|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The war of atheism | |||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1524 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Crash,
The whole thing may simply be a exercise in schadenfreude in the case of Rebecca Watson. Who knows?"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Is there some reason you can't apply the rubric we've already talked about?
Is there some reason you have to be so fucking condescending? And the fact that I have no clue what "rubric" means, probably not.
Did you do what you wanted to do, or did you only do the things he wanted to do?
I couldn't read his mind, so I have no idea if we did what he wanted. If he wanted to drink beer and watch TV, then we did what he wanted. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Come on, Crash. You need to actually comprehend what people are writing instead of what you think people are writing. For a window into his thought process, check out Message 127. He thinks that he "gets" to spin people's posts as some sort of legitimate debating strategy, or something.
Discussing anything with you is like entering Bizarro world. Indeed. You're, like, the fifth person I've seen on here directly complaining about this (counting me).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: Nobody's called it "misogyny" but Roxrkool. I've been reading a bit more about this whole debacle and it seems that the whole thing really kicked off not after the original RW blog post but after a speech she gave at another conference where she repeats the elevator story and examines some of the initial internet reaction to it. Specifically the reaction of Stef McGraw who she specifically names and describes as engaging in "pretty standard parroting of misogynistic thought". Here is a rather lengthy transcript of the Rebecca Watson talk in question and the relevant (but still lengthy) part most relevant here: Link quote: So women aren't attending atheist/skeptic conferences because they are scared of being objectified and raped. Without commenting on whether this is true or not it does seem that RW first raised "misogynistic thought" and rape as issues in the context of this elevator story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
As far as empathy goes, people aren't necessarily born with your level of empathy. My increasing sense of empathy is a work in progress, I don't claim to have been born with it - though I would agree I was born with a certain capacity for empathy, but I'm willing to concede I'm actually probably below average in natural empathy all round (I find myself working very hard when empathy might be required). When I was in my late teens I was more frequently a dick to women than I am now. That's why I don't think these men are uneducatable. It's just their education of attracting sexual partners, by culture, has often largely consisted of something like 'persist and be pseudo-aggressive'.
Obviously, you and Crash have been gifted with high levels of empathy. Which I'm sure is as much of a curse as it is useful. It comes with a side order of guilt
Can you teach people to be more empathetic? I really don't know the answer to this question. We can teach people to be more considerate, though it's much easier to get them when they're kids, I'm sure. So perhaps we can teach them to engage their empathy.
My point was that you will offend someone no matter what you do. Sure, but I'm sure we also agree that that doesn't give one licence for one to be negligent in considering the effect one's words or actions might have in the context they are being spoken.
I don't think that was a fair assessment. I never suggested any such thing. I was exaggerating for effect, but I see that that didn't really read how it was meant to come across. I kind of figured you wouldn't like being approached in dark alleyways and that you might concede that there is some territory sexual advances should be limited in. Then it all becomes a question of whether an elevator crosses the line, or if it does so enough times to warrant extreme caution with your approaches. The exaggeration was meant to mirror your exaggerating about me being kind to your 'poor little women's feelings' and the bravado of essentially claiming thicker skin than RW et al which I realize may have been in part, Satan's Lawyering
Again, that's reasonable. I expect most people will recognize such a situation as frightening and behave accordingly. And btw, I was playing devil's advocate there. Good manners and thoughtful behavior do not hurt my feelings or result in offense. Cheers.
I am always fine with a bit of Devil's Advocacy. For the sake of ease, I will still respond to the arguments as if they were sincere beliefs of the hypothetical person who might hold them who I will assign the convenient personal pronoun of 'you'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He thinks that he "gets" to spin people's posts as some sort of legitimate debating strategy, or something. No, I told you what the legitimate debate strategy was. I get to argue against your examples, even if you think they support your argument. Think of your examples as the legs of a stool, and the seat is your argument. Your argument is upheld if your examples are valid. But if I can kick the legs out from under your stool by showing that your examples aren't, actually, supportive of your argument, then your argument collapses. Why do you think I don't get to do that? Like I said back then:
quote: Since you never replied to that post, I assumed you'd withdrawn your objection. But here you are, repeating it in another thread. So what's the deal, here? Why on Earth do you think you get to raise examples that are beyond challenge?
You're, like, the fifth person I've seen on here directly complaining about this (counting me). I can only ascribe this to the dizzying power of my breathtakingly effective arguments. It must be a disconcerting thing indeed to be so quickly and incontrovertibly proven wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Could you explain exactly what it is you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of sexism? I did explain. Watson explained. What remains unclear to you? You'll have to be more specific than just asking for explanations that have already been given.
Has anyone said otherwise? Well, yeah. In Message 245 and Message 252. Like I said before, it beggars belief that anyone would think that an invitation for "coffee" to a place that doesn't have any coffee at it is something to accept on face value, but you and Rahvin both tried to at least imply that we couldn't reject that interpretation out of hand. But that's clearly nonsense. It's just not a matter in doubt that the invitation was meant to be sexual. Your implications to the contrary are just trying to confuse the issue.
Lift-guy was being a dick. Rebecca Watson was being a dick in making a big deal about lift-guy being a dick. But she didn't make a big deal about it. She made a very small deal about it. The problem is that even making a small deal about it - a single comment about it in a single YouTube video - was sufficient to create a Very Big Deal of a sexist, violent response from the community of movement atheism. That's the problem. Rebecca Watson complaining about something that made her uncomfortable in the elevator was never the problem. The problem is that the atheist community decided, apparently almost as a whole, that as a woman she could not possibly be allowed to complain about the actions of any man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And the fact that I have no clue what "rubric" means, probably not. Oh, sorry. I guess that's one of those words I overuse. Seriously, my apologies for the confusion. It means "a scheme for grading or measuring something." It's mostly used in an academic sense; when the professor tells you in advance how he's going to grade your presentation, he's giving you his rubric.
I couldn't read his mind, so I have no idea if we did what he wanted. That's not what I asked, though. I'm not asking you to read his mind, I'm asking you to read your own. Did you do what you wanted? Or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So women aren't attending atheist/skeptic conferences because they are scared of being objectified and raped. Yeah, probably some aren't. Why would that be surprising? And how do you explain the greater female attendance at skeptic conferences that have adopted an explicit sexual harassment policy compared to those that haven't? Isn't that a pretty obvious indication that there are at least some women whom the community of movement atheism has, in the past, discouraged from attending by not taking sexist violence seriously? Why is everybody acting like "sexism in atheism" is a self-refuting proposition?
Without commenting on whether this is true or not it does seem that RW first raised "misogynistic thought" and rape as issues in the context of this elevator story. No, the story makes it pretty clear that she was not the first to raise it, but rather, she was responding to people who accused her of taking offense at merely the idea of being found sexually attractive, which isn't what happened. You don't seem to have read what you posted, I guess. Somehow you arrived at exactly the opposite interpretation of events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Could you explain exactly what it is you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of sexism? Crash writes: I did explain. Watson explained. What remains unclear to you? What remains unclear to me is what exactly it is that qualifies as sexism here rather than a clumsy and unwanted sexual advance. Is it being propositioned in a lift? Is it being propositioned at a skeptics conference? Is it the fact that a well known feminist was propositioned at all? Is it a combination of factors? And if so what is it that turns a clumsy sexual advance into an act of sexism? Or are all clumsy sexual advances acts of sexism?
Crash writes: I did explain. Watson explained. Then it won't hurt to repeat it explicitly in answer to a direct question. Could you explain exactly what it is you think lift-guy did that qualifies as an act of sexism? Does the term "sexist" apply to any sexual advance or are there other criteria that need to be met? If so what are they? Please don't just insist you have answered this. If you genuinely have just repeat your answer.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you consider objectification of women and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences?
In my (admittedly limited) experience of conferences (I've only personally been to work ones and heard from friends directly about political ones) can be pretty fucking debaucherous...... Is there perhaps a conference mindset that has little to do with atheism/skepticism and a lot to do with similarly minded men and women being thrust together in an enclosed environment away from home........ Have you ever been to any conferences?
Crash writes: Why is everybody acting like "sexism in atheism" is a self-refuting proposition? I don't think anyone has said that at all have they? Personaly I see little reason to think atheists are going to be significantly more or less sexist than anybody else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What remains unclear to me is what exactly it is that qualifies as sexism here rather than a clumsy and unwanted sexual advance. What qualified as sexism is the part where a woman's own desires and expressed preferences were completely disregarded in the service of a man's sexual pleasure. Like I've said I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. We don't need to read minds to know if it happened because it's not a matter of his thoughts, but his actions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Do you consider objectification of women and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences? Apparently a significant number of women do. Since they're the ones it's happening to, isn't it their opinion and not mine that matters? I mean, it seems like you have the same kind of blind spot that the movement atheists have had about this. "Is sexual harassment and assault a problem at atheist conventions? Let's ask a bunch of men and find out!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: What qualified as sexism is the part where a woman's own desires and expressed preferences were completely disregarded in the service of a man's sexual pleasure. So do all clumsy and unwanted sexual advances made by men qualify as sexism?
Crash writes: Like I've said I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. I think it's the dividing lne betwen making unwanted sexual advances and acts of sexism that is unclear. How are you distinguishing between the two? Or are all unwanted sexual advances acts of sexism?
Crash writes: We don't need to read minds to know if it happened because it's not a matter of his thoughts, but his actions. Well at least you've acknowledged tnhat it is his actions and intents that are the key here rather than insisting that the mere fact she felt insulted/sexualised qualifies it as some sort of inarguable act of objectification and thus sexism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: Apparently a significant number of women do. What is this "significant number" and where are you getting this data from?
Crash writes: Since they're the ones it's happening to, isn't it their opinion and not mine that matters? If it is genuinely the reason that a significant number of women don't attend atheist/skeptic conferences then of course it matters.
Crash writes: I mean, it seems like you have the same kind of blind spot that the movement atheists have had about this. "Is sexual harassment and assault a problem at atheist conventions? Let's ask a bunch of men and find out!" I'm not asking a "bunch of men". I'm asking you for the source for this conclusion so that we can asses it's validity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024