Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Verklagekasper]

Sorry, should have been "viewed", not "viewn". Anyway, if you're not interested in the subject, then why post in this thread? Just leave it to those who do care about the poisoning or whatever one wants to call the public smearing and stereotyping of secular movements by gender feminists.

 

[Dani]

Then what exactly am I missing? The whole thing blew sky high after the Dawkins episode. Not before. I'm not sure how you make a coherent narrative of the events and leave out the Dawkins affair. Please to explain that to me?

Thank link is interesting to help explain Dawkin's reaction with his "Dear Muslima", but doesn't explain the nexus between Elevatorgate and Atheism+ anymore than what we already know, that is, that Elevatorgate is an event that puts on display an underlying particular agenda that is very similar to the agenda of A+ (in fact, Rebecca Watson only disagrees on the label).

I agree with you that Elevatorgate is greatly linked with A+. It's pretty obvious. Elevatorgate spread the meme a great deal.

 

[RandFan]

Yes. More or less. I see a bunch of self-obsessed humorless buffoons pointlessly arguing against a different bunch of self-obsessed humorless buffoons. They aren't really "poison" so much as they are irrelevant.

By that same logic, conferences should not post the location of fire exits because the fire department already exists and it just serves to make people scared and needlessly gives comfort to pyromaniacs.

If someone went around telling people that skeptic/atheist conventions were fire hazards I'd damn sure be pissed at the sophistry. I'm all for rules at conferences. I'm just fine with a policy to help prevent harassment. I'm against the fear mongering coming from RW and some of her compatriots as outlined by TF. Many who favor policies to make the conferences more conducive to women agree that TAM and other atheist/skeptic conferences are by and large safe for women (even if they are not designated safe spaces).

If you disagree that atheist/skeptic conventions are no more likely to result in sexual harassment then I would ask you for evidence.

Perhaps our conventions should be safe spaces. Please to make the argument without the chicken little drama. IMO: That is the crime of RW and her ilk, not that they saw a problem and tried to correct it, but that they relied on alarmism to make their point.

 

[RandFan]

Thank link is interesting to help explain Dawkin's reaction with his "Dear Muslima", but doesn't explain the nexus between Elevatorgate and Atheism+ anymore than what we already know, that is, that Elevatorgate is an event that puts on display an underlying particular agenda that is very similar to the agenda of A+ (in fact, Rebecca Watson only disagrees on the label).

I agree with you that Elevatorgate is greatly linked with A+. It's pretty obvious. Elevatorgate spread the meme a great deal.

That was my point. That was my only point. I have already conceded that perhaps I made it poorly. But go back and look at my posts. My very first post agreed that RW didn't "start" Atheism +.

In short, you I and Zooterkin were arguing past each other.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I call wedge issue^WP: dishonest, poisonous, and manipulative.
If you stand up against McCarthyism, you must be a Commie.

If you stand up against printing "In God We Trust" on money, you must be a Satanist or Godless Atheist or Commie.

If you stand up against a redundant sexual harassment policy so explicit it gives enemies of the conference reason to gloat, then you must be a sexual harasser or harassment enabler.
If you think burning the US flag is free speech, then you must hate the USA.

If you disagree that a fire exit map should be posted in every public space, then you must not care that people die in fires.

...etc.

 

[Dani]

In the comments, from other people. In the blog item from Jennifer, Boobquake appears twice, elevatorgate is not mentioned.

Yeah, of course, it's Jennifer's blog. But the comments show a prevalence of Elevatorgate as an event linked with the idea, even in the blog of the creator of Boobquake.

As was Boobquake itself.

Yes. I don't think anyone is saying that A+ was caused by Elevatorgate alone.

A point I would not dispute. Just to recap, what I'm disputing is the bald statement that Rebecca started A+.

And even Randfan agreed with you. That's not what I'm disputing and you don't need to discuss this with Randfan anymore, because it's clear by the messages that you both agree.

 

[dasmiller]

And even Randfan agreed with you. That's not what I'm disputing and you don't need to discuss this with Randfan anymore, because it's clear by the messages that you both agree.

You're suggesting that there's no need for people to argue a point just because they both agree on it?

On a skeptic forum?

 

[RandFan]

You're suggesting that there's no need for people to argue a point just because they both agree on it?

On a skeptic forum?

Made my day.

 

[zooterkin]

You're suggesting that there's no need for people to argue a point just because they both agree on it?

On a skeptic forum?

Oh, don't be ridiculous!

 

[Dani]

You're suggesting that there's no need for people to argue a point just because they both agree on it?

On a skeptic forum?

Hmm... it's a bit different. Let me explain:

He said he's disputing something no one seems to be defending.

I assumed he doesn't really want to do that and that it's a just product of a misunderstanding. And, with that assumption in mind, I suggested that he doesn't need to dispute a position no one seems to hold.

Now this doesn't seem unreasonable on a skeptic forum, does it?

 

[RandFan]

Oh, don't be ridiculous!

Hmm... it's a bit different. Let me explain:

He said he's disputing something no one seems to be defending.

I assumed he doesn't really want to do that and that it's a just product of a misunderstanding. And, with that assumption in mind, I suggested that he doesn't need to dispute a position no one seems to hold.

Now this doesn't seem unreasonable on a skeptic forum, does it?

I could be wrong but I think dasmiller's post is tongue-in-cheek..

 

[zooterkin]

I could be wrong but I think dasmiller's post is tongue-in-cheek..

Not just his.

 

[Dani]

I could be wrong but I think dasmiller's post is tongue-in-cheek..

Two possible interpretations:

1: To suggest that people don't argue their points even when they agree is not within the spirit of critical discussion.
2: Skeptics tend to be nitpicky. To expect otherwise would be ridiculous.

Your interpretation is closer to #2, while Zooterkin and I interpreted something closer to #1.

Anyway, Zooterkin's comment can be interpreted differently too. Sarcastic, but, in what sense?

 

[Irony]

If you disagree that a fire exit map should be posted in every public space, then you must not care that people die in fires.

If you make the simple observation that a fire exit sign is not a bad thing, you must be in favor of those trying to get them placed everywhere even when it makes no sense.

If you stuck with the notion that the policies already existing at events like TAM are sufficient, and that the revisions being suggested are based on over-reaction rather than clear thinking, you would sound reasonable. But that's not what you're doing. You're saying that the mere existence of policies to help the organizers deal with the problem of harassment should it happen is a bad thing. You are saying, in effect, that they should not prepare, that for fear of "scaring" people they should just bury their heads in the sand.

 

[Mr. Scott]

If you make the simple observation that a fire exit sign is not a bad thing, you must be in favor of those trying to get them placed everywhere even when it makes no sense.

If you stuck with the notion that the policies already existing at events like TAM are sufficient, and that the revisions being suggested are based on over-reaction rather than clear thinking, you would sound reasonable. But that's not what you're doing. You're saying that the mere existence of policies to help the organizers deal with the problem of harassment should it happen is a bad thing. You are saying, in effect, that they should not prepare, that for fear of "scaring" people they should just bury their heads in the sand.

I should have been more clear about the fire exit thing. It was tongue in cheek.

My point is that A+ is engaged in wedge issue politics, even if they don't know it, and as far as I can tell, I'm the first to point it out.

The atheist movement does not need a wedge splitting it into factions that give comfort to its enemies.

 

[RandFan]

I don't at all mind that someone formed a group that links atheism and humanism (or whatever). I mind the polemics coming out of that group.

 

[Irony]

I should have been more clear about the fire exit thing. It was tongue in cheek.

My point is that A+ is engaged in wedge issue politics, even if they don't know it, and as far as I can tell, I'm the first to point it out.

The atheist movement does not need a wedge splitting it into factions that give comfort to its enemies.

OK, chalk it up to another case of text not conveying tone then.

My personal opinion on the matter is that there is plenty of blame to spread around. What the A+ group seems to be advocating is a sort of knee-jerk overreaction to an existing (though not large) problem that results in "solutions" that end up making the problem worse.

However, on the subject of harassment policies and other such codes, without them you have no grounds for kicking someone out for clearly disruptive/discriminatory behavior that is technically not illegal, or worse you have no means with which to police your staff and they can kick people out for trivial reasons or just because they don't like them. At any large gathering (beyond the point where one person can reasonably track everything), those policies are essential for creating an environment that is neither total chaos nor a police state in miniature.

This "debate" seems to me to be like the gun control debate. A few nuts (on whatever side) propose something ridiculous, and so their opponents respond with something equally ridiculous on the other side.

Don't do that.

 

[Verklagekasper]

However, on the subject of harassment policies and other such codes, without them you have no grounds for kicking someone out for clearly disruptive/discriminatory behavior that is technically not illegal, or worse you have no means with which to police your staff and they can kick people out for trivial reasons or just because they don't like them. At any large gathering (beyond the point where one person can reasonably track everything), those policies are essential for creating an environment that is neither total chaos nor a police state in miniature.

Actually, such policies are useless to improve security, which is the reason why larger public events, eg. concerts, discoteques, campus parties, rely on having staff members and security people around. It's an, or rather the only, effective way to make places secure. And unlike the policy-nonsense, it doesn't imply the insulting of paying guests.

 

[Irony]

Actually, such policies are useless to improve security, which is the reason why larger public events, eg. concerts, discoteques, campus parties, rely on having staff members and security people around. It's an, or rather the only, effective way to make places secure. And unlike the policy-nonsense, it doesn't imply the insulting of paying guests.

I'm sure the promoters of such events would be very surprised to hear they don't have policies for how to deal with issues of security and misbehavior. Especially the staff members and security who have taken training on how to enforce them. Imagine what a time saver it would be if they new that they could just make up the rules as they go.

 

[RandFan]

I'm sure the promoters of such events would be very surprised to hear they don't have policies for how to deal with issues of security and misbehavior. Especially the staff members and security who have taken training on how to enforce them. Imagine what a time saver it would be if they new that they could just make up the rules as they go.

I think there absolutely needs to be rules. However, we need to understand that the rules are of limited benefit and we need to be careful of painting these events out to be places of significantly increased risk when the data does not support that.