Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Randi by name, randy by nature:)

This is probably the most blatant case of chip on shoulder syndrome i've ever seen.

condra wrote: »

It’s mostly a lot of childish drama, with Watson in the middle, stirring the pot.

It’s disappointing the so few of the parties involved have yet been able to rise above it.

Kooli wrote: »

Just read this piece by Michael (different from the one linked above I think):
http://skepchick.org/2012/08/speaking-out-against-hate-directed-at-women-michael-nugent/

I think it's a fabulous piece. I know you look in here, Michael. So just wanted to show my support.

I think the key to solving these issues is Michael’s point about safe online communities. Communities that foster a policy of “attack the post not the poster” (Big shout out to Boards.ie that has this as a common policy of most of its forums, a website Michael is familiar with and I would recommend everyone here check out the Atheist, Skeptics and Science forums and observing how the moderators handle posts that contain abusive comments about other posters).

This goes for all forms of discussion online that frankly any of us would want to be involved in. There will always be the troll friendly spaces where people can exercise their “freedom” to be abusive or bully or threaten, but equally we have the freedom to ignore these online spaces and leave them at it. The goal should be to foster and encourage online spaces where this sort of behavior is simply not tolerated. You don’t need to match abuse with abuse, you simply need a space where abuse is not allowed to begin with.

This is one thing I’ve noticed in the (unfortunately) on going Elevator-gate saga. Any sensible points on either side are being lost in a torrent of abusive posts aimed at others across the abyss. It would be naive to assume there is only one side to any discussion, again one should be skeptical of what anyone says about a subject until it can be supported, even if what they are saying sounds plausible. Is there a serious problem with sexism in the skeptical community? Is there a serious problem with treats of physical abuse in the skeptical community? I don’t know. Not because I don’t want to know, I would love to know, but because I cannot make head nor tails of any of the points people are trying to make because they all seem to be wrapped up in abusive rants about the person they are currently disagreeing with.

I could simply take people’s word that it is happen and is as bad as they say. Or I could simply take the other side and agree that it is over blown and largely the imagination of some who wish to feel they are victimized. Both arguments are being presented but they are not being supported, or at least they are not being supported in a fashion that doesn’t require filtering out 90% of the insults and other abuse.

I don’t want to do that, I don’t time to do that and frankly if people can’t present the evidence for their position without wrapping it up in abuse I don’t have much time for them. I’m a skeptic. I want to see the freaking data. I want to see the data in an environment where I and everyone else can question, discuss and examine that data without the constant interruption of abusive comments as soon as anyone takes a dislike to someone not agreeing with them.

So far I have yet to find that space. Skepchick isn’t that place (sorry guys but you aren’t). freethoughtblogs isn’t that space. Thunderf00ts blog isn’t that space. phawrongula isn’t that space. Countless skeptical blogs discussing this topic that simply contain comment after comment of personal attacks are not the place.

I would like to be able to read a comment discussion that doesn’t include the term “slimepit” “PC Lyers” “feminazi” any where in the discussion, that doesn’t reference people simply to belittle them, as if that some how is an argument, that doesn’t joke around about raping people and that doesn’t contain 50 comment about how the guy who make the rape joke is an immature misogynistic little boy.

This is a wider issue to whether sexism exists as a significant problem in the skeptical community (as serious as that issue is). You don’t combat abuse in a community by simply abusing the other side into agreeing with you. You combat it by producing spaces where abusing someone else is not an option in the first place. You combat it by having people who want such a space to exist in the first place and who are prepared to maintain this standard through moderation not just for the others but for themselves as well.

Again good post Michael. Lets hope instead of people just patting you on the back for being on the “right side” of the current sexism debate people actually properly read and listen to what you are saying.