Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

equivariant · 31-08-2012 11:30PM

Zombrex wrote: »

You appreciate that these rumors were that person X had sexually harassed someone, right?

yup

Zombrex · 31-08-2012 11:59PM

equivariant wrote: »

yup

Ok ... you wouldn't mind a rumor being spread that you sexually assaulted someone? So long as they just told women they knew and thus kept it "private"?

equivariant · 01-09-2012 12:23AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok ... you wouldn't mind a rumor being spread that you sexually assaulted someone? So long as they just told women they knew and thus kept it "private"?

I notice that we have moved from 'a list' to 'harassment' to 'assault'

Of course I would not like to have rumours spread about me. Nor would I like to be propositioned by a drunk stranger in an elevator.

Hotblack Desiato · 01-09-2012 01:48AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

To use the specific example that I am citing, we both accept that it is a fact that some women have complained that some male speakers have groped them against their wishes and followed them to their hotel rooms.

It goes without saying that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

However it seems we now have at least one man being placed on a shît list (along with the alleged gropers and pervs) for having consensual sex with someone he met at a conference. Imagine if a list of 'slutty' women was circulated, whose crime was agreeing to consensual sex with men they'd met at a conference, wouldn't the compilers of any such list be roundly condemned?

Also, in this thread 'propositioning' is being described as if it's some sort of a crime. It's not. Sure it might not always be in the most socially adept fashion, but in that case it's the propositioner who looks a bit foolish isn't it? And to paraphase Freud, sometimes a coffee is just a coffee

01-09-2012 05:33AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnNH7I07RY

decimatio · 01-09-2012 05:48AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

But my question, which you haven't answered, is: broadly speaking, based on your general experience of real life, roughly towards which end of that scale do you think that the truth lies?

If you are talking about women claiming to be groped or followed back to hotel rooms specifically then in my case I will state it quite plainly that the truth would lie towards the womens claims in my experience, no question about it.

I don't see the relevance of the question though. What difference does it make ?

In my experience most Irish people living abroad are stupid violent drunks and Chinese people are extremely racist. I presume that you will now agree that whenever accusations are made towards Irish people about been violent drunkards or Chinese people to be racist that the 'scale of truth' lies towards the end which reflects my experience ?

My experience of these groups are just that. My experience. It tells us nothing about anyone outside the people I've met.

In my experience most women I have known who made such claims of abuse are telling the truth. So what ? That tells us absolutely nothing about the women at these conferences making accusations.

My experience is also based on Irish culture. American culture which is presumably the culture of most of the people involved in the accusations is very different.

decimatio · 01-09-2012 06:05AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

Michael that is ridiculous and insulting.

I don't know what kind of women you're talking about but they bear no resemblance to any women I've ever associated with.

You realise how much like a Muslim what you said sounds ? Women are frail children who need to be protected from men.

The women I know are as capable if not more capable of standing up for themselves than men are to anything except actual physical violence.

Any woman who was abused by a man should report it to the authorities, the same way any man who was abused by any woman should. (and this does happen)

The suggestion that a woman would be afraid that she won't be taken seriously in this day and age is ridiculous. The mere accusation of sexual abuse can destroy men's lives nevermind any actual proof of it. That's the kind of society we live in, that's how unacceptable it is.

Just look at Julian Assange, did he commit rape or not ? It doesn't really matter because his name will forever be associated with it regardless of anything else that happens.

01-09-2012 06:07AM

decimatio wrote: »

Michael that is ridiculous and insulting.

I don't know what kind of women you're talking about but they bear no resemblance to any women I've ever associated with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kIkm47wUGU

Michael Nugent · 01-09-2012 10:45AM

decimatio wrote: »

Michael that is ridiculous and insulting.

I don't know what kind of women you're talking about but they bear no resemblance to any women I've ever associated with.

You realise how much like a Muslim what you said sounds ? Women are frail children who need to be protected from men.

If you follow that post back to the post that it is responding to, you will find that you bolded the wrong part of my quote.

