I noticed that Ophelia referenced a paper on “institutional betrayal”. I sat up at something else: it’s from the University of Oregon, my ol’ grad school! And then…it’s out of the department of psychology, where my wife got her degree! Even before I read it, I was curious…and I discovered that it was an amazing act of prophecy, or, I guess, insight into human behavior.
Isn’t that what psychologists do?
Read the traits of institutions that feel like betrayals to their members. You’ll feel a familiar sense of deja vu.
They note that institutional betrayal is a dimensional phenomenon, with acts of omission and commission as well as instances of betrayal that may vary on how clearly systemic they are at the outset. Institutional characteristics that the authors say often precede such betrayal include:
• Membership qualifications with inflexible requirements where "conformity is valued and deviance quickly corrected as a means of self-policing among members." Often, a member making an accusation faces reprisal because of the institutional value placed on membership.
• Prestige given to top leaders results in a power differential. In this case, allegations that are made by a member against a leader often are met by gatekeepers whose roles are designed to protect top-level authority.
• Priorities that result in "damage control" efforts designed to protect the overall reputation of the institution. Examples include the abuse scandal at Pennsylvania State University, the movement of clergy to other locations in the face of allegations and hiding incidents of incest within family units. More recently, Freyd and Smith noted, the NFL demonstrated this quality by denying it had seen video footage of one of its players battering his fiancee and its previously long record of minor penalties for such interpersonal abuse.
• Institutional denial in which members who allege abuse are marginalized by the institution as being bad apples whose personal behaviors should be the issue.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS. EVERY ONE. It is so freakily on the mark.
I’ve been watching those gatekeepers lately. Here’s Michael Nugent, regurgitating slymepit memes:
.@MistressOfFrog No, I am not saying do not name names, period. Name them to the police, not on blogs. @iamcuriousblue
— Michael Nugent (@micknugent) September 20, 2014
No, I am not saying do not name names, period. Name them to the police, not on blogs.
Deja vu, again. This is getting creepy.
You know, when you create a black & white world within an institution in which the only two options permitted are silent submission or immediate punishment by law, you are creating an environment that acts to protect the status quo and completely shut down dissent. There are such things as shades of gray; sometimes you do have to speak out even over issues that are not clearly punishable by law. There is more to morality than legal vs. illegal, and legal isn’t even necessarily moral or immoral.
I’m wondering, though, why Michael Nugent is haranguing me on his blog, by name. Shouldn’t he stop that and call the cops instead?
Adam Lee is getting the full-court press right now — the gatekeepers are insisting that he’s a liar, without saying what he was lying about. Alex Gabriel rather diligently goes looking for lies and isn’t finding any.
I’m going to have to insist that either you have Lee arrested right now for lying, or everyone is going to have stop making those accusations on blogs or on twitter. SHUT UP ALEX GABRIEL, you aren’t allowed to argue with someone unless the police are standing by. Or is that only true if you’re arguing with a Revered Atheist Thought Leader?
Similarly, I’m afraid that Libby Anne has determined with great clarity that yes, Sam Harris is a sexist. She must be silenced, because it seems she hasn’t charged Harris with any criminal activity, hasn’t gone to the police and had him arrested for flagrant sexism. SHUT UP LIBBY ANNE, you aren’t allowed to criticize the Holy Gods of Atheism, especially not when you do it so well and thoroughly.
This is all terribly sad, too, because we know what happens next, when an institution becomes rigidly intolerant and starts sheltering its leaders from even mild verbal criticism: it implodes and dies, and only the most obliviously faithful remain behind as a fanatical core. Bye-bye, atheism, unless you can stop mimicking the Catholic Church.
Is it because I spend so much time lurking on pharyngula that I find myself standing on the side of the feminists in this conflict? Cause frankly, I do not understand how anyone can find the things Dawkins has tweeted to be good.
Myers is a poopy head.
Good points, PZ, but I just wanted to mention it is Libby Anne. A la Anne of Green Gables.
One of the eye-opening moments of my undergraduate years was reading Erving Goffman’s “Asylums”, and realizing that it (explicitly–this was not a huge leap of insight on my part) applied every bit as much to CuttleCollege as it did to the mental institutions it was (mostly, but only mostly) focused on.
