Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

robindch · 13-09-2012 05:50PM

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

I thought that was the islamists in Algeria who decided, in order, that the West was infinitely corrupt and could be murdered at will; then that their fellow-citizens were infinitely corrupt and could be murdered at will; and finally, that everybody within their increasingly small group, was infinitely corrupt and could be murdered at will.

Adam Curtis' excellent The Power of Nightmares, if memory serves.

Zombrex · 13-09-2012 06:49PM

robindch wrote: »

I thought that was the islamists in Algeria who decided, in order, that the West was infinitely corrupt and could be murdered at will; then that their fellow-citizens were infinitely corrupt and could be murdered at will; and finally, that everybody within their increasingly small group, was infinitely corrupt and could be murdered at will.

Adam Curtis' excellent The Power of Nightmares, if memory serves.

Probably, though I wouldn't be surprised if it happened more than once :pac:

Duggys Housemate · 13-09-2012 06:59PM

Despite the fact that Rebecca Watson turned up they still cast him out as a heretic.

DapperGent · 13-09-2012 07:03PM

Zombrex wrote: »

This is hilarious.

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

My goodness those people are awful.

Sarky · 13-09-2012 09:36PM

So Watson isn't feminist enough for the mob any more. This sh*t is getting funny now.

UDP · 13-09-2012 10:28PM

Brilliant. Guy makes point that people should be civil even when they disagree only to personally attacked looking for something to disagree on.

robindch · 13-09-2012 11:31PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Despite the fact that Rebecca Watson turned up they still cast him out as a heretic.

I gather Watson is a "she".

Oh, sorry. Picked up that the wrong way.

Sorry, didn't mean to use the term "pick up" either.

<hangs self from rafter>

joseph brand · 13-09-2012 11:36PM

robindch wrote: »

I gather Watson is a "she".

Oh, sorry. Picked up that the wrong way.

Sorry, didn't mean to use the term "pick up" either.

<hangs self from rafter>

Hahaha.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-09-2012 08:57PM

robindch wrote: »

I thought that was the islamists in Algeria who decided, in order, that the West was infinitely corrupt and could be murdered at will; then that their fellow-citizens were infinitely corrupt and could be murdered at will; and finally, that everybody within their increasingly small group, was infinitely corrupt and could be murdered at will.

Adam Curtis' excellent The Power of Nightmares, if memory serves.

Monty Python could've written that 30 years ago and people would have thought it funny, but far too silly to possibly happen

robindch · 21-09-2012 10:14AM

I've never understood, at least when assuming their honesty, why the FTB'ers seemingly haven't reported all this online abuse, threats etc to the relevant civil authorities.

Especially when online threats are taken fairly seriously as they are in the USA. Here, for example, is what happened when a California man posted an online threat to kill some kids:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/calif-man-held-on-2m-bail-after-online-post-says-he-wouldnt-mind-killing-local-school-kids/2012/09/18/40222904-01ae-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_story.html

Note the speed at which ESPN reported the incident to the police and the speed and seriousness with which the police dealt with it. No bleating either from anybody about this guy being a "kid-hater" or mispaedic or whatever the adjective happens to be, and especially no tee-shirts revelling in the online hate.

UDP · 21-09-2012 11:18AM

robindch wrote: »

I've never understood, at least when assuming their honesty, why the FTB'ers seemingly haven't reported all this online abuse, threats etc to the relevant civil authorities.

Especially when online threats are taken fairly seriously as they are in the USA. Here, for example, is what happened when a California man posted an online threat to kill some kids:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/calif-man-held-on-2m-bail-after-online-post-says-he-wouldnt-mind-killing-local-school-kids/2012/09/18/40222904-01ae-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_story.html

Note the speed at which ESPN reported the incident to the police and the speed and seriousness with which the police dealt with it. No bleating either from anybody about this guy being a "kid-hater" or mispaedic or whatever the adjective happens to be, and especially no tee-shirts revelling in the online hate.

Same for the tweet to the Team GB athlete in the UK during the olympics. Surely reporting it to the authorities is the first basic step to actual work towards stopping it rather than going online to complain about it.

Ickle Magoo · 21-09-2012 11:24AM

Depends on the authority I guess. It's all very well citing someone who has been prosecuted in one country but unless the country you are in has the same laws in place then it's not comparing like with like...and if the constant stream of insults, jibes and back-slapping already evident is anything to go by, I can only imagine the effect any attempts to bring criminal charges would have.

Could also be because public shaming is likely to have more of an effect/kick off a bigger discussion?

