Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Michael Nugent · 07-09-2012 05:17AM

decimatio wrote: »

Michael, what I'm getting from you with your responses is that this is not a legal issue or a policy issue but rather a 'common decency' issue is that right ?

Well, it could be any of those three depending on the circumstances, but it is primarily a common decency issue.

decimatio wrote: »

In that case do you acknowledge that different people have different ideas of what decent behaviour is ?

Yes, and as society evolves, people and advocacy groups try to change these ideas.

For example, a few decades ago, many types of sexual harassment in the workplace were seen as just something that women had to put up with, a bit of harmless fun, nothing to be taken too seriously etc. People who considered themselves to be people of common decency engaged in and defended this behaviour.

Today, because of a mixture of women and men trying to change that culture, peer pressure, workplace policies, and legislation, less people who consider themselves to be people of common decency would engage in or defend that behaviour.

decimatio · 07-09-2012 05:23AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Surely it is more reasonable to suggest that people should be considerate when propositioning other people, than it is to suggest that people should never proposition other people?

Because different people have very different definitions of what is and is not considerate behaviour.

I don't consider what elevatorguy did to be considerate. I think it was bad form. Rebecca Watson didn't like it.

But that tells us nothing about other people.

Take John and Mary for example.

John propositioned Mary at 4am in an elevator in Dublin after following her to the lift. Mary accepted and they proceeded to go to bed togeather.

I have no time for people trying to force their beliefs or their morals on anyone else as long as those people don't purposely cause harm to others.

Watson didn't appreciate it, fine. I personally wouldn't appreciate it. But to suggest that there is some sort of concensus on what isn't proper behaviour and so everyone should follow suit is ridiculous.

decimatio · 07-09-2012 05:28AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Today, because of a mixture of women and men trying to change that culture, peer pressure, workplace policies, and legislation, less people who consider themselves to be people of common decency would engage in or defend that behaviour.

Apples and oranges.

Someone (a man or a woman) propositioning someone else ( a man or a woman) is entirely different from one gender (men) sexually abusing/harrassing another gender (women).

If only men did the propositioning in such a fashion (inconsiderately in opposition to the majorities sense of common decency) then you would have the shadow of a point but it's not just men.

Take the reverse situation for example. If a woman directly propositioned a man in a similar fashion as what happened to Watson do you think for one moment that anyone would make an issue out of it ?

edit: I suppose some people might call her promiscuous and that would be misogyny but that's not relevant to my question.

If you were to suggest that a woman shouldn't do that you would be the one accused of sexism and rightly so.

Michael Nugent · 07-09-2012 05:45AM

decimatio wrote: »

Because different people have very different definitions of what is and is not considerate behaviour.

I don't consider what elevatorguy did to be considerate. I think it was bad form. Rebecca Watson didn't like it.

But that tells us nothing about other people.

Take John and Mary for example.

John propositioned Mary at 4am in an elevator in Dublin after following her to the lift. Mary accepted and they proceeded to go to bed togeather.

I have no time for people trying to force their beliefs or their morals on anyone else as long as those people don't purposely cause harm to others.

Watson didn't appreciate it, fine. I personally wouldn't appreciate it. But to suggest that there is some sort of concensus on what isn't proper behaviour and so everyone should follow suit is ridiculous.

It seems from this that you agree with what Rebecca said in her original video, which was:

From Rebecca's original video comment wrote:

Just a word to the wise here, guys: don’t do that. I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4 am, in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and don’t invite me back to your hotel room, right after I’ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

However the conversation went after that, is it fair to say that Rebecca's original statement is consistent with your position?

Michael Nugent · 07-09-2012 05:49AM

decimatio wrote: »

Because different people have very different definitions of what is and is not considerate behaviour.

I agree with this. And, even taking this into account, surely it is still more reasonable to suggest that people should be considerate when propositioning other people, than it is to suggest that people should never proposition other people?

decimatio · 07-09-2012 06:26AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

However the conversation went after that, is it fair to say that Rebecca's original statement is consistent with your position?

I never had any issue with her original statement assuming she was speaking for herself.

decimatio · 07-09-2012 06:52AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I agree with this. And, even taking this into account, surely it is still more reasonable to suggest that people should be considerate when propositioning other people, than it is to suggest that people should never proposition other people?

But this fails when you try to define considerate. I guess that while we have our differences yourself and myself probably would agree more on what's considerate than we would disagree on. The difference is that I don't believe we should overlay that onto others and I'm not going to tell others that they are inconsiderate (by my standards). That's what the religious do.

You are conflating what you (the majority) considers to be polite behaviour with what behaviour is acceptable.

Could you please answer my question regarding reversing the situation in the elevator ?

Ickle Magoo · 07-09-2012 10:01AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Ickle Magoo,

Just a quick question.

When you refer to certain responses being bad PR, do you mean you think the responses are okay in themselves but are bad PR, or that they are bad responses in themselves and also bad PR?

Depends on the response, really. In the main I guess a bit of both...on one hand I can see why people would argue that one adult approaching another with a polite proposition just shouldn't be an issue...on the other I can understand why, when specifically dealing with an event in which women always were a minority and now an ever decreasing minority, a male dominated movement dismissing the concerns of a number of regular attendees out-of-hand unless they provide concrete evidence in tandem with rabidly and blindly arguing for the right to treat these events like a meat-market is a marketing disaster.

robindch · 07-09-2012 10:07AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You can choose to self-regulate your freedom of speech to help make other people more comfortable, because it is a nice way to behave even if you don’t legally have to.

And a question here -- how does one deal with people who, intentionally or unintentionally, use the threat of their own overreaction to cause other people to over-self-regulate?

Here, there's a parallel, which has been ignored so far, with the blasphemy legislation which can encourage some people to overreact and others to threaten to overreact, causing the first group to self-censor.

decimatio · 07-09-2012 10:26AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You can choose to self-regulate your freedom of speech to help make other people more comfortable, because it is a nice way to behave even if you don’t legally have to.

So you never say anything bad about religion when the religious are in hearing distance? You wouldn't want to make the Catholics feel uncomfortable would you?

mikhail · 07-09-2012 12:29PM

decimatio wrote: »

So you never say anything bad about religion when the religious are in hearing distance? You wouldn't want to make the Catholics feel uncomfortable would you?

And of course Michael takes their definition of "bad" into account when censoring himself in that fashion.

Michael Nugent · 07-09-2012 01:02PM

decimatio wrote: »

So you never say anything bad about religion when the religious are in hearing distance? You wouldn't want to make the Catholics feel uncomfortable would you?

Of course I do. You know that I do.

In this context, we were discussing freedom of speech in the context of having the right to proposition people without considering their feelings.

I wouldn't proposition a religious person (or an atheist) without considering their feelings, even if I have the right to do so.

strobe · 07-09-2012 04:08PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Depends on the response, really. In the main I guess a bit of both...on one hand I can see why people would argue that one adult approaching another with a polite proposition just shouldn't be an issue...on the other I can understand why, when specifically dealing with an event in which women always were a minority and now an ever decreasing minority, a male dominated movement dismissing the concerns of a number of regular attendees out-of-hand unless they provide concrete evidence in tandem with rabidly and blindly arguing for the right to treat these events like a meat-market is a marketing disaster.

What a way to artificially flavour things though Ickle... arguing to treat the events like a meat-market... Who has done this?

These things are from what I can gather, social gatherings, like comic book conventions etc, as much as anything else for the people that attend, meet similar people with similar interests, talk about those interests, have a few drinks in the bar afterwards and a bit of a laugh. A bunch of adults at a social gathering...

I really dont think that people arguing that people hooking up with each other, and therefore one or the other having to make the first move, should not be outlawed from on high, is equivalent to arguing that these places should be treated like a meat market.

I mean c'mon, really now, that's insanely hyperbolic, no?

Ickle Magoo · 07-09-2012 06:06PM

strobei wrote: »

I mean c'mon, really now, that's insanely hyperbolic, no?

I don't think it is tbh - at least not in terms of perceptions...and the post was regarding PR.

If women are outnumbered at TAM (4-1 at the last one, wasn't it?) & all the discussion seen about the event completely negates to mention what TAM is and why you'd go there and instead circles around and concentrates exclusively on how "women" aught to have no issue with being propositioned then it's little wonder so many are giving it a wide berth.

Gongoozler · 07-09-2012 10:20PM

I've got a degree in an area which is very much dominated by men (a lot higher than 4-1). If on a work night out with all my colleagues, I was propositioned by one of the men there, whatever reaction I had would be in response to that man. I wouldn't dream of saying it's an ongoing issue because one event does not make it so. If it made me uncomfortable, I'd just get over it, and probably avoid being around / alone with that guy in future. Others may confront or complain or something, but it is unreasonable to make rules about such events in future.

Taking the fact that there was an organised event out of the picture, a man came on to a woman. It seems as simple as that to me, unless I'm missing something.

Michael Nugent · 07-09-2012 10:53PM

robindch wrote: »

And a question here -- how does one deal with people who, intentionally or unintentionally, use the threat of their own overreaction to cause other people to over-self-regulate?

Here, there's a parallel, which has been ignored so far, with the blasphemy legislation which can encourage some people to overreact and others to threaten to overreact, causing the first group to self-censor.

This is indeed part of the problem. Some people on “both sides” believe that some people on “the other side” are doing just this.

Obviously I'm using "both sides" and "the other side" as oversimplifications of more complex interactions.

My general approach is outlined in these posts:

Why atheist and skeptic groups should be inclusive, caring and supportive, and 25 ways to discuss this reasonably

A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism

pH · 07-09-2012 10:58PM

Gongoozler wrote: »

I've got a degree in an area which is very much dominated by men (a lot higher than 4-1). If on a work night out with all my colleagues, I was propositioned by one of the men there, whatever reaction I had would be in response to that man. I wouldn't dream of saying it's an ongoing issue because one event does not make it so. If it made me uncomfortable, I'd just get over it, and probably avoid being around / alone with that guy in future. Others may confront or complain or something, but it is unreasonable to make rules about such events in future.

Taking the fact that there was an organised event out of the picture, a man came on to a woman. It seems as simple as that to me, unless I'm missing something.

Which was pretty much the view of two women bloggers/commenters at the start of all of this.

Miss Watson responded by attacking them when she was meant to be giving a keynote address about "The religious right's war on women" - something that miss Watson has a history of, given she used a chunk her time in the session "communicating atheism" in a Dublin conference to belittle Paula Kirby who had spoken earlier.

Sadly, though, much as she wanted to attack Paula and bang the nasty sexist atheist community drum, she seemed to have little actual evidence (or even anecdotes) save for a few anonymous derogatory emails that she knew were from atheists. Then by an extremely fortuitous piece of luck, that very night Elevator guy gave her everything she needed on a plate.

Gongoozler · 07-09-2012 11:05PM

pH wrote: »

Which was pretty much the view of two women bloggers/commenters at the start of all of this.

Miss Watson responded by attacking them when she was meant to be giving a keynote address about "The religious right's war on women" - something that miss Watson has a history of, given she used a chunk her time in the session "communicating atheism" in a Dublin conference to belittle Paula Kirby who had spoken earlier.

Sadly, though, much as she wanted to attack Paula and bang the nasty sexist atheist community drum, she seemed to have little actual evidence (or even anecdotes) save for a few anonymous derogatory emails that she knew were from atheists. Then by an extremely fortuitous piece of luck, that very night Elevator guy gave her everything she needed on a plate.

yeah sorry,

but 108 pages is a lot.

Even if it was bad timing, the elevator guy was still one guy. I mean, it's still a non issue as far as I'm concerned.

Zamboni · 07-09-2012 11:13PM

TL;DR
Can I hit on chicks at TedX tomorrow or not?
Thanks :pac:

Doctor DooM · 07-09-2012 11:17PM

Zamboni wrote: »

TL;DR
Can I hit on chicks at TedX tomorrow or not?
Thanks :pac:

Long as it's not in a lift.

Ickle Magoo · 07-09-2012 11:19PM

Zamboni wrote: »

TL;DR
Can I hit on chicks at TedX tomorrow or not?
Thanks :pac:

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Long as it's not in a lift.

And triple check they aren't a blogger...

Gongoozler · 07-09-2012 11:20PM

Zamboni wrote: »

TL;DR
Can I hit on chicks at TedX tomorrow or not?
Thanks :pac:

As long as she seems somewhat interested, according to ms watson.

decimatio · 08-09-2012 05:12AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Of course I do. You know that I do.

In this context, we were discussing freedom of speech in the context of having the right to proposition people without considering their feelings. .

And why is it so different from freedom of speech in other situations ?

08-09-2012 01:38PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And triple check they aren't a blogger...

If they're only on LiveJournal ya can get away with it.

robindch · 12-09-2012 05:37PM

Watson says that producing tee-shirts of herself is "too egotistical", but does it anyway.

So, well, buy your tee-shirts now! Step right up! Available for two weeks only! $20 plus p+p!

http://networkedblogs.com/C45Kl

mikhail · 12-09-2012 05:49PM

robindch wrote: »

I assumed that was a Katy Perry t-shirt on first glance. I wonder if Watson's thought that look through.

fitz0 · 12-09-2012 08:00PM

Shouldn't it be "Their hate makes me grow richer"?

Or "Their confusion makes me grow louder"?

Hotblack Desiato · 12-09-2012 11:02PM

There is only one possible caption for that t-shirt.

'Seriously, guys, don't do that'

13-09-2012 01:21AM

If you guys keep talking like she's going to hulk out and burst out of clothes. Or is that the plan? Either way stop it.

Zombrex · 13-09-2012 05:04PM

This is hilarious.

http://skepchick.org/2012/09/speaking-out-against-hate-directed-at-women-eran-segev/

Read the comments, they are turning on this poor guy because he dared say in his piece that he doesn't agree with everything Watson has said. This is the author, not some other commenter. Amy and Watson herself turn up trying to calm the situation down but they are having none of it.

Reminds me of the Islamists group in Egypt who found the Muslim Brotherhood not extreme enough, went up into the mountains to organize a proper true Islamist Jihad and eventually turned on each other and ended up killing each other trying to be the truest follower of Jihad.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments