend it.
You say drive by posts are rude, I thought a good percentage of the comments I saw in the blogs on this subject directed towards me can better define rude than my own lack of time to hash this out with every single person who has an opinion on this subject.
But I am glad I am able to at the very least address your own concerns. If you feel that I have missed something please let me know.
I should add that you really should read my last post on this subject, you can find it on this site. I clearly condemn actions taken by both parties.
“Actions taken by both parties,” like… what exactly?
According to your own description of the situation, the actions taken by each of the “parties” are vastly different:
“Ophelia Benson, a prominent author in the Atheist community, has been the victim of a number of personal threats and verbal assaults from anonymous members on the other side of the infighting. Everything from fake profiles to threats of rape have been the kind of harassment she has repeatedly been tormented with. Here is an example of one of Ophelia’s fake twitter accounts.
On the other side Reap Paden, host of the Angry Atheist podcast, has been labeled a sexist and racist for having a heated disagreement with another prominent blogger. Those kinds of labels are not easily shaken off, in some circles, especially our own, they can ruin you without any evidence to support them.”
Apparently you’re one of those people who sincerely believe that bigots who bully people experience harm that is equivalent to what the targets of their bigoted bullying do when people label them bigots and bullies. That pointing out sexism causes just as much harm as saying and doing sexism things. That pointing out racism causes just as much harm as saying and doing racist things.
And now I’m curious… exactly how recent was your first entry into the Slymepit? Did it predate your call for accomodation, err, I mean, a cease-fire?
If so, I think you can predict what the criticism will be.
I did not register at the Slymepit until after I started this project.
“I did not register at the Slymepit until after I started this project.”
And have you broached the subject over there yet?
Okay, so you called for a “cease-fire” without actually knowing what both sides were doing.
Brilliant.
I admire Lee Moore’s attempt for a ceasefire, therefore I wish to clarify that any comments made by me are made by me alone. Now, Sally, maybe you should take your own advice for a change? If drive-by posts are rude, then you have been very rude indeed.
Besides, your constant accusations of sexism without evidence is boring and tiresome.
this whole thing about drive by comments is kind of…i dunno…
people have lives outside the internet and even contained on the internet..people usually have a slew of various sites they’re on all at once…I dont actually think ive ever seen a browser window with only one open tab for more than a few seconds….
You know how I know our side is winning? The pitters have realized how badly they look and had discussions (read arguments) about changing their behavior. Even they (well, some) know what they are doing is abusive and wrong.
Ah ellen demonstrating her mastery of logic once again.
By your definition of winning Ellen, the religious won the war when the atheist movement had its row between the Nu and accomodationists. I suggest you stand on an aircraft barrier with your “we’re winning” barrier behind you. Because you missed or wholly misunderstood the nature of the debate which took place within the pit.
Pitters have differing opinions on what the pit should be, some argue we should attempt to be more effective in taking down the ideologues by focusing purely on their bad arguments, others argue that they don’t really give a shit how effective they are in any broader objective, and enjoy the barrack room humour of photoshopping idiots so that they look idiotic, with the side benefit of sending said idiots into hysterics, which feeds the lolz. This debate has happened many times on the pit, and will continue to happen. It’s the nature of the pit.
So Za zen simply confirms what I have said. He just has to insult me while he does it all the while justifying the abuse and harassment that spews forth from Slymepit Haters and being happy that it hurts the intended targets.
And Lee? You wonder why we don’t want to talk to these people?
For what it’s worth the composition and nature of communities can and do change. While I do think that the ‘Pit was started by people who had a very…visceral..reaction to what was going on, over time, it was joined by a lot of other people who had a much more moderate objection, and I think the tone does represent that, and that’s why there’s the debate.
See, this is a much larger conflict than just within the skeptic community. And there’s a big misconception about it, pretty much everywhere..that it’s a conflict between people who think that some sort of social equality is important, and between people who object to the concept of social equality.
It’s not.
Increasingly, it’s a conflict between two competing models of social equality, which are pretty much incompatible. And I’ll be honest, I think that your model sucks. It actually reinforces sexism and gender roles, not to mention entirely ignorant of pretty much every other injustice vector out there. It’s why you attack identity, as you did above when you claimed that “mansplaining” can only be done by a man.
So yeah. So both sides think that they’re fighting bigotry. That’s the reality. And as for nasty pictures. Do I think that sometimes they cross the line? Sure. Violent imagery always does. (So does “othering” language, by the way, so please apologize and stop using said language). But that doesn’t mean that all those things are bad. Some are merely juvenile. Which isn’t where I want the debate to be, but whatever.
But in any case, what’s going on is that people (like myself) are realizing that for people who do think that social equality is important, Neofeminism not only isn’t the only game in town anymore. That’s important, and I think it’s going to be increasingly so. Which I think is the real concern. This isn’t a movement to have discussion of these issues within the skeptic community. It’s a movement to shut down that discussion.
Truth be told, the big turning point from me, when I went from labeling as a feminist to self-labeling as an egalitarian, was when I went to other anti-SJW/Neofeminist sites/forums and found out that my existing feminist views were actually widely accepted already. People really didn’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. So I think that these places are good places to have good, intelligent discussions on these issues, even with the sometimes juvenile attitudes.
I’ll take a bit of juvenileness any day over outright bigotry.
Aaah, a ceasefire? Well that should come with TERMS then, shouldn’t it?
The terms are simple, and they are non-negotiable.
In a nutshell; Embrace Atheist Progressivism.
In more elaborate terms; couple atheism and rational skepticism to social justice. Apply rational skepticism to contentious issues such as politics or economics, delve into them in practice historically etc. Fully reject those who would advocate things such as misogyny. Etc. etc.
In fact I think everyone knows damn well what the demands really are.
Now do I expect anyone to ‘give in’? Of course not.
But since they do not and often take an active stance against such things there can NEVER be a cessation of the conflict.
I am for one a progressive, a labour union person, socialist etc. far before I am an atheist. I do not expect fellow atheist to embrace any of those. But if they argue AGAINST that (Which they are entitled to do mind you) then inevitably they must be opponents. And I will treat them as such.
Now I do not speak for other progressive atheists. But I’ll be DAMNED if I make nice with some right-wing troglodyte that also happens to be an atheist because we share that in common. Fuck those people.
So can there be this great peace? No… the movement is changing and this infight is a GOOD thing. This is where the movement either gets to BE something (Atheist Progressivism.) or they can be ineffective whiners. (Because honestly… the religious right still has alot of power, and wherever they where stopped it was not by the atheist movement, but by people who know their legal stuff. Your ACLU types and such in case of the US for example, or even just judges.) Atheism as a movement so far HAS been good at internet educating, but it could achieve ALOT more.
And that means there’s a real call for atheist progressivism. This ruffles the feathers of people like the libertarians, but fighting them on it is WORTH IT. Much more so then acquiescing to their angry and dimwitted whinging.
In fact it’s about high time that skepticism was applied TO philosophies such as libertarianism with it’s quasi religious beliefs in the magic powers of the market and how people somehow are all rational actors supposedly. It’s due for a terrific hammering. And that’s what TRUE skeptics SHOULD be doing.
And if you think they shouldn’t… for a LONG time skeptics where reluctant to touch religion because it’d upset people TOO.
So yeah… conflict will remain. Suck it up.
M, I fulfill your conditions. I’m a progressive, labour union, social democratic, etc. atheist. By applying skepticism to contentious issues, I’ve come to the conclusion that the A+ approach to social justice is coocoo bananas. Next?
Were that true then you should expose your methodology so that more people would come to the same conclusion. You’re doing us a great disservice if indeed A+ is ‘cucoo bananas’. Why, all I’m left to conclude is that your issue with A+ is simply subjective. In which case: so what?
Wow, a triple jump to conclusions. No, it’s not simply subjective, and others have already come to the same conclusion. I was responding to M who didn’t present any ‘methodology’ either, yet you only demand it from me, and in the next breath assume that I don’t have any. I’m left to conclude that you’re not arguing in good faith.
You said you “applied skepticism” as if it were an assured method for obtaining the best possible truth. You asserted something, whether in contradiction to what someone else said, not providing the evidence on which you base your conclusions is simple hand-waiving.
I surely hope you don’t mean that your objective measure is that
?
This is in good faith: to prove my assertions wrong and such, you fail to say anything which would convince me otherwise? What I said wasn’t an entirely foregone conclusion of my own, merely a hypothesis based on the already present lack of rigor by which you apply your skepticism (especially if it allows you to malign the mentally ill by utilizing ‘cuckoo’ in a derogatory way while at the same time calling yourself a progressive – what???)
If that’s going to be the position, then in that case I want nothing to do with atheism at all. Ive not been a part of this conflict, I count amongst my friends people on both sides and the only reason Im participating now is because this idea of civil discussion between two opposing parties gives me hope and will to get more involved in the atheist community.
but if it’s going to be like that…then Im gone.
as an addition to what i just said..
i don’t have to like someone to respect them as a person. I dont have to agree with someone to count them amongst my friends. and that’s all i want..is to be able to enjoy the company of my friends and maybe lend a hand in their pursuits when I can and when I find them to be worth allocation of resources.
you’re entitled to your position. But I want no part of anything like what you describe.
It’s simple really, atheism is a lack of belief in god and gods. Now if you are also a socialist, conservative, libertarian, humanist, (equity/gender) feminist that’s all fine and dandy. Though these are political/social ideas which need to brought to the market place of ideas and discussed.
Have we forgotten communism so soon, great idea on paper which became a nightmare when human beings were added. Most atheists have had communism throw in our faces even after we have distance ourselves from it. It is such a useful tool for the religious not to use.
Nobody should get to add any political/social idea to atheism or it just becomes another dogma, it will also alienate a lot of people and in case anybody forgot we are still a minority in a mostly religious world with all the consequences that comes with that fact.
“Nobody should get to add any political/social idea to atheism”
Are there no political/social implications to atheism or skepticism?
If not, why bother with them?
When it comes to political/social issues I am a secularist as I still live in a theocracy and I will join forces with people I normally disagree with to achieve my goals. After all everyone has a right to their opinions and beliefs. They just shouldn’t have any influence over other people. Secularism is good for everyone except the dominate religion of course.
So you’re okay with activism and politics, but only so long as it benefits you directly.
why not?
“Why not?”
I asked first…;-)
Seriously though, what’s the point of talking about atheism or skepticism or secularism if we can’t examine the social or political implications of the discussion? In fact I don’t see any way to avoid it short of actually becoming the hermit Paden seems to think I am.
We’re doing it now when we talk about the need for civil conversation and the negative effect of sexist harassment on this community.
You’re doing it when you say you don’t like organized religions and declare that “i dont think hierarchical social communities are healthy.” That looks an awful lot like a political statement.
I asked first…;-)
…whut? we can’t play Socrates swordfighting with himself in a mirror? :p
“Seriously though, what’s the point of talking about atheism or skepticism or secularism if we can’t examine the social or political implications of the discussion? In fact I don’t see any way to avoid it short of actually becoming the hermit Paden seems to think I am.”
well…I like to talk philosophical type stuff. I like to look at various arguments and develop my logical sensibilities. Delving into a wide range of subjects with that kind of scalpel is good practice for a student of science…Also, I have ASD. logic is relevant to my interests lol.
“We’re doing it now when we talk about the need for civil conversation and the negative effect of sexist harassment on this community.”
…there’s things i could say that would elucidate my point..but I dont like talking about them in such a stupendously open place because they’re personal…that’s kind of frustrating..Ill think about how to reconcile that.
“You’re doing it when you say you don’t like organized religions and declare that “i dont think hierarchical social communities are healthy.” That looks an awful lot like a political statement.”
that’s because you don’t know anything about my actual politics lol. that one would likely be a rather big surprise in some respects…
Hi A Hermit.
You seem to think we can only fight one battle at a time and wearing the same hat. I disagree as the religious are not going away anytime soon I think it is in the atheists interest to push for secular governments.
As an atheist I can also attack their core doctrines at will. I can do this buy pushing education and science. If there is an power imbalance we can hash it out by the table of free market of ideas. If there is no ‘higher power’ dictating the dialogue then all things are possible.
“You seem to think we can only fight one battle at a time and wearing the same hat”
How the hell do you get that from anything I’ve said!? I’ve been arguing exactly the opposite; that it’s not enough to sit around and wank on about atheism in isolation; that fighting battles over things like sexism and discrimination are important too and that we should bring the same set of rational critical thinking tools to those issues that we do to creationism or homeopathy.
What part of that says “only fight one battle at a time?”
Just saying that there ought to be separation of church and state is adding politics and sociology to atheism.
If it’s your position that atheism shouldn’t have any politics or sociology or activism attached to it, then what are you doing talking about it on this blog? You’re attaching your political ideas to your atheism and trying to convince other atheists that your political leanings are more correct than theirs.
If you sincerely believed that atheism shouldn’t have any politics, activism, or social implications, then you have no reason to object to any other atheists doing their thing. Objecting to other people doing activism is an inherently political act. Preserving the status quo is not apolitical.
Saying that there ought to be seperation of church and state makes you a secularist. A stance that, while naturally important to atheists, is actually not dependent on their atheism. It doesn’t add to it. It exists in its own right. Personally I really don’t see the point in being politically active in a group advocating secularism while excluding theists who share that stance.
I think a lot of people have confused attending a talk or conference with being politically active.
Lee, you’re still not responding to the basic criticism: if it’s true, as you say, that you condemn actions “by both parties,” then where is the evidence of you condemning the actions of anti-feminists? Sorry, “equity feminists”? So far you have left critical drive-by comments on the blogs of several feminists, or, if you prefer “gender feminists.” If it’s true that both sides have done things of which you disapprove, why can nobody find evidence of you actually presenting criticism to the side that doing the impersonations, the pornographic and scatalogical photoshops, the sexist and racist slurs, etc.?
Your diplomacy skills leave a bit to be desired.
Because he does it in private. where it has more effect coming from him.
why do you think some of your more vocal opponents have been willing to at least talk things out in a moderated forum like he’s proposing?
So bizarre. I have no idea. Why do you think I have some insight into the mentality of misogynists and internet harassers?
See, to me, it looks really bizarre..you being here and coming off like you had your mind made up before you even showed up to criticize someone for trying to rectify his mistakes.
Hi Sally Strange.
I believe advocating for secular governments around the world would be beneficial to all but a few powermonger religious leaders. In a mostly religious world it is an achievable goal. Will it benefit me, as an atheist I have to say yes but it will be beneficial to a lot of other people as well.
Maybe there’s some inkling of the fact they’ve been unreasonable bullies and now they want to try to save face?
Sally’s mind may be made up for good reasons. Maybe you should ask in good faith.
You know what? Never mind. I thought maybe Lee was arguing in good faith, and was just naive, but then I saw what he posted on Ophelia Benson’s FB. No, Lee, the harasssment does not stop when you ignore it. That tactic was tried. The fact that you’re acting as if failing to ignore persistent harassment is justification for the continuance of said harassment puts you squarely in the “can’t tell if lying or stupid” camp. Yes, you complained about having your intelligence insulted. Well. Perhaps you aren’t as stupid and/or mendacious as you appear. That’s about as far as I’m willing to go.
Sally that comment was posted with the idea in mind of “dont feed the trolls”. If you arent willing to work towards a cease fire and you arent willing to ignore any attackers what options does that leave you with?
You could of course continue firing back and ignoring all criticisms (even the polite ones). I see how well that has worked out.
Since you say the ignoring tactic has been tried and failed what is the harm in trying this proposed talk?
Like you I want to see the harassment stopped, I am just someone with an idea worth trying and this idea is building up a great deal of support from those atheists who are tired of watching all of our hard work building this movement fall apart.
You can keep insulting me if you like, I wont ban you or censor you. I just ask that you give us a chance to pull this off before you pass judgement.
“Since you say the ignoring tactic has been tried and failed what is the harm in trying this proposed talk? “
The harm is that it lends legitimacy to the people who are deluging certain women in the community with vile, sexist harassment; it implies that the person objecting to a bully screaming “fucking bitch” at a woman he disagrees with is as bad as the bully doing the screaming.
I’m sure you’re intentions are good, and if you’re guilty of anything it’s naivete. But treating that behaviour like something that can be negotiated with is incredibly naive.
The only way to make the harassment stop is to make it clear to everyone that it’s not acceptable and won’t be tolerated in this community. everyone of good will in this community, even if they don;t agree with or like the targets of this crap, has to agree to condemn it unequivocally whenever it happens. Ignoring it and hoping it goes away doesn’t work, and neither does giving in to it by compromising with it or making of concessions to it. That just proves to those engaging in the bullying and harassment that the tactic works.
Oh you mean like the bullying mysoginist harraser ophelia Benson in this link http://sfy.co/t1D1 calling GWW a “stupidfuckingbitch”. I can’t wait to see you scream for her to be put off da intwebz!!!! This goes to the very heart of the problem with the ideologues who are attempting to hijack the atheist movement to serve non atheist goals, they are first and foremost hypocrites, they have to be, it’s inherent in being an ideologue, the first tool of which is always, special pleading.
The Atheist movement in it’s attempt to limit religious imposition into non religous persons lives, can of course be called political. But it takes the leap of the ideologue to then claim that since the atheist movement has been established as political there is no misnomer in the movement arguing for a division of wealth as a political goal.
Social justice issues may very well be the priority of a number of people who describe themselves as part of the atheist movement. Great for them, i argue they are in the wrong tent for their activism, when trying to limit religious imposition, then come join us in our tent, when arguing for women to have state funded access to childcare, then go to the tent that does that. It isn’t the atheist tent, no matter how much you scream mysoginy!!
“Oh you mean like the bullying mysoginist harraser ophelia Benson in this link http://sfy.co/t1D1 calling GWW a “stupidfuckingbitch”.”
Seriously? You think a reference to a Twitter hashtag is the same as a whole podcast of screaming, spittle flecked hate?
And what about GWW running off the He-Man Woman Haters at AvFM and using the website of an organization recognized by the SPLC as a hate group to attack Benson? You’re OK with that, are you? Or can you see where that might piss someone off a bit?
No, these things are NOT equivalent.
“Social justice issues may very well be t he priority of a number of people who describe themselves as part of the atheist movement. Great for them, i argue they are in the wrong tent for their activism, when trying to limit religious imposition, then come join us in our tent, when arguing for women to have state funded access to childcare, then go to the tent that does that. It isn’t the atheist tent, no matter how much you scream mysoginy!!”
In other words if you’re not personally interested in a subject everyone else should just shut up about it? Sorry, not going to happen.
Especially when the issue we’re talking about; ie sexism; is apparently a problem right here in the atheist community. |It’s the height of hypocrisy to fight against the imbalances caused by religious hierarchies and then tell people who point out that we may have a few of the same problems ourselves to sit down and shut up.
Skepticism and critical thinking are meaningless if we aren’t willing to turn them on ourselves, too.
Hermit
Your first para, is the special pleading i refer to.
Your second para is the oft repeated misrepresentaion of the slpc (and who actually gives a fuck about their opinion anyway) position. No matter how many times you are told that the slpc have placed avfm on their watchlist, and clarified that they have not designated them a hategroup, you sjw continue to perpetuate the propaganda/lie as some kind of mantra. Quite religious of you.
Your third para is a bullshit appeal. Sexism has not been evidenced in the organised community, so certain people have broadened the definition of sexism to include, “telling a female to shut up spouting stupid shit”. Atheism isn’t about your social justice, and guess what here’s a revelation for you. An MRA is as welcome as any feminist in the Atheist movement. I know that’s an anathema to you and your ideology, but we in the Atheist movement aren’t into gender politics, we’re into removing religion from establishment. We are and remain open to people of all political persuasions in attaining that goal. Here’s another shock for you, not all atheists are leftists. The atheist movement is their movement too.
“Your first para, is the special pleading i refer to.”
The first para explains the lack of equivalence between apples and orangutans…which is how absurd your comparison of those two thing is.
“Your second para is the oft repeated misrepresentaion of the slpc (and who actually gives a fuck about their opinion anyway) position.”
Here’s what the SPLC says about the MRA’s in general:
and AvFM in particular:
This whining about the SPLC is amusing actually; I hear exactly the same song from the Holocaust deniers who don’t like having their anti-semitism pointed out and the Christian extremists and their homophobia.
You know who gave a fuck about the SPLC? The KKK who bombed their offices in the past. I think they know a thing or two about hate groups…not that I need them to tell me that a place that calls women who have been raped “conniving bitches” and says they were “begging for it” is a hateful place…
“Your third para is a bullshit appeal. Sexism has not been evidenced in the organised community…
Well yes it has actually, and again you are mistaking incredulity for skepticism; they really aren’t the same.
This refusal to admit that there is evidence is another feature the anti-feminists share with Holocaust and climate change deniers, and conspiracy theorists in general.
“An MRA is as welcome as any feminist in the Atheist movement.”
And that’s a damn shame; it’s like telling me a racist is as welcome as a civil rights advocate.
Not in this movement. Not in any movement dedicated to reason. Not if I can help it.
Is it, or is it not acceptable to call a woman a “stupid bitch” in your opinion?
Clarification of the SPLC position on AVFM
“It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence.”
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/
Maybe now you will stop perpetuating the lie, or maybe not.
Please demonstrate a proven case of sexism within the organised movement.
The fact that you are ideologically opposed to the inclusion of people who happen to be MRA’s within the Atheist movement, makes me thank fuck you and your little self pity party are irrelevant, and a comical aside to the Atheist movement.
To A Hermit
“ course they can; if they don’t want to part of organizations that take sexism seriously, for example, they can go somewhere else.”
Why is it so black and white?
“And that’s been the big divide as I see is; people on side talking about sexism and the other side complaining about people talking about sexism.”
No..they’re not complaining about people talking about sexism. Its quite a bit more complex than that. Im going to use Lee as an example because he’s visible . He’s married. From what Ive seen he’s super supportive of his wife. He listened to my giant rant the other night about some really malicious misogyny that I went through with a patient ear and despite the fact that my experiences are in the extreme of extremes and really hard for most people to relate to, he tried his best to engage with me. He’s openly and vocally spoken out about things like reproductive rights. Yes he’s said some things you’d call sexist and even things I’d call sexist, but that does not equate with him being a woman hater. And maybe some people don’t mean that equivocation..but it sure reads that way. The problem is really how distant everyone is from everyone else in my opinion. There’s also evidence of temperamental differences, methodological differences and similar issues.
“I for one would like to see those types of establishments at least make a stab at providing a richly variable environment that provides for all.”
“And I think that’s exactly what the goal is here; let’s not limit the environment to easy targets like bigfoot and creationism. If that’s where your interest lies that’s great, no one is putting a gun to your head and telling you to do anything else, but those who are interested in going further should be free to do so without being subjected to the kind of harassment and online abuse we’ve been seeing in response to the movement towards that broader environment.”
It kind of feels like people are pulling out the metaphorical pistols. It isn’t everyone, but there are some. The ones who try to convince other people to not attend certain events because x person is going to be there for example. The way stuff like that looks to me is very similar to the J Crew fundie jock crowd who used to torment me in high school, and on that basis..i can see why people, however clumsily and crudely the attempts may have been in doing it..have been objecting.
“This characterization of the Atheism+ idea as some kind of coercive movement that’s going to force everyone into some sort of rigid political pigeonhole frankly baffles me; I know that’s how some of its opponent’s have painted it that way but that’s not what I’m seeing.”
I didn’t get that impression from A plus’s opponents. I got it from reading FtB and the A + forum. From A+’s opponents I got a similarly negative impression but not about A+….i dislike juvenile tactics intensely. I get enough of that when my son has friends over. I’ve seen every combative tactic he and his friends use to shame and squabble with each other used by both camps in this debate. And it was old ten seconds after it started.
“I’m frankly a little puzzled though; if you support activism why not encourage it in this community? If you value respect and freedom and the quest for knowledge then what is your objection to people pursuing those things in the context of the atheist and skeptical communities?”
Not the ideas. Im fine with the idea as long as you don’t try to push me anywhere I don’t want to go. It’s the methods and the specifics that get me.
“Well we think a lot alike in that regard then. And for me that applies to this community too. There’s been a middle aged, white male academic hierarchy in this community which is giving way to a new generation; one which sees it as desirable to broaden the base; to make this community more welcoming and more socially conscious. I think that’s a good thing.”
See it’s stuff like that that really puts me off. Specifically this “There’s been a middle aged, white male academic hierarchy in this community”. I don’t get that. Course I don’t feel like the “atheist movement” started with the “four horsemen”…it didn’t for me. For me it started with a horde of my scientific heroes, a supporting cast of rather slyly atheist bibilical scholars and culminating with Elizabeth Stanton, Mary W. Shelley and Madelyn O’Hare.
I dunno….there’s been atheist movements all throughout history. Some of them have been absolutely toxic *See the Cult of Reason during Revolutionary Era France* and some not. Maybe Im just a weirdo from all the geological timescale talk in class though….
“See it’s stuff like that that really puts me off. Specifically this “There’s been a middle aged, white male academic hierarchy in this community”. I don’t get that. Course I don’t feel like the “atheist movement” started with the “four horsemen”…it didn’t for me. For me it started with a horde of my scientific heroes, a supporting cast of rather slyly atheist bibilical scholars and culminating with Elizabeth Stanton, Mary W. Shelley and Madelyn O’Hare.”
Well you’ll really love Hecht’s book then…those are just three of the
women who loom large in her history.
But there’s no denying that the atheist movement in it’s current form has had that male academic image around it (Michael Shermer recently described it as “a guy thing…”) And you’re right, that gets away from the rich history of the idea, and we need to broaden the appeal of what we’re doing if we want to be relevant and worthwhile as a community.
That’s hard to do when people in this community are screaming “fucking bitch” at women who are working hard to achieve that and harassing them for asking to be included and treated with respect.
And much as your friend Lee might be a great guy in real life, if he’s turning a blind eye to that worse than juvenile behaviour and pretending that loudly objecting to that behaviour is somehow equivalent to it then I’m afraid he starts to look like part of the problem.
“Well you’ll really love Hecht’s book then…those are just three of the
women who loom large in her history.”
It’s on the list. course the list is about 500 light years long. My current book collection totals in the thousands lol. Libri ut mons montis and all that rot.
“But there’s no denying that the atheist movement in it’s current form has had that male academic image around it (Michael Shermer recently described it as “a guy thing…”) And you’re right, that gets away from the rich history of the idea, and we need to broaden the appeal of what we’re doing if we want to be relevant and worthwhile as a community.”
I know who Micheal Shermer is but what i blurted out loud when I read that was “Who is this Shermer and Why is he relevent?” . Not sure why. hm. maybe it’s just that I sort of have problems with like…leaders…prominence isn’t relevent to my interests. Not sure, Ill give it some think and get back to you on this point.
“That’s hard to do when people in this community are screaming “fucking bitch” at women who are working hard to achieve that and harassing them for asking to be included and treated with respect.”
the thing about this is..and I know you don’t feel like there’s been evidence of this but id like to add a little (yet) to that but anyway…that’s only some people. and even with those people, it’s not like that with all of them. There’s a lot of people that don’t interact with your friends at all. and the ones who do that..well that’s a complex issue..will require, as the British say “sorting”..
“And much as your friend Lee might be a great guy in real life, if he’s turning a blind eye to that worse than juvenile behaviour and pretending that loudly objecting to that behaviour is somehow equivalent to it then I’m afraid he starts to look like part of the problem.”
but he’s not. He’s trying to do SOMETHING. it may not be exactly what you would like to see but can you at least accept that its a start?
“…I like to talk philosophical type stuff. “
And like it or not that philosophical type stuff has real life implications. When you’re discussing the philosophy of group dynamics, of communities…that’s politics.
politikos…of, for or relating to citizens.
i dunno…I’d conceed it as ethics…the science of morals…I don’t really know that atheists in the atheist community qualify as citizens……
“the thing about this is..and I know you don’t feel like there’s been evidence of this but id like to add a little (yet) to that but anyway…that’s only some people. and even with those people, it’s not like that with all of them. “
Well yes Celia, I understand that and I don’t think I’ve said otherwise have I?
But the “some” who are the worst offenders are creating a huge problem; and if others are turning a blind eye, or worse making excuses for the offenders, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.
that was awkwardly worded on my part and for that Im sorry. it’s getting way late so this will be my last post for the night..that should’ve been more like “its not like that with them all of the time.” I haven’t had much direct exchange with Reap but so far, except for ‘tude in his cadence, he’s been largely nice to me. and it’s that kind of thing that gives me a bit of pause.Which isn’t making excuses for what the things he’s done that I don’t like.
“But the “some” who are the worst offenders are creating a huge problem; and if others are turning a blind eye, or worse making excuses for the offenders, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.”
the response I want to give to this goes back to the conundrum of the reason I have arrived at where I am being something I dont know that I want to throw out online. There’s a safety issue involved. Its a potential bias I may have relating to “harm” being..well…sort of on a continuum. Life has dealt me some rather scary cards and Im pretty lucky to be alive. and Im going to leave it at that for now because Im practically falling out of my chair. Goodnight Hermit. (Im going to omit the “A” in a direct address. It’s more comfortable to type)
” I haven’t had much direct exchange with Reap but so far, except for ‘tude in his cadence, he’s been largely nice to me. and it’s that kind of thing that gives me a bit of pause.Which isn’t making excuses for what the things he’s done that I don’t like.”
And ordinarily I’d say that’s fine, but I think we’ve gotten to the point where just not making excuses for this stuff isn’t enough. We have to stand up and object to it, loudly and consistently.
“There’s a safety issue involved. Its a potential bias I may have relating to “harm” being..well…sort of on a continuum. Life has dealt me some rather scary cards and Im pretty lucky to be alive.”
I’m truly sorry to hear that. I would hope that your experience give’s you some insight to why women like Benson and Zvan might be a bit sensitive to people laughing off the threats and violent sexual images constantly being emailed and tweeted at them. This stuff IS scary for a lot of the people involved; that’s why they get angry about it and want it to stop.
I’ll leave it there too; it’s been nice having a civil, rational conversation with someone about this. We all have our own approach to things and I hope you know that I respect your choices and admire your commitment to them.
“And ordinarily I’d say that’s fine, but I think we’ve gotten to the point where just not making excuses for this stuff isn’t enough. We have to stand up and object to it, loudly and consistently.”
this is where i really diverge. I guess it comes from the value I see in discourse. the best way I can think of to explain it is something that happened in one of my classes. We were having a discussion about the Iraq War and one of the students raised his hands and started to give his opinion on the issue. During his speech, he threw out this (paraphrased) “and those poor stupid women in their ugly burqa and veil things cowtowing like little idiots make me sick to my stomach.” The girl sitting behind him, in a rather beautifully patterned satin headscarf raised her hand with tears on her cheeks. She told him she didn’t deserve that and told him about how when her family came to America, her parents were all set to throw away the veils. They wanted to give their daughters the chance to be free from that sort of thing. But she kept hers. She kept them and wore them willingly because it was a reminder of her home and her family. She appreciated the choice but it was a choice and that it didn’t make her stupid or silly to make the choice to be proud of the things that made her the person she was. After class I saw them talking. They were discussing the issue in depth. and at the end, he smiled and apologized and offered to buy her a tea at the campus coffee shop with the request to “tell me more about your culture.” Her calm and intelligent approach was in complete defiance of his preconceived notions about Arabic people. He had no reasons to dig in his heels and refuse to listen. She took the high road and didn’t bring herself down to the level he was operating at..and as a result, made her case and won it. I think you can probably see what Im getting at.
“I’m truly sorry to hear that. I would hope that your experience give’s you some insight to why women like Benson and Zvan might be a bit sensitive to people laughing off the threats and violent sexual images constantly being emailed and tweeted at them. This stuff IS scary for a lot of the people involved; that’s why they get angry about it and want it to stop.”
this…i have to be honest. Its been my experience that truly malicious people don’t make threats. They just act.
The reactions I’ve seen to what has been done make me a bit angry. It’s like they are so up in arms about verbal nastiness while people like me have to deal with the repercussions of real violence and no one cares. It, at times, has made me feel like I’m some kind of joke. Like less than unimportant. I sympathize with the fear that threats can bring. I really do. The threats against me were carried out. So I do sympathize and completely agree that what’s been done is wrong…but…where’s the equivalent rage for people like me? It feels like it’s only important when it happens to any degree to people in the public eye. so…mixed feelings I guess.
“I’ll leave it there too; it’s been nice having a civil, rational conversation with someone about this. We all have our own approach to things and I hope you know that I respect your choices and admire your commitment to them.”
“Pitters have differing opinions on what the pit should be, some argue we should attempt to be more effective in taking down the ideologues by focusing purely on their bad arguments, others argue that they don’t really give a shit how effective they are in any broader objective, and enjoy the barrack room humour of photoshopping idiots so that they look idiotic, with the side benefit of sending said idiots into hysterics, which feeds the lolz. “
So for you participating in the constant stream of sexualized abuse and harassment directed at outspoken women and their supporters in our community is just “lolz?”
Gee, I guess bullying, demeaning and even threatening people you’ve been told to dislike is just a joke and couldn’t possibly be a problem for a community that’s trying to build a positive public image and build a more diverse membership…O_o
A Hermit, if what is put out on the ‘pit causes such overwhelming pain, why do those who loathe the ‘pit visit the ‘pit? This makes absolutely no sense to me. It’s an exercise in masochism.
I don’t accept your characterisation of it as “a stream of sexualised abuse and harassment directed at outspoken women”. Firstly it is factually untrue, as the pit ridicules males and females, (but that isn’t important when you have a narrative to construct). Secondly what you characterise as abuse, is wholly subjective. Did you support the “draw Mo” campaign, or laugh when pz pissed on a communion cracker? Thirdly you decided you misrepsent what i stated. I disn’t say it was for the lolz or that lolz was the objective, i said that was a side benefit.
Your second para, is again a wholly subjective string of rhetoric which i could easily pull from your post and use lock stock and barrel to describe the ftb/A+/skepbabes/sjw mob.
“I don’t accept your characterisation of it as “a stream of sexualised abuse and harassment directed at outspoken women”.
Your incredulity doesn’t make reality go away. Pretending this shit isn’t happening is not an answer.
“. Secondly what you characterise as abuse, is wholly subjective. Did you support the “draw Mo” campaign, or laugh when pz pissed on a communion cracker?”
Apples to oranges again; Drawing Mohammed is not an attack on an individual, it’s a statement about free expression and tolerance for ideas. That’s nothing like photoshoppoing a woman’s face onto some porn image and e-mailing it to her. The fact that you can;t tell the difference tells us a lot about you, doesn;t it?
And for the record, I thought PZ’s “cracker” stunt was childish, and I believe I said so at the time.
“I disn’t say it was for the lolz or that lolz was the objective, i said that was a side benefit.”
In what way is publicly abusing and harassing people a “benefit?” Again, that you see it as such tells us a lot about you…
Apples to oranges again; Drawing Mohammed is not an attack on an individual, it’s a statement about free expression and tolerance for ideas. That’s nothing like photoshoppoing a woman’s face onto some porn image and e-mailing it to her. The fact that you can;t tell the difference tells us a lot about you, doesn;t it?
Drawing Mohammed offends a lot of people, who consider it an attack on their beliefs. They probably wouldn’t agree it’s a ‘statement about tolerance’. Last year, there was debate in South Africa about a painting of the president with genitals exposed; many considered this a work of satire and a statement about free expression. I don’t think the line is as clear as you would like it to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spear_(painting)
I don’t know anyone who has photoshopped a woman’s face onto porn and emailed it to her. I encourage that woman to report the sender. However, I know of satirical images such as “Crucifixion Plus (Restored)”, that had no sexual content but were construed as harassment by some. What’s your position on that?
“Drawing Mohammed offends a lot of people, who consider it an attack on their beliefs. “
Beliefs are not people. Attacking an idea is not the same as attacking an individual person’s physical characteristics. Posting a picture of Muhammed on your own website is not the same as sending personal insults and threats to someone’s e-mail or Twitter account.
Do you really not see the difference? It’s actually pretty obvious…
“I don’t know anyone who has photoshopped a woman’s face onto porn and emailed it to her…”
Then you haven’t been paying attention…it’s one of the things Watson and others have complained about.
Now you can tell me how that doesn’t count because women all lie about that stuff…go ahead, you know you want to…
“I know of satirical images such as “Crucifixion Plus (Restored)”, that had no sexual content but were construed as harassment by some. What’s your position on that?”
Sure there’s a difference between harassment and satire. I;m not sure that kind of poorly executed, juvenile attempt at satire contributes much to the conversation but no, that by itself is not harassment.
What about this one? What’s your opinion of depicting a particular woman in bondage, gagged, chained, obviously in distress and being sold for sex at 2$ a pop? What about when that image is sent directly to her e-mail? Is that harassment? Does that contribute to “rational discourse” in our community? Is it sexist? If she’s getting that kind of stuff, graphically or in test, sent to her every day is that harassment? Is that how we in the atheist community should be dealing with each other? Is that kind of thing likely to make more women want to be part of this community or not?
Do you really not see the difference? It’s actually pretty obvious…
Of course I see the difference, but the point is that the offended Muslims don’t! I also see the difference between threats of violence and making satirical videos, apparently some people don’t.
Btw, for someone who worries so much about including women in the movement, you sure come off patronizing when arguing with them. Just a thought.
Now you can tell me how that doesn’t count because women all lie about that stuff…go ahead, you know you want to…
You misunderstand, I’m saying I don’t know who the anonymous emailers are, so wtf do you expect me to do about them? Does she need my permission to report the sender? I agree that emailing people porn serves no satirical purpose whatsoever and sending Rebecca that bondage image was wrong.
However, that particular image is recent, so there must be something else that has kept the schism going for all this time besides porn photoshopping. Could we perhaps try to identify a few other, more productive points of disagreement?
“A Hermit, if what is put out on the ‘pit causes such overwhelming pain, why do those who loathe the ‘pit visit the ‘pit?”
You haven’t been paying attention Renee; this stuff isn’t just on the ‘pit; it’s on Twitter and it’s in people’s e-mail inboxes.
If these idiots were content to jack off in private that would be one thing; the fact that they feel compelled to share the products of their little circle jerking club with the objects of their hatred at every opportunity is something else.
From what I can see, a large portion of what people are upset about comes from the ‘pit (see Stephanie Zvan’s post on this). So, it seems to me that a *huge* amount of distress could be alleviated simply by not visiting the ‘pit. Part of the problem solved right there.
“From what I can see, a large portion of what people are upset about comes from the ‘pit… So, it seems to me that a *huge* amount of distress could be alleviated simply by not visiting the ‘pit.”
Except that stuff doesn’t stay in the pit…
And this is really funny, actually, since the pit itself is almost entirely dedicated to whining about what goes on at FtB and Skepchicks. Why don’t you take your own advice and you pitters just stay away from those place if they bother you so much? Of course then the pit would have no reason to exist…
ROFL! Yeah, except what they say doesn’t cause me to get my panties in a wad nor do I run about playing the professional victim. I point out hypocrisy and idiocy – that’s about it. Some on FTB (I don’t frequent Skepchicks) don’t like that and have decided this is “harassment” and I’m a misogynist (this, by itself, cracks me up beyond belief).
As someone who’s dealt with a nasty little online stalker for nearly 5 years, yeah, it’s anything *but* harassment. Criticism can and will happen in life. Some need to learn how to deal with that.
I love talking, but there won’t be any special peace that comes with it. This is not at all an ideological war. It seems to be very personal. Certain bloggers and commenters at FreeThoughtBlogs are extremely sensitive. No amount of talking is going to change that. Certain other people love to tease sensitive people. Nothing is going to change that, either.
” Yeah, except what they say doesn’t cause me to get my panties in a wad nor do I run about playing the professional victim. “
And yet here you are whining about them….just like you do at the ‘pit, just like you do in the comments at FtB from time to time.
Hypocrite…
“Criticism can and will happen in life. ”
Criticism is fine, that’s not what we’re talking about.
LOL You’ve confused pointing out hypocrisy and idiocy with “whining”. No matter. I still would like to see this talk happen. Hopefully, clearer heads will prevail
Hmm, yeah, nothing says “peace talks” like “OMG you’re such a frickin’ whiner!”
You’re a born diplomat, Renee.
“this is where i really diverge. I guess it comes from the value I see in discourse. “
I value discourse too; but screaming “fucking bitch” at someone isn’t discourse; bullying and harassing people with sexist remarks and threats isn’t discourse…in fact this stuff gets in the way of real discourse and that’s why it pisses me off so much.
“Was the vilification of DJ Grothe, Harriet Hall, Richard Dawkins or Michael Shermer occasioned by their use of “violent sexist imagery”, Hermit?”
Have they been “vilified?” I know they’ve been criticized, they’ve been disagreed with but it’s Shermer, for example, who is calling his critics “Nazis”, not the other way around.
Pointing out that a comment like “skepticism is a guy thing” might have sexist overtones is criticism. Calling the person who said that a Nazi is vilification. See the difference?
No one, as far as I know, is photoshopping their images onto porn and emailing it around, or setting up fake Twitter accounts and impersonating them, or setting up whole forums dedicated to cheering on that kind of harassment.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. Do you admit there are important aspects to this schism that have nothing to do with “violent sexist imagery”, or not? (As an aside, moaning about feminists and manginas may be stupid but it is not in itself “violent”. So even using your narrow interpretation, the Lepine post is ridiculous hyperbole.)