“Institutional Betrayal” really doesn’t seem too far a step removed from Goffman’s fairly chilling description of what he called “total institutions”.
Sorry… that was a bit off topic. Some things are too broadly applicable.
Why is the police involved in personal morality in any case? Oh, that’s right, rape, harassment, and bullying isn’t occurring unless there is a complaint on file saying so….What presuppositionalism…..
This is why skeptic organizations never criticize psychics without first going to the police and lodging a complaint for fraud.
I would agree with this but I think there is a big difference between speaking out about about behavior that you personally witnessed and behavior that was reported to you by third parties.
That reminds me of a neighborhood meeting that I sat in once. Nobody there seemed to realize that if there are no options between ignoring the neighbors and calling the cops on them, there really isn’t a neighborhood.
If the institution can’t deal with matters at all, it isn’t really an institution. And if it can only deal with matters through oppression and suppression, it isn’t a good institution.
Name Sylvia Browne, Peter Popoff, and Uri Geller to the police, not on blogs!
Don’t name names except to the police… said the guy on the social networking soapbox. @micknugent, @richarddawkins,@samharris . . . get off Twitter you twits. you’re putting your big fat feet in your mouths.
Oh, and . . as long as I don’t libel you… first amendment, chumps.
And then Nugent has the gall to accuse Ophelia for defamation because she said he wants people to stop talking about sexual harassment/assault accusations.
PZ:
But, but, you’re the Sheriff with a mob of deputies, running the Thought Police, Witch Finder General Office, and the Ministry of
FearFeeding Frenzies™.That paper is spot on.
Excuse me, Mr. Nugent, but when did making ignorant, sexist remarks become illegal?
Chris61 @ 7:
It’s interesting to me how many people can’t figure out that a first person account of an incident is not magically a third party. These same people can’t figure out how confirmation of an incident is not a third party account. These same people also can’t seem to figure out that anonymity does not equal a third party account.
A person might even get the idea that hollers of “third party!” is about dishonesty.
It’s interesting that Those Who Should Not Be Named are up in arms about being criticized on the internet while much of this flame started because Those Who Should Not Be Named were telling other people not to be so sensitive about being harassed on the internet. Apparently, threats of violence are acceptable, honest critiques of poor social behavior are not. Hmmm…
This seems like another legalistic dodge. So called hearsay evidence may not be allowed in court, but this isn’t a judicial proceeding. It’s a discussion. In any case, does it make a difference if you’re repeating someone who is speaking out about a situation in which he or she was directly involved, particularly someone involved as a victim? Because that’s what I’ve read here and at Skepchick and other places, not people reporting something a third party witness said.
DLC @ 10:
Well, Dawkins has been coy about things:
No, it isn’t interesting that PZ Myers seems very sensitive — like a big old teddy bear, really. And that’s not interesting.
Asked and answered.
Next question: Is Richard Dawkins incapable of recognizing what’s interesting? Is it this a cry for help? Because if so, he can still go fuck himself.
Incidentally, as folks following #Ferguson may know, hearsay CAN be allowed as evidence before a grand jury when deciding whether to lay criminal charges against someone.
FTF Y And good riddance. Isn’t this what we’ve been saying to liberal theists: If you must have a religion then tear down the corrupt, hate-filled institution you’re a part of and begin again. At least we didn’t wait two thousand years to address the bigots in our ranks.
adrianchan@1:
Ideally, I’d hope you stand on the side of feminists bc you’ve teased out-for yourself-why Dawkins and Harris are wrong. You’ve applied logic and reason to their statements and found them to be faulty, illogical, or based on sexist beliefs. The result of that is finding yourself to be agreeing with the Pharyngula commentariat.
…Jerry Coyne of Why Evolution Is True: “Adam Lee has lost it”
Dawkins, in comments chez Coyne:
Now I want some verbal jackboots.
He is quite the drama llama though, isn’t he?
chris61 @7:
What difference is there, and why is it significant enough for you to bring this up?
I personally did not witness Michael Shermer rape Alison Smith. That behavior was reported to me by PZ. Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t have spoken out against Shermer’s behavior because I learned about it from PZ, rather than Alison?
