Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Mark Hamill · 20-08-2012 09:27PM

Kooli wrote: »

If it's sounds patronising then I'm explaining it wrong!
It's just about listening. When someone from one of those groups is telling you about their experience. Accepting that they know better than you do.

But I'm not bringing any privilege to the able when I interact with others. I'm not going to contradict someone who tells me of their negative personal experiences they got because someone else brought privilege with them, but for that person to assume that I need to be told about this privilege is itself biased and that is what we really need to work past. People should stop making assumptions about other sexes, races, ages etc.

Kooli wrote: »

The world is based around the experiences of white, cis, hetero men, with everything else being 'other'. So actually it's a luxury of white, heterosexual, men to think of themselves as 'just people'

But if we all think if each other as just people, then these privileges disappear.

Kooli wrote: »

I recognise that sexism hasn't been an issue on this forum since I've been a member, and I do appreciate this.
But I'm a feminist first and an atheist second, so if people start to resist feminist principles in a particular space, I will move away.

Why should one come first? How are they both not aspects of a rational mind?

Kooli wrote: »

So as I said before, for me it's not the specifics of those small incidents at conferences etc, it's the reaction of a community when they are asked to look at issues of sexism (that reaction being an automatic 'it doesn't happen' or 'crazy feminazis' etc.)

But the specifics of those incidents are going to colour the reactions of the community. An extreme claim can give rise to an extreme denial and while the denial may not be entirely true, it may be far closer to the truth than the original claim. The community may react in a more understanding way if the claims are made more rationally and honestly. I don't necessarily mean that the claims may be dishonest, but the debating tactics of those making the claims, (such as those who moderate the FTB forums, as evidenced by posts in this thread) may be acting dishonestly.

Kooli · 20-08-2012 09:45PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But I'm not bringing any privilege to the able when I interact with others. I'm not going to contradict someone who tells me of their negative personal experiences they got because someone else brought privilege with them, but for that person to assume that I need to be told about this privilege is itself biased and that is what we really need to work past. People should stop making assumptions about other sexes, races, ages etc.

But if we all think if each other as just people, then these privileges disappear.

Why should one come first? How are they both not aspects of a rational mind?

But the specifics of those incidents are going to colour the reactions of the community. An extreme claim can give rise to an extreme denial and while the denial may not be entirely true, it may be far closer to the truth than the original claim. The community may react in a more understanding way if the claims are made more rationally and honestly. I don't necessarily mean that the claims may be dishonest, but the debating tactics of those making the claims, (such as those who moderate the FTB forums, as evidenced by posts in this thread) may be acting dishonestly.

Again I'm not going to get into a back and forth, because perhaps we have different understandings of privilege. Privilege is simply an unearned advantage that a dominant group has over a marginalised group, and that dominant group can't decide suddenly that privilege doesn't exist. Nor does it disappear if we stop talking about it. Quite the opposite actually. Another link that explains privilege in this specific context (equality) is here: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
Only if you're interested. I'm not pushing on anyone but I do recommend it, and it's just because we seem to be talking about different things.

As for your question about why should one come first. I don't get the relevance of a rational mind. Yes they can both be products of a rational mind, but I don't know what that has to do with one aspect of identity being more important to me than the other?

What I mean is that I identify as a feminist more strongly than I do as an atheist. Usually this is irrelevant because they both sit comfortably together, but if an atheist space starts to display sexism or misogyny I will move away because I prioritise feminism. Whereas if a feminist space started to display anti-atheist sentiment, it wouldn't bother me as much because being a woman is more core to who I am and more important to me than being an atheist.

It's like when black women distanced themselves from the feminism movement because they felt there was institutionalised racism within it, and the women most prominent in the movement didn't speak to their experience at all. So even these women who were explicitly fighting oppression weren't immune to doling out their own oppression and discrimination. But an effort to recognise this is part of third wave feminism and I think the current movement does a great job of trying to keep an eye on these issues and trying to ensure it isn't perpetuating oppressive practices (not always successfully, but it's never going to be straightforward because we often don't recognise our privilege until it's pointed out to us)

Mark Hamill · 20-08-2012 10:14PM

Kooli wrote: »

Again I'm not going to get into a back and forth, because perhaps we have different understandings of privilege. Privilege is simply an unearned advantage that a dominant group has over a marginalised group, and that dominant group can't decide suddenly that privilege doesn't exist. Nor does it disappear if we stop talking about it. Quite the opposite actually.