Have they been “vilified?” I know they’ve been criticized, they’ve been disagreed with but it’s Shermer, for example, who is calling his critics “Nazis”, not the other way around.
No, Shermer didn’t call critics Nazis, he made an analogy, the same way Ophelia Benson made an analogy that likened TAM to Nazi Germany. If such analogies are accepted on one side they should be accepted on the other.
No one, as far as I know, is photoshopping their images onto porn and emailing it around, or setting up fake Twitter accounts and impersonating them, or setting up whole forums dedicated to cheering on that kind of harassment.
Parody Twitter accounts are not ‘harassment’ and are not exclusively directed at women. Dawkins has been accused of promoting a “white supremacist” version of atheism. Grothe has been accused of condoning sexual assault. Would you rather be accused of racism and illegal acts, or of engaging in sex?
But, since you seem to feel that the schism is mainly over porn photoshopping and such activities: would you then agree that Grothe, Hall, Dawkins, Shermer, etc. who afaik have not used or defended porn photoshops, have engaged in legitimate disagreement and are not part of the problem? Yes/no?
“Maybe now you will stop perpetuating the lie, or maybe not.”
Let’s read the whole thing, shall we?
Yeah, no hate there…
Even some in the MRA movement see AVfM as a problem:
It;a a place where hate is practiced and encouraged, where hatred of women is the norm. I want nothing to do with that crap and I certainly don;t want it seeping into the atheist movement.
“Please demonstrate a proven case of sexism within the organised movement.”
There are plenty of women talking about their experience of sexism in this community; look up Jen McCreight’s post on “the Boy’s Club” the response to Watson saying “guys don’t do that”, the if were, the sickening reaction to 15 year old poster “Lunam” on Reddit’s atheism sub…just for a few better known examples…
You don’t see this stuff, and I’m sure it’s all been pointed out to you before if you’ve been part of this conversation at all, because you refuse to look at it. That;s not skepticism; it’s denialism.
“The fact that you are ideologically opposed to the inclusion of people who happen to be MRA’s within the Atheist movement, makes me thank fuck you and your little self pity party are irrelevant, and a comical aside to the Atheist movement.”
I am “ideologically opposed” to the inclusion of people who promote irrational hatred of whole classes of human beings of any kind.
I want an atheist community where all kinds of people are welcome and where issues and differences are dealt with using reason and critical thinking, not with adolescent bullying tactics, harassment and abuse.
If you want a place where you can ignore what’s happening in the real world so you can whine and moan about how awful women are you can stay in your little MRA sewer. Reasonable, rational people aren’t going to want you around anyway.
It seems we have to address each and every point individually, to avoid obfuscation.
Your specific claim was, and i quote “an organization recognized by the SPLC as a hate group”
That is factually untrue, so i don’t give a fuck what hate you see, your claim is false. stop perpetuating false claims.
I ask you to provide one proven case of sexism within the organised movement, and you give me a wall of bullshit:
“There are plenty of women talking about their experience of sexism in this community; look up Jen McCreight’s post on “the Boy’s Club” the response to Watson saying “guys don’t do that”, the if were, the sickening reaction to 15 year old poster “Lunam” on Reddit’s atheism sub…just for a few better known examples…
You don’t see this stuff, and I’m sure it’s all been pointed out to you before if you’ve been part of this conversation at all, because you refuse to look at it. That;s not skepticism; it’s denialism”
Are you a fucking truther?! failure to accept bullshit does not make me a denialist of anything other than bullshit. On that count i confess, yes i am a denialist, of Bullshit. You have failed to provide one evidenced case of sexism within the organised movement, that isn’t by the way your redefianble at will to suit your fucking argument sort of sexism.
One case, just fucking one within an atheist organisation. one case just fucking one at an atheist conference, not hubble bubble boil and trouble grapevine gossip which is the fuel of those who drive the drama. But you are wholly reliant on an appeal to bullshit in the same vain as a theist who tells you to look for the evidence for god, it’s there if only you would open your eyes. i have no time for theist bullshit, and none for your either, you don’t get a pass because you allign as a “skeptic” or an “atheist”. evidence your claims, or fuck off.
“Do you admit there are important aspects to this schism that have nothing to do with “violent sexist imagery”, or not? “
It’s about sexism. On one side we have people who think that sexism is bad and should be dealt with and on the other we have people who think that talking about sexism is bad and the first group should just shut up.
Yes, it’s really that simple.
“No, Shermer didn’t call critics Nazis, he made an analogy, the same way Ophelia Benson made an analogy that likened TAM to Nazi Germany. “
There are some differences there, the biggest one being that Benson apologized for and withdrew her remark.
And all that was done to Shermer was a very mild criticism of a stupid comment he made. His reaction looks like vilification; the original criticism certainly wasn’t. Suggesting that Benson’s polite criticism amounts to “vilification” on a par with Shermer’s reaction characterizing her as being on a “witch hint, or an “inquisition” and behaving like a Nazi is a false equivalence, to say the least.
“Parody Twitter accounts are not ‘harassment’ and are not exclusively directed at women. “
An account which impersonates someone is. Twitter has removed such accounts for violating their terms of service.
You seem to have a hard time telling the difference between parody, satire and harassment. I’m not sure why there really is a distinction that can be made there.
“But, since you seem to feel that the schism is mainly over porn photoshopping and such activities: would you then agree that Grothe, Hall, Dawkins, Shermer, etc. who afaik have not used or defended porn photoshops, have engaged in legitimate disagreement and are not part of the problem? Yes/no?”
I’ll say it again; the issue is sexism and whether or not we should take it seriously when women tell us its a problem. To the extent that the people you mention have dismissed those concerns, yes they are part of the problem. I respect and admire all of them in spite of that, but they are not above being criticized. And by criticized I mean having their ideas rationally examined (like Benson did with Shermer’s remark) not sending them personal insults, comments about their personal appearance, speculation about their genitals and whether they should be raped or are too ugly to be raped. The former is called criticism, the latter (all of which we’ve seen from the Slymepitters and the MRA sympathizers) is vilification.
See the difference yet? It’s not that hard…
Also – I did not compare TAM to Nazi Germany. I compared DJ Grothe blaming women for talking about harassment to someone blaming Jews in 1936 Germany. A bad analogy, but not comparing TAM to Nazi Germany (and nowhere near as ridiculous).
Not as ridiculous? You mean instead of comparing TAM to Nazi Germany, you instead were comparing DJ Grothe to someone blaming the Jews in Nazi Germany, and you think that’s not “as ridiculous”?
Not only did you compare DJ Grothe to someone who would blame the Jews in Nazi Germany, you also compared the women of today to the Jews of Nazi Germany. Are you really saying the situation of the women of today are even remotely similar to the situation of the Jews in Europe during the Nazi regime? Hand on heart, Ophelia, but when was the last time you believed in your own words? When was the last time you weren’t completely full of shit?
Yeah, it was a shitty analogy all right. Shitty analogy through and through. But one has to wonder who’s taking the high ground here: you or DJ Grothe. Probably the one who didn’t resort to a Godwin. How courteous do you think you would have been, Ophelia, if someone had accused you of being akin to a Nazi? By the way, to go slightly off-topic, it also reeks of hypocrisy that you should be up in arms about Shermer’s Godwin when yours is just as ridiculous. Another case of “one rule for you”?
It’s about sexism. On one side we have people who think that sexism is bad and should be dealt with and on the other we have people who think that talking about sexism is bad and the first group should just shut up.
Yes, it’s really that simple.
Well, I disagree. I think it’s also about intellectually dishonest tactics being enabled under the banner of anti-sexism. But, thanks for mansplaining to me what I really think?!
I expect you to stand up and say it’s wrong and not pretend that it’s somehow equivalent to people expressing criticism of an idea.
I haven’t pretended it’s equivalent to criticism of an idea. However, it’s also not an excuse to ignore legitimate criticism of an idea.
And by criticized I mean having their ideas rationally examined (like Benson did with Shermer’s remark) not sending them personal insults, comments about their personal appearance, speculation about their genitals and whether they should be raped or are too ugly to be raped. The former is called criticism, the latter (all of which we’ve seen from the Slymepitters and the MRA sympathizers) is vilification.
I’d disagree that Benson examined Shermer’s remark rationally. As for the rest, could accusing people of being “white supremacists”, “stalkers”, or “terrorists” without good evidence be vilification? What about accusing a woman of vying for male attention to get speaking gigs? What about telling people they deserve to die in a fire? You could prove just about anything by contrasting a rational-sounding argument from one other side with some angry flaming from the other.
Sorry if I’ve missed a response somewhere, the replies are all over the place. Hermit – if you think this is simply about people defending sexism vs. people fighting sexism, why participate in a thread about a “Peace process”?
You asked about other points of disagreement, in fact there are many, but here’s one: Underrepresentation of a group is not in itself enough to show discrimination. Skeptics have long fought against claims that religious believers are discriminated in science, so it’s very short-sighted to accept less rigorous arguments because the goal happens to be something that we agree with.
“You asked about other points of disagreement, in fact there are many, but here’s one: Underrepresentation of a group is not in itself enough to show discrimination. Skeptics have long fought against claims that religious believers are discriminated in science, so it’s very short-sighted to accept less rigorous arguments because the goal happens to be something that we agree with.”
First of all not all discrimination is deliberate or even all that obvious. So if you agree that broadening the base is important (do you?) than it makes sense to look at what might be keeping a particular demographic from participating. In the case of women we have plenty of accounts from women explaining that the lack of female faces and voices makes them feel our of place, so looking for qualified women speakers and leaders (and they are out there if we look) is a reasonable step.
We also have many reports from women, and now with the American Secular Survey some statistical data (albeit preliminary) that tells us women are made to feel uncomfortable in our community much more frequently than men are. That certainly implies a sex based imbalance.
And we have all kinds of data from business and academic and professional environments which have experienced similar demographic questions and we should be able to learn from their experiences. That means building a community where at the very least screaming “fucking bitch” and sending sexually harassing e-mails to women who we disagree with is something which is frowned upon rather then being encouraged, as it is in places like the Slymepit…
So if you agree that broadening the base is important (do you?)
Spare me the ideology checks- clearly there is substantial disagreement on what that even entails, just look at M’s comment in this thread.
In the case of women we have plenty of accounts from women explaining that the lack of female faces and voices makes them feel our of place, so looking for qualified women speakers and leaders (and they are out there if we look) is a reasonable step.
And we have plenty of accounts from women who don’t feel out of place in the movement – they’re known as ‘chill girls’ and ‘sister punishers’. It seems that some idea of the relative numbers in the two groups are needed:
We also have many reports from women, and now with the American Secular Survey some statistical data (albeit preliminary) that tells us women are made to feel uncomfortable in our community much more frequently than men are. That certainly implies a sex based imbalance.
Indeed. Data is exactly what some of us have been asking for the last two years or so, and I’m all for this rather belated effort to do what skeptics should have been doing in the first place. (And on that note, I’ll have to take a break from this thread for now. It’s all yours ;=)
“One case, just fucking one within an atheist organisation. one case just fucking one at an atheist conference, not hubble bubble boil and trouble grapevine gossip which is the fuel of those who drive the drama.”
See here’s the difference between us; when women like Watson, McCreight, Pamela Gay, Elyse Anders and others (and I could list others, but a reasonable reader will get the point by now…) all tell us they’ve experienced harassment at skeptic and atheist conferences I take that as at least indicative that there may be a problem. When the American Secular Census provides statistical evidence that women, far more than men, are avoiding or have dropped out of participating in our community because they have been made to feel unwelcome I take that as evidence that there is a problem and a gendered imbalance.
You, on the other hand, will look for ways to ignore or dismiss or excuse or hand wave a way the evidence, even if the best you can do is insist that all those women who talk about experiencing harassment and sexism must be lying or over-reacting.
You are in denial; you mistake an ostrich-like incredulity for skepticism.
So here’s the thing..and please note that I’m probably a STRONGER supporter of anti-harassment policies..well..everywhere..than you are. I’m extreme on this stuff.
But here’s the thing. I fully 100% support anti-harassment policies that CLEARLY lay out what behaviors are unacceptable, and enforce them equally and across the board. If sexual harassment at conferences is keeping PEOPLE away (women are people too, after all…let’s get radical), then something clearly has to be done about this.
I’m even willing to cede that point.
But here’s the thing. As someone who was and is on your side on this particular issue, quite frankly, something stinks here. Let’s take the issue of flirting. If someone is flirted with, and it’s not something that they want, then they’re going to feel uncomfortable. It’s at that point that the damage has been done. No matter of reporting procedure is going to put the genie back in the bottle.
And that’s the beef I have with this. It’s that people want RESULT based harassment policies. If a woman feels harassed, then she’s harassed. Oh sorry. Person. Anyway. Not only does it not fix that problem, but it does nothing about the problem anyway, as generally speaking people who do things like aggressively flirt usually believe that their behavior is desired anyway. So maybe someone who messes with the wrong person will get kicked out? Not much will change however, I think, overall.
Needless to say, it rubbed (and still rubs) people who are honestly concerned about aggressive social politics the wrong way. Which, to be honest, is probably what I think is the pebble that started this particular avalanche.
So yeah. Is it too hard to ask to have an anti-harassment policy in place that doesn’t enable people who want to engage in aggressive social politics? Seems that way to me.
Again lets keep this simple to avoid obfuscation. Just one case that meets the criteria i described.
“Of course I see the difference”
Good, can we stop pretending they are the same then?
“Btw, for someone who worries so much about including women in the movement, you sure come off patronizing when arguing with them.”
Are you a woman? I had no idea. I come across this way to everyone apparently; the MRA’s are complaining about it too…;-)
“You misunderstand, I’m saying I don’t know who the anonymous emailers are, so wtf do you expect me to do about them?”
I expect you to stand up and say it’s wrong and not pretend that it’s somehow equivalent to people expressing criticism of an idea.
“Does she need my permission to report the sender?”
Of course not; and she doesn;t need your permission to publicly object ot having htat kind of shit done to her, does she? Yet the fact that she does so, often, seems to make some people very angry…
“I agree that emailing people porn serves no satirical purpose whatsoever and sending Rebecca that bondage image was wrong.”
See, That’s what you should do about it. Wasn’t that hard was it?
However, that particular image is recent, so there must be something else that has kept the schism going for all this time besides porn photoshopping.
It’s just the most recent example of the kind of crap that’s been going for a long time now.
“Could we perhaps try to identify a few other, more productive points of disagreement?”
I don’t know; can you? I’m saying no one in our community should be subjected to that kind of crap. I also think it’s a good idea to have harassment policies at conferences (just like they do at business and professional and even “swingers” conventions) and that fining ways to make women and members of other communities under-represented in our community feel more welcome is a good idea.
Feel free to disagree if you like…
“. Let’s take the issue of flirting. If someone is flirted with, and it’s not something that they want, then they’re going to feel uncomfortable. It’s at that point that the damage has been done. No matter of reporting procedure is going to put the genie back in the bottle.”
All I can say is go look at the kinds of policies that have been asked for and implemented. There is there strange idea out there that somehow having a policy that says “no means no” and “back off when you;re asked to” will somehow put an end to all flirting and fun.
This is simply bullshit; a gross misrepresentation of what has been asked for and actually implemented by many organizations.
The damage isn’t done by flirting with someone who isn’t interested; it’s done when that person let’s you know they aren’t interested and you don’t back off.
It’s really not that difficult a distinction to comprehend, is it?
“So yeah. Is it too hard to ask to have an anti-harassment policy in place that doesn’t enable people who want to engage in aggressive social politics?”
What “aggressive social politics” are you talking about? Is asking that we respect each others boundaries aggression? Is asking if we can make the community more welcoming to more people aggression? Aggression against who, exactly?
That’s kinda my point actually. That you (and others) don’t think that such policies are necessary raises a huge red flag with me that maybe, just maybe what people are trying to do isn’t the same thing as what they’re saying they’re trying to do.
I think at the end of the day, people are looking at this a way to keep out “undesirables”, while at the same time not impacting one’s own behavior in any way, shape, or form. Now, if said undesirables are truly acting in a socially unacceptable away, I agree with that. But I fear, and this is what I mean by “aggressive social politics” is that it’ll be used against people for entirely different reasons.
So at the end of the day, it may just be a matter of trust. But here’s the thing, we’re talking about a movement that’s already said that it’s appropriate to use these tools against “undesirables”, so no. I trust them about as far as I can throw them.
“. That you (and others) don’t think that such policies are necessary raises a huge red flag with me”
???
I do think harassment policies are a good idea; I just haven’t ever seen one that does what you claim they do…
“I fear, and this is what I mean by “aggressive social politics” is that it’ll be used against people for entirely different reasons. “
And I think that;s load of paranoid bullshit…
“Again lets keep this simple to avoid obfuscation. Just one case that meets the criteria i described.”
Well that’s not possible since the criteria you described basically boils down “cases I haven;t already decided to arbitrarily ignore and dismiss as lies.”
Like I keep saying, this is classic conspiracy theory argumentation; I get the same thing from Holocaust deniers…“Show me evidence!” they squeal. Ok here are some eyewitness accounts. “Those don’t count! You can’t trust eyewitnesses, especially not those self serving Jews!!!11!!”
You do the same thing here; I give you witnesses, you tell me they can’t be believed because they are the ones affected by the problem.
There is no evidence that will convince you because you have made up your mind to reject any evidence that contradicts your biases. This is called “incredulity.”
Incredulity is not skepticism.
Since you are either unwilling or unable to provide one evidenced case of sexism within the organised movement. I’ll give you free reign. Give me your best example of what “you” consider to be sexism within the organised movement. At least then there will be something to get our teeth into.
“Since you are either unwilling or unable to provide one evidenced case of sexism within the organised movement.”
You don;t think women being physically groped at conferences qualifies as sexism? I just gave you reference to at least three women who say it’s happened to them.
I posted a reference earlier to the porn image sent to Rebecca Watson, I can refer you to Stephanie Zvan’s post in which she published examples of sexist comments and images from the Slymepit, we have members of the Slymepit refering to women with sexist epithets like “cobweb cunt”; the whole ridiculous over-reaction to Watson saying “guys don’t do that” is sexist; there is subtle sexism in the way women speakers get overlooked, Jen McCreight describes her experience in a post called “…How I unwittingly joined the boys club” like this:
But like a good little ideologue you of course will dismiss and ignore all of this because its not all on video for you. Because you confuse solipsism with skepticism. Because to admit there might be a problem would mean you’d have to actually think about it…
A person being groped is not sexism hermit, it is a case of sexual assault. Did the persons involved report the incident to the organisers? Or the police?
What of the image sent to watson? It’s not like she ever sent a picture of a bird clutching a penis with its claws to someone she didn’t like. Oh, that’s right, she did. Don’t play with fire, and cry victim when you’re burned. Watson didn’t like some trolls attempt to get a rise out of her. So the fuck what? It isn’t an example of sexism within the organised atheist community. Unless of course you wish to redifine sexism.
Just because you have decided that the word cunt is sexist does not make it so. Cunt is used as a non gendered insult in the same way dick is. It’s meant to insult, that doesn’t make it inherently sexist. We aren’t going to agree on that (just a wild guess) but you can’t claim that because someone uses the word cunt they are a sexist, and therefore evidence sexism, that is a non sequitur.
Sexism im regard to “guys don’t do that”? People objected to Watson over that nonsense for a number of reasons, You really are stretching the definition of sexism, and the “over reaction” can be attributed to crazies painting it as a potential rape scenario. At this point i’m starting to call foul on the gish gallop.
“Subtle sexism in women speakers being overlooked” what? Seriously, what? Can you please point to a fucking imstance, i know this is hard. One fucking instance.
McCreight complaining. Is there anything or anyone McCreight hasn’t complained about? Shake your boobs….. In short don’t use your tits in a stunt and then not expect your tits to be used as a comic tool. That isn’t sexism, its taking the piss.
Ideologue? understand this if you fail to understand anything else, i have lots of political opinions, i do not argue that the fucking atheist movement must become a campaigner for my pet political axe. You weakly attempt to portray a movement with institutionalised sexism ( and fail by the way) and then attempt to justify bastardising the atheist movement to serve your political agenda because of it. Your jump from A to B is sleight of hand even if you demonstrated beyond doubt sexism in atheism, that does not then mean the atheist movement should fight for social justice! The time will come, when you and the miniscule band that are more interested in whacko ideology than what the atheist movement is actually about, fuck off. The sooner the better, then we can get back to our debunking god. That might sound narrow to you, fine, find another tent.
Well that was a lovely speech Za-Zen, but it was pure denialism. You are doing exactly what I said you would do…
More on the MRM and their lies from the SPLC can be found here:Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women
Anyone who buys into the pseudo-science being pushed by these misogynist bigots has no business lecturing anyone else about evidence based claims…
Tsk tsk tsk, Hermit. Don’t you know you should listen to the women?
Or wait, I forget. That doesn’t apply when it’s for “the other side.” Windy’s a woman, but of course her opinion doesn’t deserve to be acknowledged: she’s on the “wrong” side. Hypocrisy, thy name is …
If your objective here is simply to be contrarian, then I kindly ask you to leave. I’d rather discuss things in an adult manner, not with teenagers trapped in an adult’s body. (I assume you’re old enough, but I can’t help but wonder if your constant uses of the words “son”, “sonny”, “little boy” is your way of projecting – or a fetish of some kind. Either way, it’s immature and I’m not sure I really want to know.)
You’ve been asked proof for your assertions many times over and you’ve evaded to answer every time. Stop channeling the slimy turd and just answer the damn question.
*You haven’t provided anything concrete except to simply to say “no, it isn’t” which was funny when Monty Python did it, but not so much when you do it. It’s all in the delivery.
“If your objective here is simply to be contrarian, then I kindly ask you to leave. I’d rather discuss things in an adult manner…”
That’s pretty funny coming from a denizen of the Slymepit; someone who defends a threat to throw acid in a woman’s face as “just a joke…”
“You’ve been asked proof for your assertions many times over and you’ve evaded to answer every time….”
No, I’ve answered. You and your Slymy MRA friends just choose to ignore the answers.
“. Stop channeling the slimy turd…”
And this is what you call discussing things in an adult manner, is it?
LMAO…grow up sonny boy…
“A person being groped is not sexism hermit, it is a case of sexual assault. Did the persons involved report the incident to the organisers? Or the police?”
If there was no harassment policy what good would reporting it to the organizers do? And do we really have to pull up the statistics on the success rate of prosecutions for rape, never mind sexual touching like a groping, at this point in the debate? Are you really this ignorant?
Women don’t report these things to the police because they know that nothing will be done and they will be subjected to the kind of dismissal you are constantly exercising here.
“What of the image sent to watson? It’s not like she ever sent a picture of a bird clutching a penis with its claws to someone she didn’t like. Oh, that’s right, she did.”
Did she? I wasn’t aware of that…where’s YOUR evidence now?
And did you really just make a “two wrongs make a right” argument? Is that what you call “rational?”
“Just because you have decided that the word cunt is sexist does not make it so.”
I haven’t just decided it, when it’s repeatedly used to demean a woman it most certainly does look like a gendered insult…context matters Za-Zen…I realize you have difficulty with subtle concepts like that, but do try.
“Sexism im regard to “guys don’t do that”? People objected to Watson over that nonsense for a number of reasons…”
All of which reasons are complete and utter bullshit. She was accused of making a big deal of the incident (she didn’t) and the “potential rape” stuff was blown way out proportion by the people looking for reasons to be upset, not by Watson or her supporters.
““Subtle sexism in women speakers being overlooked” what? Seriously, what? Can you please point to a fucking imstance, i know this is hard. One fucking instance.”
Sure; the recent blowup over Michael Shermer’s comment about skepticism being a “guy thing” was prompted by a question about the imbalance between male and female speakers at that conference. Shermer tells us the organizer couldn’t find women interested in speaking; when asked about it the organizers admitted they had only asked two women, neither of whom were available.
If you’re not asking women to participate you shouldn’t be surprised when they aren’t represented…
Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland also talks about this problem in a post “1,000 Women Speakers Worth Listening To”. I recommend looking that one up.
“Is there anything or anyone McCreight hasn’t complained about? Shake your boobs….. In short don’t use your tits in a stunt and then not expect your tits to be used as a comic tool. “
Thakn you for giving us a good example of exactly what McCreight was talking about in her “Boys Club” post:
You think McCreight acknowledging once that she has breasts is silence for you to ignore everything else she says and does for this community and reduce her to a tit joke?
And you don’t think that might be “sexist?”
” The time will come, when you and the miniscule band that are more interested in whacko ideology than what the atheist movement is actually about, fuck off.”
All I’m saying is that we should treat women with respect, and not ignore their contributions just so we can make “tit” jokes. If you think that makes me “whacko”, well that tells us a lot about you, doesn’t it? O_o
“And we have plenty of accounts from women who don’t feel out of place in the movement –”
Probably most women don’t. And that’s a good thing. That’s what we want, and we want more of it. But their experience doesn’t invalidate that of others who have been made to feel unwelcome.