Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[tsig]

While I am glad that you have such confidence in your ability to understand words without looking them up, sadly, the obvious way you have botched the definition of "misogyny"doesn't fill me with such hope. Please, to be using a dictionary?

Could you link me to where I defined misogyny or "misogyny" if that suits you better?

You seem to be reading my posts with a flair for creativity.

 

[wareyin]

Could you link me to where I defined misogyny or "misogyny" if that suits you better?

You seem to be reading my posts with a flair for creativity.

If you are going to complain about reading posts with a flair for creativity, you may want to knock of the straw-manning of posts which seem to be your only contribution.

I did not say you had defined it, I said you have a botched definition of it, as evidenced by your responses to usage of the word.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I’m all for pointing out when the rhetoric gets too hyperbolic, but Dawkins didn't exactly do that. He just compared first world problems with vastly worse suffering.

That's not how I read his comments, but then I agreed with him. Dawkins' Muslima was a poor example to use mostly because it detracted from the point.

But what do you mean by first world problems with less suffering? The only problem Dear Muslima referred to amounted to a minor annoyance. It didn't rise to the level of 'vastly less suffering' because no one suffered anything.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not how I read his comments, but then I agreed with him. Dawkins' Muslima was a poor example to use mostly because it detracted from the point.

But what do you mean by first world problems with less suffering? The only problem Dear Muslima referred to amounted to a minor annoyance. It didn't rise to the level of 'vastly less suffering' because no one suffered anything.

The problem I had with that is that it isn't a logical argument. It is saying ignore this problem because something else if far worse. For example it would be like saying like that ISIS exists is why all the black lives matter issues are irrelevant.

I am not a supporter of the elevatorgate thing but that is a poor way to make a point, because all it is is dismissive.

 

[d4m10n]

The only problem Dear Muslima referred to amounted to a minor annoyance. It didn't rise to the level of 'vastly less suffering' because no one suffered anything.

I'm not taking this bait. If you want to carefully parse whether subjective apprehension doesn't count as suffering even in the slightest, feel free to make your case. Maybe you can find someone who really wants to quibble over terminology.

You probably should also confront Dawkins himself, for calling it "victimhood" in his mea culpa.

 

[luchog]

The problem I had with that is that it isn't a logical argument. It is saying ignore this problem because something else if far worse. For example it would be like saying like that ISIS exists is why all the black lives matter issues are irrelevant.

I am not a supporter of the elevatorgate thing but that is a poor way to make a point, because all it is is dismissive.

I think people are going out of their way to misread Dawkins' comments. He was not dismissing the issue, He was dismissing the SJW overreaction to what is essentially a minor First-World Problem, their inappropriate use of "rape culture" rhetoric by pointing out what a real rape culture looked like, and their tendency to ignore what they call "brown people problems".

I've never been a big fan of Dawkins, I find his approach to be unnecessarily abrasive most of the time; but he had a very valid points to make, and made them fairly effectively, despite his opponents' attempts to demonize him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem I had with that is that it isn't a logical argument. It is saying ignore this problem because something else if far worse. For example it would be like saying like that ISIS exists is why all the black lives matter issues are irrelevant.

I am not a supporter of the elevatorgate thing but that is a poor way to make a point, because all it is is dismissive.

But that's just thing, what problem? A bunch of people who decided men's polite behavior was sexist because, OMG, he asked her to his room for coffee and conversation.

The guy was stupid, you can call that a problem. And any gal that went with a stranger to his hotel room would have been even stupider. But a stupid guy making a clumsy pass at a gal is not the 'problem' it was portrayed as being.

Some of us did dismiss the complaint because it was ridiculous.

Now, had the guy said, "You wanna go do the nasty?" there would have been a legitimate problem to complain about.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not taking this bait. If you want to carefully parse whether subjective apprehension doesn't count as suffering even in the slightest, feel free to make your case. Maybe you can find someone who really wants to quibble over terminology.

You probably should also confront Dawkins himself, for calling it "victimhood" in his mea culpa.

I forgot why I hadn't bother to check into this thread. Why can't the issues that have been addressed stay addressed?

No one said Ms W couldn't feel apprehension. Can you please drop that straw man?
Saying, "Guys don't do that", putting one individual's apprehension out there as a universal apprehension was ludicrous.

Suppose someone with a social phobia expected everyone to act as if everyone else had the same phobia, you could claim any and every interaction between people was a problem.

It's not that RW was apprehensive, it's that she decided that was the baseline apprehension all the rest of us should have.

And you know that, so drop the straw man!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think people are going out of their way to misread Dawkins' comments. He was not dismissing the issue, He was dismissing the SJW overreaction to what is essentially a minor First-World Problem, their inappropriate use of "rape culture" rhetoric by pointing out what a real rape culture looked like, and their tendency to ignore what they call "brown people problems".

I've never been a big fan of Dawkins, I find his approach to be unnecessarily abrasive most of the time; but he had a very valid points to make, and made them fairly effectively, despite his opponents' attempts to demonize him.

^ That too.

 

[d4m10n]

He was dismissing the SJW overreaction to what is essentially a minor First-World Problem, their inappropriate use of "rape culture" rhetoric by pointing out what a real rape culture looked like, and their tendency to ignore what they call "brown people problems".

I don't see where Dawkins addressed rape culture at all. Unless you mean the bit about how "he didn't lay a finger on her" which probably alludes to rape, if not culture.

Nor can I find the original thread (formerly hosted at Science Blogs) to read Dawkins' remarks in context and check whether rape culture was actually a significant part of that convo.

 

[d4m10n]

No one said Ms W couldn't feel apprehension.

No one said that anyone said that.

Can you please drop that straw man?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But that's just thing, what problem? A bunch of people who decided men's polite behavior was sexist because, OMG, he asked her to his room for coffee and conversation.

The guy was stupid, you can call that a problem. And any gal that went with a stranger to his hotel room would have been even stupider. But a stupid guy making a clumsy pass at a gal is not the 'problem' it was portrayed as being.

Some of us did dismiss the complaint because it was ridiculous.

Now, had the guy said, "You wanna go do the nasty?" there would have been a legitimate problem to complain about.

But you at least address the complaint, not simply compare it to something else and therefor make it irrelevant.

This was the tempest in the teapot that put me off of the skeptical community. I just got fed up with the whole thing being a scandal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No one said that anyone said that.

Can you please drop that straw man?

Fine, we agree then, this needs rewording since I didn't say it either:

If you want to carefully parse whether subjective apprehension doesn't count as suffering even in the slightest

Because that was never the issue. I said it "amounted to a minor annoyance."

Of course if you want to define 'being annoyed' as 'slightly suffering', I agree to disagree with your characterization of the incident.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But you at least address the complaint, not simply compare it to something else and therefor make it irrelevant.

This was the tempest in the teapot that put me off of the skeptical community. I just got fed up with the whole thing being a scandal.

My reaction to the Vlog that started this whole kerfuffle was, 'oh brother'. "Guys don't do that" was so over the top it came across as very self-serving. It was either along the line of telling everyone how hot you thought you were that guys followed you around after conferences or possibly wanting to claim yet more evidence all the women at the skeptics and atheists events were being sexually harassed.

So Dawkins' post in PZ's blog made perfect sense to me. In hindsight it was a distraction from the message. But all the piling on about how insensitive he was or he did this or that wrong, I don't see it. He used a poor analogy. All the rest of that not caring about sexual harassment that was read into his post wasn't there, IMO.

 

[d4m10n]

I said it "amounted to a minor annoyance."

Rebecca characterized her experience as "incredibly uncomfortable" in the original video. You can call that just a minor annoyance if you like, through I doubt that she would agree. Had you been in her place, no doubt you would have characterized that infamous encounter in different terms, but everyone sees the world a bit differently.

 

[tsig]

My reaction to the Vlog that started this whole kerfuffle was, 'oh brother'. "Guys don't do that" was so over the top it came across as very self-serving. It was either along the line of telling everyone how hot you thought you were that guys followed you around after conferences or possibly wanting to claim yet more evidence all the women at the skeptics and atheists events were being sexually harassed.
So Dawkins' post in PZ's blog made perfect sense to me. In hindsight it was a distraction from the message. But all the piling on about how insensitive he was or he did this or that wrong, I don't see it. He used a poor analogy. All the rest of that not caring about sexual harassment that was read into his post wasn't there, IMO.

Here I thought she was simply expressing her wish for guys not to do that I had no idea about all the sub dialogue that apparently you heard.

 

[tsig]

Rebecca characterized her experience as "incredibly uncomfortable" in the original video. You can call that just a minor annoyance if you like, through I doubt that she would agree. Had you been in her place, no doubt you would have characterized that infamous encounter in different terms, but everyone sees the world a bit differently.

If men don't have the right to hit on women when and where they want there will be no sex, no sex, no humans so she was calling for nothing less than the end of the human race.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rebecca characterized her experience as "incredibly uncomfortable" in the original video. You can call that just a minor annoyance if you like, through I doubt that she would agree. Had you been in her place, no doubt you would have characterized that infamous encounter in different terms, but everyone sees the world a bit differently.

But from the vlog, given her smiling description of the actual event, I'm convinced she was exaggerating the outrage.

Both PZ and Phil Plait have taken the position they believe whatever women say about feeling harassed because they are not women. You can take her at face value if you choose.

I don't hold that POV and here's why.

That same woman promoted and posed for a sexually revealing calendar and sponsored hotel room parties at TAM, as well as the Brothel themed party. In addition, for months (maybe for a year) that same person has been exaggerating the prevalence of sexual harassment, and has been on a mission to correct said exaggerated blatant harassment

Sorry, that's going into my assessment of her credibility that she actually was incredibly uncomfortable. I'm skeptical that she was the least bit uncomfortable, let alone incredibly so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here I thought she was simply expressing her wish for guys not to do that I had no idea about all the sub dialogue that apparently you heard.

The elevator event and vlog did not occur in a vacuum.

And she didn't say, don't do that to me, she said guys should know better than to do it to anyone and that's ... well you said so yourself ... implying guys can't ever make a pass at any woman ever.

 

[tsig]

The elevator event and vlog did not occur in a vacuum.

And she didn't say, don't do that to me, she said guys should know better than to do it to anyone and that's ... well you said so yourself ... implying guys can't ever make a pass at any woman ever.

No, just late at night in an isolated space.

Seems your main interest is that men can get a wet willy as often as possible and anything that gets in the way of that is evil.