Thunderf00t gets his own FtB blog...

[Dustnite]

So you carelessly ignore the substance from both sides, as though they were both equal, even though it was TF who instigated the miscommunications; PZ is also directly addressing criticism to this while clearing up some confusion behind it; apologizing for some oversights in admitting TF into the FtB in the first place; and you effectively agree with PZ on that central point.

Oh yeah...split right down the middle. Let's laugh at them both and feel so much better about ourselves.

I am in agreement with PZ on his central point that Tf00t shouldn't have been given a voice on FtB in the first place. I'm also noting that PZ could have stopped this Tf00t vs PZ diatribe before it even began, but instead fed into it before getting to this point and it is on that I find both sides equally culpable.

So yes I will laugh at them both for the waste of energy and bad blood that was generated for a stupid reason (initially Tf00t's fault, fed by PZ later).

I also agree with Joe on having a anti-harassment policy in place to create safe environments for everybody, I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't have to be arguing at all on this point and anyone against following the rules at a conference, workplace, etc. is an asshat and shouldn't be taken seriously. People who give asshats megaphones shouldn't be taken seriously especially if they allow said asshat to continue on instead of nipping it in the bud.

 

[televator]

So you carelessly ignore the substance from both sides, as though they were both equal, even though it was TF who instigated the miscommunications; PZ is also directly addressing criticism to this while clearing up some confusion behind it; apologizing for some oversights in admitting TF into the FtB in the first place; and you effectively agree with PZ on that central point.

Oh yeah...split right down the middle. Let's laugh at them both and feel so much better about ourselves.

I am in agreement with PZ on his central point that Tf00t shouldn't have been given a voice on FtB in the first place. I'm also noting that PZ could have stopped this Tf00t vs PZ diatribe before it even began, but instead fed into it before getting to this point and it is on that I find both sides equally culpable.

So yes I will laugh at them both for the waste of energy and bad blood that was generated for a stupid reason (initially Tf00t's fault, fed by PZ later).

I also agree with Joe on having a anti-harassment policy in place to create safe environments for everybody, I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't have to be arguing at all on this point and anyone against following the rules at a conference, workplace, etc. is an asshat and shouldn't be taken seriously. People who give asshats megaphones shouldn't be taken seriously especially if they allow said asshat to continue on instead of nipping it in the bud.

Did you miss the part where TFoot's asshattery came as a surpize to PZ? Sure it may be hard to believe now, but think how many if not most people on this forum are former fans of TFoot as well.

Also the video is about nipping TFoot's misrepresentations in the bud. I think the man is allowed to give his side of the story before moving on, rather than allowing TFoot and his goon following to totally frame the whole thing in their favor.

 

[Gnug215]

[...]

Fair enough, now you tell me what is "rational" about overreacting to this statement:

"Don't take this the wrong way but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"

Look, I'm not gonna be dismissive like last time, I understand that makes you feel uncomfortable, but it's really no different than someone being uncomfortable around airplanes and having a fear of flying. It's irrational when you take it at face value, and while men should probably "not do that", you need to do your part and overcome this knee-jerk sensitivity. That is if you want to be "rational".

There is nothing rational about overreacting to that statement...


... unless the statement was said as you got cornered in an elevator by a total stranger at 4 AM, after having made clear to everyone around that you were really tired and just wanted to sleep. Plus, as far as I understand, having stated clearly that this kind of thing wasn't actually cool.

You read this before, or did you miss it? I'm sure someone mentioned or linked to this.

And well, in spite of all of these things I mentioned, her "overreaction" was saying something like: "Guys, that's not ok."

 

[ImprobableJoe]

[...]

Fair enough, now you tell me what is "rational" about overreacting to this statement:

"Don't take this the wrong way but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"

Look, I'm not gonna be dismissive like last time, I understand that makes you feel uncomfortable, but it's really no different than someone being uncomfortable around airplanes and having a fear of flying. It's irrational when you take it at face value, and while men should probably "not do that", you need to do your part and overcome this knee-jerk sensitivity. That is if you want to be "rational".

There is nothing rational about overreacting to that statement...


... unless the statement was said as you got cornered in an elevator by a total stranger at 4 AM, after having made clear to everyone around that you were really tired and just wanted to sleep. Plus, as far as I understand, having stated clearly that this kind of thing wasn't actually cool.

You read this before, or did you miss it? I'm sure someone mentioned or linked to this.

And well, in spite of all of these things I mentioned, her "overreaction" was saying something like: "Guys, that's not ok."

Notice the stripping away of all the context: The fact that Rebecca Watson repeatedly on-stage and off said that she wasn't interested in being approached at all, the fact that it was 4AM and she said she was exhausted and going to sleep, the fact that the unwanted approach was made in an elevator instead of in the bar or lobby. This is an example of someone lying by omission and commission both. Removing all of the relevant facts is a lie of omission, and then saying that Watson overreacted is a lie of commission.

I'll take the critics of Watson and feminism seriously when they stop lying to make their "points".

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I am in agreement with PZ on his central point that Tf00t shouldn't have been given a voice on FtB in the first place. I'm also noting that PZ could have stopped this Tf00t vs PZ diatribe before it even began, but instead fed into it before getting to this point and it is on that I find both sides equally culpable.

So yes I will laugh at them both for the waste of energy and bad blood that was generated for a stupid reason (initially Tf00t's fault, fed by PZ later).

I also agree with Joe on having a anti-harassment policy in place to create safe environments for everybody, I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't have to be arguing at all on this point and anyone against following the rules at a conference, workplace, etc. is an asshat and shouldn't be taken seriously. People who give asshats megaphones shouldn't be taken seriously especially if they allow said asshat to continue on instead of nipping it in the bud.

"I agree but I wish the people I agree with would shut up about it" doesn't seem like a particularly rational or reasonable position. It's cool if you don't want to talk about it, but that doesn't make other people foolish for talking about it. In fact, these conversations are how you get more people to eventually agree with you, and isn't the world a better place for everyone when more people take equality seriously?

 

[Dustnite]

"I agree but I wish the people I agree with would shut up about it" doesn't seem like a particularly rational or reasonable position. It's cool if you don't want to talk about it, but that doesn't make other people foolish for talking about it. In fact, these conversations are how you get more people to eventually agree with you, and isn't the world a better place for everyone when more people take equality seriously?

That's not even it at all. The thing between PZ and Tf00t was not people taking equality seriously, it was a pissing contest.

Yes we need to take equality seriously, but I'm having a hard time believing we can do that when we are starting giant flame wars with each other as it just ends up going nowhere. The "disagreement" is coming from a perception on the side of "a harassment policy would curtail my ability to even approach the person I'm interested in!" when in fact that's not even an issue. So yes, people coming at this argument shouldn't even bring it up as it only derails the conversation.

I'm merely commenting on the fact that this whole fiasco was a giant pissing contest and it derailed yet again the discussion in the community about harassment issues and this is what needs to stop. People are all entitled to their opinions doesn't mean we should let them have a platform when its not even related to what's actually going on. PZ could have put it all on the table why the community feels strongly about harassment at SkepChick, SkeptiCON, etc. events even as late as the 2nd reply to Tf00t, but instead chose to belittle and demean just as Tf00t was doing.

Don't try to lump me in with what Dogma is saying as I disagree with a lot of his points. I'm specifically talking about the "pissing contest" aspect of the meltdown at FtB and how yet again it had lead to a dead end in the conflict resolution process.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Don't try to lump me in with what Dogma is saying as I disagree with a lot of his points. I'm specifically talking about the "pissing contest" aspect of the meltdown at FtB and how yet again it had lead to a dead end in the conflict resolution process.

Why not? You're both guilty of the same sort of fallacy here, which is stripping things of context. Your complaint about a "pissing contest" wrongly puts the focus on the fact that there's a disagreement, and away from what the disagreement is about. One of them is on the wrong side of the issue and acted inappropriately, and the other person is calling out those things. That's not a "pissing contest" where the real wrong is the fact that people are arguing at all, when one person is correct and the other is being kind of a shitty person.

 

[Dustnite]

Don't try to lump me in with what Dogma is saying as I disagree with a lot of his points. I'm specifically talking about the "pissing contest" aspect of the meltdown at FtB and how yet again it had lead to a dead end in the conflict resolution process.

Why not? You're both guilty of the same sort of fallacy here, which is stripping things of context. Your complaint about a "pissing contest" wrongly puts the focus on the fact that there's a disagreement, and away from what the disagreement is about. One of them is on the wrong side of the issue and acted inappropriately, and the other person is calling out those things. That's not a "pissing contest" where the real wrong is the fact that people are arguing at all, when one person is correct and the other is being kind of a shitty person.

Then I have committed the fallacy because I agree with this. I just think I'm falling into the trap of missing the argument because of my disdain for Tf00t.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Then I have committed the fallacy because I agree with this. I just think I'm falling into the trap of missing the argument because of my disdain for Tf00t.

Well... I guess our pissing contest is over! :lol:

And really, only one side is interested in a pissing contest. If you're generally supportive but just not personally interested in talking about anti-harassment policies or feminism, you just don't go out of your way to talk about them. When you go after other people for talking about those things, especially dishonestly the way so many people have done, you're the one who is causing the problem. Why pick a fight, unless you actually oppose the message that the other person is presenting?

 

[Gnug215]

Notice the stripping away of all the context: The fact that Rebecca Watson repeatedly on-stage and off said that she wasn't interested in being approached at all, the fact that it was 4AM and she said she was exhausted and going to sleep, the fact that the unwanted approach was made in an elevator instead of in the bar or lobby. This is an example of someone lying by omission and commission both. Removing all of the relevant facts is a lie of omission, and then saying that Watson overreacted is a lie of commission.

I'll take the critics of Watson and feminism seriously when they stop lying to make their "points".

Quite... But I'd actually like to hear what they think of the situation as described in its true context.

And didn't you mention/link this stuff already, so DD should have seen it?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Quite... But I'd actually like to hear what they think of the situation as described in its true context.

And didn't you mention/link this stuff already, so DD should have seen it?

I think the fact that they refuse to deal with the true context tells us something, don't you think?

I don't expect people to actually read things the first thousands times, and I wanted to make sure any lurkers didn't miss it from the first time I said it. After all, this is over a year old and people are STILL going around building huge anti-feminism positions based on the "Rebecca Watson thinks asking for coffee=attempted rape" lie.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Well, in that context I would say it's a pretty big /facepalm moment. No need to crucify the elevator guy now and make him out to be some kind of horrible person. "Cornered" doesn't seem like the appropriate word to use. It's not like he was keeping her there.

 

[Gnug215]

Quite... But I'd actually like to hear what they think of the situation as described in its true context.

And didn't you mention/link this stuff already, so DD should have seen it?

I think the fact that they refuse to deal with the true context tells us something, don't you think?

[...]

Yes, but - and maybe I'm just naive - I don't know WHAT it tells us.

 

[Gnug215]

Well, in that context I would say it's a pretty big /facepalm moment. No need to crucify the elevator guy now and make him out to be some kind of horrible person. "Cornered" doesn't seem like the appropriate word to use. It's not like he was keeping her there.

Well, correct me here if I am not properly informed, but I haven't exactly seen the elevator guy get crucified. In particular, he hasn't been named as far as I know, so he could care less, right?
But the story has been used as a specific example of a situation that was not ok in Watson's eyes.

But well, you say it's a big facepalm moment. Could you elaborate a bit? Would you say it's an inappropriate sexual advance?

And well, I use "cornered" because an elevator is... quite cornerfull. I mean, it's entirely closed for a period of time, and I am pretty sure I'd feel uncomfortable if I were a woman in that situation. It had been much less intimidating had it been at a bar or something with people nearby. But the guy waits till they're in a closed off elevator to spring the question on her?
Oh, and I do assume you agree that him inviting her to coffee in his room at 4 AM in the morning is an invitation that carries a hefty load of subtext, right?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yes, but - and maybe I'm just naive - I don't know WHAT it tells us.

One of a couple of things, none of them particularly positive. At best, being lazy intellectually and not looking up the context and assuming that it is all he-said-she-said and yet commenting anyways. At worse... well, you know where that leads.

 

[Gnug215]

Yes, but - and maybe I'm just naive - I don't know WHAT it tells us.

One of a couple of things, none of them particularly positive. At best, being lazy intellectually and not looking up the context and assuming that it is all he-said-she-said and yet commenting anyways. At worse... well, you know where that leads.

Well, I personally doubt all of these nay-sayers are straight-out misogynists or chauvinists. But many of them would actually be what you (I think?) called "enablers", who are the ones that are actually within reach, I'd say.
I mean, awareness it he first step, and this entire discussion (primarily some of the examples I've seen mentioned by various women) has made me think about my, and men's in general, relationship to women. There are some things that have just been silently accepted for many years, and breaking that silence might be quite a shock to many.
I'm perhaps not so shocked as such, but I have tried to rememeber back in my life to see if I may have said or done something that some woman really disliked, and I might not even have registered it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well, I personally doubt all of these nay-sayers are straight-out misogynists or chauvinists. But many of them would actually be what you (I think?) called "enablers", who are the ones that are actually within reach, I'd say.
I mean, awareness it he first step, and this entire discussion (primarily some of the examples I've seen mentioned by various women) has made me think about my, and men's in general, relationship to women. There are some things that have just been silently accepted for many years, and breaking that silence might be quite a shock to many.
I'm perhaps not so shocked as such, but I have tried to rememeber back in my life to see if I may have said or done something that some woman really disliked, and I might not even have registered it.

Well, yeah. And like I said earlier, there's people working in some areas of what we can call "social justice" as a blanket term, who are nevertheless guilty of being total bigots towards people in other areas. And being willing to face your own imperfections is a lot harder than pointing at other people and pointing out theirs. On the other side of that is people who are so unwilling to do that, that they outright lie about people holding a mirror up to their behavior, in order to justify ignoring or attacking them.

Plus we as a culture have a hard time dealing with complex issues that we could potentially be contributing to, so we repaint the problem so that it is a good vs evil fairy tale. In this fairy tale, racists wear white sheets and Confederate flags on their pickup trucks, sexists call women "toots" and pinch their asses, rapists wear masks and sneak into bedrooms in the middle of the night. As long as we can think of people who do bad things as cartoon villains, we can always look in the mirror and not see that villain and pretend that we're not only not doing wrong but somehow incapable of doing wrong.

So yeah, I don't think that most people are hardcore misogynists or sexists. What I do think is that the second you start dismissing and/or attacking people for making what are really mild comments and suggestions pertaining to what is obviously a real issue, and/or misrepresenting them to make them seem alarmist or extremist, then you're contributing to misogyny and sexism.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

She did say it "creeps me out" when people "sexualize me" in that manner. These are pretty big words.

But well, you say it's a big facepalm moment. Could you elaborate a bit? Would you say it's an inappropriate sexual advance?

I would say it's an ineffective and really awkward one.

And by the way, it's kinda wrong to assume that every guy trying to hook up in an elevator is somehow a threat. Maybe he's just an awkward dude who doesn't mean any harm, but simply doesn't know any better. Besides, how is pointing this out supposed to stop actual elevator rapists? Do you really think they're going to ask you for coffee first? I don't think so. So really, all you're doing is discouraging the nerdy/awkward guys who aren't a threat anyway. So okay you get some sense of comfort but the dangerous guys will still be out there.

So really if it bothers you that much you might as well either take the stairs or never get into an elevator with any male you don't know unless there are multiple people in the elevator.

 

[Laurens]

She did say it "creeps me out" when people "sexualize me" in that manner. These are pretty big words.

Not really....

 

[Dogma's Demise]

"Not really" as in they're not big words or "not really" as in it never happened?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKHwduG1Frk

Fast forward to 5:30. Yes she did use those words.