Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[charlou]

Anyway - it's up to you - discuss the issue or don't. If you're going to post here, I would sincerely like to discuss the issue. However, if you're going to hurl insults, I'd rather you go somewhere else. You decide what you want to do, and I'll leave it to anyone who cares to read this thread whether my "posting style" is really something that made this discussion less constructive, or perhaps it was something else that did it.

I think your posting style and your general analysis of the topic have been fine, coito ... in this thread and the other on the topic.

[Cormac]

Anyway - it's up to you - discuss the issue or don't. If you're going to post here, I would sincerely like to discuss the issue. However, if you're going to hurl insults, I'd rather you go somewhere else. You decide what you want to do, and I'll leave it to anyone who cares to read this thread whether my "posting style" is really something that made this discussion less constructive, or perhaps it was something else that did it.

I think your posting style and your general analysis of the topic have been fine, coito ... in this thread and the other on the topic.

Agreed.

[devogue]

Anyway - it's up to you - discuss the issue or don't. If you're going to post here, I would sincerely like to discuss the issue. However, if you're going to hurl insults, I'd rather you go somewhere else. You decide what you want to do, and I'll leave it to anyone who cares to read this thread whether my "posting style" is really something that made this discussion less constructive, or perhaps it was something else that did it.

I think your posting style and your general analysis of the topic have been fine, coito ... in this thread and the other on the topic.

Absolutely agreed.

Ronja's last post was disgraceful. True Fremdscham.

[hadespussercats]

I just noticed this diddy....

Now I must share one additional fact about me: I loathe passive aggressive behavior. Loathe it. I sincerely believe that if you are going to criticize someone’s argument, you should clearly and honestly state to whom you are referring and what exactly they have said or done that you find objectionable.

http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming- ... onference/

I would think if she followed her own advice, she would have named elevator guy and said exactly what they have said or done that she finds objectionable. She apparently did the latter - although Ronja pointed out that we may not have gotten the whole story from Skepchick - but, she did not clearly and honestly state to whom she was referring.

Just a thought re- updated info-- sounds like RW didn't know Elevator Guy's name, since she says they didn't know each other, and hadn't spoken before the elevator.

Also, I'm not sure that declining to name him would have been passive-aggressive, even if she did know his name. If her anecdote was about a case-in-point regarding behavior, she was able to accomplish her end without directly shaming him. Which actually seems to acknowledge the possibility that the man didn't realize how he was making her feel, which would have been a kindness on her part.

This is all moot, since she didn't know his name anyway-- just another point of consideration.

[Coito ergo sum]

I just noticed this diddy....

Now I must share one additional fact about me: I loathe passive aggressive behavior. Loathe it. I sincerely believe that if you are going to criticize someone’s argument, you should clearly and honestly state to whom you are referring and what exactly they have said or done that you find objectionable.

http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming- ... onference/

I would think if she followed her own advice, she would have named elevator guy and said exactly what they have said or done that she finds objectionable. She apparently did the latter - although Ronja pointed out that we may not have gotten the whole story from Skepchick - but, she did not clearly and honestly state to whom she was referring.

Just a thought re- updated info-- sounds like RW didn't know Elevator Guy's name, since she says they didn't know each other, and hadn't spoken before the elevator.

That's possible. We don't know - although in her latest video she seems to claim that he should have known she did not want to be hit on because she had just said that she did not want to be hit on. Was she talking to him? They must have been in a situation where she could reasonably conclude that he heard her. Nevertheless, she may not know his name. Getting his name, however, when she does know others there, and this guy was there quite often or for a long period of time, and was an attendee at the conference, it may not be that hard to narrow down who he is.

Also, I'm not sure that declining to name him would have been passive-aggressive, even if she did know his name. If her anecdote was about a case-in-point regarding behavior, she was able to accomplish her end without directly shaming him.

That same logic applies to Stef McGraw, who she did publicly shame.

Which actually seems to acknowledge the possibility that the man didn't realize how he was making her feel, which would have been a kindness on her part.

This is all moot, since she didn't know his name anyway-- just another point of consideration.

We don't know for sure she didn't know his name. But, I admit, she might not. I don't think she's said whether she does, in fact, know his name.

[hadespussercats]

I just noticed this diddy....

Now I must share one additional fact about me: I loathe passive aggressive behavior. Loathe it. I sincerely believe that if you are going to criticize someone’s argument, you should clearly and honestly state to whom you are referring and what exactly they have said or done that you find objectionable.

http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming- ... onference/

I would think if she followed her own advice, she would have named elevator guy and said exactly what they have said or done that she finds objectionable. She apparently did the latter - although Ronja pointed out that we may not have gotten the whole story from Skepchick - but, she did not clearly and honestly state to whom she was referring.

Just a thought re- updated info-- sounds like RW didn't know Elevator Guy's name, since she says they didn't know each other, and hadn't spoken before the elevator.

That's possible. We don't know - although in her latest video she seems to claim that he should have known she did not want to be hit on because she had just said that she did not want to be hit on. Was she talking to him? They must have been in a situation where she could reasonably conclude that he heard her. Nevertheless, she may not know his name. Getting his name, however, when she does know others there, and this guy was there quite often or for a long period of time, and was an attendee at the conference, it may not be that hard to narrow down who he is.

Also, I'm not sure that declining to name him would have been passive-aggressive, even if she did know his name. If her anecdote was about a case-in-point regarding behavior, she was able to accomplish her end without directly shaming him.

That same logic applies to Stef McGraw, who she did publicly shame. (snip)

Didn't Stef McGraw post her views about Watson in a public forum, before Watson referred to her? My sense was that Watson was responding to comments McGraw had already made public-- a different situation than recounting the details of a private conversation, no?

[Gallstones]

I don't think Michael Richards' racist tirade got this much forum traffic.

So somebody in the "community" said something that some other members of the "community" don't like and think was wrong and stupid. So what?

If the "community" is made up of persons who are critical thinkers who hold logic and reason in high esteem they aren't vulnerable to anything someone of the "community" would say and that some think is wrong or stupid--especially if it is wrong and stupid.

People say wrong and even stupid things all the time, some of them are even members of the atheist/skeptic "community".
Where's the beef? There is none, the "community" is eating itself.

[Coito ergo sum]

Didn't Stef McGraw post her views about Watson in a public forum, before Watson referred to her? My sense was that Watson was responding to comments McGraw had already made public-- a different situation than recounting the details of a private conversation, no?

Yes, and calling out Stef McGraw was much worse. Stef McGraw was sitting in the audience of a talk that Skepchick was giving. Skepchick named her and called her out, chastizing her, in front of a room full of people when McGraw had no opportunity at that time to respond. That seems to be skepchick's way - she deletes accounts over at Skepchick.org when they don't agree with her.

Yes, McGraw posted a blog response to Skepchick's blog response. That's normal internet etiquette. Taking the podium unannounced and without warning, while a person is in the audience, and shaming them publicly is not cricket.

And, Skepchick doesn't recount the incident in the elevator as a "conversation." It's recounted as a wrong done to her. Now she was "cornered" in the elevator. This was a guy who had done something wrong to her, and she extends protection to him, but shames Stef McGraw whose only wrong was voicing a contrary opinion. Something to think about there.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think Michael Richards' racist tirade got this much forum traffic.

You want the discussion on this to stop, do you?

And, there really wasn't as much in the way of a defense to Michael Richards' racist tirade. It's no wonder it didn't get much play.

So somebody in the "community" said something that some other members of the "community" don't like and think was wrong and stupid. So what?

Because that person holds herself out to be an authority on skepticism, humanism, rationalism and feminism, and condescends to lecture the rest of us on proper behavior. If we don't agree with Skepchick, we are either misgynists, or we have been hornswaggled by the culture of misogyny in which we have been steeped.

Also, the topic is interesting to a lot of people.

If the "community" is made up of persons who are critical thinkers who hold logic and reason in high esteem they aren't vulnerable to anything someone of the "community" would say and that some think is wrong or stupid--especially if it is wrong and stupid.

So, why discuss anything at all then?

People say wrong and even stupid things all the time,

Do you give elevator guy the same leeway?

some of them are even members of the atheist/skeptic "community".
Where's the beef? There is none, the "community" is eating itself.

Skepchick is not part of any "community" I am in. She's a fraud. She deletes accounts on her website where they say things she doesn't agree with (even when nothing hateful, vulgar, profane, obscene, insulting, or in any way personally attacking anyone). I know that for a fact. She bills herself as some bastion of rationality, but she can't brook an honest debate on the subject. Just agree with her, or STFU.

[Gallstones]

Just agree with her, or STFU.

How about no.

[Gallstones]

I don't think Michael Richards' racist tirade got this much forum traffic.

You want the discussion on this to stop, do you?

• 

So, why discuss anything at all then?

• 

People say wrong and even stupid things all the time,

Do you give elevator guy the same leeway?

Of course.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think Michael Richards' racist tirade got this much forum traffic.

You want the discussion on this to stop, do you?

• 

What other possible point could you be making by saying "I don't think the Michael Richards' racist tirade got this much forum traffic?"

I mean - so what if this gets more traffic? Are you saying we shouldn't be talking about it this much? I.e. - what's your point?

So, why discuss anything at all then?

• 

You said, "If the "community" is made up of persons who are critical thinkers who hold logic and reason in high esteem they aren't vulnerable to anything someone of the "community" would say and that some think is wrong or stupid--especially if it is wrong and stupid." This same statement can be applied to any issue that someone raises that we disagree with. So, if that's what you're applying to this situation, then why discuss any issue? We could say the same thing about anyone we take issue with. Some of us take issue with Skepchick on this. Are we not to try to discuss this because we should not be vulnerable to anything someone of the community would say that was wrong or stupid? A debate requires that the sides think each other respectively wrong, at least. Capiche?

People say wrong and even stupid things all the time,

Do you give elevator guy the same leeway?

Of course.

Didn't sound like it from your previous posts. But, o.k. - so if you do - why are do you keep posting about it? Why are you giving it more attention than the racist rant of the actor formerly known as Kramer?

[Coito ergo sum]

Just agree with her, or STFU.

How about no.

That's what I'm doing - not agreeing with her.

I oppose her bullshit.

What should have been apparent from what I wrote was that her actions are designed to amount to "Just agree with her, or STFU" and "you're a misogynist, or hoodwinked by our misogynist society..."

[Gallstones]

No I won't agree or STFU.
I couldn't swear to know what she or anyone else wants or expects--even when they tell me because people contradict themselves all the time.

Whatever my thoughts or ideas or feelings are about any of this are pretty much 100% irrelevant.

I won't STFU for that reason either.
That's the beauty of irrelevancy.

[hadespussercats]

I knew a family called Gozzo once. The mother had the clap.