It was Zombrex who raised the analogy with child abuse, in the context of discussing women who privately warned other women about men to be careful of. And he was addressing the issues of privacy and defamation when sharing information about other people. He wrote

Zombrex wrote: »

For example, imagine I tell a member of our football team that you molested your children. He then tells the other members of the football team, but they all agree to keep this information just to themselves.

Well, are you relieved that only the football team now think you molest your kids? No one outside of the team know, so does that make it appropriate? Or are you horrified that the entire football team now think you molest your children?

I responded by writing

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Zombrex, If you are using child abuse as an analogy, a better version of that analogy would be a child who has been abused by an adult, and who is afraid that they will not be taken seriously if they make a complaint, choosing to warn other children to be careful when in the presence of that adult.

Please don’t extrapolate from this (a hypothetical nuancing by me of a hypothetical analogy raised by somebody else) that I am suggesting that women are like frail children, because not only do I believe that to be untrue but it is not even related to the point that Zombrex and I were addressing with that analogy.

In fact, neither Zombrex nor I even mentioned the gender of the hypothetical people in either version of the analogy.

EDIT: Actually, looking back on it, I was mistaken about gender not being mentioned. Zombrex was talking about a hypothetical man sharing information with members of his football team.
.

Michael Nugent · 01-09-2012 11:10AM

decimatio wrote: »

The suggestion that a woman would be afraid that she won't be taken seriously in this day and age is ridiculous.

You are joking, right?

It has been like pulling teeth trying to get some people here to accept the uncontroversial assertion that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

And even when you accepted that

decimatio wrote: »

In my experience most women I have known who made such claims of abuse are telling the truth.

You immediately added

decimatio wrote: »

So what ? That tells us absolutely nothing about the women at these conferences making accusations.

01-09-2012 11:33AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It has been like pulling teeth trying to get some people here to accept the uncontroversial assertion that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

So which male speakers have made such advances and sexual harassment?
When? Where?
Were they reported to authorities or just added to the list without evidence?

decimatio · 01-09-2012 11:34AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you follow that post back to the post that it is responding to, you will find that you bolded the wrong part of my quote.

Michael I'm sorry if I misunderstood you but I would still like clarification as to why exactly you think your analogy, as opposed to Zombrex's, is more accurate to the accusations of women at conferences ?

In Zombrex's analogy the accuser and accused are all adults of more or less equal power.

In your analogy the men are the adults and the women are the children presumably in an unequal position of power.

I've read back through the conversation and I still haven't seen why you suggested this analogy.

Michael Nugent · 01-09-2012 11:43AM

decimatio wrote: »

Michael I'm sorry if I misunderstood you but I would still like clarification as to why exactly you think your analogy, as opposed to Zombrex's, is more accurate to the accusations of women at conferences ?

In Zombrex's analogy the accuser and accused are all adults of more or less equal power.

In your analogy the men are the adults and the women are the children presumably in an unequal position of power.

I've read back through the conversation and I still haven't seen why you suggested this analogy.

Zombrex's analogy was not directly about the experiences of women at conferences. It was about women sharing information about those experiences with other women afterwards.

I was trying to adjust his analogy so that the person passing on the information had actually experienced the incident that they were talking about, rather than passing on information about somebody else having experienced an incident.

I clarified in another post that my point was, if you know that the information is true, it is ethically appropriate (arguably approaching an ethical obligation) to share the information with others who might be at risk.

decimatio · 01-09-2012 11:56AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You are joking, right?

It has been like pulling teeth trying to get some people here to accept the uncontroversial assertion that some male speakers have made unwanted and aggressive sexual advances toward some women, including groping them against their wishes and following them to their hotel rooms.

First of all my response was to your analogy about a "child who has been abused by an adult" to which I went on to say

decimatio wrote:

The suggestion that a woman would be afraid that she won't be taken seriously in this day and age is ridiculous. The mere accusation of sexual abuse can destroy men's lives nevermind any actual proof of it. That's the kind of society we live in, that's how unacceptable it is.

