Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Options
1…34689…65

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Does she get to choose what ads are on the site?

    And in what way does an ad on the internet detract from the point she's making re men approaching her in a lift at 4am making her feel uncomfortable? :confused:
    She has to choice to block certain types of ads and the choice to not use advertisers who have ads that sexually objectify women.

    Also it takes away from her point completely in that she says that rich white men like richard dawkins don't get it (even though her example with the elevator is ridiculus) but yet she shows she is happy enough to make money from sexual objectification of women. Maybe she doesn't get it or maybe she is a hypocrite.


  • Options
    #153
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    You do realise you don't always get to choose goole ads on sites, right?

    Er, actually, it's entirely within the site owner's capability to block any ad they choose.


  • Options
    #154
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    To summarise: a militant feminist attention seeker sought to present a polite late-night come-on as a violation, got called on her exaggeration by one of the world's smartest people, and parlayed that into further attention?

    Sounds like a win-win for her.

    Meanwhile, where do I apply to in order to get back the half-hour I just wasted on her me-me-me fixation?

    Let me summarise it for you properly. Mild mannered atheist, politely declines offer of coffee at 4am, but mentions in a video, that for future reference, please don't do that, it makes her uncomfortable. **** storm ensues, where supposedly smart people make all manner of assumptions.


  • Options
    #155
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Er, actually, it's entirely within the site owner's capability to block any ad they choose.

    Not it isn't.


  • Options
    #156
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    axer wrote: »
    She has to choice to block certain types of ads and the choice to not use advertisers who have ads that sexually objectify women.

    Also it takes away from her point completely in that she says that rich white men like richard dawkins don't get it (even though her example with the elevator is ridiculus) but yet she shows she is happy enough to make money from sexual objectification of women. Maybe she doesn't get it or maybe she is a hypocrite.

    So it's completely wrong to work on the assumption that the guy that approached her was drunk/intimidating/innapropriate but assuming she both knows and approves of such ads is perfectly acceptable...

    Deary me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I doubt everything I have been offered zero evidence for. Its why I am on this forum and not the Christianity one given they practice the exact opposite approach over there :-)

    She gave her version of events, that is evidence.


  • Options
    #158
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    She gave her version of events, that is evidence.

    Its her version that I have not been given the evidence for though. Evidence is not evidence of itself :) Thats a bit like saying the bible is true cause it says so in the bible.... something we here on this side of the forum are ALSO rather familiar with.


  • Options
    #159
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Its her version that I have not been given the evidence for though. Evidence is not evidence of itself :) Thats a bit like saying the bible is true cause it says so in the bible.... something we here on this side of the forum are ALSO rather familiar with.

    That one will have to float about the ether of my brain for a spell :), right I'd better get back to work, it's been interesting.


  • Options
    #160
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Does she get to choose what ads are on the site?
    Not sure, but I'd imagine that you can elect not to receive certain classes. Or else, having seen what shows up, simply decide not to run them. The point's a good one though -- if "objectification" is the objection, then some consistency would be good.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    And in what way does an ad on the internet detract from the point she's making re men approaching her in a lift at 4am making her feel uncomfortable?
    Whatever about the appropriateness or otherwise of that, it's the subsequent character assassination that I object to most of all :)


  • Options
    #161
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    So it's completely wrong to work on the assumption that the guy that approached her was drunk/intimidating/innapropriate but assuming she both knows and approves of such ads is perfectly acceptable...

    Deary me.
    I can see the adverts on her website surely she is responsible for the content on her website. I am not assuming anything other than she is making money (or trying to money at least) from adverts that sexually objectify women. Surely you can see that that is hypocritical?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    To summarise: a militant feminist attention seeker sought to present a polite late-night come-on as a violation, got called on her exaggeration by one of the world's smartest people, and parlayed that into further attention?

    Sounds like a win-win for her.

    Meanwhile, where do I apply to in order to get back the half-hour I just wasted on her me-me-me fixation?