Actually it will only disappear if we stop talking about it. Not "deny it ever existed" stop talking about it, but "realise that it only keeps on existing if we keep bringing it up" stop talking about it. The way society gives privilege to certain groups is bad, but we only get past this is society stops giving those privileges and part of that is to stop acting as they are inherently there, rather than a product of a certain environment. I lose my privilege as a heterosexual if I go into a gay bar, I lose my privilege of being white if I go to a middle eastern country. These privileges exist only in peoples minds and teh sooner they get over them the better.

Kooli wrote: »

Another link that explains privilege in this specific context (equality) is here: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
Only if you're interested. I'm not pushing on anyone but I do recommend it, and it's just because we seem to be talking about different things.

That wont change if you keep using other peoples arguments.

Kooli wrote: »

As for your question about why should one come first. I don't get the relevance of a rational mind. Yes they can both be products of a rational mind, but I don't know what that has to do with one aspect of identity being more important to me than the other?

What I mean is that I identify as a feminist more strongly than I do as an atheist. Usually this is irrelevant because they both sit comfortably together, but if an atheist space starts to display sexism or misogyny I will move away because I prioritise feminism. Whereas if a feminist space started to display anti-atheist sentiment, it wouldn't bother me as much because being a woman is more core to who I am and more important to me than being an atheist.

Why are they aspects of your identity? Why are they not just products of, what I assume is, a rational mind? Sexism is irrational as much as religion is irrational. Hell, religion is usually sexist. It seems irrational to me to be supportive of an irrational environment, simply because of a privilege you think you are getting. One kind of irrational behaviour generally encourages more. Its better to fight all irrationality as one - be it theistic, sexist, racist, homophobic etc. because it is all one. They are all predicated on the same types of irrational behaviour, they are all supported with cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies and insecurities of the oppressors.

fitz0 · 20-08-2012 10:18PM

Buttonftw wrote: »

Sorry but I don't like the idea of a "movement" that I'm supposed to recruit for or appeal to some "groups" that apparently are too sensitive or don't feel enough in common with me. I don't believe in God, that's as far as it goes. I'm not part of a movement or a bloody hippy colony.

Couldn't agree more. The us and them mentally of ftb is baffling in the connect of 'skeptics' - people who identify themselves as actively questioning all assertions put to them to discern truth - these people are just passing the bottle round and congratulating each other for drinking.

Now they have a 'movement' to get behind and if you don't get behind it you better shut up or face their ire.

Where's the scepticism? If I wanted preaching I'd go to mass.

Ickle Magoo · 20-08-2012 10:53PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the specifics of those incidents are going to colour the reactions of the community. An extreme claim can give rise to an extreme denial and while the denial may not be entirely true, it may be far closer to the truth than the original claim. The community may react in a more understanding way if the claims are made more rationally and honestly. I don't necessarily mean that the claims may be dishonest, but the debating tactics of those making the claims, (such as those who moderate the FTB forums, as evidenced by posts in this thread) may be acting dishonestly.

While that may be true - such a reaction does absolutely nothing to promote the skeptic community as inclusive, rational thinking and progressive...it really doesn't.

Good grief, I actually can't believe this shít is still rumbling on. There seems to be an ever-increasing number of people in the skeptic community who are making a proper public show of themselves and doing no favours for the popularity/respect the "movement" (I don't like that term but I think you know what I mean) is given in wider society - it's beyond embarrassing at this stage.

I absolutely cringe at the OTT and divisive remarks made - made about people (mostly men) I've interacted with happily in this forum & the real world for many years and had little to no gender-related issues with...but equally I cringe at every "elevator-gate" gag and jibe towards women feeling excluded or who have suggested that in their experience there is an issue. Most frustratingly of all from someone who finds all this talk of how ignorant/disrespectful the community can be expected to be a complete mystery - because it's utterly self-defeating. To the casual observer those kind of jibes and circle-jerk tactics only gives weight to the OTT claims.

