Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Michael Nugent · 02-09-2012 05:30PM

decimatio wrote: »

... you taking their position ... hard not to equate you with their position ... you've argued for their position ... accusing you of taking their position ... you have taken one sides position ... you took a defending role for that side ... you have made comments against one side but have not made any against the other ... taking such defensive positions on other issues all for the same side ...

Assuming that you have had time to read the links in my previous post, you should realize that I don't see these issues in terms of aligning with sides that have positions. I start with a set of values, which I have outlined in the above links, and apply those values to the issues that I am addressing.

decimatio wrote: »

From your contributions so far on this thread and elsewhere it seems that in your opinion I and others here and other people including thunderf00t, Paula Kirby, Harriet Hall etc are completely in the wrong.

However, you seem to be comfortable aligning yourself to what you see as one of two sides, so I can understand that you might be tempted to attribute your approach to other people. But I don't approach the issue in that way, and there is no reasonable way of concluding what you have just written from what I have written.

In case you haven't had time to read the links I provided, here are some extracts relevant to the issue of seeing things in terms of taking sides:

Extracts from Michael's website wrote:

Since we hosted last year’s World Atheist Convention in Dublin, there have been escalating online debates about sexism, harassment and bullying in the international atheist and skeptical communities. Good people including friends who I respect, who have expressed different opinions about these issues, have been victims of unfair personal attacks, based on distortions of what they have said or written or represent...

This escalating hostility is now an extra problem on top of the problems that triggered the debates. It hurts people and makes them feel alienated or ostracized or fearful. And it makes it harder for us to work together where we agree, to discuss things reasonably where we disagree, and to address the underlying problems that triggered the hostility. We can and we must reverse this hostility, starting by tackling issues not attacking people...

We should accept that each of us is likely to be right about some issues and mistaken about others. We should try to approach each issue on its merits, rather than on the basis of which side you think the person is on...

We should accept that we might be mistaken about what other people are trying to communicate to us, and what their motivations might be. We should accept that we might have made mistakes when communicating to others, and that we might have unfairly hurt people without realizing it...

I believe that we can reverse this pattern. I believe that we have enough reasonable people, with different beliefs about these issues, to be able to calmly reassess where we are, how we got here, where we are heading, and where we want to go...

I believe that we should start with first principles. If we focus on designing positive policies to make our communities more inclusive and caring and supportive, and work hard to implement those policies, then actively tackling prejudice, discrimination, hate speech, harassment and bullying will flow naturally from that. And it will be as part of a coherent strategy, not just dealing with particular examples as they arise...

02-09-2012 07:02PM

Forgive the lateness of the replies, but was at the meetup last night and have been recovering.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

I think that if people claimed that there was a thread of racism in the community and was unable to back that up, then yes I think there would be a similar reaction.

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.

But the people making the claims are conflating a wide variety of different bahaviours and using them interchangeably.
If some one says for example that being hit on is just a bit of fun or just a part of life this does not equate to that person holding the same opinion about other behaviour such as groping or stalking.
This is why it is important to establish what behaviour is the problem and what needs to be addressed.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

It is, but there are some behaviours that do not have analogues, such as being hit on or inappropriate touching or stalking.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

Then why bring up the "demonising" of any bloggers or people?
Both sides (read the loud-mouths of the two camps) are as guilty of fostering a hostile atmosphere as each other. Pretending otherwise, or avoiding that fact is not helping.

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?

But no one is deciding what the "real" issue is. I'm simply asking what it is and having an objective definition for it.

I've asked you using examples of stuff what most people would not see as the same issue being throw in with it.
Bitchy t-shirts are not part of the same issue as sexual harassment.
Speakers having sex with attendees is not the same issue as sexual harassment.

Do you think those example are part of the same issue?
If not, how can we tell what the real issue is if it's being lumped together with other unrelated issues, let alone figure out a way to address it?

02-09-2012 07:19PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Firstly, I am not making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence. I'll address that in more detail in a later post.

But you are. You asked me what my response would be with a friend in reply to a request for objective facts.
If it's not an appeal to emotion, then it's just irrelevant.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

But based on your statement that subjective responses 'are not going to help anyone', why would you respond to your friend's plight in a way that you believe is not going to help her?

Because that would be the most immediate way to help her at the time, and baring the ability to address the problem that caused the incident myself or the ability to time travel and prevent it, it would be the only thing I could do.
And I would still advise her to report it to the authorities.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Surely the reason that you would respond (at least partly) subjectively is precisely because you believe that it would be helpful to her for you to respond subjectively?

But there's a difference between an incident with a single person and an incident with a group about whom it's claimed there is a problem.
pretending otherwise is simply an attempt to appeal to emotion.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No, I am suggesting that, when you are faced with a situation in which somebody tells you that they have been subjected to a harrowing experience, your default position should be to start by empathizing with that person (as I assume you would do in real life if you were dealing with a friend) and then factor that empathy into the mix of aspects of the situation that you then apply reason to.

Except that's not what the issue I'm disputing is. I'm not disputing individual cases. I'm disputing the idea that the problem is endemic or common.
People are claiming that these incidents are common but I've yet to see evidence to support that claim.

Again you are trying to use an appeal to emotion to avoid that lack of evidence. Empathy has nothing to do with the facts.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

We're having a conversation. You're not interrogating me. I'll answer as many points as I can get around to, as no doubt you will.

Please don't make irrelevant references to religious people. Just continue the discussion in a reasonable way.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice...

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Do you notice that these options are similar to concerns that some people used to raise about the early complaints that priests had abused children?

Michael Nugent · 02-09-2012 10:46PM

King Mob, let’s try a different approach. I’ve gone over our discussion so far to see what points we agree on.

Firstly, I’m going to repeat the specific complaints I am talking about again, just to keep the focus on them, as there is a tendency for this discussion to wander. What I am talking about is this: some women have complained 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.

Secondly, some of what I wrote in an earlier post was unfair to you. In particular, when you wrote that some women might be misconstruing or exaggerating innocuous behaviour, and I responded that some people used to make similar comments about early reports of clerical sex abuse, that was an unfair comment by me because it implied unfair things about either your attitudes to sexual harassment or else your attitude to clerical sex abuse. So I want to repeat my apology for writing that.

Thirdly, here is what we seem to both agree on so far. In general, it is more likely that these accusations are true than that they are false. In any specific case, we don’t know whether they are true or false. We don’t know how endemic or common the problem is. A subjective response, based on empathy, is the most immediate way that you can help somebody who complains that they have been harassed. As well as that, the incident should be reported to the appropriate authorities and investigated fairly and rationally.

Now, putting aside what we do not agree on, is that a fair summary of things that we do agree on?

02-09-2012 11:05PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Now, putting aside what we do not agree on, is that a fair summary of things that we do agree on?

Yes I believe we agree on those for the most part.
Though I should clarify that I think the subjective, empathic on a personal level is only comforting and does not actually address any issue.

Michael Nugent · 02-09-2012 11:09PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I believe we agree on those for the most part.
Though I should clarify that I think the subjective, empathic on a personal level is only comforting and does not actually address any issue.

Well, comforting addresses the issue of alleviating discomfort.

But thanks for that general confirmation. I'll come back to it some time tomorrow.

02-09-2012 11:31PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Well, comforting addresses the issue of alleviating discomfort.

Which isn't the issue of sexual harassment. And that's the issue we are discussing and wish to find a way to address.

decimatio · 03-09-2012 03:58AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Assuming that you have had time to read the links in my previous post, you should realize that I don't see these issues in terms of aligning with sides that have positions. I start with a set of values, which I have outlined in the above links, and apply those values to the issues that I am addressing.

Michael I've said it 4 times now. I am not saying you are aligned with any side, I said it is hard not to equate you with doing so. I specifically said that I didn't agree with the poster who did say you were aligned with one side.

However, you seem to be comfortable aligning yourself to what you see as one of two sides, so I can understand that you might be tempted to attribute your approach to other people.

And I specifically said that I am not doing so. I went out of my way to point out that I disagree with people on both sides of this mess.

In case you haven't had time to read the links I provided, here are some extracts relevant to the issue of seeing things in terms of taking sides

I've read them and I think they're well meaning but ultimately useless against certain individuals who have dug the trenches.

decimatio · 03-09-2012 04:15AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Thirdly, here is what we seem to both agree on so far. In general, it is more likely that these accusations are true than that they are false.

Irrelevant. This should have no bearing on anything.

In any specific case, we don’t know whether they are true or false. We don’t know how endemic or common the problem is. A subjective response, based on empathy, is the most immediate way that you can help somebody who complains that they have been harassed.

By doing so you are automatically hinting at the accused's guilt if not asserting it outright. Do you not understand the problem people have with this ?

I've known people on the end of false accusations. Their lives were almost destroyed as a result of nothing more than the false accusations of an unstable jealous lover and a child lying to get revenge on another child. And to this very day, even after the truth became known, they are still gossiped about.

You don't seem to understand that accusations like these can be used as a very dangerous weapon.

If a woman came up to you and accused a male attendee of A. Unwanted sexual advances, B. Groping her or C. rape. What would be your responses Michael ? I'm asking what the conference organisers would do.

Curly Judge · 03-09-2012 09:28AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

King Mob, let’s try a different approach. I’ve gone over our discussion so far to see what points we agree on.

Firstly, I’m going to repeat the specific complaints I am talking about again, just to keep the focus on them, as there is a tendency for this discussion to wander. What I am talking about is this: some women have complained 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.

Secondly, some of what I wrote in an earlier post was unfair to you. In particular, when you wrote that some women might be misconstruing or exaggerating innocuous behaviour, and I responded that some people used to make similar comments about early reports of clerical sex abuse, that was an unfair comment by me because it implied unfair things about either your attitudes to sexual harassment or else your attitude to clerical sex abuse. So I want to repeat my apology for writing that.

Thirdly, here is what we seem to both agree on so far. In general, it is more likely that these accusations are true than that they are false. In any specific case, we don’t know whether they are true or false. We don’t know how endemic or common the problem is. A subjective response, based on empathy, is the most immediate way that you can help somebody who complains that they have been harassed. As well as that, the incident should be reported to the appropriate authorities and investigated fairly and rationally.

Now, putting aside what we do not agree on, is that a fair summary of things that we do agree on?

This could only be regarded as fair if a false allegation earned the same opprobrium as a true one.

bipedalhumanoid · 03-09-2012 09:29AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Broadly speaking, there are two possibilities about these complaints. Either some male speakers are actually behaving like this, or else the women who are complaining about this are lying. Which do you think is more likely?

Given the evidence provided the only way I'd be willing to answer this is "I don't know".

I don't think anyone knows what the statistical probabilities are between true vs false accusations of this nature. But I wouldn't put it past some people to make false accusations, especially if they truly believed that this sort of thing was happening to other women. It's not like there are any consequences for making a false accusation, as long as people aren't named and nothing is reported to the authorities.

There are women who will use this sort of thing to garner power. I've experienced it myself first hand and have been the victim of false accusations which were later withdrawn. So when I look at the two possibilities you outlayed, I look at them as equally likely.

None of that means we shouldn't have good sexual harassment policies and codes of conduct.

decimatio · 03-09-2012 09:49AM

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

It's not like there are any consequences for making a false accusation, as long as people aren't named and nothing is reported to the authorities.

I just don't see why Michael thinks this is important. The statistics could be 90% telling the truth to 10% lying (not suggesting they are real statistics) and what would that tell us ? What would that show ? What difference would that make ?

There are women who will use this sort of thing to garner power. I've experienced it myself first hand and have been the victim of false accusations which were later withdrawn. So when I look at the two possibilities you outlayed, I look at them as equally likely.

I never had such experiences but a couple of my friends have had false accusations thrown at them and they and their families suffered terribly for it. I don't envy you that experience.

mewso · 03-09-2012 01:06PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I agree that his comment characterised how ridiculous the conversation has become, and I agree that his comment reflected a jaded cynicism.

Now what are your thoughts on the (not ridiculous) question that I asked about the (not ridiculous) specific complaints from the links that he cited?

Some women have complained 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.

Broadly speaking, there are two possibilities about these complaints. Either some male speakers are behaving like this, or else the women who are complaining about this are lying. Which do you think is more likely?

Apologies this thread moves too fast for me and much has been said that I agree with so I'll try to not repeat things. I would guess, not being that knowledgeable in the area, that in general it's far more likely that these claims are true than false. I'm not sure where I or anyone else for that matter suggested it might be otherwise. Nor that there shouldn't be measures taken at any event to prevent or protect all attendees of any event from having to suffer from this or any harassing behaviour but the group in question in this specific case have put themselves in a position where there may be more doubt about their claims for good or ill simply because, for example, they have equated a speaker having consensual sex with an attendee with other harassment simply by having him on their "list" not to mention putting themselves in a position where it is of vital interest to their argument that this kind of behaviour is rife. Not saying it isn't just saying they have not helped their claims with some of what has gone on up to now.

The doubts being expressed in this thread bear far more relation to the problems with this particular group than being representative of a general attitude to harassment in my opinion so some of the discussion is getting murky. I would certainly agree with your approach for the most part Michael but I'm on this thread because I find the actions of these people really incredible and the Atheism+ (I mean give me a break) members really have lost any respect I might have had for any of them although to be fair I would never have heard of any of them but for an elevator.

Curly Judge · 03-09-2012 07:29PM

Most courts in most civilized countries operate on the basis that it is "better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man be convicted."
Can feminism accept a lower standard and retain the respect of the wider community?
I think not!
Remember the Scottboro Boys?
It may not happen very often but it does happen now and then.

I would however suggest that at a trial - in which the normal rules of evidence should apply - the judge should be empowered to do more to protect the female witness from prurient and/or irrelevant questioning.
Small changes like this might do more to encourage more women to come forward and report rape than any of the more revolutionary solutions suggested on these pages.

bipedalhumanoid · 04-09-2012 09:20AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

I would however suggest that at a trial - in which the normal rules of evidence should apply - the judge should be empowered to do more to protect the female witness from prurient and/or irrelevant questioning.
Small changes like this might do more to encourage more women to come forward and report rape than any of the more revolutionary solutions suggested on these pages.

I can't find a print source, but in the news this morning on Newstalk they reported that in the first half of 2012 there was a 33% increase in reports of domestic violence against men in Ireland. Maybe the stigmatism is beginning to lift.

Rev Hellfire · 04-09-2012 09:46AM

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

I can't find a print source, but in the news this morning on Newstalk they reported that in the first half of 2012 there was a 33% increase in reports of domestic violence against men in Ireland. Maybe the stigmatism is beginning to lift.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/number-of-men-living-with-domestic-violence-staggering-565618.html

robindch · 04-09-2012 05:52PM

Well, here's a non-striking non-departure from the usual antics.

Do you like the girl with the cutesy smile? If so, vote here.

Or do you dislike the weirdo with the blue hair? If so, vote here.

Just now, "Keep Watson" is winning, 644 to 188.

/shakes head

Sarky · 04-09-2012 05:55PM

A popularity contest? OMG!

fitz0 · 04-09-2012 06:42PM

First comment on the 'Remove Rebecca' is... Rebecca Watson.

I suppose someone needs some reinforcement after all this horrible online dissension.

Zombrex · 04-09-2012 08:39PM

fitz0 wrote: »

First comment on the 'Remove Rebecca' is... Rebecca Watson.

I suppose someone needs some reinforcement after all this horrible online dissension.

Actually that is just the most popular comment, by default they are sorted to the top

fitz0 · 04-09-2012 09:00PM

Ah my mistake, but I suppose she got all the positive reinforcement she needed.

MagicMarker · 04-09-2012 11:15PM

I've come to the conclusion that they're all just a bunch of ****ing muppets.

fitz0 · 04-09-2012 11:41PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/02/american-atheism-schism-spit-venom

Is American atheism heading for a schism?
A new movement, Atheism+, has prompted non-believers to spit venom at one another rather than at true believers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

In the passionate world of American atheism, the venom usually directed at believers has now been turned against the wrong kind of atheists.

The cause of this freethinking furore? A new movement called Atheism+. According to its website, "Atheism+ is a safe space for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime."

A+ was born when Freethought blogger Jen McCreight (the mind behind Boobquake) made a passionate call for a "third wave" of atheism, one that extends atheist activism into progressive politics and calls for a part of the movement to be one where women can exist free from the harassment that has plagued women publicly involved in the atheist movement.

The founders of Atheism+ say clearly that "divisiveness" is not their aim, but looking through the blogs and voluminous comments in the two weeks since A+ was mooted, trenches have been dug, beliefs stated, positions staked out and abuse thrown. A dissenting tweeter is "full of ****", while, according to one supporter, daring to disagree with Atheism+'s definition of progressive issues and not picking their side makes you an "asshole and a douchebag".

It took 700 years from Constantine renaming Byzantium in his own honour to papal legates circulating letters of anathema that split the Roman and Orthodox churches. Atheism, in its public, online life, has started exchanging internet anathemas – perhaps we should call them inathemas – in little more than a decade.

People are being told to wipe the spittle off their chins, take their heads out of their asses. The Life of Brian's lines about the various fronts for the liberation of Judea are being oft-recycled. 140 character brickbats are being thrown on Twitter under #atheismplus.

PZ Myers, soft-spoken in person but trenchant in print, said of A+ critics:

"It really isn't a movement about exclusion, but about recognising the impact of the real nature of the universe on human affairs. And if you don't agree with any of that – and this is the only 'divisive' part – then you're an asshole. I suggest you form your own label, 'Asshole Atheists", and own it, proudly. I promise not to resent it or cry about joining it. I just had a thought: maybe the anti-Atheist+ people are sad because they don't have a cool logo. So I made one for the Asshole Atheists:
A*
"

Fellow Freethought blogger Richard Carrier goes further. When one commentator suggests "atheism does not have the luxury of kicking people out of its movement", Carrier gives him a rare old quilting in most splendid prose:

"Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned."

How like Pope Leo's letter to the patriarch of Constaninople in 1053 accusing him of "many and intolerable presumptions, in which if – as heaven forbid – he persist, he will in no way retain our peaceful regard". Even at this most serious moment for the future of Christianity, the pope managed to resist the urge to call the patriarch immoral scum, an asshole and a douchebag.

One of the joys of atheism's outlets on the internet was that they were clever, deft, funny, tolerant and irreverent. It was certainly robust and not for the faint-hearted.

Those of us who do not wish to extend our atheism into someone else's definition of progressive politics may take rather unkindly to being described as immoral scum, useful but unsavoury body parts, and outdated contraceptive devices. In the week when American atheism made its appearance in the Economist's editorial pages, it seems to have been sowing the seeds of that most religious of events – a schism.

St Paul would be laughing his head off, had a Roman soldier not already deprived him of it. "See," he might now write after reading those modern epistles, the blogs, comments and tweets around the birth of Atheism+, "how these atheists love one another."

I see these Pluses are doing wonders to show the world that atheism is not just another religion.

05-09-2012 02:36AM

And there is what was being said earlier in the thread, an attempt to co-opt atheism into progressivism.

Such a pity the Hitch isn't around to write a couple of thousand words about how retarded everyone is. :pac:

Sarky · 05-09-2012 03:15AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion that they're all just a bunch of ****ing muppets.

This, frankly. It's just getting more and more retarded as it goes on.

Curly Judge · 05-09-2012 08:38AM

I think I'll start a new movement.
I'm going to call it Broad Church Atheism.

Delirium · 05-09-2012 09:03AM

fitz0 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/02/american-atheism-schism-spit-venom

I see these Pluses are doing wonders to show the world that atheism is not just another religion.

I'd love to know how can you be disowned by a group you never joined?

If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned.

wonder how long it'll be before they start claiming they are the "one true" atheist group?

Curly Judge · 05-09-2012 09:14AM

Can A+ members excommunicate people who are slightly A-?
Perhaps burning at the stake will be introduced to stiffen the backbone of
us less Kosher atheists?

UDP · 05-09-2012 09:38AM

Is there any countmeout type of service for this A+ "movement"?

robindch · 05-09-2012 10:31AM

UDP wrote: »

Is there any countmeout type of service for this A+ "movement"?

Not that I'm aware of. Though their behaviour so far suggests to me that if you dare disagree with them on anything at all, in public or private, then you're a woman-hater/gender-traitor -- hey, that could be a line in a much-need A+ rap response! -- and they'll count you out themselves on a thousand infinitely tedious, pompous and self-important blogs.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments