Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

1…3233353738…65

Comments

  • #1022
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    OpheliaBenson wrote: »
    Another factual correction - I did not compare TAM to the Nazi party. That's a carefully fostered distortion of what I said.

    You peeps appear to be getting all your "information" from some fairly unreliable sources.
    As Jews in Germany circa 1936 might have created “a climate where Jews — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe.” As the Southern Poverty Law Center creates a climate where people who are the object of systematic vocal hatred end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe. That’s not to compare TAM with Nazi Germany or racist pockets of the US, of course, but then Rebecca didn’t name TAM in the item DJ quoted, either; she (or rather USA Today, indirectly quoting her) said “the freethought community.”.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/06/rebecca-explains/

    As a peep who is prepared to admit he's wrong if its shown to be so, I might request then an explanation of the above.....


  • #1023
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I did go forwards, we saw all the abuse that continued on after that. One person coming in to say "but i thanked him omg" doesn't exactly wipe that out



    New title? :D

    Welllll....... I think 'Gender Judas' is more t-shirt worthy meself.


  • #1024
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    OpheliaBenson wrote: »
    As long as I'm here anyway...

    @ 1014 - when I called Zombrex a dishonest ****, it was because he quoted something I'd said without mentioning that the wording he objected to was simply echoing the comment that immediately preceded mine, and ignored more than one reply where I pointed that out. (Along with the fact that he was rebuking me for that when the guy in question has been cyberstalking me for more than a year.)

    Just for the record. And you'll notice that he ended up apologizing for that (and other things), and I thanked him. You could decide to go from there, instead of going backwards.

    I'm not making any judgement on the content of the conversation, in this case Wick misquoted you and rightfully apologized, but the conduct of posters there is appalling. I think I'm spoiled by the moderation here maintaining a very civil environment where calling someone dishonest and calling someone a dishonest sh*t are two very different things. The more vitriol in a post, the less visible the actual content.


  • #1025
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Sarky wrote: »
    So can we make "f*ck off troll" a thing, or is it too soon?

    F*ck off elevator?
    bluewolf wrote: »
    giggle, they deleted my comment

    Pray, please tell us what you posted. :)


  • #1026
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Sarky wrote: »
    So can we make "f*ck off troll" a thing, or is it too soon?
    bluewolf wrote: »
    giggle, they deleted my comment

    f#ck off troll


    Yes, the thing works! :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    OpheliaBenson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30 ✭OpheliaBenson


    @ 1022 - because the comparison is "Xs protesting a social injustice creating a climate where Xs - who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe" to DJ's "women protesting sexism creating a climate where women - who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe."

    One could plug a lot of different items into X. I did a followup post after people shouted at me, agreeing that "Jews in Germany circa 1936" was the wrong item to plug in, because much too strong. Nevertheless my point was never "TAM is like Nazi Germany"; it was "accusing people who are complaining about social injustice of scaring people off is an odd thing to do, as you can see if you plug in some familiar examples of people complaining about a social injustice."


  • #1028
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    I think it's quite possible there's some overcomplication of the nature of trolling at work in some cases.

    Quite often, if a troll says something racist or sexist or whatever, it's specifically because that type of thing is most likely to get a response rather than them being first a sexist, and then going to look for people who they can be sexist at.

    Your average troll is quite versatile and I don't think most of them set out with any particular "-ist" agenda, but rather employ them as tools when the opportunity presents itself.
    They may coincidentally be a sexist, racist, homophobe but that's not necessary for you to be an effective WUM.


  • #1029
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    The term troll is pretty much a non-term since it gained popular acceptance. Even here, people get labelled troll on some fairly shaky grounds (I'm as guilty as other posters on this count.) When reputable news agencies began using it without actually knowing what it meant, the word was doomed. I just want it to disappear now.

    A tone troll is something completely new to me. I'm still not 100% on what it is.

    Is a tone troll someone who adopts a patronising tone? Someone who posts in a different format than others on a board? Someone who takes issue with other posters post style?

    If any of those are true then we are all trolls sometimes. Every one of us.


