Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Verklagekasper]

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.

You miss that those promoters don't rub the policies in the faces of their guests. They would be laughed at and considered crazy if they did that and suggested it was an adequate way to improve security. Oh guess what, exactly that's what is happening to the FTB bunch, too! Seems there's still some rational thinking left in these rational communities.
Seriously, there's no place in the world where security was handled the way that the social activists find appropriate. It is quite obvious that they don't get out a lot.

 

[Irony]

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.

Not to speak above you, but I'd just like to point out that THIS is an example of sanity.

That rule is an over-reaction and counter-productive, we should remove/replace it - sane.

That rule is an over-reaction and counter-productive, we should get rid of all the rules - not sane.

 

[Irony]

You miss that those promoters don't rub the policies in the faces of their guests. They would be laughed at and considered crazy if they did that and suggested it was an adequate way to improve security. Oh guess what, exactly that's what is happening to the FTB bunch, too! Seems there's still some rational thinking left in these rational communities.
Seriously, there's no place in the world where security was handled the way that the social activists find appropriate. It is quite obvious that they don't get out a lot.

You missed the part where we were talking about these policies existing, not them being rubbed in the face of the guests. I agree with you that the A+ crowd is proposing something that would make guests uncomfortable for what is likely to be no benefit, or even a detriment, to the experience of the guests, but your notion that the mere existence of harassment policies is bad is, frankly, not rational. Your assertation that they don't even exist for the majority of regular large meetings is just flat out wrong.

 

[WillyWonka]

Actually, In 2011 and 2012, TAM had policies on harassment. In 2012, it was part of the FAQ and the organizing committee had arranged for the volunteers to make sure that nothing unacceptable happened.

Those policies are limited in power. They do not apply outside the confine of the conference, so would not have stopped elevatorgate, on any harassment at the Del Mar. The conference may refuse admission of someone undesirable, as it is a private affair, but could not expel someone from the hotel as the conference has no jurisdiction.

I never understood the need for those extensive policies, except to reduce the amount of debate on specific subjects. It does nothing to reduce harassment since assault of any kind is dealt by the criminal code and would not be handled by the conference anyway. Since it is a private affair, I believe, in the U.S., free speech would not be covered under the first amendment, so the organizer may refuse someone to talk.

 

[RandFan]

Not to speak above you, but I'd just like to point out that THIS is an example of sanity.

That rule is an over-reaction and counter-productive, we should remove/replace it - sane.

That rule is an over-reaction and counter-productive, we should get rid of all the rules - not sane.

I can't imagine how or why I would disagree with either proposition.

 

[Irony]

I can't imagine how or why I would disagree with either proposition.

I wasn't implying you would, I meant "speak over" in that I responded by making a general statement instead of responding to you directly.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

Nailed it.

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.

Conferences don't have to post the location of fire exits. The hotel does it for them.

 

[RandFan]

I wasn't implying you would, I meant "speak over" in that I responded by making a general statement instead of responding to you directly.

Gotcha.

 

[Verklagekasper]

You missed the part where we were talking about these policies existing, not them being rubbed in the face of the guests. I agree with you that the A+ crowd is proposing something that would make guests uncomfortable for what is likely to be no benefit, or even a detriment, to the experience of the guests, but your notion that the mere existence of harassment policies is bad is, frankly, not rational.

And most of all, it's a red herring by you. I state it once again: TAM had policies including unwanted sexual behavior, and I have no problem with that. I don't find them bad unless they are used to offend large parts of the guests, as was intended so by the white-male-hating FTBers. The FTBers had a problem with the TAM policies since they didn't find the policies public and in-your-face enough. So there's the next red-herring of yours, because the entire hassle is not about the mere existence of such policies but the way if and how they shall be presented to conference attendees. Other than that, I find policies not bad, but useless to improve security.

 

[Irony]

Conferences don't have to post the location of fire exits. The hotel does it for them.

True enough, but my point is that the signs are not a bad thing.

In any large social gathering harassment, arguments, and "that one guy" will almost always occur. Having a policy (which in practice is far more for the staff than the general guests) on how to deal with it is a good thing. That the policy can be poorly written, even to the point of being a major problem itself, is an argument for being careful and rational about how these things are written, distributed, and enforced, not an argument for eliminating them altogether.

 

[RandFan]

And most of all, it's a red herring by you. I state it once again: TAM had policies including unwanted sexual behavior, and I have no problem with that. I don't find them bad unless they are used to offend large parts of the guests, as was intended so by the white-male-hating FTBers. The FTBers had a problem with the TAM policies since they didn't find the policies public and in-your-face enough. So there's the next red-herring of yours, because the entire hassle is not about the mere existence of such policies but the way if and how they shall be presented to conference attendees. Other than that, I find policies not bad, but useless to improve security.

I don't find them useless at all. That said, I would tend to agree with you as far as A+ is concerned. IMO: They are hurting the cause (of atheism and humanism) not helping it.

 

[Irony]

And most of all, it's a red herring by you. I state it once again: TAM had policies including unwanted sexual behavior, and I have no problem with that. I don't find them bad unless they are used to offend large parts of the guests, as was intended so by the white-male-hating FTBers. The FTBers had a problem with the TAM policies since they didn't find the policies public and in-your-face enough. So there's the next red-herring of yours, because the entire hassle is not about the mere existence of such policies but the way if and how they shall be presented to conference attendees. Other than that, I find policies not bad, but useless to improve security.

Wrong.

You said:

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.

That is clearly arguing against the existence of such policies, both implying that they don't exist by listing security as an alternative, and clearly stating that they are useless.

If you have changed your opinion, or if you simply misspoke and would like to clarify, now is your chance.

 

[Irony]

I don't find them useless at all. That said, I would tend to agree with you as far as A+ is concerned. IMO: They are hurting the cause (of atheism and humanism) not helping it.

I think we're on the same page, I disagree only about them hurting the cause. I don't think they're significant enough to do that.

Also, it's not like this is some sort of unique thing.

For reference:
http://xkcd.com/1095/

 

[RandFan]

I think we're on the same page, I disagree only about them hurting the cause. I don't think they're significant enough to do that.

Also, it's not like this is some sort of unique thing.

For reference:
http://xkcd.com/1095/

That's fair. Let me just say that to the extent that A+ has any net results it will be negative but likely small. We probably give it far too much weight.

 

[Irony]

That's fair. Let me just say that to the extent that A+ has any net results it will be negative but likely small. We probably give it far too much weight.

From what I've seen, the only impact A+ has had has been to become the topic du jour. In a few years it's only impact will be when someone says "hey, remember when..."

 

[Verklagekasper]

That is clearly arguing against the existence of such policies, both implying that they don't exist by listing security as an alternative,

I've been to hundreds of discoteques, concerts and other events in many different countries. Not once was I confronted with a "code of conduct" before entering. Rather advice like "Take valuables with you" or something like that.

and clearly stating that they are useless.

Useless for improving security, that is. FOR IMPROVING SECURITY. Clear enough now? Who knows, perhaps they are useful for something else. Alas, we might never know since you won't tell what exactly you find them useful for.

 

[Irony]

I've been to hundreds of discoteques, concerts and other events in many different countries. Not once was I confronted with a "code of conduct" before entering. Rather advice like "Take valuables with you" or something like that.

Which is, of course, proof positive that they don't exist. I mean, every business, school, and government office I've ever walked into never once handed me a dress code, so they don't exist either.

Useless for improving security, that is. FOR IMPROVING SECURITY. Clear enough now? Who knows, perhaps they are useful for something else. Alas, we might never know since you won't tell what exactly you find them useful for.

Well, for starters, for improving security. Having your security forces know what is and isn't inappropriate behavior, and exactly what warrants a warning versus kicking someone out versus contacting the police, very much improves the situation over just saying "no rules, just do whatever feels right".

 

[Verklagekasper]

Which is, of course, proof positive that they don't exist. I mean, every business, school, and government office I've ever walked into never once handed me a dress code, so they don't exist either.

That would be a good point if we were talking about business, schools and government offices instead of public events like conventions.

Well, for starters, for improving security. Having your security forces know what is and isn't inappropriate behavior, and exactly what warrants a warning versus kicking someone out versus contacting the police, very much improves the situation over just saying "no rules, just do whatever feels right".

If there was a security staff that needed policies explaining to them how to distinguish guys looking for a fight from those just looking for a drink, and who needed a checklist to tell apart ongoing harassment from people just having fun, then they'd be in the wrong business. The first and most important requirement for security people is that they have social skills. They shouldn't be nerds who first need to lookup the definition of "harassment" before they consider to throw out a pervert.

 

[Verklagekasper]

By the way, nobody of those who scolded DJ Grothe for allegedly not handling security properly had any qualification in security management. None of them had a clue about security whatsoever, but each of them insisted that formulating policies would totally improve security.
While the clueless were compiling their pointless lists of dos and dont's, he silently did the only reasonable thing to do as the organizer of a big event: He consulted professional security experts.

 

[RandFan]

By the way, nobody of those who scolded DJ Grothe for allegedly not handling security properly had any qualification in security management. None of them had a clue about security whatsoever, but each of them insisted that formulating policies would totally improve security.
While the clueless were compiling their pointless lists of dos and dont's, he silently did the only reasonable thing to do as the organizer of a big event: He consulted professional security experts.

Thank you. Grothe did nothing untoward IMO. The things said about him were down right dishonest and vile. He had a legitimate concern. He voiced an opinion. That's all. The weeping and wailing and bitching and moaning over that were so over the top as to be asinine.

Not that there were not legitimate counter points or that there were not legitimate concerns. One could argue Grothe was perhaps insensitive, (I don't think that is the case) but one cannot argue that DJ was simply being dismissive.

Watson's words were incredibly harmful.

source “I thought it was a safe space,” Watson said of the freethought community. “The biggest lesson I have learned over the years is that it is not a safe space. . . ”

I suspect that many people who read that didn't know what Watson meant by "safe space". IOW: One could easily interpret her to mean that skeptic conferences were not safe for women. To this date I don't think Watson has acknowledge the possible harm her article caused. And let's be clear, this is HER blog. It was her chance to correct the record and she did not. You can't blame USA Today for that. And that leads me to believe she didn't make an effort to be clear with USA Today either.

I know most of you know this. Sorry.