Mark Hamill · 21-09-2012 04:42PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Depends on the authority I guess. It's all very well citing someone who has been prosecuted in one country but unless the country you are in has the same laws in place then it's not comparing like with like

Are most of the bloggers on FTB not American or British?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

...and if the constant stream of insults, jibes and back-slapping already evident is anything to go by, I can only imagine the effect any attempts to bring criminal charges would have.

The FTBers who claimed that they where the victims of online harassment said that harassment happened before elevatorgate. They could have done it when it happened before the blogs turned out like they are now.

JuliusCaesar · 21-09-2012 05:05PM

Gongoozler wrote: »

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.

+1.

If nobody ever propositioned anyone else, the race would die out!

Ickle Magoo · 21-09-2012 08:38PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are most of the bloggers on FTB not American or British?

I have no idea - but I would think many authorities (as evidenced by the Tom Daly story I linked to) have little enough legal clout when it comes to prosecuting internet posters from their own country, never mind having any kind of jurisdiction over those who are posting from another...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The FTBers who claimed that they where the victims of online harassment said that harassment happened before elevatorgate. They could have done it when it happened before the blogs turned out like they are now.

Lots of people suffer harassment, assault and worse and don't report it - I'm not sure why it's being pushed as having great significance in this case...unless it's yet another attempt to "discredit" ie "they didn't report it/make a fuss at the time so it couldn't have happened" type thing...which is always a bit of dodgy road to head down.

Pace2008 · 21-09-2012 09:32PM

robindch wrote: »

She's a lot better looking without a face.

yawha · 21-09-2012 09:43PM

What has her attractiveness got to do with anything?

Mark Hamill · 21-09-2012 10:37PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have no idea - but I would think many authorities (as evidenced by the Tom Daly story I linked to) have little enough legal clout when it comes to prosecuting internet posters from their own country, never mind having any kind of jurisdiction over those who are posting from another...

From your own source, referencing the insulting Tom Daly tweet:
“This was, in essence, a one-off offensive Twitter message, intended for family and friends, which made its way into the public domain.

“It was not intended to reach Mr Daley or Mr Waterfield, it was not part of a campaign, it was not intended to incite others and Mr Thomas removed it reasonably swiftly and has expressed remorse. Against that background, it was not so grossly offensive that criminal charges need to be brought.”
Here's the tweet, if you want to see it for yourself.
Not exactly the same as threatening to rape someone or constant harassment.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Lots of people suffer harassment, assault and worse and don't report it - I'm not sure why it's being pushed as having great significance in this case...unless it's yet another attempt to "discredit" ie "they didn't report it/make a fuss at the time so it couldn't have happened" type thing...which is always a bit of dodgy road to head down.

Why? You have to remember its not a case of one incident of horrible harassment that didn't get reported, the claim was constant harassment, at many conferences and on a lot (if not all) the blogs.
I can understand someone not reporting a case of harassment, I really can. What I cannot understand is someone repeatedly going back to the same environment, if they knew that it was just going to be constant harassment.

Ickle Magoo · 22-09-2012 01:11AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not exactly the same as threatening to rape someone or constant harassment

The point still stands - how many prosecutions have there been for threats of rape or harassment on a forum? How many successful prosecutions? Vs cases of threats and/or harassment do you reckon?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why? You have to remember its not a case of one incident of horrible harassment that didn't get reported, the claim was constant harassment, at many conferences and on a lot (if not all) the blogs.
I can understand someone not reporting a case of harassment, I really can. What I cannot understand is someone repeatedly going back to the same environment, if they knew that it was just going to be constant harassment.

It was only a few short years ago that threatening behaviour and harassment was fairly common place on many internet sites with the expected posting standard somewhere between juvenile and misogynistic...there are forums on this very site still suffering the hang-over. It was the norm, it was what was to be expected and more to the point - there was very little alternative. In order for that to change, you have to find people determined enough to stick around long enough and make enough noise, bang their head off the wall long enough - usually against much opposition from those who enjoy the status quo - for things to change and set a new norm...otherwise there is no other option bar ring-fencing a space where you make the rules.

Mark Hamill · 22-09-2012 01:40PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The point still stands - how many prosecutions have there been for threats of rape or harassment on a forum? How many successful prosecutions? Vs cases of threats and/or harassment do you reckon?

I haven't heard of many. Of course, there can't be any if the victims, who feel so comfortable bringing up the harassment in discussion forums, never actually report it to the police.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It was only a few short years ago that threatening behaviour and harassment was fairly common place on many internet sites with the expected posting standard somewhere between juvenile and misogynistic...there are forums on this very site still suffering the hang-over. It was the norm, it was what was to be expected and more to the point - there was very little alternative. In order for that to change, you have to find people determined enough to stick around long enough and make enough noise, bang their head off the wall long enough - usually against much opposition from those who enjoy the status quo - for things to change and set a new norm...otherwise there is no other option bar ring-fencing a space where you make the rules.

But wait, didn't all or most of the online harassment the FTBloggers refer to, happen on their own forums? Or in the comment sections under their own articles? Do they not, essentially, moderate the discussions under their own articles?
And why, assuming they really were paralysed to act against the harassment on their own sites, did they not act against the constant harassment they got in real life, at the various conferences they went to?

pH · 22-09-2012 03:26PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But wait, didn't all or most of the online harassment the FTBloggers refer to, happen on their own forums? Or in the comment sections under their own articles? Do they not, essentially, moderate the discussions under their own articles?

Which is the bit I really don't get - a lot of what they're complaining about seem to be just ad-hominen insults - fair enough but they (FtB/skepchick) pride themselves on their adult language and their ability to insult - I don't read much of it but it took Wicknight about 2 posts before one of the movement leaders felt free to call him a "despicable sh*t" on skepchick comments.

For example here, from pharyngula:

"A tone troll is a serious-minded person who wants only to raise the level of discussion in the dire cesspits of the New Atheist web. Or, possibly, they're a pompous blowhard who, lacking such frivolous accoutrements as an actual argument, attempts to distract attention from said deficit by complaining that their opposition uses dirty words and ought, really, to have some strict nanny figure—possibly Mary Poppins—to wash out their mouths with soap."
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_troll

So it's more than just allowing some insults and profanities slide - these people genuinely pride themselves that they can have a sweary name-calling discourse - except of course if anyone on the internet ever calls one of them something - now that's misogyny, harassment and barely one step above actual assault.

condra · 24-09-2012 02:40AM

Their hate makes me grow stronger

Her ego makes me grow irritated

Ickle Magoo · 24-09-2012 09:10AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I haven't heard of many. Of course, there can't be any if the victims, who feel so comfortable bringing up the harassment in discussion forums, never actually report it to the police.

I don't think in order to be a legitimate complaint, there must be a formal complaint made to police - as I said earlier, that's a dodgy road to go down...that's not to say every case is legitimate but I don't think not making a police report has ever been grounds to dismiss a complaint out of hand so the expectation that's what should be done is a little odd and straw-grabby to say the least.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But wait, didn't all or most of the online harassment the FTBloggers refer to, happen on their own forums? Or in the comment sections under their own articles? Do they not, essentially, moderate the discussions under their own articles?
And why, assuming they really were paralysed to act against the harassment on their own sites, did they not act against the constant harassment they got in real life, at the various conferences they went to?

Good question - why when they are subjected to months of insults, snide jibes, juvenile comments about attractiveness and a concerted effort by the same tired few to try to discredit and blindly refuse to see there being any issue despite it being clear there are at least three camps for the heinous crime of suggesting "don't do that" would anyone not tackle this earlier and more vociferously...I can't imagine...

While it's clear some think they are succeeding in discrediting A+, the constant stream of negativity/snideness/dismissal in response to A+ make many of their arguments for them...which is possibly as annoying, if not more so, than the guff that some at A+ are coming out with.

UDP · 24-09-2012 09:47AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think in order to be a legitimate complaint, there must be a formal complaint made to police - as I said earlier, that's a dodgy road to go down...that's not to say every case is legitimate but I don't think not making a police report has ever been grounds to dismiss a complaint out of hand so the expectation that's what should be done is a little odd and straw-grabby to say the least.

But complaining about it on the internet is not going to change anything. The police have reacted to reports of online abuse. Even if there is no conviction it lets the perpetrators know they are not anonymous which might make them think twice before harassing online again.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Good question - why when they are subjected to months of insults, snide jibes, juvenile comments about attractiveness and a concerted effort by the same tired few to try to discredit and blindly refuse to see there being any issue despite it being clear there are at least three camps for the heinous crime of suggesting "don't do that" would anyone not tackle this earlier and more vociferously...I can't imagine...

The problem most people has is that that instance cannot not be claimed to be harassment or abuse or anything else. It was at worse a proposition that was all very polite. That is completely different to the cases now being talked about i.e. threats of rape etc. When people bring it up as part of the same argument it really weakens the point.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

While it's clear some think they are succeeding in discrediting A+, the constant stream of negativity/snideness/dismissal in response to A+ make many of their arguments for them...which is possibly as annoying, if not more so, than the guff that some at A+ are coming out with.

A+ acting like a religion i.e. you are either with us or against us, should be discredited as a joke coming from supposed skeptics.

Ickle Magoo · 24-09-2012 10:03AM

UDP wrote: »

But complaining about it on the internet is not going to change anything. The police have reacted to reports of online abuse. Even if there is no conviction it lets the perpetrators know they are not anonymous which might make them think twice before harassing online again.

Do you seriously believe that? Discussion doesn't ever change anything only civil [criminal?] prosecutions?

This site, what is moderated and what is deemed acceptable changes all the time because people bring it up for discussion, report it, drop mods/admin a PM and trigger a discussion between mods/admin, etc, etc.

UDP wrote: »

The problem most people has is that that instance cannot not be claimed to be harassment or abuse or anything else. It was at worse a proposition that was all very polite. That is completely different to the cases now being talked about i.e. threats of rape etc. When people bring it up as part of the same argument it really weakens the point.

It is part of the same argument, I think or at least related to it - that's what kicked off the argument after all, is it not? The vociferous defence of those that make up the majority of an event's attendees to follow women into enclosed spaces in order to proposition them? Lack of social awareness, lack of tact, lack of manners, a movement out of touch with many women blindly creating a PR disaster and still trying to convince themselves that it's because women don't find events on atheist interesting/just aren't interested in discussing atheism with them...followed by dismissal, followed by other/more examples of related behaviours by other people, followed by more dismissals and round the merry-go-round we go.

UDP wrote: »

A+ acting like a religion i.e. you are either with us or against us, should be discredited as a joke coming from supposed skeptics.

Cos that's not also a "with us or against us" statement at all is it? Suggesting only you are the one true way of doing things and trying to prevent other people doing their thing isn't at all religiousy is it? It's mind-boggling that those at either pole can't see the irony.

UDP · 24-09-2012 10:33AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that? Discussion doesn't ever change anything only civil [criminal?] prosecutions?

This site, what is moderated and what is deemed acceptable changes all the time because people bring it up for discussion, report it, drop mods/admin a PM and trigger a discussion between mods/admin, etc, etc.

But most of this abuse (if not all) was either on their own blogs or via email. Discussing that elsewhere isn't going to make a difference. Its no harm letting people know if happens but you won't stop it via online discussion since the problem is most likely due to the feeling of anonymity some have on the internet.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It is part of the same argument, I think or at least related to it - that's what kicked off the argument after all, is it not? The vociferous defence of those that make up the majority of an event's attendees to follow women into enclosed spaces in order to proposition them? Lack of social awareness, lack of tact, lack of manners, a movement out of touch with many women blindly creating a PR disaster and still trying to convince themselves that it's because women don't find events on atheist interesting/just aren't interested in discussing atheism with them...followed by dismissal, followed by other/more examples of related behaviours by other people, followed by more dismissals and round the merry-go-round we go.

Politely propositioning is not the same as harassment/abuse. Equating the two is what made people so pi$$ed off with the argument from what I can see.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Cos that's not also a "with us or against us" statement at all is it? Suggesting only you are the one true way of doing things and trying to prevent other people doing their thing isn't at all religiousy is it? It's mind-boggling that those at either pole can't see the irony.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in atheists having group opinions and lambasting those who disagree with those opinions as being misogynists. Its illogical and nothing to do with atheism. I think such behaviour should be ridiculed in the exact same way as I think religious beliefs should be ridiculed.

Ickle Magoo · 24-09-2012 10:48AM

UDP wrote: »

But most of this abuse (if not all) was either on their own blogs or via email. Discussing that elsewhere isn't going to make a difference. Its no harm letting people know if happens but you won't stop it via online discussion since the problem is most likely due to the feeling of anonymity some have on the internet.

Nothing is going to stop some people being douche-bags, nothing. But the discussion on this topic galvanised a number of people who felt there was a sufficient issue and spawned a new discussion forum which is going to tackle douche-baggery in their turf, surely that IS making a difference?

UDP wrote: »

Politely propositioning is not the same as harassment/abuse.

It's not that simple tho, is it...or this discussion wouldn't exist. In an event where women are greatly outnumbered and a world in which many women field multiple propositions every time they are out, there is a very fine line between creating a welcoming space and an atmosphere of harassment and behaviours which put women off attending your event en masse.

UDP wrote: »

Do you not see the hypocrisy in atheists having group opinions and lambasting those who disagree with those opinions as being misogynists. Its illogical and nothing to do with atheism. I think such behaviour should be ridiculed in the exact same way as I think religious beliefs should be ridiculed.

I thought we'd covered the whole "not atheism" thing...or was that the other thread? If all anyone can discuss is the existence/non-existence of god then this forum would be a fraction of the size it is. I don't see an issue with forums/sites creating a space where discussion can be had from a specific perspective, particularly when aimed at/for a minority or demographic imbalance in discussions that can favour one side unfairly/undeservedly.

The bottom line is I see very little difference between either trench. While one screeches misogyny the other screeches dismissals and nasty, sometimes misogynistic/sexist/juvenile insults...I just see a blur of mud-hurling by the most vocal from either trench making each other and themselves look ridiculous/legitimised while the majority look on rather bemused at both.

UDP · 24-09-2012 11:47AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Nothing is going to stop some people being douche-bags, nothing. But the discussion on this topic galvanised a number of people who felt there was a sufficient issue and spawned a new discussion forum which is going to tackle douche-baggery in their turf, surely that IS making a difference?

It won't make a difference when those people setting up this forum allow douche-bag behaviour on their blogs already e.g. skepchick. Thats why these people are just dismissed by many and imo rightly so.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not that simple tho, is it...or this discussion wouldn't exist. In an event where women are greatly outnumbered and a world in which many women field multiple propositions every time they are out, there is a very fine line between creating a welcoming space and an atmosphere of harassment and behaviours which put women off attending your event en masse.

There is a massive difference between politely propositioning and harassment. I wouldn't do it in the elevator but I don't think it is a good idea to tell people who they can or cannot proposition or sleep with at events. As long as nobody is persistent, aggressive or violent then it cannot be banned especially when some people do want it - males and females included.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I thought we'd covered the whole "not atheism" thing...or was that the other thread? If all anyone can discuss is the existence/non-existence of god then this forum would be a fraction of the size it is. I don't see an issue with forums/sites creating a space where discussion can be had from a specific perspective, particularly when aimed at/for a minority or demographic imbalance in discussions that can favour one side unfairly/undeservedly.

The bottom line is I see very little difference between either trench. While one screeches misogyny the other screeches dismissals and nasty, sometimes misogynistic/sexist/juvenile insults...I just see a blur of mud-hurling by the most vocal from either trench making each other and themselves look ridiculous/legitimised while the majority look on rather bemused at both.

Personal insults should not be tolerated on either side but the problem is you have a group forming together to combat this douche-bag behaviour by performing the same behaviour themselves.

Ickle Magoo · 24-09-2012 03:38PM

UDP wrote: »

It won't make a difference when those people setting up this forum allow douche-bag behaviour on their blogs already e.g. skepchick. Thats why these people are just dismissed by many and imo rightly so.

Agreed. But that is ignoring the fact the forum isn't just made up of a handful of known bloggers...and that's before you get to all the other people who think while the A+ crowd haven't gone about changing it the right way, the current discussion forums/events don't represent them/aren't a balanced representation of scepticism/atheism.

UDP wrote: »

There is a massive difference between politely propositioning and harassment. I wouldn't do it in the elevator but I don't think it is a good idea to tell people who they can or cannot proposition or sleep with at events. As long as nobody is persistent, aggressive or violent then it cannot be banned especially when some people do want it - males and females included.

I don't think there is a massive difference...change the dynamics even slightly ie being propositioned numerous times over the course of the event or being followed to the lift and then onto your room and it's very much an issue - at least in terms being likely to affect popularity/attendance. When it's inferred that women are fair game at such an even - or should be expected to be fair game, even though they are already greatly outnumbered, it sounds like the worst advertisement in history to right an already gender-imbalanced community/event...and if the folks at TAM were happy just to host a sausage-fest then I suspect we wouldn't still be having this discussion...

UDP wrote: »

Personal insults should not be tolerated on either side but the problem is you have a group forming together to combat this douche-bag behaviour by performing the same behaviour themselves.

Agreed...neither side doing their "cause" any good, imo.

Pace2008 · 24-09-2012 07:41PM

yawha wrote: »

What has her attractiveness got to do with anything?

I think it's a rather flattering image is all. She looks like a bit of a fox on the t-shirt; the reality is a lot, eh, plainer.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments