Summations Only

Sexual harassment requires power. Power over someone else is a form of privilege over them. From Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.

---

To coerce someone, or to do to them what is unwelcome, requires power over them in excess of their ability to resist. Having that sort of power is a form of privilege. Without privilege and power, it's impossible to sexually harass someone because you can't intimidate, coerce, or do to them what is unwelcome. If you had power/privilege over him, you would certainly have been guilty of workplace religious harassment. If you didn't then what power could you have had to coerce, intimidate, or do to him what was unwelcome? How would it have been possible for you to harass him? Yes, that's exactly my point. Nobody thinks of medical treatment on the basis of race when it's in the patient's interest as a form of racism, though we certainly do when it's to the patient's detriment (i.e. none of the subjects in the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment were white.) Yet that's incontrovertibly an example of Hooah's "making judgement on the basis of race." Since his definition does not comport with racism as actually observed, it can be dismissed. Post it as many times as you like, because it proves I've been right all along. Belonging to a race widely treated as "superior" or as having the right to rule others is a privilege. Having that superiority enforced by a system of discriminatory doctrine is a privilege. Having hatred or intolerance of another race, and being allowed to continue in that view, is privilege. Your definition is full of privilege because it's only racist - it's only discrimination, in that negative sense - where the greater privilege acts to the detriment of the other. There's no way to escape that.

And those are all forms of privilege. Privilege is central to the concept of racism. I don't see how a serious person can dispute that, because how else do you understand why you, Rahvin, have no problem writing out "cracker" but have to use the euphemism "n-word"?Can you explain why you did that, Rahvin? I've asked you several times but you've completely ignored the question. I ask you again to address that. Under my model of privilege it's completely obvious why those words don't trigger equivalent outrage - the invocation of one is racist and the invocation of the other is not. But under your contention that racism can have nothing to do with the privilege of the person involved in it, you have a real problem explaining even your own behavior - proven by the fact that you've repeatedly refused to.

I don't mean everyone everyone, just a handful of people - you, Rahvin, Jon, PaulK, a couple of others. You know, the ones who have to contradict me no matter what I say, and outright misrepresent it in order to contradict me when I've said something no reasonable person could disagree with.The way you're doing, when you insist that I've said that only white people can be racist. You know I've not said that, and I know you know it because I've told you a couple of times now in posts that I know you've read because you replied to them.Ergo, you're lying. QED. Sure, I'm a huge liberal. I don't expect to be agreed with all the time and I'm happy to debate on any subject, although "what words mean" becomes fairly tiresome. But on this topic I know I'm in the right because my model of racism explains all the racism and all the things that aren't considered racist, and the model of racism you and Rahvin are defending can't explain a lot of really obvious things - like why black people can call each other the N-word but a white person can't call anybody the N-word; why Rahvin (and I) write "N-word" but have no problem saying "cracker"; why "Stuff White People Like" is a national best-seller from Random House, maybe soon to be a TV show on Comedy Central, whose authors have appeared on a dozen morning talk shows who would never in a million years host the author of the hypothetical "Stuff Black People Like", or even touch him with a ten-foot-pole. And a hundred other examples of how minority stereotypes are genuinely hurtful to minorities (for instance, the phenomenon of "stereotype threat") but white stereotypes are no big deal. Do any of us genuinely feel threatened by the widespread, humorous implication that we "can't jump", have no rhythm, and love 80's Night at the karaoke bar?How do you guys explain any of that? It should be instructive to the viewers of this exchange that not even a single one of you has tried to. Everybody knows that stuff just isn't racist, but for some reason, that doesn't bother you when you and Rahvin insist that everyone but you is wrong and that "Stuff White People Like" is worse than the KKK. Why is that?

Ya know, all ya have to do to keep the moderators at bay is not get personal. Just sayin'.

Didn't I just say that it was me? Look, that's just objectively false. Nobody's admitted to being wrong more than I have at EvC. Absolutely nobody. When I'm wrong and it's demonstrated, I fess up. I admit it. Nobody's better about doing that than I am, I'll give you ten examples from the past year if you want, even if I have to troll through a year of posts to do it. It's thanksgiving, what else am I going to do.But I don't admit that I'm wrong when I'm not wrong. When people lie right to my face and try to say that they didn't say something they said, why would I let that go? It's just going to bring down the quality of debate if people aren't expected to either defend their positions or account for changing them. I don't expect people to never change their minds, of course. People should change their minds when it suits them! But they shouldn't change their minds and then not admit that a change has ever occurred because it would force an admission, perhaps, that someone they don't like actually convinced them of something.I just don't understand how you can escape the conclusion that there are a number of people here at EvC that respond to me out of nothing but pique. For instance, here's one of the first replies to me after I returned from a significant absence and joined a discussion I hadn't even started:

quote:

---

Why are you here, Frog?

​

Have you come back to sling shit at Percy for some perceived injury to your ego? Is this some cathartic exercise for your wounded psyche? Have you changed from Crash Frog to Troll Frog or maybe Trash Frog? Does this whole thing still hurt your sensitive ego?

​

Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.

​

If you want to come back and play with the rest of us in Percy's Sandbox then welcome back, Crash Frog. But if you're here to be Trash Frog, throw sand and crap at everyone then just pick up your bucket of bullshit and leave.

---

That was AZPaul in Message 13. Read that, and tell me that nobody here maintains an irrational animus against me. Don't get me wrong, it didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. I'll still have a beer with you or Rahvin or even AZpaul. (I don't think Hooah is old enough to drink, is he?) But it gets irritating around here when I want to talk about the topic, and all my interlocutors want to talk about is me. Get over me, guys. I'm boring. Much less interesting than the topic at hand.

Look, I try to avoid having to characterize my opponents in this way, but if moderators aren't going to take any steps to address flagrant dishonesty and violations of the forum guidelines, to wit:

quote:

---

Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

---

what choice do I have? Look through my messages in this thread. Which message did I post where I said that racism is OK as long as white people don't do it? Is that really an accurate representation of my position? If not, what steps are you prepared to take to address Hooah's repeated representation of my position in that way?

QFT

Sometimes the Bible *does* have the best advice: First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.I'm not here to discuss this with you. I did not single anyone out in the initial warning, and I still don't want to, but if you don't give it a break then you might receive one.Tell ya what, and this is diabolical, you'll love it: just clearly state your position again and let me watch everyone lie about you. It's the perfect plan. I'll catch everyone in the act, everyone will get suspended, you'll be happy, I'll be happy, and peace will prevail again at EvC.

You have made the claim here that a "significant number" of women consider objectification and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences.I have asked you numerous times if you can support this statement. Obviously you are unable to and are now trying to change the subject.So lets move on. I said: I remain entirely unconvinced that elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts" or being sexist rather than being a bit of a dick."misogynistic thoughts" was a phrase used by RW hence the "quotation marks" Given that you have effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men I'm intrigued to see how an act of sexism can be anything other than misogynistic.Could you give an example of an act of sexism that isn't misogynistic?

Made me think of a Dave Chappelle Skit. I believe it's called "blind white supremacist". In it, Chapelle plays a blind black man who is a member of the KKK.Now I'm wondering. Is he portraying a racist? He is, afterall, from the same "unpriviliged" group he is being "nasty" against.Quite the conundrum, or....?

Let's try this again because maybe we've not been clear enough.That is not the only thing racism is. Discrimination based on race falls more into the category of discrimination than it does the category of racism. This has been my position the whole time. You seem to think that all racism is is "discrimination on the basis of race" to the point that you have identified actual racist examples as not being racist.I'll ask again: is it racism to deny someone a job based on a disability?If the answer is no, then you admit that racism and discrimination are not synonymous.If you say yes, then you are wrong.It is a simple yes/no question. No need to go into a great long explanation how disabled persons are more privileged because they get handicapped stickers or their handicap sticker makes them unable to be racist. Yes or no.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Well you have certainly opened a can of shit for yourself by defining discrimination and various isms the way that you have.But I'll stick to the issue of a man "disregarding the individual desires and wishes" of a woman as the qualifying criteria for an act as sexist.Sexism is a serious problem in the world. All around the world women are being denied opportunities and mistreated for no other reason than their sex. It’s a serious issue and deserves to be taken seriously.However it also needs to be recognised that people act selfishly or with little regard for the wishes of others for reasons that have nothing to do with any ‘ism’. I’ve been shitty and selfish to people (both male and female) at times. So have you. So has everyone. And no doubt we will be again at some point. Because humans are prone to being selfish and inconsiderate at times. Some people are habitually selfish and shitty to others. These people can be accurately described as ‘assholes’.So what’s my point here? I’ll tell you.It trivialises the problem of sexism to definitionally classify as you are doing any occasion where one person who happens to be a man disregards the individual desires and wishes of another person who happens to be a woman. People of both sexes go around disregarding the individual desires and wishes of others all the time rather indiscriminately.You are trivialising the problem of sexism in the world by labelling the sort of regular and insignificant acts of selfishness and inconsiderateness that we all commit at times as sexist simply because in the case in question the person being a selfish dick happens to be a man and the person adversely affected happens to be a woman.I have sometimes have bad days and disregard the individual desires and wishes of my wife (going to the pub, getting drunk, coming home late etc. etc.). This is not because I am a sexist. It’s because I am an asshole.

That's acceptable.For the record, then, these are the positions I'm defending in this thread, in approximate chronological order:1) "Elevator Gate" was a far bigger deal to Watson's detractors, who have largely criticized her for things she didn't actually say, than it was to Watson. The controversy surrounding "Elevator Gate" should be properly understood as an issue where movement atheism had an incredibly sexist response to an incredibly mild criticism of a culture that largely pays little heed to the contributions and safety of women at atheist conferences - not as a woman being "perpetually offended" at the mere idea that she might be found sexually attractive.2) The worst excesses supposedly attributed to feminism - "all sex is rape", etc - are largely either the invention of detractors or legitimate discourse taken completely out of context.3) Privilege is crucial to understanding forms of bigotry such as racism, sexism, classism, and other "isms"; where one does not have privilege over another, one cannot discriminate against another. That's how we're able to correctly recognize "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a fundamentally racist text and "Stuff White People Like" as fundamentally not racist in any way, the "n-word" as fundamentally racist when white people use it but not when black people do, the word "cracker" as an epithet against white people as not racist in any way, etc. Those that insist that privilege is not central to discrimination and therefore racism are obligated to explain under their model why it's not racist to refer to a white person as a "cracker" or to invoke white stereotypes like "can't dance", "love cheese", etc.Those are my positions. If you see someone in this thread impart to me a position other than these, without quoting where I've defended that position, that's a pretty good place to start to see if I'm being misrepresented.

Right, and I'm asking you for the source of your quote: who was it that asked you to be convinced that Elevator Guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts"? Please be specific.

quote:

---

Nobody's called it "misogyny" but Roxrkool.

---

"It" being sexually objectifying someone in an elevator. Where did Watson refer to that as "misogyny"? Be specific.

Hooah, you're completely clear. I'm not misunderstanding you at all. Your communication is completely effective at transmitting your wrong ideas, rest assured.The problem is, you're not convincing me because I know you're wrong. I've already explained to you how I know. Well, no. It would be able-ism, that is, discrimination on the basis of privilege resulting from not having a disability. I've never made the assertion that they are. ...what?