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

[Meed]

I think that the point is that it would definitely be classed as sexual harassment by both PZ Myers himself and the A+ crowd if it were done by someone outside of that group.
Imagine if it were Shermer up there, for example.

If that is the point then it should be made clear. Ideally, something along the lines of "Look, PZ made a sex joke here and he said making sex jokes is bad here." Rather than just "PZ did a bad thing! He made a sex joke." I think if you try to gotcha someone using their own dumb standards it's a good idea to made it explicit what you're doing, otherwise to an outside observer it may just appear that you're both equally vapid.

Personally I've little doubt that if someone the FTB crowd didn't like made that joke today, that many of them would claim it was creepy and horrible. But I can't prove it. And that is the problem with arguments that rely on hypotheticals. Plus, there is Squeegee's point.

I'm struggling to understand why you don't see this as hypocritical behaviour, given that you appear to accept that it is in the comments section of your link, assuming that you're using consistent usernames and avatars.
Care to explain?

I don't see where Damion has claimed anything about whether or not he sees it as hypocritical. Maybe I missed something. (ETA: I wrote this part before reading post #799).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm struggling to understand why you don't see this as hypocritical behaviour, given that you appear to accept that it is in the comments section of your link, assuming that you're using consistent usernames and avatars.

Surely it would only be hypocritical behaviour if it ran counter to views he espoused then? Otherwise that he's changed his mind about that behaviour is at least as likely an alternative hypothesis.

As it is, I'm sure I've read somewhere where he did respond to critics of his behaviour there by saying that he no longer thought it was acceptable, although I don't know where.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I agree with this

It's pointless bring up pre-conversion PZ as we're now concerned with the antics of the *new* PZ and...we have so much fresh material to work with.

See also: Rebecca Watson and the bordello party/Skepchick nude calendar.

 

[Meed]

I agree with this

It's pointless bring up pre-conversion PZ as we're now concerned with the antics of the *new* PZ and...we have so much fresh material to work with.


like

PZ trying to incite what pretty much amounts to a book burning with regard to a student newspaper at his campus. Copies of the newspaper disappear and the publishers of the paper respond with a threatened lawsuit (as well as calling the cops on PZ )

PZ, the most silencing, comment deleting moderator on the planet, responds with complaints that they're trying to silence him.

Was the "gelato guy" incident pre-conversion PZ? Or how about his original article bashing "dictionary atheists"?

 

[Dissolution]

Assuming the hypocrisy is a mismatch between stated beliefs and personal actions, you'd be hard pressed to find 2010 version of PZ stating his belief that it is unacceptable to treat sex talk as humorous fodder for a presentation.

Maybe you can find examples of PZ promulgating much more stringent standards in more recent times, but I doubt you'll find him saying it is bad form to joke around about sex onstage.

As to your counterfactual hypothetical example, you cannot demonstrate hypocrisy in that way. You need a real example where someone fails to live up to their stated beliefs.

Apparently it's bad form to joke about sex off stage, let alone on it:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/22/adria-richards-did-everything-exactly-right/

No idea why you edited out the part of my comment that indicated that you'd already seen this and responded to it in the comments section of the article that you linked to, though.
Odd.

How recent does PZ have to be about these things, by the way?
He defended his behaviour in December 2012, for example:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/13/oh-no-ive-been-exposed/
Do we need something more up to date?

 

[d4m10n]

Dissolution,

Are you saying that 2010 PZ was hypocritically wrong not to live up to the standards laid down by PZ in March 2013?

Also, are you correct to compare dongle jokes at a professional conference with a clearly stated anti-harassment policy to sex jokes at a decidedly unprofessional conference without an anti-harassment policy?

 

[tsig]

I agree with this

It's pointless bring up pre-conversion PZ as we're now concerned with the antics of the *new* PZ and...we have so much fresh material to work with.


like

PZ trying to incite what pretty much amounts to a book burning with regard to a student newspaper at his campus. Copies of the newspaper disappear and the publishers of the paper respond with a threatened lawsuit (as well as calling the cops on PZ )

PZ, the most silencing, comment deleting moderator on the planet, responds with complaints that they're trying to silence him.

Link?

 

[SimplyAghast]

Dissolution,

Are you saying that 2010 PZ was hypocritically wrong not to live up to the standards laid down by PZ in March 2013?

Also, are you correct to compare dongle jokes at a professional conference with a clearly stated anti-harassment policy to sex jokes at a decidedly unprofessional conference without an anti-harassment policy?

....

He defended his behaviour in December 2012, for example:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/13/oh-no-ive-been-exposed/
Do we need something more up to date?

 

[Dissolution]

Dissolution,

Are you saying that 2010 PZ was hypocritically wrong not to live up to the standards laid down by PZ in March 2013?

Also, are you correct to compare dongle jokes at a professional conference with a clearly stated anti-harassment policy to sex jokes at a decidedly unprofessional conference without an anti-harassment policy?

I'm saying that he still didn't think that he did anything wrong at the 2010 event in December 2012 and that it's unlikely that he'd changed his mind a few months later.
If he did he clearly failed to mention it and has still failed to mention it now.

How does conference policy alter the appropriateness of Myers' behaviour?
He believed that the behaviour of the two men at the tech conference was inappropriate, despite it being between them and off stage, then how can he believe that his was fine, despite being in a position of power and being on stage?
His comments were clearly more overtly sexual and the power differential was clearly larger.

 

[d4m10n]

Dissolution,

I have no idea how he rationalises the difference in his own mind, I'm not going to try to get in there and root about. I have already noted that PyCon had a stringent anti-harassment policy in place whereas SkIII did not. Another major difference is that Kate (unlike Adria) was completely unfazed and tweeted positively about her experience at the time.

How does conference policy alter the appropriateness of Myers' behaviour?

Appropriateness of human behaviour varies widely by social context. What is acceptable at a bachelor party is not acceptable as part of the wedding party, for example. Part of the social context in a conference is what rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

 

[Dissolution]

Dissolution,

I have no idea how he rationalises the difference in his own mind, I'm not going to try to get in there and root about. I have already noted that PyCon had a stringent anti-harassment policy in place whereas SkIII did not. Another major difference is that Kate (unlike Adria) was completely unfazed and tweeted positively about her experience at the time.

The reaction of the people involved is irrelevant, as is the policy of the events in question and Myers' ability to rationalise his behaviour.
It's a clear example of him being hypocritical.

Appropriateness of human behaviour varies widely by social context. What is acceptable at a bachelor party is not acceptable as part of the wedding party, for example. Part of the social context in a conference is what rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Unfortunately for this example, Myers clearly believes that such conferences desperately need anti-harassment policies:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/12/why-cons-need-anti-harassment-policies/

 

[SimplyAghast]

Dissolution,

I have no idea how he rationalises the difference in his own mind, I'm not going to try to get in there and root about. I have already noted that PyCon had a stringent anti-harassment policy in place whereas SkIII did not. Another major difference is that Kate (unlike Adria) was completely unfazed and tweeted positively about her experience at the time.

It's been pointed out to you twice that PZ was justifying his harassment of that poor woman only months before he "laid down the standards in March 2013." So I guess we've pinpointed the moment of his "change of heart."

You also seem to be saying that repeatedly propositioning a woman for sex in front of a packed audience is okay...if there's no harassment policy in place. Classic PZ would agree with you. New PZ would disagree with you. February 2013 PZ? Who can say?

As for Donglegate, if the policy was in place, then why did Adria harass those men who were discussing computer hardware and then make herself the victim?

 

[d4m10n]

Once again, Dissolution, you seem to be saying that the 2010 version of PZ should be judged by moral standards that he announced some years later.

When I say someone is being hypocritical, I am saying that their actions do not match their stated beliefs, contemporaneously. Part of being a skeptic is that we allow and even encourage people to adjust their beliefs and behaviours over time.

 

[d4m10n]

You also seem to be saying that repeatedly propositioning a woman for sex in front of a packed audience is okay...

You seem to be saying that you cannot see a difference between a sexual proposition offered in jest and one offered in earnest.

 

[Dissolution]

Once again, Dissolution, you seem to be saying that the 2010 version of PZ should be judged by moral standards that he announced some years later.

When I say someone is being hypocritical, I am saying that their actions do not match their stated beliefs, contemporaneously. Part of being a skeptic is that we allow and even encourage people to adjust their beliefs and behaviours over time.

Once again, D4m10n, you seem to have somehow overlooked the fact that Myers defended his own behaviour from 2010 mere months before decrying that of the two men at the tech conference, despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you by both myself and others.

 

[d4m10n]

To be clear, then, you are condemning PZ for hypocrisy at which point in the timeline? Surely not 2010.

If we can agree that he was blameless in 2010, I'm not sure that any more need be said.

 

[One Tenth]

That's far below the age of legal responsibility, so calling for Ogvorbis to go turn themselves in to the authorities seems kind of pointless. They couldn't be charged with anything even if they did try to turn themselves in

In most of the common law countries I'm familiar with, the age at which you can be charged with a criminal act is around 8-10.

 

[Dissolution]

To be clear, then, you are condemning PZ for hypocrisy at which point in the timeline? Surely not 2010.

If we can agree that he was blameless in 2010, I'm not sure that any more need be said.

Whether he's blameless or not is irrelevant.
His behaviour doesn't live up to his current standards, yet he still defends it. That's clearly hypocrisy.
If he had stated in the last couple of years that he acted badly in 2010 or that dubious sex jokes were fine at conferences, then he wouldn't be open to such accusations, whether he was right or not.

 

[McHell]

Once again, Dissolution, you seem to be saying that the 2010 version of PZ should be judged by moral standards that he announced some years later.

When I say someone is being hypocritical, I am saying that their actions do not match their stated beliefs, contemporaneously. Part of being a skeptic is that we allow and even encourage people to adjust their beliefs and behaviours over time.

Myers has a pattern of deeply hypocritical behavior. This is a person who one day publicizes accusations of sexual harassment, and the next day vilifies the accused for making public a response to said accusations.

If you look at the sexual joke on stage in the context of a larger pattern of behavior, it seems less defensible.

"The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself."
- Jane Addams

"How seldom we weigh our neighbors in the same balance as ourselves."
- Thomas à Kempis

"Those whose conduct gives room for talk are always the first to attack their neighbors."
- Jean Baptiste Molière

 

[d4m10n]

It may well be hypocrisy for him to give himself a special pass nowadays, Dissolution. I'm not fully convinced.

Is there a morally significant differences between a joke about sex that offends no one and violates no conference policies and a joke about sex that offends someone who expected not to hear sexist jokes because of stringent policies already put in place? Does it make sense to say these two situations are all that comparable?