|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
 Posted - 09/02/2013 : 03:07:28 [Permalink]
|
Mooner:
But you strongly imply that the accuser/victim had chosen the wrong spokesperson when she selected PZ. She, after all, chose him, and you said he was the wrong choice. As I'd said, this was a minor sort of "blaming the victim." It's not like saying the victim was dressing provocatively and was thus "just asking for it," but it nevertheless is casting blame on the victim, something that we all should be sensitive about. I do not condemn you for that relatively innocent faux pas, but I do point it out. Why do you not see that as a case of blaming the victim, however minor? |
Because it's not victim blaming. Being critical of her choice of spokesperson has absolutely nothing to do with any accusation of rape that she has, or implies in any way that she deserved what she got. That's victim blaming. Just because she is the victim doesn't mean that any and all criticism is out of play. What if she had chosen David Markuze to be her spokesperson? Would being critical of her choice of spokesperson be victim blaming then? Let's be clear here. Victim blaming is blaming the victim for a crime that someone else has committed against the victim. In order to make choosing Myers as her spokesperson victim blaming, I would have to make the case that she deserved what she got because she chose Myers to speak for her. I have not done that. I would not do that. That would be absurd. It is also not a faux pas to wish she had chosen someone less polarizing to speak for her.
Mooner. Try to understand. No one is above criticism in all things in life because they are a victim of a crime. In this case, I am not blaming a victim for being victimized. I'm saying that a person, a complete human being who is capable of making choices, might have not made the best choice for a defender, or a speller of the beans, or whatever Myers is.
Mooner:
That's a strawman argument... |
Yes. I was being snarky.
Mooner:
But I still can't think of a better advocate for the victim/accuser to have chosen than PZ, simply because he never backs down as long as he thinks he's right. And if that's a character flaw, then I think we need more flawed characters of that type on this planet. |
The world is full of people who never back down when they think they are right. The problem is, sometimes they are wrong, and they still won't back down. We see a lot of that on this forum. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 05:24:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Mooner:
But you strongly imply that the accuser/victim had chosen the wrong spokesperson when she selected PZ. She, after all, chose him, and you said he was the wrong choice. As I'd said, this was a minor sort of "blaming the victim." It's not like saying the victim was dressing provocatively and was thus "just asking for it," but it nevertheless is casting blame on the victim, something that we all should be sensitive about. I do not condemn you for that relatively innocent faux pas, but I do point it out. Why do you not see that as a case of blaming the victim, however minor? |
Because it's not victim blaming. Being critical of her choice of spokesperson has absolutely nothing to do with any accusation of rape that she has, or implies in any way that she deserved what she got. That's victim blaming. Just because she is the victim doesn't mean that any and all criticism is out of play. What if she had chosen David Markuze to be her spokesperson? Would being critical of her choice of spokesperson be victim blaming then? |
It would then be right to criticise every mistake that Markuse makes (actually, I can't imagine him suddenly even becoming intelligible), but not the victim, not even, for now, for her choice of Markuze. To avoid further trauma, we really do have to provisionally and temporarily lay off on all criticism of the victim. Your implied comparison of PZ to Markuze is another strawman. These two things are not the same.| Let's be clear here. Victim blaming is blaming the victim for a crime that someone else has committed against the victim. In order to make choosing Myers as her spokesperson victim blaming, I would have to make the case that she deserved what she got because she chose Myers to speak for her. I have not done that. I would not do that. That would be absurd. It is also not a faux pas to wish she had chosen someone less polarizing to speak for her. |
Had she chosen Markuze instead, I would passionately, but privately, wish she had not done so. That choice, be it PZ or Markuse, has nothing to do with her accusation or victimhood. Since you and I are unlikely to agree, and since I consider this a minor example, let's allow the "blaming the victim" matter to drop, okay?| Mooner. Try to understand. No one is above criticism in all things in life because they are a victim of a crime. In this case, I am not blaming a victim for being victimized. I'm saying that a person, a complete human being who is capable of making choices, might have not made the best choice for a defender, or a speller of the beans, or whatever Myers is. |
Our definitions differ in this matter. 'Nuff said.
Mooner:
That's a strawman argument... |
Okay, but snarky-for-snarkiness'-sake, or snarky-on-the-level?  Mooner:
But I still can't think of a better advocate for the victim/accuser to have chosen than PZ, simply because he never backs down as long as he thinks he's right. And if that's a character flaw, then I think we need more flawed characters of that type on this planet. |
| The world is full of people who never back down when they think they are right. The problem is, sometimes they are wrong, and they still won't back down. We see a lot of that on this forum. |
I really do think you should start a thread to discuss your disgust of PZ. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 06:35:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But again, I do wish the allegation would have been handed to someone who isn't so polarizing. |
The fact that Myers is polarizing is a good thing. Responses to the rape allegations that focus on Myers being a liar/asshole/whatever can be ignored. They allow us to cull the herd of outrage and thus pay attention only to those with something potentially useful to say about the core issue.
Hardcore PZ haters would have nothing good to say regardless how PZ wrote the post. They'll take whatever excuse they can find to widen the rift, and I very much thank them for that, because it makes those asshats easier to spot and avoid.
Earlier:| Do you really not see why so many people are turned off by Myers style? |
The style that PZ is criticized for is his unapologetic confrontationalism. That he's not willing to suffer foolishness for the sake of having more "allies" in one battle who are anything but allied with him in another fight (Kenneth Miller, for example). I had little idea that it was instead hyperbole and egocentrism that were turning people off, since those qualities are almost prerequisites for being a popular blogger.| Do you think we are all "the haters" as you call them? |
No, let's be very specific here: the haters are the ones spewing all sorts of actual hate about this and related issues. They're the ones who call women "cunts" for having the temerity to defend women, for example. They're the ones making the feminists want DEEP RIFTS™ in the movement(s). They're the ones who the leaders of the movement(s) need to repudiate and marginalize, instead of personally welcoming to conventions.
Don't think for a moment that you even come close to belonging in that group.| Here he has an important thing to say on a serious matter and he turns it into "boom." |
And he said important things about that serious issue (including "a modicum of sadness" with how "really bad" the news was). He also said "boom," because he knew that a shitstorm was about to descend on him and others. Most of those causing the shitstorm wouldn't be serious, why should he take them seriously?| The issue is really what is important, however. So how the news was delivered doesn't matter in the long run, I guess. |
How the news was delivered doesn't matter not only because the method isn't the issue, but because the haters were going to spew no matter what, and the only non-polarizing people who could have delivered it are people who specifically and pointedly are staying silent on these issues (enabling the haters in the process). And as soon as they offered up this news, the haters would turn on them as traitors to the movement(s) and start the shitstorm anyway. Not even one of the haters could have made this public and still remained on that side of the rift, since it's the news itself that's polarizing to them. |
- 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
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 06:45:20 [Permalink]
|
| Mooner, Kil is right: supporting the victim does not include completely laying off criticism of issues tangential to the crime. If it were an emergent situation where Jane Doe had just been rebuffed by the convention staff for reporting the incident and PZ Myers was the first person she ran across in the hallway, then yeah, criticizing her "choice" would be pretty bad. I think Kil is wrong to have spent any time at all worrying about who the messenger is in this case, but he's not engaging in victim-blaming in any practical sense of that term. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 07:27:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Mooner, Kil is right: supporting the victim does not include completely laying off criticism of issues tangential to the crime. If it were an emergent situation where Jane Doe had just been rebuffed by the convention staff for reporting the incident and PZ Myers was the first person she ran across in the hallway, then yeah, criticizing her "choice" would be pretty bad. I think Kil is wrong to have spent any time at all worrying about who the messenger is in this case, but he's not engaging in victim-blaming in any practical sense of that term. |
You had me at "tangential," Dave. Okay, I can accept that my victim protective instinct went overboard in this case. Thanks for the balanced and thoughtful intercession, Dave. And my apologies to Kil. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/02/2013 07:30:02 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 07:55:24 [Permalink]
|
Mooner:
Your implied comparison of PZ to Markuze is another strawman. These two things are not the same. |
No. It isn't a strawman. It was a purposely absurdly exaggerated analogy to your argument that I used as a tool to shed light on the flaw in your actual argument. Unfortunately, it failed.
A strawman is when I make up you are saying, misrepresenting your position, and arguing against that. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 08:07:05 [Permalink]
|
Mooner:
And my apologies to Kil. |
Not necessary. But damn. Dave does in one paragraph what I can't do over several posts? No wonder he's my editor.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 08:45:39 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
I had little idea that it was instead hyperbole and egocentrism that were turning people off, since those qualities are almost prerequisites for being a popular blogger. |
Add unnecessary roughness to hyperbole and egocentrism and you get why I and many others have a problem with him.
There is nothing wrong with using hyperbole as a literary device, by the way. I do it. The problem is using it while taking on the job of reporting in a journalistic way. It's my opinion that the device was out of place in such a serious post that was going to have far reaching consequences. It's a judgment call. I don't know if Myers is capable of making any other call, however. And while all writers want to be read, I would argue that egocentrism isn't a requisite for that. While it's true that many blogs are a personal account of things, which does make it about the writer, writing something from a personal point of view, which is almost unavoidable, and egocentrism are not the same thing.
| Egocentrism is characterized by preoccupation with one's own internal world. Egocentrics regard themselves and their own opinions or interests as being the most important or valid. To them, self-relevant information is seen to be more important in shaping one’s judgments than are thoughts about others and other-relevant information.[1] Egocentric people are unable to fully understand or to cope with other people's opinions and the fact that reality can be different from what they are ready to accept. |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 10:41:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Mooner:
And my apologies to Kil. |
Not necessary. But damn. Dave does in one paragraph what I can't do over several posts? No wonder he's my editor.
|
Yeah, then it's humbling to us both. Like Mozart always knew the exact note that fit, Dave knows the right word. But your argument must have softened me up a bit in advance. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 10:44:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Mooner:
Your implied comparison of PZ to Markuze is another strawman. These two things are not the same. |
No. It isn't a strawman. It was a purposely absurdly exaggerated analogy to your argument that I used as a tool to shed light on the flaw in your actual argument. Unfortunately, it failed.
A strawman is when I make up you are saying, misrepresenting your position, and arguing against that.
|
Right, and I was wrong there, too. It was more of a red herring. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 18:07:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Not necessary. But damn. Dave does in one paragraph what I can't do over several posts? No wonder he's my editor. |
Unfortunately, it only works when I'm not one of the people in the specific argument. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2013 : 23:03:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
So Dr. Karen Stollznow wrote a Scientific American MIND blog post in which she discussed the years of workplace sexual harassment she'd received and the response of the company she was working for:
|
It always seems to come down to one persons word against another, when there is no other evidence beyond accusations. I would think that she wishes that in all the years of harassment she claims to have endured that she now wishes she had documented it electronically. It's pretty hard to keep it a "he says, she says", type of investigation with documentation, either audio over the phone or video/audio elsewhere. It's worth it's weight in gold in cases like this. Of course one must not break relevant wire tapping laws where they exist, so legal advice is prudent before presenting it or making it known it exist. In some places recording phone calls is permitted if one side is aware it is happening, in others both parties must be informed that a recording is being made. Then there is video/audio recording in public places, which lend themselves to no expectation of privacy violations. I would imagine if proper and legal documenting of her harassment would have been possible with some of those occurring over such a long period of time we wouldn't be dealing with this garbage. It's all very frustrating for all to read about, let alone endure by the victim w/o justice.
It's exactly in public cases like this that end up going nowhere that gives credence to victims not willing to speak out expecting justice. I would think that sexual harassment complaints with evidence are on top of the list of those cases that have the best outcome.
This shit makes my blood boil and my stomach turn, especially with the abysmal statistics on the topic. A opportunistic rape is hard to prove w/o DNA or other evidence but when the behavior is chronic and over a long term, there should be no excuse for not having enough documented evidence to hang the scumbag committing the harassment. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2013 : 10:55:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
The difference being that you are choosing to just accept them as inevitable... |
Yeah, addressing them proactively with education and outreach is exactly the same as accepting them as inevitable. 
|
Just so we're all clear this is what I'm talking about:We would rather punish after the fact than make our streets safer before. We would rather pay for prisons than schools and scholarships. We would rather blame a handful of criminals after the fact, than our own failure to improve society beforehand.
It’s so much easier. What I want is for there to be fewer rapists. Considering the oft-cited statistic that the average serial rapist rapes six or seven women, then if we convince them to not rape in the first place, that saves six or seven women. But arrest a rapist at the end of his run, and we prevent nothing.
Sure, there will never be zero rapists in the world. But reducing the number of people who start raping does much more to protect society than reporting the crimes after the fact, even if every victim were believed and treated with decency and respect. |
- 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
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2013 : 19:20:25 [Permalink]
|
A new update on Shermer's Legal Offense Fund (SLOF):Well, we've blown past our initial goal of $5,000 and I thank all of you who have stepped up to show your support. You contributors who are baffled by the bizarre behavior and actions of PZ Myers are going to play a key role in holding him accountable for his actions.
I asked Michael Shermer what his lawyers are expecting this process to cost and this is what they estimate:
Since PZ has chosen to ignore the cease & desist altogether, Shermer has no choice but to file a case against him. If this suit goes the full distance and PZ is brought before a civil judge to answer for his actions, they estimate around $50,000.
Think about that! One day, you wake up and someone has decided to publish rumors about you and BAM, you're in a fight to restore your reputation. This is why I launched this fundraiser and it's why I am asking everyone to keep spreading the word. I am hoping to get the current total to at least $10,000 to offset the cost of the initial filing and discovery process.
Thank you for all your donations and show your of support. No choice? What a crock.
I don't think Emory Emory understands how the discovery process is going to work in this case. My bet is that things won't get that far, anyway. I'm still thinking summary dismissal with prejudice for being unable to even hint at actual malice on Myers' part, with possible anti-SLAPP sanctions. |
- 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
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2013 : 14:43:27 [Permalink]
|
Greta Christina: On Being Disillusioned By Heroes… or, No, I Am Not Bloody Well Happy to Hear Horrible Things About the People I Admired...In many discussions about reports of atheist/ skeptical leaders committing seriously unethical behavior, this trope has come up again and again: “You just want to believe these reports! You were already biased against these people, and you’ll believe anything that confirms what you want to believe! You want to believe that Richard Dawkins blackballed Rebecca Watson from speaking at the Reason Rally! You want to believe that Lawrence Krauss has sexually harassed people at conferences! You want to believe that Michael Shermer committed rape! You’re only seeing what you want to see!”...
Here’s the problem with it:
I did not want to believe this.
...I admired these people. I looked up to them. My life and my work was shaped by them.
Why on Earth would I want to believe the worst about them?
When I started hearing bad things about these people, the last thing I wanted to do was to believe. It’s one thing to hear reports that your heroes are flawed human beings: to hear, for instance, that they cheat on their spouse, or that they’re a demanding diva backstage. We are all flawed, all human: I can deal with that, I don’t expect anything different. But it’s another thing entirely to see one of your heroes say appallingly racist and sexist things, and double down when they get criticized for it, and keep saying them again and again and again… and to then hear reports that they blackballed one of the people who criticized them most publicly. It’s another thing entirely to hear reports that one of your heroes committed sexual harassment. It’s another thing entirely to hear reports that one of your heroes committed rape.
It was extremely painful to hear this stuff. It was upsetting. It sapped a lot of the excitement and energy I had about the atheist and skeptical movements. It made me feel less optimistic about the future of these movements. It was demoralizing. I did not want to believe it.
I did not start thinking badly of these people until I started hearing bad things about them.
If anything, the confirmation bias worked in the other direction. When I started getting involved in atheism and skepticism, I started out thinking that these people were mega-awesome. I started out thinking that they were not only smart and articulate and insightful, but that they were rigorously ethical. I did not start thinking badly of these people until I started hearing bad things about them. Again. And again. And again and again and again, and again, and again. And again... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unbelievable
