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

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

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

So then, is "leveraging CFI's platform to call out a student activist" merely arguing for a social norm?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...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.

The split in the community began long before the vlog and it continues regardless. The kerfuffle over a minor incident in an elevator would have died a boring death had RW not picked a fight with a couple women that weren't on the same radical feminism page as she is.

 

[wareyin]

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

You really have never ridden in an elevator, have you? *

Furthering her ideology, one must suppose.



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.

Furthering ones ideology is not nefarious. That said, this story (whether true or not) was clearly told to further Watson's ideology.







*or is this a false claim of ignorance being told to further your ideology?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Escape from what? A guy talking?

Do you think it would have taken less time to politely decline and walk away from a guy coming on to you if it were in bar, or on the sidewalk outside, or in the hallway?

 

[wareyin]

The split in the community began long before the vlog and it continues regardless. The kerfuffle over a minor incident in an elevator would have died a boring death had RW not picked a fight with a couple women that weren't on the same radical feminism page as she is.

I think it lives on as well because some people defend Watson long past all reason. Unless it comes up in this thread, I hear nothing else about her. Does she still give speeches or anything?

 

[d4m10n]

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

Right back at you.

You look evidence straight on and deny this is about imposing prudish standards on others?

No one has been imposing anything. Everyone has been arguing for the social standards which they would prefer.

About the same time Jen McCreight encouraged her female blog followers to wear revealing blouses to cause a Boobquake.

I think your timing is way off here. Boobquake was in the spring of 2010.

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

This was around 2011, IIRC.

Is there a point here?

Facts matter.

What Elevatorgate is really about.

Hidden assumption: It is about just one thing.

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

Not yet. There was only a three week time period between World Atheist Convention 2011 and CFI Student Leadership Conference 2011. Unhelpfully, PZ has purged all of his comments from back then.

You have a brain block here. You can't seem to connect the dots.

Back at you.

 

[wareyin]

Escape from what? A guy talking?

Do you think it would have taken less time to politely decline and walk away from a guy coming on to you if it were in bar, or on the sidewalk outside, or in the hallway?

The elevator ride would have been over before he even finished asking the question.

 

[Belz...]

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

You are assuming your conclusion again. But even if we allow this, yes, I think it's entirely polite to ask for sex if you do it politely.

 

[d4m10n]

You are assuming your conclusion again. But even if we allow this, yes, I think it's entirely polite to ask for sex if you do it politely.

Would you personally consider it polite to ask for coffee sex from someone to whom you've never spoken a word, after encountering them in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a foreign country?

 

[d4m10n]

So then, is "leveraging CFI's platform to call out a student activist" merely arguing for a social norm?

Not merely, no. It is a particularly rude way to make the argument, one that fails to take into account the power dynamic in play.

***ETA***

It is okay for RW to say what her standards are, on the web.

It is okay for SM to argue for a different set of standards, on the web.

It is NOT OK for RW to dress down SM in front of a crowd of student activists in an attempt to settle the argument by leveraging the power of the podium.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Would you personally consider it polite to ask for coffee sex from someone to whom you've never spoken a word, after encountering them in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a foreign country?

What evidence is there that the country was foreign to elevator guy?

 

[d4m10n]

What evidence is there that the country was foreign to elevator guy?

Good point. Allow me to rephrase.

"Would you personally consider it polite to ask for sex from someone to whom you've never spoken a word, after encountering them in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a country that is foreign to them?"

 

[Belz...]

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

There's an escape hatch at the top of the elevator.

 

[Belz...]

Right back at you.

For pete's sake, get a room, you two.

 

[Belz...]

Would you personally consider it polite to ask for coffee sex from someone to whom you've never spoken a word, after encountering them in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a foreign country?

Why do you respond to my comment about you assuming your conclusion by asking another question that assumes the same conclusion?

 

[d4m10n]

Why do you respond to my comment about you assuming your conclusion by asking another question that assumes the same conclusion?

Which conclusion are you talking about?

ETA: If it is the coffee => sex thing, please see my comment above.

 

[wareyin]

Why do you respond to my comment about you assuming your conclusion by asking another question that assumes the same conclusion?

When all you have is an assumed conclusion, you gotta keep on assuming it, no matter how much you get called on it.

 

[Amazer]

Good point. Allow me to rephrase.

"Would you personally consider it polite to ask for sex from someone to whom you've never spoken a word, after encountering them in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a country that is foreign to them?"

If couched in terms of asking if one wants to join for coffee... yes very polite.

 

[wareyin]

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.)

Good point. Allow me to rephrase.

"Would you personally consider it polite to ask for sex from someone to whom you've never spoken a word, after encountering them in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a country that is foreign to them?"

You seem to be bouncing back and forth, here. Was this encounter likely #2, as you state in the first quote, or likely #3 as you allege in the second quote?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Would you personally consider it polite to ask for coffee sex from someone to whom you've never spoken a word, after encountering them in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a foreign country?

Why not? As long as you take no for an answer, who cares?

Back in the day a lot of us had sex on first dates (before HIV anyway).

I think it sets women's lib back a half century to act like we don't like sex as much as the next guy or to call us whores if we do.