How can Dawkins redeem himself?

[bookitty]

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time.




Yeah, but we don't compare each other to rapists do we? Hmm, lets get past this . . .



I agree with Phil (and you) on this, and I think the majority would do well to follow his advice. Nonetheless there is room for well done sarcasm that isn't nice at all, such as some of George Hrab's work, but then I don't think that rises to the level of being a dick. Honest and in your face, but not quite dickish. So, I see a need for some freedom to explore that boundary, but that should not be the core of any serious movement.



See, that is what I am getting at. In my mind I would rather be Watson on that elevator than Stef in that audience. I'm not either of them, but I do have empathy for both of these situations. Especially ten minutes later, or even ten seconds later. Watson was annoyed by the approach according to her initial report. I would say Stef was embarrassed several times worse than Watson was annoyed.


So, we are in agreement on several points now.

1. Watson's original video has real merit. You may find it more compelling than I do, but that is a matter of degrees.

2. Watson's response to Stef leveraged the power of her position as a prominent speaker to beat down someone who disagreed with her in a very rude way. I think this borders on unforgivable if she wants to be taken seriously as either a feminist or a skeptic, you find it dickish. Again, a matter of degrees.

3. Dawkins was rude in his vapid post. I think he was being rude to PZ and others, you take it as being rude to feminist. That may be a more significant divide, but I can certainly see your point of view and I don't feel a need to defend Dawkins.



Yeah, I see limits on being a dick, so I don't see my position as hypocritical. You'll have to pin that on others.

BTW, thank you for this post. Reading through this you seemed to be talking past the people who were focusing on Watson's behavior as you were focusing on EG's behavior. I think if we are going to make movement on these issues we have to look at all the pieces. I respect you as a person from previous threads and I really did want to clarify your position on some of these things. I know I will have disagreements with people I respect, but still, I'd rather not!

It's all sort of the same problem, isn't it? There are no existing laws, rules or guidelines for DBAD. If you judge each case specifically on it's own merits after the fact, you can say that it was good, bad or ugly. But you can't say that there are established limits to dickery. Each speaker needs to judge their own actions and try to stay within some incredibly vague area of acceptable behavior.

Same with sexism within the movement. After the fact, one can judge whether an action was good, bad or ugly. But the only existing guidelines are the TAM code of conduct and that is for a specific situation. Each person needs to judge their own actions and try to stay within some incredibly vague area of acceptable behavior.

Remie mentioned the incredibly harsh response she got at TAM because she was not an atheist. Again, there are no guidelines for treating people who hold a belief deemed woo. Each person needs to judge their own actions and try to stay within some incredibly vague area of acceptable behavior.

You can not make or enforce guidelines that will account for every variable. With sexism for example, you can't say "no flirting at all," you can't say "Anything goes as long as you take no for an answer," and you can't fill in the middle properly.

All you can do is point out the problem and hope that people will add it to the information they use to judge their own actions and try to stay within some incredibly vague area of acceptable behavior.

Interesting sidelines of feminism aside, this is what I have been trying to get across.

 

[Number Six]

Is the best way to get the full story on everything to read this thread carefully from the start? Or something else? I thought the story was that EG propositioned RW (or maybe just asked her for coffee) on an elevator and RW got pissed and wrote about it and then RD wrote his reply. But it seems it's a bit more complicated than that. I never even knew about this Stef person until a few posts ago so I have no idea what any of that even is.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It's all sort of the same problem, isn't it? There are no existing laws, rules or guidelines for DBAD. If you judge each case specifically on it's own merits after the fact, you can say that it was good, bad or ugly. But you can't say that there are established limits to dickery. Each speaker needs to judge their own actions and try to stay within some incredibly vague area of acceptable behavior.

Same with sexism within the movement. After the fact, one can judge whether an action was good, bad or ugly. But the only existing guidelines are the TAM code of conduct and that is for a specific situation. Each person needs to judge their own actions and try to stay within some incredibly vague area of acceptable behavior.

Remie mentioned the incredibly harsh response she got at TAM because she was not an atheist. Again, there are no guidelines for treating people who hold a belief deemed woo. Each person needs to judge their own actions and try to stay within some incredibly vague area of acceptable behavior.

You can not make or enforce guidelines that will account for every variable. With sexism for example, you can't say "no flirting at all," you can't say "Anything goes as long as you take no for an answer," and you can't fill in the middle properly.

All you can do is point out the problem and hope that people will add it to the information they use to judge their own actions and try to stay within some incredibly vague area of acceptable behavior.

Interesting sidelines of feminism aside, this is what I have been trying to get across.

Well, now I think you have. So there's that.

ETA: I think that could have been the benefit of this whole thing if RW, PZ and RD had not gotten into a tizzy. If she had brought up Stef's post in a polite way and acknowledged the points made and why she thought they were not compelling, instead of accusing hear of being a parrot of misogyny and akin to those wish rape upon her, then this could have been a discussion of sexism. But, she didn't. She was preaching instead of educating.

Is the best way to get the full story on everything to read this thread carefully from the start? Or something else? I thought the story was that EG propositioned RW (or maybe just asked her for coffee) on an elevator and RW got pissed and wrote about it and then RD wrote his reply. But it seems it's a bit more complicated than that. I never even knew about this Stef person until a few posts ago so I have no idea what any of that even is.

Epepke (sp?) had a link to a timeline in the other thread on this. I think it has been updated as others made comments.

 

[RandFan]

Just throwing in my comment that opinions on courtesy do not imply that one person's judgment supersedes others--it must compete in the "marketplace" of ideas.

Some ideas have resonated well with people, and become the body of knowledge that is sometimes called "common courtesy".

I like that. And had RW said that in her opinion EG had violated "common courtesy" then I would likely not be here now responding. Not that I wouldn't want to discuss the merits of whether or not it was common courtesy but I don't think anyone would object to her stating her opinion. I could be wrong though.

 

[RandFan]

Because of media influence (Penn & Teller, Mythbusters) the popularity of science-related blogging (Pharynigula, Science Based Medicine), the influx of well-written and engaging female skeptical bloggers (skepchick, Greta Christina, Blaghag), the mainstream coverage of social movements from the skeptical community (draw Mohammad day, boob quake), the overlap of science with social issues (Global warming, anti-vax), the overlap of atheism and science (creationism), and the general rise of the nerds.

For a start.

And how do you control for confirmation bias? Don't get me wrong. I accept that this is the basis for your opinion and that's fine. I'm just curious if you apply critical thinking and skepticism to your own views or do you accept your world view without any scrutiny?

 

[bookitty]

Well, now I think you have. So there's that.

ETA: I think that could have been the benefit of this whole thing if RW, PZ and RD had not gotten into a tizzy. If she had brought up Stef's post in a polite way and acknowledged the points made and why she thought they were not compelling, instead of accusing hear of being a parrot of misogyny and akin to those wish rape upon her, then this could have been a discussion of sexism. But, she didn't. She was preaching instead of educating.

I agree with this so much that I can't even express it. This, with full knowledge and acceptance for having played my small part.

The missteps of this...thing...are telling. Emotion has run very high on both sides. There is a lot of pushing and shoving. Everyone is reacting. Everyone has gone off half-cocked at some point. It has touched on sensitive issues that are only peripherally related to the core.

My theory is that this conversation was desperately needed. Some people were tired of not being heard, some people were tired of hearing about it, some people related to this not for the sexism but for more generalized marginalization, some have an outside agenda, and a million other variations that I can not even identify.

Growing pains can be ugly.

 

[bookitty]

And how do you control for confirmation bias? Don't get me wrong. I accept that this is the basis for your opinion and that's fine. I'm just curious if you apply critical thinking and skepticism to your own views or do you accept your world view without any scrutiny?

What does that have to do with a wider audience for skepticism brought on by more general exposure?

 

[RandFan]

What does that have to do with a wider audience for skepticism brought on by more general exposure?

I'm at a loss as to why that isn't obvious. You state an opinion based on *evidence. Right? Yes, no?

How trustworthy are you observations? Do you apply skepticism and critical thinking to your observations?

*"...media influence (Penn & Teller, Mythbusters) the popularity of science-related blogging (Pharynigula, Science Based Medicine), the influx of well-written and engaging female skeptical bloggers"

 

[RandFan]

The missteps of this...thing...are telling. Emotion has run very high on both sides.

Not by me. Not by many people I've spoken with about this.

Everyone has gone off half-cocked at some point.

This is what frustrates me. The grand sweeping, broad brush strokes. No, this is not true. However, I understand your overall point. I just think you could have made it better.

My theory is that this conversation was desperately needed.

Meh~ Important, not desperate. To think it desperate requires a presumed conclusion.

Growing pains can be ugly.

I'll concede this.

 

[bookitty]

I'm at a loss as to why that isn't obvious. You state an opinion based on *evidence. Right? Yes, no?

How trustworthy are you observations? Do you apply skepticism and critical thinking to your observations?

*"...media influence (Penn & Teller, Mythbusters) the popularity of science-related blogging (Pharynigula, Science Based Medicine), the influx of well-written and engaging female skeptical bloggers"

You asked why I thought the demographics of skepticism have changed. I pointed out a few of the areas in which skepticism has gotten mainstream exposure. Wider exposure will attract a wider audience, this will include more of everyone including women.

If you disagree, I will be happy to hear your points.

 

[bookitty]

Not by me. Not by many people I've spoken with about this. This is what frustrates me. The grand sweeping, broad brush strokes. No, this is not true. However, I understand your overall point. I just think you could have made it better.

Meh~ Important, not desperate. To think it desperate requires a presumed conclusion.

I'll concede this.

Oh really? You don't find that statement a little odd.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The more I read of Bookitty's insider-info on TAM, the more I think I should go to one. Given my non-sexual and polite approach with women, it sounds like I'd be the biggest pussy magnet in Vegas!

 

[RandFan]

Oh really? You don't find that statement a little odd.

No. Not at all. Why should I?

 

[Number Six]

Okay, I've looked at some of the video and I hesitate to even enter this minefield but here is RWs quote of what EG said to her:

Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?

In that context I would interpret "Don't take this the wrong way" as "Usually in this situation something like this would be hitting on you but I don't want you to get that impression." I mean, otherwise what is the point in prefacing the comments with "Don't take this the wrong way?" unless perhaps the idea is that he did have things in mind but he was attempting to deceiver her by pretending didn't have things in mind.

 

[RandFan]

You asked why I thought the demographics of skepticism have changed. I pointed out a few of the areas in which skepticism has gotten mainstream exposure. Wider exposure will attract a wider audience, this will include more of everyone including women.

If you disagree, I will be happy to hear your points.

No. I'm asking you if you do anything to control for confirmation bias? Have read any thoughtful critiques of RW by female bloggers?

 

[AlBell]

Any fool knows that if you want hotel sex with Rebecca Watson you must at least mention the mini-bar.

Candy is dandy, liquor is quicker, coffee with rohypnol is rumored to be a sure thing.

 

[bookitty]

No. I'm asking you if you do anything to control for confirmation bias? Have read any thoughtful critiques of RW by female bloggers?

To answer your subtext, I am a human being whose opinions have been informed by everything that I have read or experienced. Sometimes, my viewpoint is crystal clear, other times it is blurred by my history. You seemed to be floundering around trying to find some way to point this out, as if it is an insult or makes me unique among the other members of this board. I assure you, neither is the case.

I am not a skeptic and as I pointed out a while back, this forum is currently my only exposure to the skeptical movement. Think of me, not as someone who goes to TAM but rather as the person who gets yammered at on the bus by someone who notices she is reading C.S. Lewis.

 

[RandFan]

To answer your subtext, I am a human being whose opinions have been informed by everything that I have read or experienced. Sometimes, my viewpoint is crystal clear, other times it is blurred by my history. You seemed to be floundering around trying to find some way to point this out, as if it is an insult or makes me unique among the other members of this board. I assure you, neither is the case.

The subtext is all in your head. None of this is responsive. I'm not going to beat this horse any further.

I am not a skeptic and as I pointed out a while back, this forum is currently my only exposure to the skeptical movement. Think of me, not as someone who goes to TAM but rather as the person who gets yammered at on the bus by someone who notices she is reading C.S. Lewis.

You have me confused for some other body.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I am not a skeptic and as I pointed out a while back, this forum is currently my only exposure to the skeptical movement. Think of me, not as someone who goes to TAM but rather as the person who gets yammered at on the bus by someone who notices she is reading C.S. Lewis.

I know this is off topic (and if the answer is too long, would you mind if I start a thread about it?), but can you explain why you don't consider yourself to be a skeptic?

In my experience, everybody I've met was skeptic on some level, so I'm curious.

Please don't feel offended, because I mean none.

 

[bookitty]

I know this is off topic (and if the answer is too long, would you mind if I start a thread about it?), but can you explain why you don't consider yourself to be a skeptic?

In my experience, everybody I've met was skeptic on some level, so I'm curious.

Please don't feel offended, because I mean none.

Please feel free, although I doubt you'll get very many answers.

Although to answer your question briefly - in regards to elevatorgate hitting the mainstream, my friends outside the skeptical community were confused "Umm..yeah, creepy. Maybe a little overboard for that degree of creepy. But what's the big deal? It's pretty good advice."

As for how people who identify as skeptics responded, well, take a look around. Calling myself a skeptic lumps me in with all of the responses.

ETA: So I should have more accurately said "I do not consider myself part of the frrethought movement."