Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[devnull]

Would you personally consider it polite to ask for coffee sex from someone to whom you've never spoken a word, after encountering them in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a foreign country?

Cmon, you promised youd never let slip about how we met!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Would you personally consider it polite to ask for coffee sex from someone to whom you've never spoken a word, after encountering them in an enclosed space, at 4am, in a foreign country?

Now you are conflating, "Hey baby, you wanna " which is not an attractive way to ask, with, "would you like coffee and conversation and maybe a little more**" which is a lot less crude.


**And which is still not what happened.

 

[ponderingturtle]

.
She did claim that they had not spoken to each other:


.
ETA: More precisely, RW is claiming that HE never spoke to HER before.

How would she know if she can not remember people that well?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not merely, no. It is a particularly rude way to make the argument, one that fails to take into account the power dynamic in play.

***ETA***

It is okay for RW to say what her standards are, on the web.

It is okay for SM to argue for a different set of standards, on the web.

It is NOT OK for RW to dress down SM in front of a crowd of student activists in an attempt to settle the argument by leveraging the power of the podium.

What is the point of being a public speaker if you can't use it to crush your enemies?

 

[d4m10n]

You've been pushing quite hard for agreement that it is not polite, yet it's also not a faux pas?

The first "it" in that sentence refers to a specific event alleged to have transpired in Dublin.

The second "it" refers to whether it is a "social faux pas for a guy to test the water" under any conditions whatsoever.

Switching between the two is a classic motte-and-bailey argument.

You're all over the map, Damion. It's hard to pin jello down.

This could be because I'm trying to open-mindedly consider three possible interpretations of the coffee invite along with two disparate theories as to how it originated (as an actual event or a fictional humblebrag) and five or six separate factors which could make the (orignal or hypothetical) invitation impolite.

Lots of different moving bits going on in that lift, and that is before we even get to the vlog/blog blow-up.

Now you are conflating, "Hey baby, you wanna " which is not an attractive way to ask, with, "would you like coffee and conversation and maybe a little more**" which is a lot less crude.

It is possible that a veiled sexual propositon could be intended (or understood) in either way. Veils are intended to obfuscate, after all.

"Would you like to come up and see my etchings?" may be just an invitation to appreciate art, or an invitation to , or both at once, in any particular order.

How would she know [that he did not speak to her] she can not remember people that well?

Maybe she has an excellent memory for voices?

What is the point of being a public speaker if you can't use it to crush your enemies?

I wouldn't know.

 

[Meed]

Interesting, you agree that d4m10n is exaggerating, while claiming that when I say he's exaggerating, I'm misinterpreting him.

I disagreed with him saying that a request for coffee (under the EG circumstances) was "a cold proposition for sex". and I disagreed with your claim that he'd said that "coffee always and only means sex". Not mutually exclusive. Not that complicated.

 

[Meed]

You said, getting asked for coffee meant a request for sex:

under the circumstances of the EG anecdote​

No. No, I did not. I said no one has said that coffee always means sex, just that it meant sex under the circumstances of EG anecdote. Saying that it's something people have said is very different from saying it's something that is true.

then said your own assumptions were not in agreement.

personally, I've argued that coffee shouldn't be assumed to mean sex even under those circumstances​

So what made RW's assumptions different? I was under the impression you were defending her assumptions, yet you wouldn't have made the same assumptions. Why?

I never defended her assumptions.

What makes RW's assumption right when you wouldn't have made the same assumption?

I mean you just quoted me above saying that coffee shouldn't be assumed to mean sex under those circumstances. That means I don't think she was right to do so. If you go back to post #2424 and follow the exchange you'll see that I've said that from the beginning.

My only defense of RW was WRT the claim that she had said "never approach a woman you're interested in" (something you've admitted was hyperbole).

 

[tsig]

I disagreed with him saying that a request for coffee (under the EG circumstances) was "a cold proposition for sex". and I disagreed with your claim that he'd said that "coffee always and only means sex". Not mutually exclusive. Not that complicated.

By now the coffee has evaporated leaving nothing but a dirty residue in the cup.

 

[Crazy Eddie Point]

Heh. Two years later and you're still going on about a narcissistic sociopath.
Amusing, or embarrassing, take your pick. Yes, a false dilemma. I'm sure there are equally silly "reasons" for a skeptics site.

 

[Stacko]

To bring this back to A+. They've concluded that the idea that misandry doesn't exist is an MRA construct.

I think a lot of the "misandry doesn't exist" stuff stems from the MRA side of things trying to argue that women have more social power than men, which means men are the real oppressed class. It's the "misogyny is systemic discrimination, and no systemic discrimination against men exists" side of things. Of course individual biases exist, going in any direction along power gradients, and some of these are founded while others aren't. There's no problem with women being more concerned in the company of men than women, for example, considering that women are much more likely to be attacked by men than by other women. I suppose individuals who think "men are all bad" must exist out there somewhere, even though I've never personally met someone advocating that position as feminism.

That is some beautiful internally inconsistent nonsense.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6869

 

[Joe Random]

To bring this back to A+. They've concluded that the idea that misandry doesn't exist is an MRA construct.



That is some beautiful internally inconsistent nonsense.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6869

Refresh yourselves with the opening paragraph of Richard Carrier's call to arms back when A+ was starting :

There is a new atheism brewing, and it’s the rift we need, to cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.’s back into the sewers and finally disown them, once and for all (I mean people like these and these). I was already mulling a way to do this back in June when discussion in the comments on my post On Sexual Harassment generated an idea (inspired by Anne C. Hanna) to start a blog series building a system of shared values that separates the light side of the force from the dark side within the atheism movement, so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst, and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values.

Then peek at the front page of the A+ site (bold added):

In total there are 34 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 31 guests

<...>
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

Looks like the dead weight has indeed been cut free ...

 

[surreptitious57]

Now the longer that debates like this go on for the less referenced are the facts relevant to
the issue and the more referenced are the interpretations both relevant and irrelevant to it
Part of it is because not all of the facts can be objectively verified. And of the ones that can
some are re interpreted to support individual or collective agendas. And the white noise will
reach a point of maximum density where no one will remember what the actual debate was
originally about as it will not be about objective truth any more but subjective interpretation
However if you label yourself a sceptic or free thinker you will know that the two are not the
same. Do not worry about this because no one gets it right all of the time. Though that is no
reason to not try as hard as possible in never the less striving to reach such a wonderful goal

This works so much better if it is kept as simple as possible. And so with out wishing to over
simplify it it effectively can be read as this : if you are doing something to someone else and
they do not like it then you must stop doing it. That should be the standard we all aim for in
principle at least if not in practice. Unless you have ulterior motive it should not be that hard
to put that into practice now assuming that entirely reasonable circumstances are preavailing

I understand that what provoked all this was objectification and not a specific comment. But
once again if that causes discomfort then it is absolutely legitimate to express dissatisfaction
at it. But one other thing which is very pertinent to this case but also applicable to every day
life : very often we make value judgements on what we would do in particular situations and
then project such judgements onto those who have actually experienced it [ whatever it may
be ] This is as wrong as wrong can be for the simple reason that not everyone sees things in
exactly the same way. It is not for me to say how x should react in a given situation because
I am not x so my opinion counts for nothing. I may have experience of the event in question
but that does not give me license to say how someone else should act. I may have done this
in the past but now want to listen more to others to understand where they are coming from

For me personally [and this only applies to me as I can only speak for myself and no one else ]
I listen to what feminists say. If it is reasonable I will agree with it. Or if it is unreasonable I will
not. Of course the notion of reasonableness is entirely subjective but I try to accommodate that
much as possible by avoiding having my own agenda and also by not having a world view set in
stone. Unless you are suggesting something which is either demonstrably false or demonstrably
immoral or both I shall listen to what is being said. Now this of course is by no means exclusive
to feminism so it therefore applies just as much to my own philosophy as it does to every other

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This works so much better if it is kept as simple as possible. And so with out wishing to over
simplify it it effectively can be read as this : if you are doing something to someone else and
they do not like it then you must stop doing it.

This seems a little one-size-fits-all. What if the person who doesn't like what you're doing is being unreasonable? What if I'm wearing a normal pair of jeans and they decide that they don't like me wearing jeans? Am I obligated to change into something else? How about if they're trying to seduce me and I don't want to have sex with them? Am I obligated to have sex with them because they won't like it if I don't? What about if what I'm doing to them is preventing them from throwing rocks through my windows?

Seems to me that we should make reasonable accommodations for other people. The sticking point is that not everybody will have the same definition of "reasonable" in this context.

 

[Nonpareil]

This seems a little one-size-fits-all. What if the person who doesn't like what you're doing is being unreasonable?

What if you don't like other people telling you that they don't like what you're doing?

 

[surreptitious57]

I can respect some ones boundaries without having to think that hard about it. But if you are
having difficulty you could always ask your self : if you would like the thing you are doing to
some one to be done to you. And from that you shall have the answer. You are making this
harder than is actually necessary but I shall oblige you : your fashion choices are your own
and nothing to do with anyone else. Obviously rape is wrong and always so too so why are
you asking this ridiculous question ? And if some one is damaging your property then they
are committing a criminal offence. I am sure you already knew the answers to all of these
questions. So I am puzzled as to why you asked them. For they are very black and white
ones with no shades of grey. Particularly the rape one. That is especially black and white

 

[TeapotCavalry]

if you are doing something to someone else and
they do not like it then you must stop doing it. That should be the standard we all aim for in
principle at least if not in practice.

This is a bastardized version of the already insufficient golden rule, it does not stand up to scrutiny. Unlike the golden rule, it doesn't lay a standard to judge by, is not based on empathy and is even more open for abuse. Golden rule in essence says 'put yourself in other's shoes', yours say 'the complainer is the authority'. The standard to judge by in the golden rule is you, and in practice that probably relied on the morals and empathy of the majority, weeding out deviants (because you know there are always those whose standards are abhorrent and have no empathy). As insufficient as that is, yours have no standard, again it relies on the authority of the complainer. That's why it's so open for abuse.
Want to send criminals to prison? Too bad, they don't like it. Stop!

Moral philosophy has evolved quite a lot since the golden rule, your suggestion is not really one of the more easily defensible ones.

It is not for me to say how x should react in a given situation because
I am not x so my opinion counts for nothing. I may have experience of the event in question
but that does not give me license to say how someone else should act.

Good luck dealing with crime.

Of course the notion of reasonableness is entirely subjective <snip>

In law, perhaps. In skeptic circles the notion of reasonableness is based upon adhering to the principles of critical thinking.

For me personally [and this only applies to me as I can only speak for myself and no one else ]
I listen to what feminists say. If it is reasonable I will agree with it.

If reasonableness is subjective - as you just suggested -, this is a meaningless standard. You'll agree, because you agree, not because of logical consistency, evidence or rational arguments.

For someone stressing the importance of skepticism and the difference between subjective interpretation and objective facts, you seem to favor subjective interpretation over objective facts. Or in internet slang 'feels over reals'.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I can respect some ones boundaries without having to think that hard about it. But if you are
having difficulty you could always ask your self : if you would like the thing you are doing to
some one to be done to you. And from that you shall have the answer.

And this just flat out contradicts your earlier proposition that the complainer is the authority.

You are making this
harder than is actually necessary but I shall oblige you

Perhaps you didn't really think this through.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I can respect some ones boundaries without having to think that hard about it.

What if I told you that the way you format your posts with odd line breaks makes them difficult to read and reply to, and therefore crosses one of my boundaries?

But if you are
having difficulty you could always ask your self : if you would like the thing you are doing to
some one to be done to you.

That's also not a good metric to use. What if I find it very easy to get to sleep, function brilliantly on little sleep, and find the sound of loud trumpets stimulating and invigorating, no matter the time of day or night? Would that make me justified in playing the trumpet at 2AM despite the fact that my exhausted insomniac flatmate is trying to get some sleep before a big exam the next day?

I think the world contains a lot more subtlety and nuance than you give it credit for, if you genuinely believe in these intransigent rules that you're laying down and expecting to fit every single situation that anybody might come across.

 

[Meed]

And so with out wishing to over simplify it it effectively can be read as this :d if you are doing something to someone else and they do not like it then you must stop doing it.

Of course one should not ask someone to their room for coffee if one knows that the person doesn't like receiving those kinds of offers. I don't think anyone has (or would) argue otherwise. But to echo other posters, your proposal falls apart quickly when generalized to other situations.

But once again if that causes discomfort then it is absolutely legitimate to express dissatisfaction at it.

I agree. There is nothing wrong with saying "Don't do that. I don't like it."

But one other thing which is very pertinent to this case but also applicable to every day life : very often we make value judgements on what we would do in particular situations and then project such judgements onto those who have actually experienced it [ whatever it may be ] This is as wrong as wrong can be for the simple reason that not everyone sees things inexactly the same way. It is not for me to say how x should react in a given situation because I am not x so my opinion counts for nothing. I may have experience of the event in question but that does not give me license to say how someone else should act.

I disagree. We have to make judgments about how other people should act. For instance, you're making a statement here about how other people should act. Without that, morality/ethics/etiquette go out the window. The best we can do is try to make such judgments as reasonable as possible. Not that there isn't often merit in recognizing that you haven't walked in someone else's shoes and that you don't know what their experiences are like.

I can respect some ones boundaries without having to think that hard about it. But if you are having difficulty you could always ask your self : if you would like the thing you are doing to some one to be done to you. And from that you shall have the answer.

No you won't, because not everyone's boundaries are the same. Try applying that standard to EG, for example. Would he have liked it if RW had asked him to her room for coffee? We can probably assume the answer is "yes".

You are making this harder than is actually necessary but I shall oblige you : your fashion choices are your own and nothing to do with anyone else. Obviously rape is wrong and always so too so why are you asking this ridiculous question ?

Because ridiculous conclusions would follow if "if you are doing something to someone else and they do not like it then you must stop doing it" were to be taken as true.

 

[surreptitious57]

Regarding reasonableness. Now obviously not everyone is reasonable but I
only meant it for those who are otherwise the principle becomes redundant
And the same also applies to making some one uncomfortable. For less it is
justifiable then it is not acceptable. All of the counter examples given above
are outside the boundaries of what is reasonable or acceptable which is why
they were suggested and is also why I reject them. And the golden rule also
Obviously it can not be applied to those incapable of displaying any empathy
since that would invalidate it. So it is impossible get any universal consensus
on what is reasonable or acceptable or whether one should do unto others as
they do unto them. But one can still get majority consensus on basically what
is. Which may not admittedly be totally perfect but is as close to it as possible
It is within this framework one must be working from and not a philosophically
perfect ideal. Because they are only perfect in principle but never so in practice