Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[squealpiggy]

If you're interested there is a transcript of the recent discussion between PZ, McReight, Watson, Brownian and a couple of others.

https://a-plus-scribe.com/doku.php?id=transcriptions:aug_26_pz_myers

I still check Pharyngula regularly, I just avoid posts about politics and gender.

 

[jt512]

I never really understood the controversy over sexual harassment policies. They are kinda part of any gathering of more then 1 gender nowadays.

Probably because you are a reasonable person, and, as a reasonable person, you assume almost everyone else is, especially those who claim to be rational people—you know, like skeptics do.

Now, perform a thought experiment. Put yourself in the position of someone who thinks it's perfectly ok to engage in sexual harassment. How would such a person react to the imposition of a sexual harassment policy? Further, imagine that within the skeptic/atheist movement there existed a substantial, but vocal, minority of such people. Does that help explain the "controversy"?

Jay

 

[dasmiller]

Probably because you are a reasonable person, and, as a reasonable person, you assume almost everyone else is, especially those who claim to be rational people—you know, like skeptics do.

Now, perform a thought experiment. Put yourself in the position of someone who thinks it's perfectly ok to engage in sexual harassment. How would such a person react to the imposition of a sexual harassment policy? Further, imagine that within the skeptic/atheist movement there existed a substantial, but vocal, minority of such people. Does that help explain the "controversy"?

Jay

Do you have links to people objecting to to harassment policies because they claimed that it was "perfectly okay to engage in sexual harassment?"

 

[jt512]

Do you have links to people objecting to to harassment policies because they claimed that it was "perfectly okay to engage in sexual harassment?"

No. Do you have links to people giving rational reasons for objecting to sexual policies?

Jay

 

[ShadowSot]

I missed this tweet:

Finally had time 2 read Richard Carrier's #atheismplus piece. His language was unnecessarily harsh, divisive & ableist. Doesn't represent A+

-Jennifer McCreight

That puts me more at ease. There's still PZ's statements that bother me.

 

[zooterkin]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you opposed to skeptical conferences having sexual harassment policies?

Jay

Why would you think that? Seems to me you're exhibiting a textbook example of what the A+ advocates are doing.

 

[dasmiller]

No.

I thought that you were attributing the controversy to "a substantial, but vocal, minority of such people" who think that "it's perfectly okay to engage in sexual harassment' within the skeptic/atheist community. Did I misinterpret?

Do you have links to people giving rational reasons for objecting to sexual policies

As I understand the process, I don't think I'm obligated to find citations to support an assertion that I haven't made yet.

 

[jt512]

Why would you think that? Seems to me you're exhibiting a textbook example of what the A+ advocates are doing.

I'm not "thinking" anything. I'm expressing doubt and asking for clarification. Seems to me you're exhibiting a textbook example of what the A+ denigrators are doing.

 

[Temecula]

They are building a religion, complete with dogma. I wonder how long before PC Myers or another pseudo-celebrity announces the commandments. I hope this doesn't get any traction as I am certain if it does I will have to waste most of any conversation about atheism or skepticism distancing myself from "Atheism+™".

After spending some time browsing their forum, it is pretty clear that this is intended to be to atheism and skepticism what SRS is to reddit.

 

[jt512]

I thought that you were attributing the controversy to "a substantial, but vocal, minority of such people" who think that "it's perfectly okay to engage in sexual harassment' within the skeptic/atheist community. Did I misinterpret?



As I understand the process, I don't think I'm obligated to find citations to support an assertion that I haven't made yet.

As I understand "the process," arguments aren't decided by the existence of "links."

Jay

 

[westprog]

Probably because you are a reasonable person, and, as a reasonable person, you assume almost everyone else is, especially those who claim to be rational people—you know, like skeptics do.

Now, perform a thought experiment. Put yourself in the position of someone who thinks it's perfectly ok to engage in sexual harassment. How would such a person react to the imposition of a sexual harassment policy? Further, imagine that within the skeptic/atheist movement there existed a substantial, but vocal, minority of such people. Does that help explain the "controversy"?

Jay

That people should be protected from sexual harassment is almost universally agreed. However, what constitutes sexual harassment is another matter. How do you produce a set of policies that ensure that nobody is made to feel uncomfortable or threatened, while allowing unattached adults to freely interact? As Barbara Drescher pointed out in the post cited above, there are many different points of view on this subject, and they don't divide neatly down the middle into right-thinking people and misogynists. There are undoubtedly people involved who do think that harassing women is just fine, but there are many others who have genuine reservations about some given proposals.

I do not have a rosy-eyed view of any form of conference/convention being automatically a safe place because the people involved are largely decent types. The husband of one well-known science fiction writer used science fiction conventions as cover for abusing children. However, I don't consider that there's automatically a simple answer that will answer for all cases.

Even taking Elevatorgate, for example. How is there to be a policy which will prevent such things occurring again, without punishing couples who get together quite happily? Saying that it's difficult to resolve these issues doesn't make everyone who doesn't follow one particular line a pro-rape misogynist.

 

[zooterkin]

I'm not "thinking" anything. I'm expressing doubt and asking for clarification.

In which case, why did you not ask, "What was wrong with the policy at Skepticon?" rather than "Are you opposed to skeptical conferences having sexual harassment policies?" ?

 

[westprog]

I missed this tweet:

That puts me more at ease. There's still PZ's statements that bother me.

I've noticed that Jennifer McReight seems to be vastly more reasonable than many of the other people under the same banner. I read a post of hers (IIRC - there are so many and I'm new to this scene) where she sensibly agreed that not all atheist organisations should devote themselves to other causes, but that they should ensure that unwelcoming and harassing behaviour that excludes certain people is avoided. If A+ had followed that path from the start, then it wouldn't be getting this kind of attention. I get the impression that jt512, for example, thinks of A+ in these terms. If it could be trimmed back to this there would be little to offend.

 

[qayak]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you opposed to skeptical conferences having sexual harassment policies?

Jay

For the record:

... a meaningless (and largely unenforceable) "harassment policy..." =/= "... sexual harassment policies"

Do you understand why?

 

[dasmiller]

As I understand "the process," arguments aren't decided by the existence of "links."

Jay

True, but arguments are often decided by evidence.

If you were not attributing the controversy to "a substantial, but vocal, minority of such people" who think that "it's perfectly okay to engage in sexual harassment' within the skeptic/atheist community, then I misinterpreted your post and I apologize.

If you were attributing the contoversy to that, then I don't think you should expect us to accept it without some evidence, and I thought that links would be the easist way to provide such.

 

[qayak]

As I understand "the process," arguments aren't decided by the existence of "links."

Jay

Actually, if you make an assertion that someone said something, it's nothing more than hearsay, which no one is obligated to respond to, until you post a link to where they actually said it.

It has to do with honesty in discussion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would give it a year. They will carry on for a while until one of them disagrees with the others. That one will get abused and mistreated. They will survive it the first time but start to fade. If it happens a second time they will blow up.

Yep too many leaders, if they only had one they could prosper like the objectivists.

 

[Wildy]

Classism? WTF does that even mean? Let me guess - "Ugh, rich people bad, me good. Give me money."

Quite possibly.

Neurotypicalism? Double WTF? Seriously?

Yeah, I really don't understand the point of this one. Unless Atheism+ is against neurodiversity, which would be funny.

Animal welfare. Again, let me guess - "Ugh, eating meat bad. Vegans good."

I don't think so, otherwise McCreight would be kicked out.

Environmental issues. That's pretty broad, but I'll assume it means "Ugh, giant corporations bad."

Or "factory farming is evil, organic farming is good" even though most of the organic farming is done by the giant corporations.

Political issues (Health care, crime, drug laws): Anyone want to guess where this one is going? "Ugh, conservatives bad. Liberals good. Give us money."

I don't know about the money part but the first bit is most likely right.

So what's the over/under on A+?

I say dead by Xmas, if not sooner.

I think with the echo-chamber thing that FtB has it'll last longer than that. I would say that the best metric would be to see how long the website lasts.

 

[chillzero]

I have a person in a facebook group that I'm a member of that supports atheism because it makes her feel safe. This concerns me.

Did you mean atheism + ?
Otherwise, can you explain what it is that concerns you?

 

[Myriad]

Probably because you are a reasonable person, and, as a reasonable person, you assume almost everyone else is, especially those who claim to be rational people—you know, like skeptics do.

Now, perform a thought experiment. Put yourself in the position of someone who thinks it's perfectly ok to engage in sexual harassment. How would such a person react to the imposition of a sexual harassment policy? Further, imagine that within the skeptic/atheist movement there existed a substantial, but vocal, minority of such people. Does that help explain the "controversy"?

It helps explain that the "controversy" is based on a logical fallacy.

Skeptics do not accept arguments that contain the affirming the consequent fallacy. You've just argued, essentially:

- If a substantial number of people within the skeptical community think it's perfectly OK to engage in sexual harassment, they would oppose the imposition of a sexual harassment policy.

- Some people opposed the imposition of certain proposed sexual harassment policies.

- Therefore there exists a substantial number of people within the skeptical community think it's perfectly OK to engage in sexual harassment.

... and from there it's not far to "and we must expose them and reject them and punish anyone who associates with them by denying them our own enlightened presence..."

The atheists can do what they want, but if they're still going to claim to be skeptics while branding people as misogynists based on that exact fallacious logic -- "a misognyist would object to X, you object to X, therefore you are a misogynist" -- then actual skeptics are going to keep pointing out the error and keep their distance.

And this question will continue to go unanswered:

What is your justification, rationalization, explanation, or excuse for PZM's responding to this:

My whole point is that not everyone dismissed as a “misogynist” or “hate and rage filled ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊” by the Atheism+ crowd is actually anything of the kind. Sometimes that kind of response is aimed at people who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, rather than the genuine trolls who are sending threats and abuse.

...by telling the questioner that he personally ("and that's you, Guy") thinks women should be raped into submission?

In what way can that possibly be considered acceptable rational discourse? Is PZM claiming mind reading powers to know that the questioner thinks women should be raped into submission? Can he cite the questioner somewhere stating that women should be raped into submission?

Respectfully,
Myriad