Kooli wrote:

The resistance to the very idea that there is more the community could do to be inclusive, or that there already exists very real examples of marginalisation, is very difficult to understand.

And I think that's it in a nutshell. While I understand the righteous indignation at the suggestion adults cannot or should not pursue other adults in a sexual manner at these conferences - it's naive in the extreme to think that publicly arguing for the right to hit on the minority of women who are at such events was ever going to make attending such events an appealing prospect or make those arguing for such rights look anything other than boorish and insensitive.

Sadly, I think naive describes this whole fiasco best. Naivety in creating that initial illusion that "a guy cracking onto uninterested girl" is a huge issue, never mind specific to the skeptic community and naivety in the greater community in how they reacted and have continued reacting pettily to each other. *bangs heads together*

Kooli · 20-08-2012 10:56PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually it will only disappear if we stop talking about it. Not "deny it ever existed" stop talking about it, but "realise that it only keeps on existing if we keep bringing it up" stop talking about it. The way society gives privilege to certain groups is bad, but we only get past this is society stops giving those privileges and part of that is to stop acting as they are inherently there, rather than a product of a certain environment. I lose my privilege as a heterosexual if I go into a gay bar, I lose my privilege of being white if I go to a middle eastern country. These privileges exist only in peoples minds and teh sooner they get over them the better.

That wont change if you keep using other peoples arguments.

Why are they aspects of your identity? Why are they not just products of, what I assume is, a rational mind? Sexism is irrational as much as religion is irrational. Hell, religion is usually sexist. It seems irrational to me to be supportive of an irrational environment, simply because of a privilege you think you are getting. One kind of irrational behaviour generally encourages more. Its better to fight all irrationality as one - be it theistic, sexist, racist, homophobic etc. because it is all one. They are all predicated on the same types of irrational behaviour, they are all supported with cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies and insecurities of the oppressors.

It's not 'using other people's arguments'. I'm pointing you towards a link that explains the issue of privilege (in this context) much more fully and eloquently than I could (and in more depth than is appropriate on this thread). If you read it you would understand why I disagree completely and entirely with your assertion that privilege would disappear if we stopped talking about it. That is 100% the total opposite of how privilege works. You would understand that if you read the link.

As for your second paragraph, I don't really get what you're asking when you say 'Why are they aspects of your identity?'. Why wouldn't they be? What's the problem if they are? Why separate 'part of my identity' from 'a product of a rational mind' as if I have to choose one or the other?
We all have identities, comprised of multiple parts. These are mine (among many others - my family and societal roles, my profession, my nationality, my sexual orientation etc.). I don't have a problem with that, and I'm not sure why anyone else would either. In the areas where I have privilege (sexual orientation, race, class), I could just as easily say "I see everyone as 'people', not as black and white or gay or straight", but I recognise that is my privilege speaking. It's a privilege not to notice sexuality or race, and that privilege is not afforded to those who are members of the oppressed group.

Anyway, we're getting into feminism 101 here (or social justice 101) which isn't what this thread is about, but I really recommend that link to anyone who wants to understand the issue of privilege (in this specific context)

tdawg · 20-08-2012 11:23PM

What does any of this have to do specifically with atheism, rather than being a wider issue?

Kooli · 20-08-2012 11:33PM

tdawg wrote: »

What does any of this have to do specifically with atheism, rather than being a wider issue?

I guess it's to do with atheism because it is a wider issue.

The atheist community (as much as it's an organised community) takes place within a society that is often sexist, racist, homophobic etc.
With any community, there is a choice to take a progressive stance and work against those forces of oppression, or to ignore them and then potentially perpetuate them.

For atheism specifically, it has traditionally been led by white men. Which is fine. But if the community wants to attract more women, people of colour, gay people etc., it will have to take these people into account. If this isn't done deliberately, then the natural progression will that the people who do the talking, the views that get represented and the topics that get all the focus will be a mirror of the wider society, and may act to exclude certain groups.

So it's relevant to the atheist community if the atheist community wants to be inclusive, progressive and committed to social justice.
If it doesn't, and it's happy to risk excluding those that don't fit the traditional model, then I guess it's not relevant.

Nodin · 20-08-2012 11:42PM

Kooli wrote: »

I guess it's to do with atheism because it is a wider issue.

The atheist community (as much as it's an organised community) takes place within a society that is often sexist, racist, homophobic etc.
With any community, there is a choice to take a progressive stance and work against those forces of oppression, or to ignore them and then potentially perpetuate them.

For atheism specifically, it has traditionally been led by white men. Which is fine. But if the community wants to attract more women, people of colour, gay people etc., it will have to take these people into account. If this isn't done deliberately, then the natural progression will that the people who do the talking, the views that get represented and the topics that get all the focus will be a mirror of the wider society, and may act to exclude certain groups.

So it's relevant to the atheist community if the atheist community wants to be inclusive, progressive and committed to social justice.
If it doesn't, and it's happy to risk excluding those that don't fit the traditional model, then I guess it's not relevant.

All well and good. It's shame RW and co didn't have any interest in that kind of thing.

tdawg · 20-08-2012 11:42PM

Kooli wrote: »

I guess it's to do with atheism because it is a wider issue.

The atheist community (as much as it's an organised community) takes place within a society that is often sexist, racist, homophobic etc.
With any community, there is a choice to take a progressive stance and work against those forces of oppression, or to ignore them and then potentially perpetuate them.

For atheism specifically, it has traditionally been led by white men. Which is fine. But if the community wants to attract more women, people of colour, gay people etc., it will have to take these people into account. If this isn't done deliberately, then the natural progression will that the people who do the talking, the views that get represented and the topics that get all the focus will be a mirror of the wider society, and may act to exclude certain groups.

So it's relevant to the atheist community if the atheist community wants to be inclusive, progressive and committed to social justice.
If it doesn't, and it's happy to risk excluding those that don't fit the traditional model, then I guess it's not relevant.

But I just don't believe in god?

I am as much a part of 'the atheism community' as I am the pizza eating community..... Scratch that I am much more heavily involved in the pizza eating community.

Should the pizza loving community (this makes as much sense to me) worry about these issues as a group rather than as part of the wider community?

20-08-2012 11:44PM

Again, I don't believe in God, that's all and for most people it's the same. Liberalism, progressivism etc. are separate topics outside the scope of the movement and your post again seems a way of trying to meld two completely separate things together to suit your own ends.

Ickle Magoo · 20-08-2012 11:52PM

tdawg wrote: »

But I just don't believe in god?

I am as much a part of 'the atheism community' as I am the pizza eating community..... Scratch that I am much more heavily involved in the pizza eating community.

Should the pizza loving community (this makes as much sense to me) worry about these issues as a group rather than as part of the wider community?

If you don't consider yourself part of "the" community then I'm not sure why you'd waste time bothering about what those who do consider themselves part of a community do or say.

condra · 21-08-2012 12:00AM

How exactly can this "able bodied white male dominated" atheist community be more inclusive to women, gays, amputees and other minotirys?

(Apart from taking down the "no women, gays or amputees" posters at the conventions...)

It's NONSENSE

Michael Nugent · 21-08-2012 12:14AM

condra wrote: »

Maybe, as Michael Nugent suggests, we should have all atheist gatherings in wheelchair accessible venues. Perhaps with harassment policies plastered on the walls. We should probably also make sure 50% of the speakers are female, non-white, disabled, and get a guy with turrets syndrome in for good measure.

Putting aside the hyperbole of your comment, which of these do you think is a better scenario:

Atheist gatherings in wheelchair-accessible venues, with policies to protect anybody from being harassed, and with speakers that broadly represent the different types of people in society, or

Atheist gatherings in non-wheelchair-accessible venues, with no policies to protect people from being harassed, and with speakers that represent mostly people with many unearned social advantages?

tdawg · 21-08-2012 12:14AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you don't consider yourself part of "the" community then I'm not sure why you'd waste time bothering about what those who do consider themselves part of a community do or say.

If you read between the lines what I'm saying it is that I think the idea that atheists can be meaningfully grouped as a community is bizarre. To me its like talking about the male community (what exactly would that be?).

I see more along the lines of people who post on these blogs and attend conferences deciding that they are the 'atheist community'.

Michael Nugent · 21-08-2012 12:17AM

condra wrote: »

How exactly can this "able bodied white male dominated" atheist community be more inclusive to women, gays, amputees and other minotirys?

(Apart from taking down the "no women, gays or amputees" posters at the conventions...)

It's NONSENSE

Again, putting aside the hyperbole of your question, the answer is to start by asking the people who are disproportionately underrepresented what they think we could do to make the community more inclusive and caring and supportive.

Ickle Magoo · 21-08-2012 12:18AM

tdawg wrote: »

If you read between the lines what I'm saying it is that I think the idea that atheists can be meaningfully grouped as a community is bizarre. To me its like talking about the male community (what exactly would that be?).

I see more along the lines of people who post on these blogs and attend conferences deciding that they are the 'atheist community'.

For the most part I completely agree - I think it's the community of atheist bloggers and conference attendees and other publishing regulars...but when they seek to speak for or about me, I can't help feeling I'm being made part of that "community"...

Michael Nugent · 21-08-2012 12:33AM

tdawg wrote: »

If you read between the lines what I'm saying it is that I think the idea that atheists can be meaningfully grouped as a community is bizarre. To me its like talking about the male community (what exactly would that be?).

I see more along the lines of people who post on these blogs and attend conferences deciding that they are the 'atheist community'.

Ultimately, membership of a community is a subjective choice.

People who collectively self-identify as members of a community are part of that community, and people who don't are not.

As in any other area of life, the term "atheist community" is short-hand for those atheists who feel part of that community.

21-08-2012 12:41AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Putting aside the hyperbole of your comment, which of these do you think is a better scenario:

Atheist gatherings in wheelchair-accessible venues, with policies to protect anybody from being harassed, and with speakers that broadly represent the different types of people in society, or

Atheist gatherings in non-wheelchair-accessible venues, with no policies to protect people from being harassed, and with speakers that represent mostly people with many unearned social advantages?

George W. Bush, great president or the greatest president?

BluntGuy · 21-08-2012 01:28AM

Kooli wrote: »

For atheism specifically, it has traditionally been led by white men. Which is fine. But if the community wants to attract more women, people of colour, gay people etc., it will have to take these people into account. If this isn't done deliberately, then the natural progression will that the people who do the talking, the views that get represented and the topics that get all the focus will be a mirror of the wider society, and may act to exclude certain groups.

As a bisexual, "person of colour" (?), I feel no disinclination to be involved in any "atheist movement" based on the feeling that I will be discriminated against on the basis of "race" or sexuality. I accept racism and homophobia (obviously) occur in society, but specifically what has to be done in your view, for example, to take me "into account" in the "skeptical community", as a member of "these people"?

decimatio · 21-08-2012 02:00AM

Kooli wrote: »

The world is based around the experiences of white, cis, hetero men, with everything else being 'other'. So actually it's a luxury of white, heterosexual, men to think of themselves as 'just people' and it's a fiction that these are not privileges. They just are. There was a great blog post about it 'Straight white male: the lowest difficulty setting'.

The "world" is based on what? Whose world is that?

If by "world" you mean America than I dont know enough about the Americas to disagree with you.

I wonder if this whole cesspool of nonsense has more to do with culture differences than anything else. I think equality of the sexes has largely being achieved in a lot of Western Europe. The last remenants of which are disappearing at a steady rate.

Ireland is lagging behind in many areas, abortion legality for one example, but in other areas we are near the front. I don't know f-all about American culture but I have noticed an enormous difference between Irish and American women. I really believe young Irish people couldn't care less what plumbing you're equipped with except for how it relates to their love lives.

As for the rest of the "world", I live in East Asia and couldn't disagree more. I'm discrimated against because I'm not Asian, I'm discriminated against because I'm not North American and I'm discriminated against because I'm not female.

I recognise that sexism hasn't been an issue on this forum since I've been a member, and I do appreciate this.
But I'm a feminist first and an atheist second, so if people start to resist feminist principles in a particular space, I will move away.

I'm not a feminist because from what I can see of feminism in the west these days it's aim is special rights for women, not equal ones. Its creating the image that women are victims and need to be treated as such. Women are not victims, they are my friends, my sisters, my co-workers, my family, my lovers, and my comrades.

I'm an atheist largely because of how religion has treated women and I believe equality of the sexes and races is of paramount importance.

I couldn't disagree with the ftb/skepchick alliance more.

Take one case. In the incident regarding numbers of women at conferences watson etc claimed that more women speakers would equal more women attendees. Really? So watson woukd like us to believe that one of the major factors in drawing women to conferences is not the quality of the speaker but instead the speakers biological plumbing?

Well excuse me but I have more respect for my fellow homo sapiens than that. I like a singer because of their voice and songs, I like an author because of their writing, I like a speaker because of their intellect and subject matter.

I don't like Sam Harris because he's a man and I don't like hirsi ali because she's a woman.

The suggestion by watson is insulting to women.

Mark Hamill · 21-08-2012 02:02AM

Kooli wrote: »

It's not 'using other people's arguments'. I'm pointing you towards a link that explains the issue of privilege (in this context) much more fully and eloquently than I could (and in more depth than is appropriate on this thread). If you read it you would understand why I disagree completely and entirely with your assertion that privilege would disappear if we stopped talking about it. That is 100% the total opposite of how privilege works. You would understand that if you read the link.

If I read the link I would be responding to the link, not you, which would defeat the point in you and I discussing this issue on a discussion forum. There is no point in having a discussion with someone who will point to someone elses arguments in lieu of defending their own points.

I know what privilege is, I am not denying what it is. The problem is that privilege is a result of environment, not an inherent part of sexuality/race/colour etc. I have privilege as a white person in Ireland, I dont have the same privilege in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. You remove privilege by recognising it is artificial, by not ignoring it never existed, but by ignoring its existence now. Besides the inherent patronisation of having to watch my words around everyone and anyone different to me in any way, it would make no difference how careful I am to combat my white/male/heterosexual etc. privilege in every situation, if every non-white/non-male/non-heterosexual person sees me as having privilege by default anyway. Its not a case of never pointing out when you suspect someone is abusing privilege, its a case of not allowing avoidance of privilege become an elephant in the room in every situation, thus creating a new privilege.

Kooli wrote: »

As for your second paragraph, I don't really get what you're asking when you say 'Why are they aspects of your identity?'. Why wouldn't they be? What's the problem if they are? Why separate 'part of my identity' from 'a product of a rational mind' as if I have to choose one or the other?
We all have identities, comprised of multiple parts. These are mine (among many others - my family and societal roles, my profession, my nationality, my sexual orientation etc.). I don't have a problem with that, and I'm not sure why anyone else would either.

Because it's irrational and leads to people holding to labels instead of rationality. This is part of what is happening with the FTB and the skeptic/athest community. Instead of people just being skeptical, they self label as "skeptic" and holding on to that label becomes more important than actually being skeptical. Everything that I "am", every label that society applies to me, is simply a result of my rational mind (or what my mind thinks is rational). I don't have a belief in god/s simply because it is the most rational position IMO. I believe in equal rights for everyone simply because its the most rational position. But I will change my position if I am convinced of another, without pause, because I (do my best to) reject emotional attachments to labels that may accompany my various positions, be it "atheist", "gay rights advocate", "feminist" etc. My identity is the result of the way I think, not the other way around.

Kooli wrote: »

In the areas where I have privilege (sexual orientation, race, class), I could just as easily say "I see everyone as 'people', not as black and white or gay or straight", but I recognise that is my privilege speaking. It's a privilege not to notice sexuality or race, and that privilege is not afforded to those who are members of the oppressed group.

This is the problem I was talking about. All of a sudden, refuting privilege becomes itself a privilege. If the "privileged" don't notice sex or race, then who is oppressing other sexes or races?

decimatio · 21-08-2012 02:25AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

[

If you don't consider yourself part of "the" community then I'm not sure why you'd waste time bothering about what those who do consider themselves part of a community do or say.

I think what he's getting at is that the title of Atheist says almost nothing about the person except for the obvious dismissal of the claims of theism.

But the schism in the community is about some people trying to associate The community with other ideologies.

For example PZ Myers seems to think that to be part of this community you must be left wing politically. Now I happen to be left wing myself but that's not because of my atheism or even my scepticism.

The claims of the religious are easy to dismiss with scientific enquiry. Try doing the same with politics.

One can use sceptical enquiry to dismiss certain political positions but not for others. For example I am pro-abortion but I can have a civil discussion with someone who isnt who has good reasons for their position.

Myers has no problem lying about and personally attacking people who disagree with his political and feminist position and for me that's unacceptable.

I read an article before which stated that one group of Atheists that feel more and more unwelcome at Atheist conferences are American people who are right wing politically because the atheist community is starting to push left wing politics more and more. Shouldn't we worry about inclusion of these individuals?

condra · 21-08-2012 02:27AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Putting aside the hyperbole of your comment, which of these do you think is a better scenario:

Atheist gatherings in wheelchair-accessible venues, with policies to protect anybody from being harassed, and with speakers that broadly represent the different types of people in society, or

Atheist gatherings in non-wheelchair-accessible venues, with no policies to protect people from being harassed, and with speakers that represent mostly people with many unearned social advantages?

Michael, those two extremes are not the only options, so nobody need choose between the two.

If the topic is atheism, I couldn't care less if four speakers are all women, half hermapherodite, or disabled bisexual Mexicans, though it would be an interesting coincidence.

Likewise, I'm happy enough for common sense and law of the land to encourage good behaviour when I go to the cinema or an art exhibition, so it's not an issue for me at an atheist conference. Besides, I feel the atheist community is a very courteous, inclusive one.

On principle, I would rather not see "harassment policies" put in place solely because an overwhelmingly friendly community is hijacked and held to ransom by a small band of corrupt, hypocritical, third rate bloggers.

...the answer is to start by asking the people who are disproportionately underrepresented what they think we could do to make the community more inclusive and caring and supportive.

Well, Blunt Guy gave you your answer above when he said:

As a bisexual, "person of colour" (?), I feel no disinclination to be involved in any "atheist movement" based on the feeling that I will be discriminated against on the basis of "race" or sexuality...

decimatio · 21-08-2012 02:45AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Again, putting aside the hyperbole of your question, the answer is to start by asking the people who are disproportionately underrepresented what they think we could do to make the community more inclusive and caring and supportive.

And what reasons are there? Honestly asking.

I've heard the following;

-Certain groups are underrepresented because there aren't enough ethnic minority/female speakers.

If this is true than I don't want to associate with these people. People shouldn't care what race or gender a speaker is, they should care about the quality of that speaker.

I didn't like Hitchens because he was a white male, I liked him for his intellect and writing. I don't like hirsi ali because she's black and female, I like her for her intellect and strength.

People who care about race and gender are the problem. If black people don't want to attend a conference because there are few black speakers then they are wrong. If women don't want to attend a conference because there are few women speakers then they are wrong.

I want to listen to the best speakers. I don't care what race or gender they are.

Even if its a case of a particular issue such as womens rights in Islamic countries I want the person most capable of speaking on the subject. If that's an Arab woman or an Asian man it shouldn't make any difference.

- Women are underrepresented because of sexual harrassment.

Then that's a huge issue and needs to be dealt with. Harrassment of anyone should not be tolerated and should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

I think the problem is how people define harrassment.

For example Michael, what do you think of the nonsense regarding Paula Kirbys T-shirt?

Kooli · 21-08-2012 08:10AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If I read the link I would be responding to the link, not you, which would defeat the point in you and I discussing this issue on a discussion forum. There is no point in having a discussion with someone who will point to someone elses arguments in lieu of defending their own points.

I know what privilege is, I am not denying what it is. The problem is that privilege is a result of environment, not an inherent part of sexuality/race/colour etc. I have privilege as a white person in Ireland, I dont have the same privilege in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. You remove privilege by recognising it is artificial, by not ignoring it never existed, but by ignoring its existence now. Besides the inherent patronisation of having to watch my words around everyone and anyone different to me in any way, it would make no difference how careful I am to combat my white/male/heterosexual etc. privilege in every situation, if every non-white/non-male/non-heterosexual person sees me as having privilege by default anyway. Its not a case of never pointing out when you suspect someone is abusing privilege, its a case of not allowing avoidance of privilege become an elephant in the room in every situation, thus creating a new privilege.

Because it's irrational and leads to people holding to labels instead of rationality. This is part of what is happening with the FTB and the skeptic/athest community. Instead of people just being skeptical, they self label as "skeptic" and holding on to that label becomes more important than actually being skeptical. Everything that I "am", every label that society applies to me, is simply a result of my rational mind (or what my mind thinks is rational). I don't have a belief in god/s simply because it is the most rational position IMO. I believe in equal rights for everyone simply because its the most rational position. But I will change my position if I am convinced of another, without pause, because I (do my best to) reject emotional attachments to labels that may accompany my various positions, be it "atheist", "gay rights advocate", "feminist" etc. My identity is the result of the way I think, not the other way around.

This is the problem I was talking about. All of a sudden, refuting privilege becomes itself a privilege. If the "privileged" don't notice sex or race, then who is oppressing other sexes or races?

If you don't want to read the link, that's fine. But I won't continue because we both have a different understanding of 'privilege' so we are speaking at crossed purposes. And again, it's not someone else's 'argument' - it's just a good explanation of something. I'm not trying to 'win a debate' here, nor am I desperate to 'be right', so I not looking for 'good arguments' written by other people. I think it's a bit weird that you're not willing to read it, but still want to argue the point, but hey that's cool.

I get that you think of your identity as the way you think, and you identify very strongly with being a rational skeptic. I don't think of identity that way. And I'm sorry that annoys you.

Nodin · 21-08-2012 08:14AM

decimatio wrote: »

.......

For example Michael, what do you think of the nonsense regarding Paula Kirbys T-shirt?

With a certain creeping dread, I have to ask - whats this about a t-shirt?

decimatio · 21-08-2012 08:25AM

Nodin wrote: »

With a certain creeping dread, I have to ask - whats this about a t-shirt?

Don't take the opinions expressed in this link as my position. I haven't read it fully but it shows a summary of the issue. Google more for other opinions.

http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/TAM_2012_T-Shirt_Manufacturversy

Sorry I was mistaken it wasn't paula kirby but rather harriet halls.

Nodin · 21-08-2012 08:40AM

decimatio wrote: »

Don't take the opinions expressed in this link as my position. I haven't read it fully but it shows a summary of the issue. Google more for other opinions.

http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/TAM_2012_T-Shirt_Manufacturversy

Sorry I was mistaken it wasn't paula kirby but rather harriet halls.

This is getting more pathetic by the day.....that "Amy" woman must be in her mid-twenties at least, ffs.

bipedalhumanoid · 21-08-2012 09:13AM

Kooli, what you and some of the FTB bloggers are doing is conflating two concepts. Support for women's rights and feminism.

You do NOT have to be a feminist to believe in equal rights for women. Modern (3rd/4th wave) feminism is a political/sociological ideology. You don't have to be a misogynist to find the feminist construct of the "patriarchy" implausible. You don't have to be a misogynist to be unconvinced that sociology, and the social sciences in general for that matter, are extremely flawed and largely bunkum.

I support women's rights in the same way I support LGBTI rights, mens rights and children's rights. Nobody asks me to accept constructs of a political/sociological philosophy to support LGBTI rights, children's rights or men's rights. There's no Straightriarchy or Adultriarchy I have to accept.

Certain FTB bloggers are using the equivocation fallacy to conflate these two concepts in order to paint all outsiders as bigots. This is a false dichotomy. FTB bloggers have also expressed that they do not wish to incldue libertarians in their number. So much for inclusiveness.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments