Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

09-08-2012 11:31AM

Sarky wrote: »

Jesus, it actually got worse. And it's perfectly accepted by the folks in charge. Oh, it couldn't be a real apology because he's a troll, right?

The responses to his final post are nothing short of despicable. Those kids should (but probably won't) be ashamed of themselves. Half the people on that thread look like part of the problem.

i dont suppose my reply got approved did it
im afraid to go back in case i turn into HULK SMASH again

Delirium · 09-08-2012 11:35AM

bluewolf wrote: »

i dont suppose my reply got approved did it
im afraid to go back in case i turn into HULK SMASH again

Nope. Haven't seen any new comments appear yet.

Sarky · 09-08-2012 11:39AM

bluey is obviously too much of a misogynistic woman-hating rape-endorsing MRA tone-troll for her comments to get approved. They can tell because she's showing concern for how things are done over there. Clearly dangerous behaviour.

Nodin · 09-08-2012 11:39AM

Sarky wrote: »

bluey is obviously too much of a misogynistic woman-hating rape-endorsing MRA tone-troll for her comments to get approved.

....she's a bit of a Gender Judas then.

09-08-2012 11:41AM

Sarky wrote: »

bluey is obviously too much of a misogynistic woman-hating rape-endorsing MRA tone-troll for her comments to get approved.

i may have said things about hypocrisy and circlejerks and um stuff

>.>

ah well, deep breath, walk away!

Standman · 09-08-2012 12:10PM

Good lord Zombrex, I admire your patience!

pH · 09-08-2012 12:47PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Seriously! You actually believe that.

I mean it must be a great comfort to the likes of Tyler Clementi family to know that the on-line abuse they suffered wasn't so bad since they had the good fortune to be born male.

For the record - no I don't [believe that].

This was the point I originally made to Michael Nugent - I can see no reason to frame the online abuse problem as a feminist one.

Michael's post on Skepchick contains 2 offensive sexists statements/ideas.

The abuse men get on the internet is somehow different (women get abused because they're women - men get abused because .... ?)

Michael Nugent wrote:

There is also the wider context of sexism in general. If we as men faced
this pattern of sick online abuse simply because of our gender, I suspect
that we would urgently take action to tackle the problem. If we fail to
take the same action when women face this problem, our inaction reinforces
prejudice and discrimination against women generally. We may not mean to
do that, and we may not even be aware of it, but the impact of our
inaction remains the same.

I'm not sure the pattern of abuse is "simply because of [women's] gender" - some of it certainly is - there are some offensive idiots out there who are hiding behind keyboards hurling abuse at women because they're women - I'm not denying that even for a second - but I don't see any need to make them special (as opposed to the RIP trolls/celeb trolls/racist trolls/homophobic trolls etc),

here's Michaels other view on this

Most men have no idea of the relentless nature of this type of online
abuse, and how devastating the cumulative impact can be. Because most men
don’t get the same type of sexual abuse as women do, and because the
Internet can seem to be an artificial environment, we can easily become
desensitized to abuse that would outrage us if it was aimed at our sisters
or friends or daughters or wives or mothers.

Another huge generalization about "most men"

On a final note, I'd still like for him to clarify/answer questions on another point he made:

Michael Nugent wrote:

We should rigorously analyze the extent of sexism in our communities, both online and offline, and we should test and refine the best ways to eradicate it.
But we must not deny that it exists, or reinforce it with prejudice and discrimination

- Have you started a review of the sexism in Atheist Ireland (ie proposed policies, conferences AI have held, articles/newsletters published and online communities such as the atheist.ie forums)
- Will the review be made public?
- Can you explain why as it's such an obvious (to you) and important problem it's taken Skepchick asking you for a comment to move you to action?
- If the review finds significant, widespread and ignored isexism and abuse (in the components of AI mentioned above) do you accept that your resignation would be appropriate?
- If the review finds minimal or no sexism - how do you proceed from there - as you say yourself that we "must not deny it exists"! - Are you seriously saying that even if this analysis found little or nothing you'd have to create some as "denying it exists" is not a valid outcome of the process?

Rev Hellfire · 09-08-2012 12:56PM

pH wrote: »

For the record - no I don't [believe that].

This was the point I originally made to Michael Nugent - I can see no reason to frame the online abuse problem as a feminist one.

My apologies I misunderstood you.

Monty Burnz · 09-08-2012 01:08PM

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Anyway - I see you're all pretty convinced that Skepchicks and co are completely in the wrong, so I won't hang around

That really sums up the spirit of the debate over there. Echo chamber, anyone?

MagicMarker · 09-08-2012 01:19PM

Just caught up on the comments there now, jesus what an absolute clusterfúck.

I think we should all have a whip round and get Zombrex some stress balls.

Galvasean · 09-08-2012 01:23PM

Guys, stop visiting the website. Stop posting there. Stop giving them credibility by attempting debate with them. Stop upping their advertisement revenue by upping their hits. Let their subculture of feigned righteous indignation die cold and alone.

Rheo wrote: »

But there were some users it seems ('generally fading' and 'davew' I think) who weren't quick off the mark to shoot you down and actually read what you wrote, and I suspect there were others too. But if the owners of the site behave like that, not too many people will speak up I imagine.

One can only hope more reasonable members will soon realise that they are part of a mob community, get fed up and leave them to it.

robindch · 09-08-2012 01:24PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Zombrex wrote: »

and has just blogged about how empirical data is over rated and anecdotal evidence is often good enough, and that those who seek empirical data are often trolls.

Oh man... Link?

That appears to come from this page:

http://skepchick.org/2012/08/a-cult-of-quantity/

Though I'm not sure where the "troll" comment comes from -- it may have been there, but subsequently removed; perhaps Wicknight can clarify.

In the comments' section, Will does appear to deny that he never said or implied that he thinks that people looking for evidence are trolls. Will's subsequent and enthusiastic descent into four-letter obscenities does not suggest, to me at least, that he's looking at it completely impartially himself.

robindch · 09-08-2012 01:25PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

[...] get Zombrex some stress balls.

And a set of stress breasts to avoid accusations of patriarchy...

// gets coat

Michael Nugent · 09-08-2012 02:32PM

pH wrote: »

The really hilarious, ironic and hypocritical thing is that this was in the comments section of a sycophantic article written for them by Michael Nugent about the horrors of online abuse.

If you believe that the best description of an article about the need to challenge online threats of violence, rape and death against women is 'sycophantic', you should reflect a bit on your ethical priorities.

pH wrote: »

and as Michael's OP quite succinctly pointed out in some detail that if you're not female then online abuse isn't that big a deal (well no where near as big a deal as for a woman)

Also, you could consider quoting instead of paraphrasing, so that you do not accidentally misrepresent what others are saying. The relevant sections of what I wrote about this are:

We should not tolerate, in any of our online or offline communities, any sexual
harassment or abuse or threats of violence against women that we would not
tolerate if they were directed against our family or close friends. On the
Internet, many women face a pattern of online sexual harassment, including
rape threats, in the technology, business, entertainment, atheist,
skeptical, pop culture, gaming and many other online communities.

This can cause women to feel hurt and frightened, to hide their female
identity online, or to retreat altogether from the Internet. And this can
in turn affect other aspects of their lives. Our online identities and
online networking are increasingly important to our social lives and
careers. And our friends and employers may see this hate speech when
searching online for information about us.

Professor Danielle Citron of University of Maryland school of law has
written extensively on this issue. She says that cyber gender harassment
can involve a perfect storm of threats conveying a desire for physical
harm, doctored photographs, privacy invasions, lies, and technical
sabotage. She reports that, from 2000 to 2010, more than seven in every
ten victims reporting cyber harassment were women. And when men were
harassed, it was often for being or seeming gay. She argues that legal
changes were crucial in the battles against domestic violence and
workplace harassment, and that we should reframe cyber gender harassment
as a civil rights violation.

We must actively tackle this problem in each of our own communities. Doing
this is one part of how the atheist and skeptical communities can start to
become more inclusive, safe and supportive, and I’ve written elsewhere in
more detail about how we can discuss this reasonably. We should also
create a united front of online activists from different online
communities, to properly research the impact of this abuse across all
online communities, and to work together to find the best ways to
eradicate it.

Most men have no idea of the relentless nature of this type of online
abuse, and how devastating the cumulative impact can be. Because most men
don’t get the same type of sexual abuse as women do, and because the
Internet can seem to be an artificial environment, we can easily become
desensitized to abuse that would outrage us if it was aimed at our sisters
or friends or daughters or wives or mothers.

Monty Burnz · 09-08-2012 02:37PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Most men have no idea of the relentless nature of this type of online
abuse, and how devastating the cumulative impact can be. Because most men
don’t get the same type of sexual abuse as women do, and because the
Internet can seem to be an artificial environment, we can easily become
desensitized to abuse that would outrage us if it was aimed at our sisters
or friends or daughters or wives or mothers.

Michael, you seem to have forgotten to address this part of the post:

pH wrote: »

- If the review finds minimal or no sexism - how do you proceed from there - as you say yourself that we "must not deny it exists"! - Are you seriously saying that even if this analysis found little or nothing you'd have to create some as "denying it exists" is not a valid outcome of the process?

Dades · 09-08-2012 02:49PM

This thread is why I don't follow blogs - individual or community.

What may have started out a noble enterprise, becomes poisoned by a false sense of celebrity and an entourage who've all been bitten by the rage monkey.

Michael Nugent · 09-08-2012 02:51PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Michael, you seem to have forgotten to address this part of the post:

I haven't forgotten - I am on a train and it is slow typing long answers. Answering this has just delayed me further

Zombrex · 09-08-2012 02:59PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Most men have no idea of the relentless nature of this type of online
abuse, and how devastating the cumulative impact can be.

Well that is easily rectified, ask them to spend 5 minutes in a discussion on Skepchick.org where they post a dissenting view point.

zing! :pac:

<shameless plug>
If anyone is interested I've a blog post discussion why I think empirical data is actually very important in this discussion. It is probably rather obvious to most of you but interested to see what you guys think

http://wicknight.wordpress.com/
</shameless plug>

Zombrex · 09-08-2012 03:02PM

Dades wrote: »

This thread is why I don't follow blogs - individual or community.

Zombrex wrote: »

If anyone is interested I've a blog post discussion why I think empirical data is actually very important in this discussion. It is probably rather obvious to most of you but interested to see what you guys think

http://wicknight.wordpress.com/

ooohhh, bad timing

Sarky · 09-08-2012 03:05PM

Odds on getting a metric f*cktonne of hateful comments?

Northclare · 09-08-2012 03:06PM

What's the big deal about that Nugent discussion,if it was collecting firewood Ye were...
I'm sure some would have around 6 trailer loads at this stage.
Keep the fire burning

MagicMarker · 09-08-2012 03:10PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I haven't forgotten - I am on a train and it is slow typing long answers. Answering this has just delayed me further

It's not the same train as yesterday is it? Are you on the trans-siberian express?

You do get around!

Northclare · 09-08-2012 03:12PM

Maybe a train of thought....choo choo choo.....

Dades · 09-08-2012 03:18PM

Zombrex wrote: »

ooohhh, bad timing

LOL - I thought the exact same thing as soon as I saw your post!
I refer of course to 'established' blogs (or those that consider themselves to be...)

I promise not to shun yours unless it gets too big for it's boots.

Michael Nugent · 09-08-2012 03:53PM

I'm going to answer these questions by assuming they are asked in a spirit of constructive discussion rather than a Jeremy Paxman style interrogation.

pH wrote: »

- Have you started a review of the sexism in Atheist Ireland (ie proposed policies, conferences AI have held, articles/newsletters published and online communities such as the atheist.ie forums)

I have started a public discussion about why atheist and skeptic groups should be inclusive, caring and supportive, and ways to discuss this reasonably. You can read the start of this discussion here:
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/07/26/why-atheist-and-skeptic-groups-should-be-inclusive-caring-and-supportive/

I believe that we should design positive policies to make the atheist and skeptical communities as inclusive, caring and supportive as possible for people of all races, genders, sexualities and abilities. This will include policies on how to help people to feel safe and enjoy themselves at our activities.

It is not only about sexism. It includes making events family-friendly and accessible to all. For example, our Atheists in the Pub events take place upstairs in the Bankers, which is inaccessible to wheelchair users. There may well be other discriminatory practices that we engage in without even thinking of it.

As one part of this, we should review the extent of sexism in our communities, as well as the extent of other prejudices and discriminations. We are also holding an international Women in Secularism conference in Dublin next year, which can help to inform us on what we should do.

pH wrote: »

- Will the review be made public?

The discussion is already public. I'm not going to prejudge how we might conduct the review, as we haven't taken any decision on that.

pH wrote: »

- Can you explain why as it's such an obvious (to you) and important problem it's taken Skepchick asking you for a comment to move you to action?

You've got things the wrong way around here. Skepchick asked me for a comment because I had already started that public discussion, and because we had already started planning for the women in secularism conference. Please consider not making assumptions before asking questions based on those assumptions.

pH wrote: »

- If the review finds significant, widespread and ignored sexism and abuse (in the components of AI mentioned above) do you accept that your resignation would be appropriate?

Please keep a sense of perspective. We are a young organisation, run by volunteers, doing a lot of work in a lot of different areas. We are now actively addressing an issue that exists within society as a whole, to see how we can make our community as inclusive and caring and supportive as we can. If you were asking whether people who may be found to be responsible for any abusive behaviour should resign, I would be more willing to take your question seriously.

pH wrote: »

- If the review finds minimal or no sexism - how do you proceed from there - as you say yourself that we "must not deny it exists"! - Are you seriously saying that even if this analysis found little or nothing you'd have to create some as "denying it exists" is not a valid outcome of the process?

I assume that you are accidentally conflating "minimal or no sexism" as if they are the same. We don't know what the level of sexism is. Denying that sexism exists is an absurd position. And please don't imply that I would create some sexism that isn't there, whatever you may mean by that.

decimatio · 09-08-2012 04:04PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

We should not tolerate, in any of our online or offline communities, any sexual harassment or abuse or threats of violence against women that we would not tolerate if they were directed against our family or close friends. On the Internet, many women face a pattern of online sexual harassment, including rape threats, in the technology, business, entertainment, atheist, skeptical, pop culture, gaming and many other online communities.

A small point, but why not people instead of women ?

Professor Danielle Citron of University of Maryland school of law has written extensively on this issue. She says that cyber gender harassment can involve a perfect storm of threats conveying a desire for physical harm, doctored photographs, privacy invasions, lies, and technical sabotage. She reports that, from 2000 to 2010, more than seven in every ten victims reporting cyber harassment were women.

Might it be worth investigating if the, at this stage, well documented fact that men don't report harassment or abuse as much as women do in the home and other situations might have an impact on these statistics?

And when men were harassed, it was often for being or seeming gay.

I don't see what relevance that has to anything. In fact I'm quite curious why you mentioned it here.

She argues that legal changes were crucial in the battles against domestic violence and workplace harassment, and that we should reframe cyber gender harassment as a civil rights violation.

I don't think anyone could argue with that.

We should also create a united front of online activists from different online communities, to properly research the impact of this abuse across all online communities, and to work together to find the best ways to eradicate it.

Might I recommend some research into trust metrics, especially as applied by such groups as Advogato.

The motivating idea for Advogato was to try out in practice Levien's ideas about attack resistant trust metrics, having users certify each other in a kind of peer review process and use this information to avoid the abuses that plague open community sites.

I'd also like to make a small comment regarding why I personally really dislike the approach which has been taken by skepchick, yourself, and others.

You're talking about women like they need special consideration over men or special protection from them and I'm not against it because I think it disadvantages men, I'm against it because I think it disadvantages women by making them out to be different. That men should handle women with care because they are more delicate.

That's not good for anyone.

09-08-2012 04:07PM

robindch wrote: »

And a set of stress breasts to avoid accusations of patriarchy...

// gets coat

Stress ovaries surely?

Northclare · 09-08-2012 04:08PM

That makes sense,I find that is some discussions on the A+A Forum can get very heated and sometimes outsiders get a right going over,whether its their beliefs or grammar,spelling,ways of translation of proper English its baffling to me to see so called educated members putting up stupid pictures etc just to belittled a persons reply,it goes for both sides of the arguments.

UDP · 09-08-2012 04:15PM

Northclare wrote: »

That makes sense,I find that is some discussions on the A+A Forum can get very heated and sometimes outsiders get a right going over,whether its their beliefs or grammar,spelling,ways of translation of proper English its baffling to me to see so called educated members putting up stupid pictures etc just to belittled a persons reply,it goes for both sides of the arguments.

I think it is fine to attack someone's belief. Correcting someone's grammer or spelling is just being a dick but it is not a personal attack all the same.

As long as someone is not attacking another person directly e.g. "you are stupid" then I don't see an issue.

Michael Nugent · 09-08-2012 04:16PM

Thanks for that, I'll check that link. It looks useful.

The reason I wrote about threats against women in that article was I was specifically asked to write an article about threats against women.

You can read my overall views in a more general sense here:
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/07/26/why-atheist-and-skeptic-groups-should-be-inclusive-caring-and-supportive/

decimatio wrote: »

You're talking about women like they need special consideration over men or special protection from them and I'm not against it because I think it disadvantages men, I'm against it because I think it disadvantages women by making them out to be different. That men should handle women with care because they are more delicate

Would you apply the same criteria to discussions about tackling racism or homophobia?

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments