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

[Meed]

By "circumstances of the EG anecdote" you mean one person asking another for coffee, right? Because even though he admits to having very limited experience, d4m10n has been pretty clear that being asked for coffee is either a thinly veiled proposition, or an outright proposition, no 'under those circumstances' qualifiers used.

d4m10n's line of argument was that he was asking her to have coffee with him in his hotel room, as opposed to, say, a coffee shop. Not that "being asked for coffee always and only means sex", as you put it. This should be plainly obvious if you go back and read the exchange (see post #2425 and onward).

 

[Meed]

Is 4am not the morning, where you live?

Not sure if serious.

It might be hyperbole but E-guy's approach was about as benign as it gets.

I thought it sounded benign, if a little awkward. But obviously a lot of people think it was inappriopriate and this seems to be based on specific situational factors.

Care to explain the cues? Does RW claim now to have mind reading capabilities?

Huh? Care to explain what cues? And why are you asking me if RW has mind reading capabilities? My post didn't even have anything to do with RW. It was about wayerin misinterpreting d4m10n.

Being asked for coffee may imply that that sex is a possibility, and saying yes to the coffee might be taken as a sign of interest, but some people seem to be exaggerating this a lot. For example:

Agreed.

 

[wareyin]

Interesting, you agree that d4m10n is exaggerating, while claiming that when I say he's exaggerating, I'm misinterpreting him.

 

[d4m10n]

Again with the "nefarious". As this is solely your invention, kindly explain it yourself and refrain from attributing it to me.

Oddly enough, I cannot think of a non-nefarious purpose for making **** up and broadcasting it to the www. At least not at the moment.

Your pretense of not understanding the effect of alcohol on memory is not convincing.

I've had alcohol create memory gaps on occasion, notably at TAM. Never noticed alcohol causing me to remember encounters with people who don't actually exist, but perhaps the effect is different on other people.

Narcissist humblebrags about being hit on.

Hit on for real?

 

[d4m10n]

Guy wants to know if you want to hook up, for whatever reason. He asks politely. He takes no for an answer.

Where is the problem there?

No problem at all, so long as you think it is polite to proposition someone you've never spoken with before—who has just been waxing on about how much she dislikes being sexualized—in an enclosed inescapable space, at 4am, in a foreign country.

You and I seem to disagree about which sorts of propositions count as polite. That's okay. Etiquette is a social construct, after all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with you. However, I was responding to the idea that it was actually a request for coffee. It was more probably a proposition for sex, and there isn't anything inherently wrong with that. There is no need to defend the Elevator Guy by appealing to the possibility that it wasn't about sex.

I don't think we know one way or the other.

Yes, it could have been.
But it also could be RW's confirmation bias.

Unless someone has evidence beyond what we have, a lot of weight is being placed on assumptions.

 

[d4m10n]

I think that is the source of the problem the same personality that generates fanboys also generates hate boys. IOW she just rubs some people, mostly male, in exactly the wrong way.

I've noticed that. I'm fairly indifferent to her personally, except that I have to admire her talent for flamebaiting. Few people have built a career on that alone.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Aaack, I typed you're instead of your.

But I digress.
[part deleted I don't think applied to me]

Second, we seem to be in agreement that, even if the incident occurred exactly as claimed in Watson's vlog, it is not universally accepted that being asked for coffee in that situation is a proposition for sex. Even if it is likely that it was a proposition, outside of mind reading we have no way of knowing that it was in that instance.

Yes.

And, even if it was, it was hardly a big deal.

Watson is within her rights to be personally affronted. But trying to make this an example of some standard of behavior went too far.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Being asked for coffee may imply that that sex is a possibility, and saying yes to the coffee might be taken as a sign of interest, but some people seem to be exaggerating this a lot. ...

And here we have an excellent point of hypocrisy.

If said guy asks a gal to coffee at 4 am in a hotel elevator, we are supposed to assume it is a come-on for sex.

If said gal agrees and goes, no one is supposed to assume she is agreeing to sex.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No problem at all, so long as you think it is polite to proposition someone you've never spoken with before

You are moving the goal post. She doesn't claim she never spoke to him before, because of her face blindness her statements are that she isn't in a position to claim that. Maybe accurately claim they were not in a serious one on one discussion in the bar, but never spoke isn't a claim that fits with the rest of her recounting of the events.

 

[d4m10n]

So you think the Phawrongula account is a lie?

Nope.

You are citing an opinion piece on Breitbart?

Yup.

First you didn't get it that the vlog wasn't the problem.

Hidden assumption: There is exactly one thing that is the problem here.

Then you didn't believe it.

Still don't.

I posted a link.

And said that I missed you posting it earlier. Any luck finding that yet?

Then you dismissed it as RW just calling someone out, ignoring the content of the callout.

I've never dismissed what happened at the CFI con that year. Not once. Ever.

Then you tried to make it about a straw man that I owed it to you to find the earlier links.

If you are going to make accusations, you should back them up with evidence. This is still a skeptic forum, after all.

The sexual harassment is everywhere debate begins with many people in the JREF community taking sides. Some say the incidents were few and far between, some said the incidents were rampant. No evidence of more than a few occurrences and a couple repeat offenders is produced.

Who was the first person to claim "sexual harassment is everywhere" or something substantively similar, in this community?

2) The vlog is posted. RW perceives herself the victim of "objectification".

Yes.

McGraw and StClair comment they didn't see what the issue was on the elevator.

You forgot Alison.

RW attacks McGraw at the student atheist event.

Yup.

A blog back and forth ensues between RW and McGraw.

Yup.

PZ Myers posts a blog accusing people of not being empathetic enough about the sexual harassment going on at skeptic and atheist events, and not being empathetic with RW's experience, apparently missing the significance of the attack on McGraw at the student atheist event.

If I recall correctly, PZ posted thrice on this topic. The comment sections are now missing.

Dawkins writes his Dear Muslima reply in PZ's blog post.

If anyone has an archive of that entire comments section, I'd donate to see it republished.

Myers becomes an activist atheist creating the A+ movement, he moves his Pharyngula blog to the Freethought Blog site where they promptly decide to ban anyone who doesn't agree with them.

That isn't quite right. Myers did move to FtB shortly after ElevatorGate broke loose, but A+ wasn't coined as a brand until a year later.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag...-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/

So, make up your own mind, Damion.

About what, exactly?

The RW side see themselves as persecuted victims. No doubt that is what they believe. Their confirmation bias has given them selective memory issues about the events.

Are you suggesting the selective memory problems are entirely one-sided?

Myself and others don't believe sexual harassment is under every chair at skeptic and atheist events. We think they are exaggerating by claiming benign and minor interactions are harassment.

Strawman is strawful.

It detracts from the real issues like the real rape culture where high school girls are raped when they are unconscious and whole groups of people think it's just kids partying.

Who are you complaining about here? Did someone call out "rape culture" during ElevatorGate?

Are those offenses really deserving of being so thoroughly demonized?

No. Definitely not.

Exaggeration and fanaticism are not helping the feminist cause.

Nice to end on this. Total agreement here.

 

[d4m10n]

She doesn't claim she never spoke to him before...

.
She did claim that they had not spoken to each other:

Not talking to each other, according to Rebecca.

.
ETA: More precisely, RW is claiming that HE never spoke to HER before.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I thought it sounded benign, if a little awkward. But obviously a lot of people think it was inappriopriate and this seems to be based on specific situational factors.

Some people think a woman with her hair uncovered is lewd. So what? We know RW said she thought it was inappropriate. We know other people didn't think it was inappropriate.

I don't understand what you think that "a lot of people think it was inappropriate" is supposed to mean. What are we supposed to do with that information given no one seems to be saying RW didn't have a right to her individual opinion. It was only when she tried to impose her individual opinion as the correct community standard that a problem occurred.

...Huh? Care to explain what cues? And why are you asking me if RW has mind reading capabilities? My post didn't even have anything to do with RW. It was about wayerin misinterpreting d4m10n...

You said, getting asked for coffee meant a request for sex:

under the circumstances of the EG anecdote​

then said your own assumptions were not in agreement.

personally, I've argued that coffee shouldn't be assumed to mean sex even under those circumstances.​

So what made RW's assumptions different? I was under the impression you were defending her assumptions, yet you wouldn't have made the same assumptions. Why? What makes RW's assumption right when you wouldn't have made the same assumption?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No problem at all, so long as you think it is polite to proposition someone you've never spoken with before—who has just been waxing on about how much she dislikes being sexualized—in an enclosed inescapable space, at 4am, in a foreign country.

You and I seem to disagree about which sorts of propositions count as polite. That's okay. Etiquette is a social construct, after all.

So you would agree then, that it isn't proper for you to impose your standard on the community.

Is it proper to accuse someone of failing Feminism 101, of contributing to the problem with one's misogynistic comments for not agreeing the encounter was inappropriate?

 

[d4m10n]

Being asked for coffee may imply that that sex is a possibility, and saying yes to the coffee might be taken as a sign of interest...

Three distinct possibilities:

1) An invitation for coffee and conversation is just an invitation for coffee and conversation. Nothing more.

2) An invitation for coffee and conversation is an invitation for coffee and conversation, in hopes that the private encounter develops into something pleasantly sexual.

3) An invitation for coffee and conversation is substantively equivalent to "Hey, let's shag." Both parties know or suspect that "coffee" is nothing more than a polite euphemism of the sort Steven Pinker discusses here.

Context matters here. All three of these distinct possibilities have been actualized in the real world on various occasions.

When it comes to the lift in Dublin, I'm betting on the second one. (RW seems to go with the last one.)

 

[d4m10n]

So you would agree then, that it isn't proper for you to impose your standard on the community.

Impose by force or threats? Of course that would be wrong.

Argue for as a social norm? Of course there is nothing wrong with arguing for one's preferred state of social relations.

Is it proper to accuse someone of failing Feminism 101, of contributing to the problem with one's misogynistic comments for not agreeing the encounter was inappropriate?

Not when you're leveraging CFI's platform to call out a student activist.

 

[d4m10n]

Are you just embarrassed for missing a key issue?

Are you embarrassed for claiming I did? I've been fully aware of what happened to McGraw since this blew up the first time.

Are you just attacking me personally for telling you that you missed a key aspect of the discussion?

Disagreeing about what caused the blowup is not the same thing as missing key details.

Or are you still doubting the basis of this controversy?

I very much doubt whether the controversy would have been averted if only RW's talk at CFI had remained on topic.

The social justice wing of movement atheism were going to find something to rally about to push for change in the movement. Their opponents (whom I refer to as cultural libertarians) were going to find something to push back about. This was all inevitable, in my view. The details, while interesting, are happenstance.

 

[wareyin]

Oddly enough, I cannot think of a non-nefarious purpose for making **** up and broadcasting it to the www. At least not at the moment.

Really? You can't? Then what nefarious purpose do you have for your own posts in this thread, for instance calling a 10 second elevator ride "inescapable"? What nefarious purpose did "Jackie" have for giving a false story to Rolling Stone? Heck, what nefarious purpose did Jesus (if he existed) have for telling a story about a good Samaritan (if he ever told that story)?

I've had alcohol create memory gaps on occasion, notably at TAM. Never noticed alcohol causing me to remember encounters with people who don't actually exist, but perhaps the effect is different on other people.

Whew, I thought you were going to ask me for a cite to prove alcohol causes memory problems. I'm glad you realize that drunk people's claims about what happened the night they were drinking, especially after they had been boozing it up for hours, are unreliable.

Hit on for real?

Probably not.

 

[d4m10n]

Then what nefarious purpose do you have for your own posts in this thread, for instance calling a 10 second elevator ride "inescapable"?

Do you think it is feasible to escape during that time period?

What nefarious purpose did "Jackie" have for giving a false story to Rolling Stone?

Furthering her ideology, one must suppose.

Heck, what nefarious purpose did Jesus (if he existed) have for telling a story about a good Samaritan (if he ever told that story)?

Furthering his ideology, one must suppose.

At least Jesus (unlike Jackie) knew that his audience wouldn't take his story are more than a parable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not sure I should bother since it seems to do no good, but I will anyway.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So you think the Phawrongula account is a lie?

Nope.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You are citing an opinion piece on Breitbart?

Yup.

For the record then, very few people in this discussion give a rip what the right wing makes of the dispute.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
First you didn't get it that the vlog wasn't the problem.

Hidden assumption: There is exactly one thing that is the problem here.

Overt evidence: you continue to ignore the problem of RW imposing her prudish standards on others.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Then you didn't believe it.

Still don't.

You look evidence straight on and deny this is about imposing prudish standards on others? You post that you accept it, then you post that you deny it.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I posted a link.

And said that I missed you posting it earlier. Any luck finding that yet?

Red herring ignored.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Then you dismissed it as RW just calling someone out, ignoring the content of the callout.

I've never dismissed what happened at the CFI con that year. Not once. Ever.

Yes, you did. You agreed it was a dick move, then ignored that it wasn't just the dick move, it was the content of RW's accusations.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Then you tried to make it about a straw man that I owed it to you to find the earlier links.

If you are going to make accusations, you should back them up with evidence. This is still a skeptic forum, after all.

redundant nonsense ignored.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The sexual harassment is everywhere debate begins with many people in the JREF community taking sides. Some say the incidents were few and far between, some said the incidents were rampant. No evidence of more than a few occurrences and a couple repeat offenders is produced.

Who was the first person to claim "sexual harassment is everywhere" or something substantively similar, in this community?

There are a couple whole threads on this. I'll give you a summary but I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

It started ~5 years ago with a discussion that sexual harassment was the reason there were less women than men at TAM. Many people chimed in agreeing the reason was that sexual harassment was rampant. I responded with a thread requesting specific incidents or people that had direct knowledge of incidents be posted (names didn't need to be given). A few specific incidents were described. All the rest were just "I heard it was rampant and I believe it" comments.

That progressed to a wider thread talking about female speakers being sexually harassed at atheist and skeptic events. About the same time Jen McCreight encouraged her female blog followers to wear revealing blouses to cause a Boobquake.

Jen had also reported that giving science talks, guys often commented about her boobs. (We all agree that's a problem). Then other female speakers started talking about being groped and how they steered clear of at least one lech that was on the skeptic speaker circuit (not Shermer). Most people that knew him agreed.

Somewhere in all that, Skepchicks adopted their new-found feminism and turned the 'sexism is rampant' into a cause celeb.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
2) The vlog is posted. RW perceives herself the victim of "objectification".

Yes.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
McGraw and StClair comment they didn't see what the issue was on the elevator.

You forgot Alison.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
RW attacks McGraw at the student atheist event.

Yup.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
A blog back and forth ensues between RW and McGraw.

Yup.

Is there a point here?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
PZ Myers posts a blog accusing people of not being empathetic enough about the sexual harassment going on at skeptic and atheist events, and not being empathetic with RW's experience, apparently missing the significance of the attack on McGraw at the student atheist event.

If I recall correctly, PZ posted thrice on this topic. The comment sections are now missing.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Dawkins writes his Dear Muslima reply in PZ's blog post.

If anyone has an archive of that entire comments section, I'd donate to see it republished.

Do you not know how to use Google? Dawkins' comments are all over the place. And by the way, the reason the comments are missing is PZ decided he didn't want anyone to profess an opinion he didn't agree with on his blog.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Myers becomes an activist atheist creating the A+ movement, he moves his Pharyngula blog to the Freethought Blog site where they promptly decide to ban anyone who doesn't agree with them.

That isn't quite right. Myers did move to FtB shortly after ElevatorGate broke loose, but A+ wasn't coined as a brand until a year later.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/...ve-of-atheism/

And that's relevant, why?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So, make up your own mind, Damion.

About what, exactly?

What Elevatorgate is really about.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The RW side see themselves as persecuted victims. No doubt that is what they believe. Their confirmation bias has given them selective memory issues about the events.

Are you suggesting the selective memory problems are entirely one-sided?

Have you found that evidence yet, of the kerfuffle starting between the vlog and the student atheist event?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Myself and others don't believe sexual harassment is under every chair at skeptic and atheist events. We think they are exaggerating by claiming benign and minor interactions are harassment.

Strawman is strawful.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It detracts from the real issues like the real rape culture where high school girls are raped when they are unconscious and whole groups of people think it's just kids partying.

Who are you complaining about here? Did someone call out "rape culture" during ElevatorGate?

You have a brain block here. You can't seem to connect the dots. Elevatorgate was an outgrowth of the radical feminism of a chunk of the skeptical and atheist communities and you cannot separate the two.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Are those offenses really deserving of being so thoroughly demonized?

No. Definitely not.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Exaggeration and fanaticism are not helping the feminist cause.

Nice to end on this. Total agreement here.