Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[ginjawarrior]

Of course not. It doesn't matter who the guy was, he was probably clueless.

She didn't say that he was lewd, just that his approach made her uncomfortable and that other guys should not emulate it.

Apparently some people think she shouldn't have voiced that opinion.

People who voice their opinions about all kinds of other things every day.

from what i've gathered about the whole ordeal was that a female blogger (can't remember her name steph?) blogged a response to RW's youtube vid about people being sexual beings

then RW at a talk where the blogger was unable to answer called her out publicly for disagreeing with RW and setting the cause back

after that it stopped being about the original opinion and morphed into a beast all of its own

 

[Daald]

Of course not. It doesn't matter who the guy was, he was probably clueless.

She didn't say that he was lewd, just that his approach made her uncomfortable and that other guys should not emulate it.

Apparently some people think she shouldn't have voiced that opinion.

People who voice their opinions about all kinds of other things every day.

We have an 80 page thread on this topic that I had the misfortune to read.

She is entitled to ask guys not to treat her that way and she is entitled to her feelings. (Everyone I know of has acknowledged this)

We are entitled to think she was overreacting and that her advice to all men will be accepted by some and rejected by others.

She is not entitled to tell me how I approach other women and she is not entitled to attack women who find the approach harmless.

 

[tsig]

That man would be a straw man.

Really? then when would be an inappropriate place and time to hit on a woman?

 

[tsig]

No, she of course should be able to voice it. But also others have the right not to take it to heart, or is it that they don't have the right to voice that.



Paul

Do others also have the right to insult and threaten her?

 

[appalling]

So how should men hit on women? I also support women hitting on men.

This event was not at an inappropriate time like durring a panel or Q&A, it was not lewd or pushy. It seems a fairly reasonable way and time to make an offer of casual sex.

It is like with a waitress. They hate being hit on, except when those they wish would hit on them, then they hate not getting hit on. The problem is that you don't know what the situation is before you hit on them.

It's often extremely unclear.

I would say, that if a particular woman actually says what she finds off-putting, you could pay attention to that.

Again, she didn't say "That specific guy should have known I hate being asked in elevators.", she said that she didn't like how it felt in that elevator when it happened and advised all guys of the future that it was not smooth.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

One point I'll concede: there does appear to be an increase in the level of disagreement that is, in some cases, tolerated at the A+ forum. What seems to be happening is that more people are mastering the jargon and the victimization-one-upmanship rhetorical repertoire that used to be the exclusive province of the in-group, and have been increasingly able to turn the tables when disagreements arise.

Today, for instance, in the perpetual Are The Mods thread (pages 67-69 with default page formatting), Qunotir has been tearing through the in-group's usual bogus rationalizations for dogpiling, bullying, and deceit... in a manner reminiscent of Godzilla through Tokyo.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I have an idea what may eventually happen with the A+forum , but so as no to give anyone ideas, I'll not say. I don't mean it self destructing, or splits occurring, though that could happen.

 

[AvalonXQ]

She is not entitled to tell me how I approach other women and she is not entitled to attack women who find the approach harmless.

This is the key point. Elevatorgate didn't blow up until Watson started bullying those who disagreed with her, and her allies started defending her right to do so.

The witch hunts, the vicious suppression of any sort of dissent, the unsupported radfem claims, the blatant misandry -- these are the reasons people have a problem with Watson and her ilk. Not because she expresses her point of view, but because she villifies anyone who refuses to fully and unconditionally agree wtih her.

 

[Daald]

Really? then when would be an inappropriate place and time to hit on a woman?

At her mother's funeral? (j/k)


Depends on the two people involved. The lines are subjective. Trying to put an objective line is futile and makes the people proposing it seem foolish and out of touch with reality.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Really? then when would be an inappropriate place and time to hit on a woman?

Jeez do I have to spell it out for you?

A man has the right to hit on a woman whenever he wants, wherever he wants and in any way he wants, anything less will lead to the extermination human race because they'll be no sex.

If a woman disagrees with this it's OK to harass her with threats of violence, insults and taunts.

The straw man is that nobody here is arguing what you posted.
Your hyperbolic exaggeration isn't helping.
Do you seriously think anyone here condones threats of violence, harassment etc?
-

 

[RandFan]

At her mother's funeral? (j/k)

Depends on the two people involved. The lines are subjective. Trying to put an objective line is futile and makes the people proposing it seem foolish and out of touch with reality.

Agreed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Re: Atheism Plus

It's often extremely unclear.

I would say, that if a particular woman actually says what she finds off-putting, you could pay attention to that.

But if she doesn't tell me how am I to know? She never had any idea who this guy was and what he knew. So that is confusing and could make it inappropriate. But we don't know that it was like that, and a simple "hey you want coffee" is a pretty standard non threatening offer of a date/casual sex. Sure you might argue there is neuro typical privilige there in the unstated assumptions there but that is a seperate issue.

Again, she didn't say "That specific guy should have known I hate being asked in elevators.", she said that she didn't like how it felt in that elevator when it happened and advised all guys of the future that it was not smooth.

