Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 211 of 526 (679381)
11-13-2012 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Panda
11-13-2012 6:11 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
If repeating your posts is "lying", then the problem lies with you.
Well, but you're not repeating them. You're misrepresenting them.
That's a form of lying, which you are doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Panda, posted 11-13-2012 6:11 AM Panda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 212 of 526 (679382)
11-13-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by roxrkool
11-13-2012 12:21 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
By definition, sexual objectification IS one of the basic manifestations of misogyny.
If that's the case, then it follows that if Rebecca Watson was sexually objectified then she was subject to misogyny, and it would hardly be "extreme" to accurately characterize a situation. Are you saying she wasn't sexually objectified during the encounter? Or are you just saying that we can label accurate characterizations "extreme" and thus dismissable if we'd prefer not to face the facts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by roxrkool, posted 11-13-2012 12:21 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by roxrkool, posted 11-17-2012 9:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 213 of 526 (679393)
11-13-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by crashfrog
11-12-2012 9:54 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
crashfrog writes:
See, this is what I'm talking about - you're ascribing to your opponents positions that they don't hold. Where did Rebecca Watson say that making propositions is anti-feminist, misogynistic, or sexist? Where did I? Be specific.
It's hardly fair to ask me to sort out your confusion. Why don't you just lay out all the basic tenets of your cult in ten commandments style?
1)Is it a sin for adult strangers to fornicate with consent?
2)Is it a sin for strangers to make the necessary propositions to one other that could lead to fornication?
If (2) is a sin, (1) is impossible. If (2) isn't a sin, then the cult would be in agreement with Richard Dawkins on the question.
crashfrog writes:
And no one, including Watson, has asserted that it does. The problem is that you can't seem to distinguish between criticism of two parties having consensual casual sex, and criticism of individuals making uncomfortable propositions without the consent of their target.
The problem is that you can't figure out that the makers of propositions to strangers cannot tell how their propositions will be received. A proposition to a stranger cannot be made with the consent of the stranger can it? "Consent" is about agreement to the proposition after it has been made.
crashfrog writes:
Yes! Why on Earth should anyone make a nonconsensual proposition
What the hell is a consensual proposition?
.that makes another person uncomfortable?
Does this cult of yours believe in telepathy?
crashfrog writes:
Why on Earth is that not such an immediately obvious Thing to Not Do?
Could it be because people aren't telepathic? While most people, if asked by strangers to their hotel rooms, will probably decline the offer in most cases, some offers will be accepted. The proposers cannot know the answers in advance, otherwise they wouldn't ask the bloody questions, would they?
crashfrog writes:
And why on Earth should the people who say "hey, don't do that" be subject to the enormous campaign, of which you are a part, to quell and quash any opprobrium being leveled against the people making such propositions?
Campaign? There is Faith based cult trying to impose its rules on others. That's the campaign. And it's hardly surprising that it failed with a group of atheists. All my comments on the affair are on this thread over the last few days. I don't support the idea that people should be condemned for asking others to their hotel rooms. There is absolutely no reason why I should. I'm sane.
crashfrog writes:
bluegenes writes:
All you're showing here is some kind ideological commitment to Rebecca Watson's point of view, and that you can completely ignore the fact that the abuse has been flying both ways.
Has it? Name even a single person whom Rebecca Watson has said should be raped to death. Name one.
Is it part of your cult's dogma that that would be necessary in order for cult members to be abusive to others?
Speaking of rape, people have certainly reacted strongly to Watson's unsupported claims made early in the affair that those who disagree with her are causing psychological damage to rape victims. If you hadn't joined the cult, you might not find the reaction so surprising.
She also describes criticism from other women with phrases like "a pretty standard parroting of misogynistic thought." If you imply that your opponents are mindless parrots, sparks will fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2012 9:54 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2012 7:13 PM bluegenes has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 214 of 526 (679403)
11-13-2012 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by bluegenes
11-13-2012 6:02 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
It's hardly fair to ask me to sort out your confusion.
Good thing I'm not asking you to do that - I'm asking you to substantiate your assertion that Rebecca Watson and I have said that making propositions is anti-feminist.
The problem is that you can't figure out that the makers of propositions to strangers cannot tell how their propositions will be received.
That was nonsense back in the other thread the first time it was refuted, and it's nonsense now. Adults - like the kind who would be having consensual sex - know the difference between when they're running an effective game and when they're just creeping. You can't palm the pea on this and defend a situation where two people agreed to have consensual sex, because that wasn't the situation in the elevator - the situation in the elevator was a man making unwanted advances without regard to the wishes of the other person.