    Again illustrating the problem.
    Just dismissing her point by declaring her over-sensitive or a drama queen or a militant feminist, is kinda sexist and disappointing to see in the atheist community, especially from one of the figureheads.


  • Options
    #163
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    Not it isn't.

    Yes it is. You simply place the URLs to be blocked in the ad filter in adsense.

    Oh, and don't seek to perpetrate your matriarchal supremacy on me by denying my right to free speech and drowning out my freedom of expression with your matriarchal fascism.

    I summarised it as I saw it. You see it a different way. The difference between the likes of me, and maybe the (possibly non-existent) elevator guy too, and you and pore downtrodden skepchick, is that we aren't trying to tell you what to think or how to behave.


  • Options
    #164
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    seamus wrote: »
    I do completely understand this. But I'm struggling to think of an alternative that avoid having women irritated, but at the same time doesn't sterilise the sexual experience by turning into "organised mating".

    There's a world of difference between approaching a women in a bar, in a club, at whatever social occasion - and following her into a lift at 4 am when she's said her good-nights...there is clearly plenty of more appropriate middle ground available there without ever touching on being sterile.


  • Options
    #165
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    "but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more." I'm guessing he heard what she had to say earlier.
    What - he found her saying she was tired and going to bed interesting?

    Not buying he was fully aware of what he was getting into...

    FREE THE ELEVATOR ONE! HE IS INNOCENT, I SAY!


  • Options
    #166
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again illustrating the problem.
    Just dismissing her point by declaring her over-sensitive or a drama queen or a militant feminist, is kinda sexist and disappointing to see in the atheist community, especially from one of the figureheads.

    Seeking to equate a polite invitation for coffee with violation is over-sensitive and over-dramatising. She is a self-defined feminist, and her interpretation of these events indicate that she is somewhat militant in her perspective.
    The only sexism I can discern here is her assumption that the invitation she may (or may not) have received to chat more actually meant a predatory desire for sex with her.


  • Options
    #167
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Yes it is. You simply place the URLs to be blocked in the ad filter in adsense.

    Oh, and don't seek to perpetrate your matriarchal supremacy on me by denying my right to free speech and drowning out my freedom of expression with your matriarchal fascism.

    I summarised it as I saw it. You see it a different way. The difference between the likes of me, and maybe the (possibly non-existent) elevator guy too, and you and pore downtrodden skepchick, is that we aren't trying to tell you what to think or how to behave.
    You can block the ones you don't like, but google shuffle means other ads can take their place. Matriarchal supremacy, LOL. Get over yourself.


  • Options
    #168
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    axer wrote: »
    I can see the adverts on her website surely she is responsible for the content on her website. I am not assuming anything other than she is making money (or trying to money at least) from adverts that sexually objectify women. Surely you can see that that is hypocritical?

    Only if she knows they are there and is knowingly making money from those particular adverts - and making such a claim would require an assumption and that's just not on, is it? Hypocritical glass houses and all that...


  • Options
    #169
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Seeking to equate a polite invitation for coffee with violation is over-sensitive and over-dramatising. She is a self-defined feminist, and her interpretation of these events indicate that she is somewhat militant in her perspective.
    The only sexism I can discern here is her assumption that the invitation she may (or may not) have received to chat more actually meant a predatory desire for sex with her.



    She said it made her uncomfortable. Whither the fear of 'predatory desire for sex'? Why do you keep adding bit and pieces on to it?


  • Options
    #170
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Oh, and don't seek to perpetrate your matriarchal supremacy on me by denying my right to free speech and drowning out my freedom of expression with your matriarchal fascism.
    I hope you're being ironic there.


  • Options
    #171
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    You can block the ones you don't like, but google shuffle means other ads can take their place.

    So we agree that Skepchick or whatever she calls herself could easily block all the ads on her site that objectify and sexualise women if she chose. Good. Moving on...
    fatmammycat wrote: »
    Matriarchal supremacy, LOL. Get over yourself.

    Glad you picked up on my satire. This is exactly what Skepchick ought to have done - got over herself. However, since she makes her living out of her attention-seeking, of course she's not going to do that. She's going to blow hot air into this until it's garnered her plenty of lucrative hits on her website and loads of nice invitations to conferences in nice places. Dawkins' only mistake here was fuelling her flame of self-promotion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    I'm pretty sure she got plenty of invitations to places to speak before old Dick stuck his oar in.


  • Options
    #173
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Seeking to equate a polite invitation for coffee with violation is over-sensitive and over-dramatising.
    Not what she did.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    She is a self-defined feminist, and her interpretation of these events indicate that she is somewhat militant in her perspective.
    A lot of jumps in logic there, again based on something she didn't do.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    The only sexism I can discern here is her assumption that the invitation she may (or may not) have received to chat more actually meant a predatory desire for sex with her.
    And again just never said any of that.

    Her point was that the invitation in those circumstances made her uncomfortable (not fearful or disgusted, just uncomfortable) and that most men probably wouldn't understand why it was uncomfortable.
    That's it. Everything else you've said she's implying is your own creation.

    Also it's kind of sickening to see people start to drift over to the idea that she's making this up.


  • Options
    #174
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    So we agree that Skepchick or whatever she calls herself could easily block all the ads on her site that objectify and sexualise women if she chose. Good. Moving on...



    Glad you picked up on my satire. This is exactly what Skepchick ought to have done - got over herself. However, since she makes her living out of her attention-seeking, of course she's not going to do that. She's going to blow hot air into this until it's garnered her plenty of lucrative hits on her website and loads of nice invitations to conferences in nice places. Dawkins' only mistake here was fuelling her flame of self-promotion.

    Why don't you answer my question, how does being uncomfortable = fear of predatory sex?


  • Options
    #175
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    Why don't you answer my question, how does being uncomfortable = fear of predatory sex?

    That's her obvious implication, unless one assumes she's made uncomfortable by either coffee or explaining her ideas.


  • Options
    #176
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    That's her obvious implication, unless one assumes she's made uncomfortable by either coffee or explaining her ideas.

    Oh that just sad, implications, guess work, attributing all manner of 'maybes' to bolster your argument, anything except take on face value what she actually said.


  • Options
    #177
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Glad you picked up on my satire. This is exactly what Skepchick ought to have done - got over herself. However, since she makes her living out of her attention-seeking, of course she's not going to do that. She's going to blow hot air into this until it's garnered her plenty of lucrative hits on her website and loads of nice invitations to conferences in nice places. Dawkins' only mistake here was fuelling her flame of self-promotion.
    So she made a small point in a video for her subscribers in the hopes of getting a prominent atheist to say something stupid so she could blow it out of proportion to get her invited to even more talks and conferences than she is already doing?

    Makes total sense, and is based on a totally rational and balanced foundation :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #178
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    That's her obvious implication, unless one assumes she's made uncomfortable by either coffee or explaining her ideas.

    I think it was the slight increase in pressure and temperature caused by his presence that made her uncomfortable.


  • Options
    #179
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    King Mob wrote: »
    So she made a small point in a video for her subscribers in the hopes of getting a prominent atheist to say something stupid so she could blow it out of proportion to get her invited to even more talks and conferences than she is already doing?

    Makes total sense, and is based on a totally rational and balanced foundation :rolleyes:

    I know, the gas part is, the section where she asks 'please don't do that' is only about a minute long in an 8 minute video saying what a good time she had. BURN THE WITCH!


  • Options
    #180
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Her point was that the invitation in those circumstances made her uncomfortable (not fearful or disgusted, just uncomfortable) and that most men probably wouldn't understand why it was uncomfortable.

    She certainly got that much bang on the money...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    amacachi wrote: »
    I think it was the slight increase in pressure and temperature caused by his presence that made her uncomfortable.

    Maybe it was a strange man hitting on her at 4am in a lift in a strange city...oh no wait, that's exactly what she said.


Advertisement