I think it became a little muddled as to what exactly each of us was referring to.

So let's take each of your cases one by one.

- unwanted and aggressive sexual advances: I would need clarification as to what exactly you mean here but my immediate thought about this is that a sexual advance, unwanted or not, is not abuse. When the advance is turned down and the person continues to try, i assume thats what you mean by agressive, then it's highly inappropriate and rude but abusive ? I think we may have different definitions of what abuse is. To me abuse it highly serious and dangerous.

- groping them against their wishes: I really do not understand why these woman have not called the police ? This should never go unpunished.

- following them to their hotel rooms: Again, highly strange and ignorant behaviour but abusive ? If it was constant yes it would be emotional abuse but I assume you don't mean the same guy was following them to their rooms regularly. If so it would be stalking and again should be reported to the police.

And even when you accepted that

You immediately added

Yes ? And ?

I previously answered your question about women telling the truth in my life experience and I answered in the affirmitive. Almost all of these women also brought it to the attention of the relevant authorities or in some cases the attention of friends. They weren't ignored.

decimatio · 01-09-2012 11:59AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Zombrex's analogy was not directly about the experiences of women at conferences. It was about women sharing information about those experiences with other women afterwards.

Ah I see.

I was trying to adjust his analogy so that the person passing on the information had actually experienced the incident that they were talking about, rather than passing on information about somebody else having experienced an incident.

Ah. Sorry I misunderstood why you specifically used the case of child abuse.

Michael Nugent · 01-09-2012 12:35PM

decimatio wrote: »

I think it became a little muddled as to what exactly each of us was referring to.

Okay, fair enough.

decimatio wrote: »

I previously answered your question about women telling the truth in my life experience and I answered in the affirmitive. Almost all of these women also brought it to the attention of the relevant authorities or in some cases the attention of friends. They weren't ignored.

I assume from this that you mean that at least some of these women told you about their experiences of sexual harassment.

And I assume that you did not respond to them with some variation of “I would need clarification as to what exactly you mean here but my immediate thought about this is that a sexual advance, unwanted or not, is not abuse.”

I assume that you listened to them sympathetically, expressed empathy about what they had gone through and how it had affected them, and were generally supportive about helping them to get through the experience.

For me, that is what is missing in this conversation. Not just from you, but from some other posters here as well. You are discussing these harrowing experiences in a clinical way, devoid of empathy and compassion.

Try to imagine that we are talking about some of your friends having experienced the harassment that we are talking about here, and see if you might approach the discussion differently.

01-09-2012 12:40PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Try to imagine that we are talking about some of your friends having experienced the harassment that we are talking about here, and see if you might approach the discussion differently.

I would approach the situation differently. I would not approach it objectively.

You are making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence.
This is not a rational or skeptical line of argument.

And emotive, subjective and irrational responses to a problem are not going to help anyone.

Michael Nugent · 01-09-2012 12:49PM

King Mob wrote: »

I would approach the situation differently. I would not approach it objectively.

I'm not even talking here about how you approach the situation.

I'm just talking here about how you approach discussing the situation.

King Mob wrote: »

You are making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence.
This is not a rational or skeptical line of argument.

And emotive, subjective and irrational responses to a problem are not going to help anyone.

I'll respond to this later. I have to leave the computer for a while now.

01-09-2012 12:54PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm not even talking here about how you approach the situation.

I'm just talking here about how you approach discussing the situation.

So what you are saying is we should discuss it in an emotive, subjective and irrational way, but then somehow from that act scientifically, objectively and rationally?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'll respond to this later. I have to leave the computer for a while now.

Please remember that there are other points I've made that you've yet to address. Please do not start using the same tactics the religious people here do.

01-09-2012 01:05PM

King Mob wrote: »

So what you are saying is we should discuss it in an emotive, subjective and irrational way, but then somehow from that act scientifically, objectively and rationally?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcxpbhM0DaA

Ickle Magoo · 01-09-2012 01:41PM

King Mob wrote: »

I would approach the situation differently. I would not approach it objectively.

You are making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence.
This is not a rational or skeptical line of argument.

And emotive, subjective and irrational responses to a problem are not going to help anyone.

There's subjective rationality and then there is crassly obtuse disregard - and as I see it the problem in this saga is that the "give empirical evidence or it didn't happen/it's in your head/I get to decide what you find inappropriate/threatening" mantra is teetering on the edge of crossing, if not regarded by many as having already crossed, from one to the other.

01-09-2012 02:29PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There's subjective rationality and then there is crassly obtuse disregard - and as I see it the problem in this saga is that the "give empirical evidence or it didn't happen/it's in your head/I get to decide what you find inappropriate/threatening" mantra is teetering on the edge of crossing, if not regarded by many as having already crossed, from one to the other.

But the appropriate response to either genuine skeptical enquiry or deliberate obtuseness is to provide the best objective evidence available and/or suggesting ways how that evidence could be obtained.
The inappropriate response is stuff like "**** off troll" and accusing those people of encouraging, justifying or excusing sexual harassment, or believing that all accusations of rape are lies etc.

And without a good objective view of what the problem is exactly, we aren't going to find the best, most effective, most fair way to address the issue.
For example do you think that a speaker having consentual sex with an attendee is in the same category as sexual harassment like groping and stalking? Some people do.
Do you think that t-shirts sporting (albeit bitchy and inflammatory) slogans are in that same category? Some people do.

If stuff like this is being lumped in with the stuff you think is actually the problem, do you think that an effective way to address the problem can be found?

Do you think that secret lists of people accused of sexual harassment without evidence or right to defence is either fair or going to help the issue?

UDP · 01-09-2012 02:34PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There's subjective rationality and then there is crassly obtuse disregard - and as I see it the problem in this saga is that the "give empirical evidence or it didn't happen/it's in your head/I get to decide what you find inappropriate/threatening" mantra is teetering on the edge of crossing, if not regarded by many as having already crossed, from one to the other.

There are claims being made of wide spread harassment by men at conferences in the skeptic "community". Yet there appears to be next to no reports of such incidents happening made at the events and people expect the skeptical "community" not to be skeptical of claims that are made with only a very small amount of anecdotal evidence.

Then we hear blacklists are being shared amongst some people of people to avoid including a person whose crime was having consensual sex with an attendee. Do you not see how slanderous that is and unfair that is that someone could end up on this effective sex offenders list without anything other than someone saying this person did x?

I cannot understand how some skeptics are throwing their skeptic reasoning out the window over this. Believing claims without evidence to back them up.

Ickle Magoo · 01-09-2012 02:45PM

King Mob wrote: »

But the appropriate response to either genuine skeptical enquiry or deliberate obtuseness is to provide the best objective evidence available and/or suggesting ways how that evidence could be obtained.

Is it tho? And this what I suspect much of the issue is. Since you wish to discuss topics in terms of reasonable scepticism, I am entirely sceptical of that statement being true across the board.

I seriously doubt that had it been complaints about racism, complaints upheld by many in "the movement" that anyone would seriously consider it rational to be sitting here:

demanding empirical evidence that racism existed
arguing that racism exists everywhere/we're all adults just accept you have to put up with it
arguing that while it may be viewed as racism to that minority, many just view it as bit of good old fashioned fun

Would you consider those arguments to be rational and skeptic? Or more than slightly obtuse to the point of ridiculous?

King Mob wrote: »

The inappropriate response is stuff like "**** off troll" and accusing those people of encouraging, justifying or excusing sexual harassment, or believing that all accusations of rape are lies etc.

And without a good objective view of what the problem is exactly, we aren't going to find the best, most effective, most fair way to address the issue.
For example do you think that a speaker having consentual sex with an attendee is in the same category as sexual harassment like groping and stalking? Some people do.

I don't think getting caught up in the minutia of specific complaints and claims Vs counter complaints/claims is going to help anything. Again, it seems to be fostering an atmosphere of trying to insist any claim against "the community" is a bigger issue than the basis for the claim itself. Which is fine if you want to ring-fence your organisation as an insular clique that is not willing to take on board any kind of criticism and would rather pounce on and demonize anyone who dares to suggest the status quo is not ideal for them.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think that t-shirts sporting (albeit bitchy and inflammatory) slogans are in that same category? Some people do.

If stuff like this is being lumped in with the stuff you think is actually the problem, do you think that an effective way to address the problem can be found?

Do you think that secret lists of people accused of sexual harassment without evidence or right to defence is either fair or going to help the issue?

I think it's more of the childish tit for tat (no sexual harassment intent meant towards either gender :pac: ) that is dragging that "community" through the mud. All the finger-pointing in the world can't make one side look wholly rational and mature and the other wholly ridiculous at this stage - perhaps it's about time both sides accepted that?

Ickle Magoo · 01-09-2012 02:50PM

Hey UDP,

I'm not ignoring you, or any other poster I don't respond to personally - it's just that with only one of me responding to several other posters, to save me responding with points I've already made/discussed pages ago or I'm currently discussing same with another poster I work to as much of a one-post-cover-all as possible.

No offence meant.

01-09-2012 03:04PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is it tho? And this what I suspect much of the issue is. Since you wish to discuss topics in terms of reasonable scepticism, I am entirely sceptical of that statement being true across the board.

I seriously doubt that had it been complaints about racism, complaints upheld by many in "the movement" that anyone would seriously consider it rational to be sitting here:

demanding empirical evidence that racism existed
arguing that racism exists everywhere/we're all adults just accept you have to put up with it
arguing that while it may be viewed as racism to that minority, many just view it as bit of good old fashioned fun

Would you consider those arguments to be rational and skeptic? Or more than slightly obtuse to the point of ridiculous?

If the accusations were being made but not being backed up then I would still ask for evidence.

But none of here are saying that sexism does not exist, or saying that it is acceptable, or that it's just good old fashioned fun.

Further the comparison with racism does not hold as incidents of sexual harassment are more than just sexist comments.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think getting caught up in the minutia of specific complaints and claims Vs counter complaints/claims is going to help anything. Again, it seems to be fostering an atmosphere of trying to insist any claim against "the community" is a bigger issue than the basis for the claim itself. Which is fine if you want to ring-fence your organisation as an insular clique that is not willing to take on board any kind of criticism and would rather pounce on and demonize anyone who dares to suggest the status quo is not ideal for them.

Again, who here has been accused of encouraging and excusing sexual harassment? What earned Zombrex the privilege of being denounced as a troll?
If there is an atmosphere, Waston and her clique (and to a much much lesser extent comments like Michaels) are helping to foster it as much as thunderfoot and other trolls.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think it's more of the childish tit for tat (no sexual harassment intent meant towards either gender :pac: ) that is dragging that "community" through the mud. All the finger-pointing in the world can't make one side look wholly rational and mature and the other wholly ridiculous at this stage - perhaps it's about time both sides accepted that?

But I'm not saying that the argument is invalid because of those claims, I'm simply using them a public examples of stuff that is clearly separate from sexual harassment but is being lumped in with it.
I'm making the point that without being objective and analysing the issue skeptically, stuff like that will obscure the real issue and hinder any attempt to find a way to address it.

Ickle Magoo · 01-09-2012 03:44PM

King Mob wrote: »

If the accusations were being made but not being backed up then I would still ask for evidence.

Perhaps you would, I have no right or reason to suggest otherwise - I'm still skeptical that the over-all reaction would be anywhere near similar.

King Mob wrote: »

But none of here are saying that sexism does not exist, or saying that it is acceptable, or that it's just good old fashioned fun.