So when and where does she say people should be hit on and make offers of casual sex?

 

[Paulhoff]

Do others also have the right to insult and threaten her?

Straw-man.


Where did I say that.


As for insult, you just did that to me.


Paul

 

[RandFan]

I don't mind that RW expressed her opinion. I wish she would had have simply noted that women can feel vulnerable, especially in an enclosed elevator, and men should consider that when asking a woman out for a date (coffee or whatever). That way she would have avoided the appearance of a hasty generalization (all women feel the same when it comes to being asked out in an elevator) and it would not have been didactic. It's those hidden assumptions about women and men as if her observations and experiences are righteous and "don't do that" as opposed to, "the experience in the elevator bothered me. I would recommend to men, and for that matter anyone, think about how a woman might feel in a closed space before you ask her out."

 

[Paulhoff]

I'm an old white guy, so I don't want a lot of big (want-ever-group-you what-to-pick) to step into the elevator with me when it is late and/or whatever time you want pick.

I may feel uneasy.


Paul

 

[appalling]

But if she doesn't tell me how am I to know? She never had any idea who this guy was and what he knew. So that is confusing and could make it inappropriate. But we don't know that it was like that, and a simple "hey you want coffee" is a pretty standard non threatening offer of a date/casual sex. Sure you might argue there is neuro typical privilige there in the unstated assumptions there but that is a seperate issue.

Again, there's no way to know for sure, guaranteed, that you will totally get a date with a girl. But she said she didn't like something after it happened. If I put potato chips in your shoes, you wouldn't need to 1. Know or care about my motivations. 2. Have predicted you wouldn't like potato chips in your shoes. You'd just know something you didn't like happened and ask me not to do it again. If people then told you that I was meaning it in friendship, your feelings about the situation might still cause you to tell other people to lay off the potato chips.

So when and where does she say people should be hit on and make offers of casual sex?

Umm, if I tell you not to stare at my elbows when we're on the bus together, that does not mean I would then give you a handbook on when it would be the ultimate best appropriate time to stare at someone's elbows.

 

[appalling]

"the experience in the elevator bothered me. I would recommend to men, and for that matter anyone, think about how a woman might feel in a closed space before you ask her out."

I agree, this would have made the situation clearer.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Re: Atheism Plus

Again, there's no way to know for sure, guaranteed, that you will totally get a date with a girl. But she said she didn't like something after it happened. If I put potato chips in your shoes, you wouldn't need to 1. Know or care about my motivations. 2. Have predicted you wouldn't like potato chips in your shoes. You'd just know something you didn't like happened and ask me not to do it again. If people then told you that I was meaning it in friendship, your feelings about the situation might still cause you to tell other people to lay off the potato chips.

Again this makes no sense. I have no idea what your point here is. In the spirit of Atheism+ I will blame this on your NT privilige.

Umm, if I tell you not to stare at my elbows when we're on the bus together, that does not mean I would then give you a handbook on when it would be the ultimate best appropriate time to stare at someone's elbows.

What a horrible analogy. If you want to be seen as being ok with people hooking up then you should give advice on when to as well as when not to make a pass at someone. Otherwise you just seem to be antisex.

Though I support banning people who throw bordello themed parties from skeptic events.

 

[Paulhoff]

Gee, where should I go to meet other people that may share some of the same ideas that I have and also may be an atheist. I'm single, maybe I may meet someone that i like of the other sex.


Oh, I know, the church.



Paul

 

[appalling]

Again this makes no sense. I have no idea what your point here is. In the spirit of Atheism+ I will blame this on your NT privilige.

You were asking me how to know the best way to ask out a girl. There is no one way. But in this case, we have an example of someone not enjoying one approach and volunteering that information.

What a horrible analogy. If you want to be seen as being ok with people hooking up then you should give advice on when to as well as when not to make a pass at someone. Otherwise you just seem to be antisex.

Okay, here's another one. If you go to a job interview and they say they aren't interested in hiring you, you probably shouldn't demand that they then tell you how to succeed at future job interviews.

After having a not fun experience, why are you expecting her to give more dating advice than not to do the thing she didn't like?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Re: Atheism Plus

You were asking me how to know the best way to ask out a girl. There is no one way. But in this case, we have an example of someone not enjoying one approach and volunteering that information.

Then crushing from her position of power any women who would be fine with it. So as we can find people bothered by any approach what should we do?

Okay, here's another one. If you go to a job interview and they say they aren't interested in hiring you, you probably shouldn't demand that they then tell you how to succeed at future job interviews.

And when you are giving masses of people lectures on jobs? She didn't need to give a reason to turn EG down. But she isn't turning people down, she is trying to tell them how to behave. In that case you will be more effective telling people what they should do and not just what not to.

After having a not fun experience, why are you expecting her to give more dating advice than not to do the thing she didn't like?

Then why write blog posts and try to humiliate people who disagree with you?

She should just be clear "look losers I will never date any of you so never ask me out" she could even get a shirt made up.

Or is it that women who might be interested in a hook up need to identify themselves?