  • #1030
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    OpheliaBenson wrote: »
    As Jews in Germany circa 1936 might have created “a climate where Jews — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe.”

    @ 1022 - because the comparison is "Xs protesting a social injustice creating a climate where Xs - who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe" to DJ's "women protesting sexism creating a climate where women - who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe."

    One could plug a lot of different items into X. I did a followup post after people shouted at me, agreeing that "Jews in Germany circa 1936" was the wrong item to plug in, because much too strong. Nevertheless my point was never "TAM is like Nazi Germany"; it was "accusing people who are complaining about social injustice of scaring people off is an odd thing to do, as you can see if you plug in some familiar examples of people complaining about a social injustice."

    So essentially you didn't directly compare the organisation to the state, you just threw in 1930's Germany and Jews to make a point and lighten the tone. Hmmmm.

    Still, I was incorrect to state that you made a direct comparison and I acknowledge that error.


  • #1031
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    OpheliaBenson wrote: »
    I'd like to correct one factual item.
    "“I thought it was a safe space,” Watson said of the freethought community. “The biggest lesson I have learned over the years is that it is not a safe space and we have a lot of growing to do. The good news is there are a lot of people within the community who are interested in making it better and getting rid of our prejudices.”

    Watson is clearly making the claim here that there is a serious problem at conferences like TAM with gender based harassment.
    No, she isn't, and that's not clear at all. She said that to a reporter for the newspaper USA Today a year ago, soon after the explosion of misogyny directed at her over the elevator/Stef McGraw/whatever. TAM had nothing to do with that, so there's no reason to think she was talking about TAM when she said that.

    What happened is that a few days after the Women in Secularism conference in Washington DC last May, DJ Grothe claimed that the decline in attendance at TAM was partly due to women talking about harassment at conferences. Rebecca asked him for examples, and he gave part of the above passage as an example. He ended at "safe space..." and so left off the part where Rebecca said things were already getting better. More to the point, the above passage is a very bad example because it doesn't fit - Rebecca wasn't talking about conferences in general or TAM in particular in that passage.

    One result is that people are now deeply confused about what Rebecca said, when she said it, what she said it about, and her reasons for saying it. People are also deeply confused about what had been said about TAM before DJ blamed the talking women. Here's the answer to that: nothing. TAM wasn't the subject until DJ made it the subject. Some of us had talked about conferences and conventions in general, but no one had singled out TAM.

    Thank you for the clarification Ophelia. It does seem as if I misquoted Rebecca with this quote. My apologies. You are right in that the manner in which this entire controversy is being reported in contradictory ways across the internet. The sources which I have read on the issue had couched Rebecca's quote in terms of TAM. My bad.

    However, thanks to Nodin's link it is clear that Rebecca did indeed make a claim about TAM being unsafe.

    "So it’s odd for me to be announcing that I will not attend TAM this year, because I do not feel welcomed or safe and I disagree strongly with the recent actions of the JREF president, DJ Grothe."

    Further in the article, Rebecca adds:

    "Over the past several years, I’ve been groped, grabbed, touched in other nonconsensual ways, told I can expect to be raped, told I’m a whore, a slut, a bitch, a prude, a dyke, a ****, a twat, told I should watch my back at conferences, told I’m too ugly to be raped, told I don’t have a say in my own treatment because I’ve posed for sexy photos, told I should get a better headshot because that one doesn’t convey how sexy I am in person, told I deserve to be raped – by skeptics and atheists. All by skeptics and atheists. Constantly."

    Now, you're dead right, I am confused. Is there a widespread problem or isn't there? As unfortunate as Rebecca's experiences have been, I haven't seen anything to suggest that this is anything other than an isolated incident which, perhaps, is being overblown. Is there evidence to suggest that this is an endemic problem and can you link to it please?


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    OpheliaBenson wrote: »
    I'd like to correct one factual item.

    "“I thought it was a safe space,” Watson said of the freethought community. “The biggest lesson I have learned over the years is that it is not a safe space and we have a lot of growing to do. The good news is there are a lot of people within the community who are interested in making it better and getting rid of our prejudices.”