But you [we? they?] have a situation where people are claiming they find certain behaviours threatening/unwelcoming/negatively impacting on their experience of these events and others are declaring those behaviours are unilaterally perfectly acceptable and that it's just good old fashioned fun.

Are we discussing just this thread or the wider issue re the online saga of "that" TAM attending community, btw? It would be even sillier than discussing the general points of the saga to start debating the issue in terms of the minutia of what specific posters have posted in this thread alone.

King Mob wrote: »

Further the comparison with racism does not hold as incidents of sexual harassment are more than just sexist comments.

Surely racism can also be/is also a form of harassment?

King Mob wrote: »

Again, who here has been accused of encouraging and excusing sexual harassment? What earned Zombrex the privilege of being denounced as a troll?
If there is an atmosphere, Waston and her clique are helping to foster it as much as thunderfoot and other trolls.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

...
I've stopped reading the blogs because it's so much like being back in the primary school playground, "She did this!", "Well, they did that!", "Well she did that first, wah, wah, wah".

Each side entrenched in their position and claiming the other has "no way back" - meanwhile the rest of the world think the whole lot are ridiculous. Ugh.

I would repeat - getting wound up over a single post/poster achieves nothing when discussing how to get a large event/"community"/"movement" back from being on the brink of imploding en masse.

I also fail to see any rationalism/skepticism in playing ever decreasing circles with any issue...so it's kind of bizarre to hear an argument that doing that is just being rational/skeptical.

King Mob wrote: »

But I'm not saying that the argument is invalid because of those claims, I'm simply using them a public examples of stuff that is clearly separate from sexual harassment but is being lumped in with it.
I'm making the point that without being objective and analysing the issue skeptically, stuff like that will obscure the real issue and hinder any attempt to find a way to address it.

So it's just an argument over what the "real" issue is? A kind of true scotsman of social nuance/behavioural acceptabilities? You don't think the perception that a majority male organisation/event demands to unilaterally decide what some of it's minority attendees/members should find a "real" issue could be part of the problem?

mikhail · 01-09-2012 03:56PM

Ah, tis a sad day. I feel I have to add Michael Nugent to a special list of mine. My ignore list.

equivariant · 01-09-2012 03:59PM

King Mob wrote: »

I would approach the situation differently. I would not approach it objectively.

You are making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence.
This is not a rational or skeptical line of argument.

And emotive, subjective and irrational responses to a problem are not going to help anyone.

I don't agree with this reasoning. I don't see any appeal to emotion in Michael's comment - merely a request to understand a different pov on this issue.

Also, emotive and subjective do not imply irrational (although you seem to conflate these things). It is too easy to assume that an emotional response must be wrong. Having followed this debate for a while I am now much more convinced that there is nothing wrong with the request that organisations and conferences put in place a policy regarding harassment. From a purely rational point of view, what is the problem with that? I don't particularly like the tone of skepchick or FTB, but whether or not one approves or dissapproves of skepchick/FTB has no real bearing on whether or not harassment policies are a good idea

Mark Hamill · 01-09-2012 04:07PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But you [we? they?] have a situation where people are claiming they find certain behaviours threatening/unwelcoming/negatively impacting on their experience of these events and others are declaring those behaviours are unilaterally perfectly acceptable and that it's just good old fashioned fun.

Others who? What exactly did they say and what exactly was it in response to? And why equate threatening behaviour with unwelcoming behaviour with negative behaviour?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So it's just an argument over what the "real" issue is? A kind of true scotsman of social nuance/behavioural acceptabilities? You don't think the perception that a majority male organisation/event demands to unilaterally decide what some of it's minority attendees/members should find a "real" issue could be part of the problem?

If its a minority of the minority that has these problems, then maybe they are creating them (or some of them) themselves? If the majority of the minority see no issue, then maybe there isn't one, at least on the scale claimed?
If the real issue is some men groping women and following them, uninvited, to their hotel rooms, then going after men who don't grope and have been invited is not going to do much to stop the first group of men, will it?

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments