|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2012 : 09:57:55 [Permalink]
|
It feels like I'm standing on the sidewalk watching an intersection where a car crash/pile-up is happeing in slowmotion.
Or perhaps those movie/TV-show bar-room brawls where it started with someone throwing a punch, two factions immidiately form, but the fight quickly devolves into a free-for-all. People seem to love to jump in and throw a punch for the hell of it, and then step back to see the ripples cause more mayhem.
I have long since stopped caring because I feel it's a waste of my energy as long as there still are people on "both sides" willing to measure out their version of what they think is right and just.
I only read this thread when I feel utterly bored and don't have anything better to do.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2012 : 13:36:06 [Permalink]
|
I think everyone would agree that bullying entails threatening someone else with physical, financial, and certain emotional harm.
Calling someone names or putting someone down is being rude and is asshole-like behavior. Ten people getting together to put one person down could be seen as bullying.
I was wondering about the act of dismissing someone's feelings. If you tell someone he or she is being ridiculous for being afraid, is that being rude or something else? It is not up to the level of bullying but it is more than rude.
Just some thoughts I have |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2012 : 17:19:03 [Permalink]
|
I said I was done but I guess I'm not. I need to make this clear. Threatening rape, death, posting an address and behavior like that is not only abhorrent, it's illegal and it should be.
Ganging up on someone who dissents from the view of a blogger on a website does not rise to that kind of behavior, and is therefor not nearly as bad.
Duh!
If anything I said leads anyone here to think I think otherwise, it's because I have not expressed myself well. I did say that the really abusive stuff takes place on twitter, and I don't see it unless it's pointed out to me. I never meant to create the appearance of a false equivalency. I can see how what I wrote could be taken that way.
But here's the thing. And here's what is disappointing to me. If you look at my posts, and take them in total, I don't see how anyone could conclude that I think that way.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2012 : 21:31:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But here's the thing. And here's what is disappointing to me. If you look at my posts, and take them in total, I don't see how anyone could conclude that I think that way. |
And we all know how people with an agenda will spend the time and effort to get a full account.
Seriously, I never once thought that you thought the things I was talking about. I think I know you better than that, and would hope that you'd give me credit for that, too.
But taken in isolation, some of your recent comments would been seen by those on the victims' side (who are now hypervigilant for good reason) as either born of ignorance or as feeding the douchebags, and the douchebags would see them as vindication. That's what I was trying to point out. I was not criticizing you for anything I thought you believed, but for how you were expressing yourself, because I'm not a complete stranger to you, and because I think I've got a decent grasp of how complete strangers who read these comments might react.
For example, "Maybe one side is behaving worse than the other." This unfortunately implies that probably (the opposite of "maybe") both sides are behaving equally as badly. In other words, a naive reading of that comment of yours implies that while nobody deserves "the kind of abuse that has been thrown at Jen and Surly Amy and RW," nobody (not even blatant misogynists) deserves to be called a misogynist, either.
Again: right now, the "good guys" are sometimes hypersensitive to certain turns of phrase and apparent attitudes. And the "bad guys" are always looking for the same thing, because it empowers them. It'd be mighty nice if everyone would read umpty-ump pages of thread to get a fuller picture of what you mean, but most won't. Maybe someday. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2012 : 07:15:19 [Permalink]
|
io9 has an article about sexism controversies in 3 related venues: Readercon, TAM, and Defcon. The Great Geek Sexism Debate. In my opinion, TAM comes off looking like the worst of the lot, since it actually seems to be heading backward on this issue: | Though TAM had a sexual harassment policy in 2011, in 2012 it did not and Grothe does not think it will in the future. To deal with harassment at the 2012 con, the TAM organizers hired a professional consultant who deals with what Grothe characterized as "boundary issues" and "security concerns" in corporations. Nobody at the con was notified that this consultant was available, though his presence was alluded to on the TAM site FAQ. |
Atheists and skeptics are also singled out for encouraging sexism within their community.
| One of the main differences between the Readercon and TAM communities is the public positions their most famous members have taken. In the science fiction community, prominent authors have spoken out against sexism and harassment. In the atheism community, prominent thinkers like Dawkins have effectively spoken out in favor of belittling people who believe there is sexism among skeptics. Certainly there are counter-examples. Some in the TAM community, like PZ Myers, have become outspoken Watson supporters. But when the world's most famous atheist takes a position against something, it inevitably influences how the community responds. If Dawkins had never taken a public stance against Watson, it's likely that "elevatorgate" would have unfolded a lot differently. The skeptics community would still be full of fierce debates over feminism — but perhaps neither side would feel shamed, silenced, or bullied. (emphasis mine) |
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/11/2012 07:24:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2012 : 21:18:28 [Permalink]
|
Speaking Out Against Hate Directed at Women: Eran Segev:...I also don’t understand, and surely never will, what goes through the minds of the perpetrators. I try to reason: OK, so you think Skepchicks are sometimes unreasonable about sex relations, or you disagree with what Rebecca wrote about TAM. Fine. SO DO I. So what? Why does it mean that she deserves to be insulted, humiliated and threatened with physical violence? If you want to say something, say “I disagree with you and you’re being unreasonable. Here’s why.” And if that gets shot down, argue some more; or leave. But hatred and violence?
Do you threaten a colleague you argue with that you’ll kill them? Do you wish the shop assistant that hasn’t helped you that she’ll be raped on the way home? What gives you, what gives ANYONE, the right to subject another person to such hate? And where does this hate come from? And why women? Do you not have a mother; a sister; a girlfriend? Do you hate them too? Do you insult and threaten them, too?... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2012 : 07:22:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Speaking Out Against Hate Directed at Women: Eran Segev:...I also don’t understand, and surely never will, what goes through the minds of the perpetrators. I try to reason: OK, so you think Skepchicks are sometimes unreasonable about sex relations, or you disagree with what Rebecca wrote about TAM. Fine. SO DO I. So what? Why does it mean that she deserves to be insulted, humiliated and threatened with physical violence? If you want to say something, say “I disagree with you and you’re being unreasonable. Here’s why.” And if that gets shot down, argue some more; or leave. But hatred and violence?
Do you threaten a colleague you argue with that you’ll kill them? Do you wish the shop assistant that hasn’t helped you that she’ll be raped on the way home? What gives you, what gives ANYONE, the right to subject another person to such hate? And where does this hate come from? And why women? Do you not have a mother; a sister; a girlfriend? Do you hate them too? Do you insult and threaten them, too?...
|
The comments on this one became somewhat heated over Eran's "SO DO I." I think unfairly so. His point is that people should behave themselves and express themselves without being hurtful and hateful. It's not necessary to agree on everything. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2012 : 13:40:34 [Permalink]
|
Watson has a new piece up at Slate, It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too, in which she recounts much of her personal experiences with sexism within the skeptic crowd.
Inevitably, commenters forgive Elevator Guy and insist that "Don't do that" was a horrible overreaction on Watson's part.  This happens Every. Single. Time. But, she's got a good point:I also believe that old line about sunlight being the best disinfectant. Ignoring bullies does not make them go away. For the most part, the people harassing us aren’t just fishing for a reaction—they want our silence. They’re angry that feminist thought has a platform in “their community.” What they don’t get is that it’s also my community. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2013 : 11:33:17 [Permalink]
|
I thought this was a pretty enlightening TED talk about the nature of privilege from someone who has both benefited and been hurt by it. In my opinion, Cameron Russell demonstrated great courage by objectively examining the nature of her own privilege in such a public way. You can tell it was difficult for her. A less introspective person would have given into the temptation of alleviating their shame with defensive rationales. But through her ruthless honesty, Cameron also reveals how even the "winners" are hurt by having to play the game. More privileged doesn't necessarily mean more happy.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2013 : 09:36:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
[quote]Originally posted by H. Humbert
I thought this was a pretty enlightening TED talk about the nature of privilege from someone who has both benefited and been hurt by it. In my opinion, Cameron Russell demonstrated great courage by objectively examining the nature of her own privilege in such a public way. You can tell it was difficult for her. A less introspective person would have given into the temptation of alleviating their shame with defensive rationales. But through her ruthless honesty, Cameron also reveals how even the "winners" are hurt by having to play the game. More privileged doesn't necessarily mean more happy.
|
Very profound video for her honesty and how she illuminated the subject. I would think "A less introspective person" would be hard pressed to come up with the same insights. Interesting realities about the human condition were highlighted, ones that can apply to everyone. Great link H.H.. Plato was onto something when he said "The Life Unexamined, is the Life unlived". It seems to me only people who fear the truth choose not to examine their beliefs or can ignore what is there to see. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2013 : 11:23:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Plato was onto something when he said "The Life Unexamined, is the Life unlived". |
Yes. I always considered that statement an accurate summary of the ethos which drives skepticism. I am becoming more and more dismayed to discover that many who consider themselves guardians of the skeptical movement hold much a narrower view of things.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Rebecca Watson Not Appearing at TAM