    Watson is clearly making the claim here that there is a serious problem at conferences like TAM with gender based harassment.
    No, she isn't, and that's not clear at all. She said that to a reporter for the newspaper USA Today a year ago, soon after the explosion of misogyny directed at her over the elevator/Stef McGraw/whatever. TAM had nothing to do with that, so there's no reason to think she was talking about TAM when she said that.

    Ophelia - this is really annoying me off, because I read and loved B&W for years - here's a post from nearly 6 years ago ... anyways ...

    You're better than this - please read the USA today interview again
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1
    P.Z. Myers, Pharyngula's founding author, a 25-year veteran of the atheist community and an ardent supporter of Watson, said when he is asked to speak at events he routinely asks if women will be invited to speak — a suggestion he said never meets with resistance.
    But Elevatorgate, he said, "was different … It opened our eyes to the importance of diversity in the movement, and when you do that, you sometimes discover there are fringes to your diversity that you don't really like."
    That, he continued, creates "an interesting problem for us."
    "We want to be welcoming to everyone and we don't want to tell men who have been active in the movement for 20 years we don't want you. What we would really like to do is educate these men to be a little more sensitive."
    Watson would like that too.
    "I thought it was a safe space," Watson said of the freethought community. "The biggest lesson I have learned over the years is that it is not a safe space and we have a lot of growing to do. The good news is there are a lot of people within the community who are interested in making it better and getting rid of our prejudices."

    The article is about conferences! Rebecca as quoted is agreeing with PZ's statement about conferences and events. TAM being one of the biggest events of this type, DJ seems entirely correct to use this as an example.
    What happened is that a few days after the Women in Secularism conference in Washington DC last May, DJ Grothe claimed that the decline in attendance at TAM was partly due to women talking about harassment at conferences. Rebecca asked him for examples, and he gave part of the above passage as an example. He ended at "safe space..." and so left off the part where Rebecca said things were already getting better. More to the point, the above passage is a very bad example because it doesn't fit - Rebecca wasn't talking about conferences in general or TAM in particular in that passage.

    I think everyone agrees that Rebecca wasn't talking about TAM in particular, I agree it's probably not the best example this and this are probably better examples.

    Whilst everyone accepts she wasn't singling out TAM - TAM is one of those conferences so it could be reasonably assumed that TAM was among the events that were being referred to.

    I'd just like to ask, if Rebecca wasn't talking about actual conferences and events what was she talking about 'I thought it was a safe space,"Watson said of the freethought community. "The biggest lesson I have learned over the years is that it is not a safe space' - there's no way Rebecca was talking about the whole internet - I can't believe she ever thought the net was a space space.


  • #1033
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    bluewolf wrote: »
    giggle, they deleted my comment
    Zombrex wrote: »
    I just found my account no longer was logged in.
    Wouldn't worry too much. The query I posted there today wasn't "approved" for posting either, so I've asked the forum mods there (Watson, I assume) to delete my account there if they/she want(s) to.

    Rational? Skeptic? Not that I can see. On the contrary, the forum mods are actively encouraging some fairly obvious groupthink, and they're either unaware of it or uncaring of it; in either case, the debate is debased to the point of absurdity by it. Paula Kirby's Sisterhood of the Oppressed describes the situation as I see it. As for the future, well, most atheists and rationalists will move on, but I rather doubt Watson will, as she's invested too much of her reputation to reverse opinion at this point.

    Otherwise, well, I think Dr Seuss said something worth saying (scroll to 35 seconds in, to skip past the song up front):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaQXOrbqAbM


  • #1034
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Thank you for the clarification Ophelia. It does seem as if I misquoted Rebecca with this quote. My apologies. You are right in that the manner in which this entire controversy is being reported in contradictory ways across the internet. The sources which I have read on the issue had couched Rebecca's quote in terms of TAM. My bad.

    However, thanks to Nodin's link it is clear that Rebecca did indeed make a claim about TAM being unsafe.

    "So it’s odd for me to be announcing that I will not attend TAM this year, because I do not feel welcomed or safe and I disagree strongly with the recent actions of the JREF president, DJ Grothe."

    Further in the article, Rebecca adds:

    "Over the past several years, I’ve been groped, grabbed, touched in other nonconsensual ways, told I can expect to be raped, told I’m a whore, a slut, a bitch, a prude, a dyke, a ****, a twat, told I should watch my back at conferences, told I’m too ugly to be raped, told I don’t have a say in my own treatment because I’ve posed for sexy photos, told I should get a better headshot because that one doesn’t convey how sexy I am in person, told I deserve to be raped – by skeptics and atheists. All by skeptics and atheists. Constantly."

    Now, you're dead right, I am confused. Is there a widespread problem or isn't there? As unfortunate as Rebecca's experiences have been, I haven't seen anything to suggest that this is anything other than an isolated incident which, perhaps, is being overblown. Is there evidence to suggest that this is an endemic problem and can you link to it please?

    I think Rebecca and DJ are both confusing the matter in an attempt to some what clumsily defend themselves.

    For a start it was some what stupid of DJ to use Rebecca's comment as evidence people are not attending TAM. He said he picked it off the top of his head. Why did he do that? He has tons of emails from women saying why they are not going to TAM. Pick one of those emails and use the reason the woman herself gave for not going. Heck pick a number of those emails. Present why in the words of the women who are actually scared to attend. He doesn't have to guess at why attendance is going down.

    DJ put himself in the firing line by guessing not only as to what Rebecca meant but also to how other women were interpreting it. That is just setting yourself to have your subjective opinion run over the coals. You can't read Rebecca's mind, nor the mind of the people who read her posts. This goes back to my personal pet peeve. Use the freaking data, the data matters. If you don't have the data get the data (ie if a woman emails in saying she isn't attending but doesn't say way ask her). But DJ had the data, he had emails explaining why women were put off by TAM (or at least that seems to be his claim).

    Rebecca seems to think TAM is actually a safe space for women that she supports so I'm sure she would have been more than happy to comment on these fears of these women to help alleviate them. Yes harassment happens but TAM is great and you aren't at any significant risk there.

    Why speculate DJ, you have the freaking data.

    And Rebecca's follow up as to why she is not going to TAM is quite confusing. It seems both a defence of her experiences of harassment (I'm really not sure where she got the idea that DJ said or even suggested she was lying, and lying about what since she didn't mention TAM. She thinks DJ is saying she is lying about experiences she never said she had?) and also a defence that she never mentioned TAM or conferences. She lists a huge amount of terrible things that have happened to her in support of the claim that yes these things actually happen (I'm not sure anyone, especially DJ, was suggesting they didn't).

    But I'm lost as to what her point was in the context of a reply to DJ. She is listing all these terrible things that members of the sceptic community have done to her in a post where she is also defending the charge that she is colouring the view point of those not attending TAM. She says she never mentioned TAM and has been sending people to TAM for years. Ok, so apparently TAM is relatively free of the constant harassment she has experienced, but is everyone supposed to just know that? It seems implied that TAM, one of the largest sceptical conferences, is a significant part of the sceptical community. A sceptical community that is supposed to be full of harassment. So is TAM not full of harassment? She never mentions TAM, but then doesn't explain why TAM would not be like the rest of the community.

    Its all very confusing. Again I think if some the harsh abusive language was toned down some what it might be easier for people to clarify their position, admit that they made errors and mistakes and have a bit more of a sensible discussion.

    Once abusive accusations start flying this becomes much harder because people naturally think that if they admit they made a mistake they are also admitting that they are everything that other people have claimed they are.


  • #1035
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,617 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    The term troll is pretty meaningless these days. It's bandied about far to easily (yes, here too) when someone is just in disagreement.

    There are really obvious trolls, of course, but then people forget that some people actually are stupid, bigoted, crass or just very convinced of their own stance. These aren't trolls, they're just part of the Internet population, for better or for worse.


  • #1036
    OpheliaBenson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30 ✭OpheliaBenson


    Thank you for the clarification Ophelia. It does seem as if I misquoted Rebecca with this quote. My apologies. You are right in that the manner in which this entire controversy is being reported in contradictory ways across the internet. The sources which I have read on the issue had couched Rebecca's quote in terms of TAM. My bad.

    However, thanks to Nodin's link it is clear that Rebecca did indeed make a claim about TAM being unsafe.

    "So it’s odd for me to be announcing that I will not attend TAM this year, because I do not feel welcomed or safe and I disagree strongly with the recent actions of the JREF president, DJ Grothe."

    Further in the article, Rebecca adds:

    "Over the past several years, I’ve been groped, grabbed, touched in other nonconsensual ways, told I can expect to be raped, told I’m a whore, a slut, a bitch, a prude, a dyke, a ****, a twat, told I should watch my back at conferences, told I’m too ugly to be raped, told I don’t have a say in my own treatment because I’ve posed for sexy photos, told I should get a better headshot because that one doesn’t convey how sexy I am in person, told I deserve to be raped – by skeptics and atheists. All by skeptics and atheists. Constantly."

    Now, you're dead right, I am confused. Is there a widespread problem or isn't there? As unfortunate as Rebecca's experiences have been, I haven't seen anything to suggest that this is anything other than an isolated incident which, perhaps, is being overblown. Is there evidence to suggest that this is an endemic problem and can you link to it please?

    oldrnwisr - thanks. Yes, Rebecca did make that claim about TAM, after DJ blamed women talking for the decline in membership and after he cited her as one example. She felt that was a considerable poke in the eye, especially given all the money she has raised for TAM in the last few years. It was DJ's accusation that made her feel unwelcome. It made me feel unwelcome too, by the way, since I was on the panel at the Women in Secularism conference that seemed to be what DJ had in mind (because harassment at conferences was mentioned there briefly).

    Yes, there is evidence that it's a massive problem. I've been following it for more than a year. There's one place that specializes in calling Rebecca and me (and others, but not as often) c*nts etc etc etc; I'm sorry but I refuse to link to it. But there's this

    http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/

    and this

    　

    skepdirt.wordpress.com/

    There are fake Twitter accounts and sock Twitter accounts.

    You could look at this one thread, derailed by people trying to get her kicked off Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

    http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/09/12/24-hours-of-skeptical-activism/


  • #1037
    OpheliaBenson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30 ✭OpheliaBenson


    pH - Rebecca was talking about the atheist/secularist part of the internet. She was talking about the vicious crap she got over the whole elevator thing.

    I can't say s h i t, can I say crap?


  • #1038
    OpheliaBenson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30 ✭OpheliaBenson




  • #1039
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    OpheliaBenson wrote: »
    oldrnwisr - thanks. Yes, Rebecca did make that claim about TAM, after DJ blamed women talking for the decline in membership and after he cited her as one example. She felt that was a considerable poke in the eye, especially given all the money she has raised for TAM in the last few years. It was DJ's accusation that made her feel unwelcome. It made me feel unwelcome too, by the way, since I was on the panel at the Women in Secularism conference that seemed to be what DJ had in mind (because harassment at conferences was mentioned there briefly).

    Yes, there is evidence that it's a massive problem. I've been following it for more than a year. There's one place that specializes in calling Rebecca and me (and others, but not as often) c*nts etc etc etc; I'm sorry but I refuse to link to it. But there's this

    http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/

    and this

    　

    skepdirt.wordpress.com/

    There are fake Twitter accounts and sock Twitter accounts.

    You could look at this one thread, derailed by people trying to get her kicked off Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

    http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/09/12/24-hours-of-skeptical-activism/


    Thank you for the added context Ophelia, things are starting to fall into place a bit better now. Also thank you for the links on the levels of internet abuse being thrown around. I think there has been some slight confusion however regarding my principal question.

    I am aware of the problem that exists on the internet with sexist and sexually charged abuse. I have seen it on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit and more besides. Indeed as I pointed out in my previous post, the level of gender related abuse being posted in the After Hours forum here is currently the subject of a feedback thread. I also pointed out as did Zombrex and others before me that adopting the guidelines that makes A&A a safe and inclusive forum such as "Don't be a dick" and "Attack the post not the poster" are things that can minimise this abuse. Level-headed moderation and a robust charter would help to avoid a situation like the one in your third link. As far, as the other links are concerned, I think the most effective solution is to lodge a complaint with WordPress directly. After all, the invective on both of those blog sites is a clear violation of WordPress' TOS:

    "By making Content available, you represent and warrant that:

    the Content is not pornographic, does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party;"

    My key concern with this issue is the claims of physical harassment at conferences. As I said previously, the internet affords people a certain anonymity which can lead to the type of abuse linked to above but this does not necessarily translate to harassment in real life. I haven't seen any evidence that this kind of internet abuse is in someway a stepping stone or gateway to harassing people in rela life. This is a far more serious problem with far reaching consequences for the atheism/skeptic movement in general. That's why, as Zombrex said, the data matters.

    So, in summary Ophelia, can you answer two questions for me. Is real-life, physical harrassment at atheist/skeptic problems a widespread problem and if so can you link me to evidence of same?


  • #1040
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Nodin wrote: »
    So essentially you didn't directly compare the organisation to the state, you just threw in 1930's Germany and Jews to make a point and lighten the tone. Hmmmm.

    Still, I was incorrect to state that you made a direct comparison and I acknowledge that error.

    Well in fairness she did admit Nazi Germany was probably a too strong example to use.

    I think everyone who spends 5 minutes on the Internet ends up doing an inappropriate Godwin at some point, but that doesn't nullify the point (I don't actually agree with her point, but it can't be dismiss just because there are Nazis in there).

    The point is that you cannot blame a group of oppressed or harassed people for the negative image of a community their oppression produces. The fault for that lies with the people who are oppressing and harassing them. This is simply an extension of the idea that you don't blame the victim for the crime. If it produces a negative image for a hotel that a rape took place in the hotel you don't blame the rape victim for reporting the crime, you blame the rapist for raping her.

    Multiply this out to a group rather than individual and the point remains, you wouldn't say that the negative image of South Africa during white only rule was because the black people were complaining too much. It was because of government oppression.

    Now there is a caveat to this though. You still need to be sure that what is happening actually is happen to the level that is claimed.

    Lets us another example. You can't blame the negative image of black people as criminals on the victims of black crime. The problem is black people robbing white people.

    See, not so simple. That sounds awful close to racial stereotyping. If a person is robbed by a black man that ends up being a fact of his experience. The criminal was black. Ok, but there is a line some where when that fact turns into a generalisation about black people and crime.

    Unlike the South African government (or the Nazi party) black people are not a single ideological group. A single black man robbed you. You can actually be called to account if what you are suggesting following that is that there is an issue in the black community with crime. If the suggestion is that because a lot of white people are being robbed by a lot of black people there is a problem with black people then yes actually you can blame this image on those victims of crime who suggest this.

    Now, clarification, all that is extreme examples and I'm not saying the situation the situation in the sceptic community is equivalent to any particular one. The point is to illustrate that while the mantra "You can't blame the victims" sounds reasonable it, like every thing else, requires closer examination. It all depends on what is being suggest by the victims and whether it has merit by itself. You can't blame the victims is not an immediate conversation or debate ender.

    While a lot of the discussion of sexual harassment in the sceptical community focuses only on individual accounts, a lot of it also focuses on generalisations. These generalisations are generalisations about men (mostly) in the sceptical community. They range from suggestions that misogny is rife in the community right up to the rather extreme that harassment and assault is rife in the community.

    That does require examination and it is not "blaming the victim" to do so. If it becomes well established that this is actually the case, that these things are actually rife in the community, and then people start calling for victims to shut up about it because it is producing a negative imagine of the community, then that is blaming the victim.


  • #1041
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Dades wrote: »
    The term troll is pretty meaningless these days. It's bandied about far to easily (yes, here too) when someone is just in disagreement.

    There are really obvious trolls, of course, but then people forget that some people actually are stupid, bigoted, crass or just very convinced of their own stance. These aren't trolls, they're just part of the Internet population, for better or for worse.

    I don't suppose you can add it to the language filter?


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    OpheliaBenson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30 ✭OpheliaBenson


    oldrn -
    My key concern with this issue is the claims of physical harassment at conferences. As I said previously, the internet affords people a certain anonymity which can lead to the type of abuse linked to above but this does not necessarily translate to harassment in real life. I haven't seen any evidence that this kind of internet abuse is in someway a stepping stone or gateway to harassing people in rela life. This is a far more serious problem with far reaching consequences for the atheism/skeptic movement in general. That's why, as Zombrex said, the data matters.

    So, in summary Ophelia, can you answer two questions for me. Is real-life, physical harrassment at atheist/skeptic problems a widespread problem and if so can you link me to evidence of same?

    One, I don't know (personally), and two, no, I can't.

    On the first one - from what I'm told (and read etc), it's not widespread, but it does exist. But for me that's totally hearsay. I've been to only a few conferences, and have seen no harassment. This is specifically sexual harassment I'm talking about, not physical harassment in general.

    I will say though - some of the comments I've seen (and been sent) about me do make me a little nervous that way. Some of them are so deranged and so frothing with hatred that I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the men who made them. A certain level of obsession and rage does come across as a possible prelude to violence. But...who knows.

    So, in sum: the concern as far as I know is sexual harassment, not violence. Yes it happens, no it's not widespread; I'm told. No there's nothing to link to because it is very difficult to report - again, I'm told.


  • #1043
    Jellicoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    OpheliaBenson wrote: »
    I can say crap. Good. But really it was s h i t.

    A race to the bottom


  • #1044
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,213 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    Can we call this Zombrex-gate now?


  • #1045
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mewso wrote: »
    Can we call this Zombrex-gate now?

    I think Troll-gate sounds better. :P


  • #1046
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    OpheliaBenson wrote: »
    oldrn -



    One, I don't know (personally), and two, no, I can't.

    On the first one - from what I'm told (and read etc), it's not widespread, but it does exist. But for me that's totally hearsay. I've been to only a few conferences, and have seen no harassment. This is specifically sexual harassment I'm talking about, not physical harassment in general.

    I will say though - some of the comments I've seen (and been sent) about me do make me a little nervous that way. Some of them are so deranged and so frothing with hatred that I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the men who made them. A certain level of obsession and rage does come across as a possible prelude to violence. But...who knows.

    So, in sum: the concern as far as I know is sexual harassment, not violence. Yes it happens, no it's not widespread; I'm told. No there's nothing to link to because it is very difficult to report - again, I'm told.


    Thank you for that. My first atheist/skeptic conference was last year's GAC in Dublin and I have to say that I couldn't have had a better experience (kudos to Michael Nugent & AI btw). It bothered me slightly though when this controversy began to build because it didn't track at all with what I'd witnessed in Dublin. The atmosphere was convivial and everyone, particularly on Saturday night, seemed to have some long, interesting and enjoyable discussions.

    I know that there have been some incidents of harrassment such as Rebecca's experiences or those related by Cristina Rad (zomgitscriss) here. However, it seems that some simple measures like better interaction between the event organisers and the staff of the hotel or centre where the conference is being held should minimise this kind of thing.

    EDIT: I would like to add that just as other posters have suggested, I do hope you stick around to join in the debates on this forum.


  • #1047
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I think Troll-gate sounds better. :P
    Wick-gate perhaps?


  • #1048
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Thank you for that. My first atheist/skeptic conference was last year's GAC in Dublin and I have to say that I couldn't have had a better experience (kudos to Michael Nugent & AI btw). It bothered me slightly though when this controversy began to build because it didn't track at all with what I'd witnessed in Dublin. The atmosphere was convivial and everyone, particularly on Saturday night, seemed to have some long, interesting and enjoyable discussions.

    I know that there have been some incidents of harrassment such as Rebecca's experiences or those related by Cristina Rad (zomgitscriss) here. However, it seems that some simple measures like better interaction between the event organisers and the staff of the hotel or centre where the conference is being held should minimise this kind of thing.

    Well actually one thing that came out of the Skepchick cluster f**k thread was a site called secularcensus.

    An interesting statistic (and take it with a grain of salt as I'm not sure how statistically sound that survey was), was that in terms of unwanted advances women were nearly as likely to encounter this from organisers themselves than from conference goers. (15% to 23%)

    I'm not quite sure what this means and how to address it but to me it called into question how effective things like harassment polices and things like that can be, given that those tasked with enforcing such policies can be part of the issue as well. Certainly in any event I've been involved in organising (which I point out have never been a secular/sceptic event) the organisers tend to have a notion that they are above the rules that apply to everyone else.

    It is not like I have a solution though, just something to keep in mind.
    Have you ever felt unwelcome, discriminated against, or harmed in the secular movement?
    Responding Yes:
    11.4% - Overall
    14.4% - Women

    Which of these factors contributed to this experience?* (Multiple responses permitted.)
    77% - Words, actions, or attitudes of other participants
    46% - Words, actions, or attitudes of organizers, leaders, or employees
    23% - Unwanted advances by other participants
    15.4% - Unwanted advances by organizers, leaders, or employees
    15.4% - Programs or positions of the organization itself
    8% - Choice of activity or venue


  • #1049
    OpheliaBenson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30 ✭OpheliaBenson


    Thank you for that. My first atheist/skeptic conference was last year's GAC in Dublin and I have to say that I couldn't have had a better experience (kudos to Michael Nugent & AI btw). It bothered me slightly though when this controversy began to build because it didn't track at all with what I'd witnessed in Dublin. The atmosphere was convivial and everyone, particularly on Saturday night, seemed to have some long, interesting and enjoyable discussions.

    Yes. I've had a brilliant time at the few conferences I've been to. One was QED in Manchester last March - it was fantastic. (My friend the Jesus and Mo cartoonist was there for the last afternoon, and we talked&talked&talked.) I haven't a word to say against any of them.


  • #1050
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,852 ✭✭✭condra


    Is this whole brouhaha about harrassment online or IRW?

    As far as I can tell, online harrassment is a problem across the internet, which affects both men and women, and not just within the atheist community.

    In the real world, is there genuinely a major problem with sexism/misogyny in the atheist community and particularly at social events? ... Really?

    Was the Reason Rally marred by masses of men groping women, calling them c***s, and asking them for coffee?

    Regarding Rebecca Watson and hate mail. Isn’t that a sign that you’ve “arrived” on the celebrity scene? I know Richard Dawkins gets just as much hate mail and threats, but he takes it all in his stride.

    Then again, rather than exaggerate her achievements, it would be more appropriate to compare Rebecca to the “Angry Ginger Kid” on YouTube. When you present yourself very publicly online as someone who is ready to overreact to everything, you attract a lot of attention from trolls.

    Ever hear the term “don’t feed the trolls”? .. Rebecca Watson is a Troll food mountain, and she knows it, and she exploits it, and that’s what she's known for... playing the victim, and stirring the pot.

    This whole thing should be a storm in a teacup, but when you see heavyweights such as PZ Myers and Michael Nugent pandering to these brats, you realize the true sickness in the core of the atheist community is not misogyny, but fear of causing offense. F*** that.


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    [/I]Further in the article, Rebecca adds:

    "Over the past several years, I’ve been groped, grabbed, touched in other nonconsensual ways, told I can expect to be raped, told I’m a whore, a slut, a bitch, a prude, a dyke, a ****, a twat, told I should watch my back at conferences, told I’m too ugly to be raped, told I don’t have a say in my own treatment because I’ve posed for sexy photos, told I should get a better headshot because that one doesn’t convey how sexy I am in person, told I deserve to be raped – by skeptics and atheists. All by skeptics and atheists. Constantly."

    Has this person ever explained why she didn't call the guards or security for the physical threats? Has she ever explained the context/s under which the insults occurred? Has she ever explained why she went back more than once to any conference?


Advertisement