While most people, if asked by strangers to their hotel rooms, will probably decline the offer in most cases, some offers will be accepted.
I'm sorry, but the notion that people have sex with each other by a process of random survey ("hey, you wanna have sex? Hey you wanna have sex? How about you?") is just beyond infantile. Doing it in elevators seems particularly worthless - how many times do you actually wind up riding in an elevator with someone? Usually you're in there alone. Wouldn't random cold calls be a more effective strategy? When you could do it from your room, for instance?
It just doesn't pass the smell test to suggest that people randomly proposition each other as a strategy for having casual sex. If that's true then what the fuck is Craig's List for?
I don't support the idea that people should be condemned for asking others to their hotel rooms.
Nobody was condemned! That's the most amazing thing - Watson's incredibly mild comment about how it made her uncomfortable was met with such enormous butthurt that she was actually subject to death threats. And it's Watson that people have the temerity to refer to as "oversensitive." Absolutely amazing. And all of this - all of this verbiage, all of this attention, all of the exposure to the potential of being prosecuted for making threats - in the service of maybe getting your dick wet at Skepticon by a strategy of random-survey propositioning that sounds like something a stoner idiot would think of. What the fuck?
Speaking of rape, people have certainly reacted strongly to Watson's unsupported claims made early in the affair that those who disagree with her are causing psychological damage to rape victims.
Another claim that she didn't, in fact, make. The lying continues apace, I see. Clearly what she said was simply too convincing for you to grapple with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by bluegenes, posted 11-13-2012 6:02 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by bluegenes, posted 11-13-2012 9:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 215 of 526 (679443)
11-13-2012 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by crashfrog
11-13-2012 7:13 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
crashfrog writes:
That was nonsense back in the other thread the first time it was refuted, and it's nonsense now. Adults - like the kind who would be having consensual sex - know the difference between when they're running an effective game and when they're just creeping. You can't palm the pea on this and defend a situation where two people agreed to have consensual sex, because that wasn't the situation in the elevator - the situation in the elevator was a man making unwanted advances without regard to the wishes of the other person.
Are you really stupid enough to suggest that the guy knew for sure that his advances would be unwanted and that the answer would definitely be "no", so he then made the advance, in order to get the answer "no"? Really? Aren't you getting a clue that the reason you need to make such ridiculous arguments is that you haven't got a leg to stand on?
crashfrog writes:
bluegenes writes:
While most people, if asked by strangers to their hotel rooms, will probably decline the offer in most cases, some offers will be accepted.
I'm sorry, but the notion that people have sex with each other by a process of random survey ("hey, you wanna have sex? Hey you wanna have sex? How about you?") is just beyond infantile.
What's that got to do with what I said and you quoted?
crashfrog writes:
Doing it in elevators seems particularly worthless - how many times do you actually wind up riding in an elevator with someone? Usually you're in there alone. Wouldn't random cold calls be a more effective strategy? When you could do it from your room, for instance?
What's that got to with what I said and you quoted?
crashfrog writes:
It just doesn't pass the smell test to suggest that people randomly proposition each other as a strategy for having casual sex.
Of course they don't. They proposition people to whom they are physically attracted, which isn't random. That's what Rebecca Watson is talking about. She disapproves, and says it's degrading , demeaning etc., and that she was being "sexualized" by the guy. She and I seem to be talking about the same thing, but you seem to have floated off into another dimension. I'm pointing out that Rebecca's view that it is bad to see people as physical sex objects isn't objective, and seems to come from some form of ideological cult. There is nothing wrong with sexualizing people. If Rebecca sees a guy whom she fancies physically, there is nothing wrong with her making moves on him with the object of sex in mind. If she wants to make a fairly direct approach, like an invitation to her room, she's perfectly within her rights to do so. The guy might be pleased, or embarrassed, or "creeped out", or whatever. But that's O.K., she isn't to know in advance what the result could be, and the only important point is that if the answer is "no", she accepts it. She is not being sexist or misogynist if she agrees to this general system. If she sticks to the golden rule that "no means no" she can only be at worst a mild annoyance to the object of her interests, and he is certainly not a victim of sexual behaviour in any serious sense.
crashfrog writes:
bluegenes writes:
I don't support the idea that people should be condemned for asking others to their hotel rooms.
Nobody was condemned! That's the most amazing thing - Watson's incredibly mild comment about how it made her uncomfortable.
Ah! Good. A mild comment about an incident of little importance which lasted for literally a matter of seconds, and caused her brief discomfort. We can agree with Dawkins. We often feel uncomfortable, some people every day, and someone feeling uncomfortable for a few seconds is a non-event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2012 7:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 10:48 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 216 of 526 (680146)
11-17-2012 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by crashfrog
11-13-2012 3:43 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Discussing anything with you is like entering Bizarro world.
You calling her experience "accurate" hardly makes it so. I have neither seen nor read anything that convinces me RW's experience in the elevator constitutes misogyny. Therefore, I have tentatively concluded that it IS extreme to characterize the elevator proposition, if that's what it was, as sexual objectification and thus, misogyny. However, RW and you are free to believe what you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2012 3:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 10:55 AM roxrkool has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 217 of 526 (680184)
11-18-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by bluegenes
11-13-2012 9:44 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Are you really stupid enough to suggest that the guy knew for sure that his advances would be unwanted and that the answer would definitely be "no", so he then made the advance, in order to get the answer "no"?
No, but apparently you're stupid enough to simply repeat the exact argument I just disproved. Again - adults know the difference between when they're running an effective game and when they're just creeping. The notion that people need to basically run experiments to find out when they've got game and when they're being creepers is a comedy routine from How I Met Your Mother, which you have apparently confused with a documentary:
(Well, ok, I couldn't find a clip from the one where Barney goes around using pick-up lines and then having the girls respond to survey questions about it. But this one was pretty funny, too.)
What's that got to do with what I said and you quoted?
You're defending Elevator Guy by suggesting that he's trying to get pussy by means of a random survey approach - literally just asking girls up to his room without having any idea of how they'll react, hoping that he'll stumble onto one of the women who will, bizarrely, assent to this. The reason that it seems so stupid when I say it like that is that it's an incredibly stupid thing to do, and that becomes clear once we dispense with your misleading "hey, how was he supposed to know?" framing. The way he's supposed to know is by being an adult - you know, like the kind who would reasonably expect to have, or have had, consensual sex with another adult. Adults know when they've got game and when they're just creeping.
I'm pointing out that Rebecca's view that it is bad to see people as physical sex objects isn't objective, and seems to come from some form of ideological cult.
Again - you're trying to have an argument about things that Rebecca Watson hasn't said and doesn't believe, and in doing so you're proving my point that almost all of this controversy is an invention by Rebecca Watson's detractors. Any time you're prepared to grapple with her actual remarks and not what you'd prefer she'd have said because it would be easier to argue with, that's fine by me. Until then you're just proving me right.
A mild comment about an incident of little importance which lasted for literally a matter of seconds, and caused her brief discomfort.
Indeed. Thus proving that the enormous, sexist, violent objections that were widely and loudly raised in response - including Dawkins' - actually does indicate a sexism problem among movement atheism. I'm glad you've come around to my view, at last - the problem was not Watson's remarks (which really were very trivial), but the enormous, widespread, sexist response to them.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by bluegenes, posted 11-13-2012 9:44 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Huntard, posted 11-18-2012 3:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 218 of 526 (680186)
11-18-2012 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by roxrkool
11-17-2012 9:18 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
You calling her experience "accurate" hardly makes it so. I have neither seen nor read anything that convinces me RW's experience in the elevator constitutes misogyny.
Well, wait. You already admitted that she was sexual objectified and you're the one who said that sexual objectification was misogyny. Not even tantamount to misogyny, just misogyny outright. We're working off your definitions, here, and they seem to point to an incontrovertible conclusion that Watson was the victim of misogyny. So what's to convince?
What's bizarre is talking to you about this, honestly, because every time your own stated definitions point to a misogyny problem in a community, any community, you back away and say "wait, that can't be right. I must have meant something else." For whatever reason, you're happy to expressly state your own definitions of terms but you refuse to follow through with them when they lead to conclusions you don't seem to like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by roxrkool, posted 11-17-2012 9:18 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 8:05 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 219 of 526 (680228)
11-18-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by crashfrog
11-18-2012 10:48 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
crashfrog writes:
Adults know when they've got game and when they're just creeping.
No, they don't... Really, they don't. I, for one, normally have no idea when I'm creeping someone out, or have got game. Maybe that makes me a weird sociopath, or maybe not, but your statement is clearly false. You know what gives me an idea if I'm creeping someone out? Having them tell me. At which point I will apologize and move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 10:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 5:25 PM Huntard has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 526 (680234)
11-18-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Huntard
11-18-2012 3:52 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
No, they don't... Really, they don't.
No, they do. That's part of what makes them adults.
And if they do creep someone out as a result of bad judgement, guess what - the way you solve that is by taking your bro aside and letting him know he's being a creeper. The way you don't solve it is by sexist violence visited on those who noticed he was being creepy.
I, for one, normally have no idea when I'm creeping someone out, or have got game. Maybe that makes me a weird sociopath, or maybe not
It just means you're immature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Huntard, posted 11-18-2012 3:52 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Huntard, posted 11-19-2012 6:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 221 of 526 (680245)
11-18-2012 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by crashfrog
11-18-2012 10:55 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Come on, Crash. You need to actually comprehend what people are writing instead of what you think people are writing.
My position is, and has been, that RW accused elevator dude of misogyny by "objectifying" her (in the elevatorgate video). You asked people to stop putting words in her mouth and asked for proof of that. I simply pointed out (several times) that, according to feminist theory -- NOT my own definitions -- sexual objectification IS misogyny, therefore, RW did in fact accuse elevator dude of misogyny.
I personally do not agree with RW's assessment of the alleged incident.
As for myself, speaking of my own experience as a woman, I have not ever accused any community of misogyny. If you have interpreted my own experience in such a way, that is then your opinion.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 10:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 9:17 PM roxrkool has replied
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2012 12:20 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 222 of 526 (680248)
11-18-2012 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by crashfrog
11-12-2012 9:38 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Speaking of elevator man's proposition, at 5 minutes, 41 seconds into the video, she states, and I quote:
"when men sexualize me in that manner"
Now we can argue whether sexualization = sexual objectification, but I'm not sure that's really necessary. We'd both be speculating anyway.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2012 9:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 9:19 PM roxrkool has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 223 of 526 (680254)
11-18-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by roxrkool
11-18-2012 8:05 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
You need to actually comprehend what people are writing instead of what you think people are writing.
I'm the only one in this thread trying to keep the focus on what people are writing and saying, instead of what others think they're writing and saying. For you to suggest that to me, and then immediately not do it, is just bizarre.
You asked people to stop putting words in her mouth and asked for proof of that. I simply pointed out (several times) that, according to feminist theory -- NOT my own definitions -- sexual objectification IS misogyny, therefore, RW did in fact accuse elevator dude of misogyny.
Show me where in Watson's "feminist theory" - whatever that is - misogyny is solely defined as sexual objectification.
And even if you did have Watson on tape making an "accusation" of "misogyny" - which by your own admission you don't - if sexual objectification is a form of misogyny, why would Watson be wrong to make that accusation?
As for myself, speaking of my own experience as a woman, I have not ever accused any community of misogyny.
So what? Isn't that the problem? That that's something you're proud of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 8:05 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 10:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 224 of 526 (680255)
11-18-2012 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by roxrkool
11-18-2012 8:24 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Now we can argue whether sexualization = sexual objectification, but I'm not sure that's really necessary.
I don't understand why you think it's necessary for me to participate in that argument. Isn't the issue here that, once again, you've revealed yourself to have been arguing on the basis of things Watson didn't say?
This would seem to be your admission that you've been misrepresenting Watson throughout.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 8:24 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 11:22 PM crashfrog has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 225 of 526 (680271)
11-18-2012 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
11-18-2012 9:17 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Show me where in Watson's "feminist theory" - whatever that is - misogyny is solely defined as sexual objectification.
First, show me where I EVER wrote that it was "Watson's" feminist theory or that misogyny is "solely" defined by sexual objectification? FYI -- Feminist theory was around before RW and she is well aware of it since she mentions it in other videos.
And even if you did have Watson on tape making an "accusation" of "misogyny" - which by your own admission you don't - if sexual objectification is a form of misogyny, why would Watson be wrong to make that accusation?
I don't agree with her assessment because she would have to be a mind reader to know what was on the man's mind. Feeling attracted to someone, vocalizing this attraction, or even employing suggestive dialogue is not necessarily sexual objectification unless the man viewed her as an impersonal object. That's not to say he wasn't guilty as charged; however, based on the evidence she presented (the conversation in the elevator), she cannot credibly deduce that he was objectifying her. As I've stated before, she is free to conclude differently, but she should at least acknowledge there is reasonable doubt as to his actual motives.
"Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification."
So what? Isn't that the problem? That that's something you're proud of?
It's not a problem for me, but apparently it is for you.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 9:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 8:17 AM roxrkool has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024