Pteryxx @22 (from your Coyne quote):
I’m seeing this over and over again. They keep NOT addressing the substance of the criticism. Harris failed to address the substance of PZ’s criticism against him. Dawkins failed to engage the criticism against Harris. Jerry Coyne and Ron Lindsay both failed to address the criticisms against Harris or Dawkins. WTF?
Sally Strange,
Is he for real? He, the one worth 135m. & with a large foundation bearing his name? The world famous author? Is being silenced by a relatively unknown (outside of atheist circles) blogger making a valid criticism? Well, I suppose it can only get worse at this point. Might as well send out the flying monkeys to capture him.
Is it interesting that at least 1 prominent blogger (whom I won’t name) seems very sensitive?
Who, Shermer?
@25 Tony
PZ implies in his OP that Nugent and others are being hypocritical because they are doing the same thing that they accused PZ of doing. I’m just saying that I see a significant difference in that they are commenting on behavior that they personally witnessed while PZ was not. You don’t see a difference, that’s you. I do.
yazikus @27:
Did we ever train the flying monkey to fling poop via slingshot (*the* authorized weapon of queer shoops everywhere)? Let’s see how the sexist shit slinging contingent of the atheist movement fare when flying monkey dung is hurled their way. Fly my little pretties, fly away and let slip the dung of war!
chris61 @29:
What is this behavior that they personally witnessed?
The comments on the Coyne article are seriously nauseating. Don’t read them unless you want to spoil your mood. I don’t know Jerry Coyne, and if that’s the company he keeps I think I prefer to keep it that way.
[TW: Discussion of Shermer’s actions]
It’s super important to make a distinction between calling out behavior that you personally witnessed and letting someone else call out behavior that they personally experienced on your blog!
It’s not at all important to make a distinction between saying mean things on your blog and getting someone drunk so you can rape her.
/sarcasm
Gee, Chris61, do you think maybe there’s a relevant difference between calling someone out for being a meaniepants and notifying people of a hazard to their health and safety? Or should I not try directing people to the fire exit just because someone else pulled the alarm?
Adam has responded in the Jerry Coyne post. No one yet who has replied to him has addressed any of his actual arguments, unsurprisingly.
This is quite surprising and disappointing for me, up til now I had assumed Coyne at least wasn’t “taking sides” on these issues, though I could see the commenters were FTB haters. He is banning outright openly-MRA morons though, I guess that’s an effort?
@33 Tom Foss
By all means direct people to the fire exit when someone else pulls the alarm. I certainly would. On the other hand I would only pull the alarm if I saw the fire or smelled the smoke for myself.
Coyne:
Oh, great rodent. What is this outbreak of oh-so-sensitive drama? Y’know, my inner cynic is wondering if they are now attempting to sound triggered by any criticism at all.
Dawkins:
Oh, the hyperbole! Well, Mr. Dawkins, you’re busy creating the world you claim to fear. Well done, you.
Chris61 @35:
Naturally. You wouldn’t want to be a decent person, or stars forbid, actually help someone by accident. That would be terrible, oh my yes.
Tom Foss @ 33:
Well, you wouldn’t want to do that without four male witnesses, signed affadavits, and a handy dandy confession. After all, a rapist’s reputation is the important thing, you wouldn’t want to be hasty or anything. Nope.
@Chris61:
Great, so you have no problem with what PZ did, then.
Chris61 @ 35
In this analogy you are making you justify doing exactly as PZ has done. Someone said she was raped (pulling the fire alarm), and PZ is directing people to the exits (letting them know about a rapist so they could avoid him). I agree that if he had pulled the alarm (reported a rape) without smelling smoke or seeing flames (I have know idea how to make an analogy of this part, but I imagine that if PZ was not raped or had not heard about a rape and still claimed someone was a rapist that would be the same as the analogy you are making) that would be inappropriate. However, he did exactly what you said would be an appropriate response (guiding people away from a rapist after the fire alarm had been pulled). What exactly is the problem? (Sorry for the excessive parenthesize, and if the analogy got away from me. Too many ciders on saturday night).
Chris61 @35. So if someone you knew ran up and said “There’s a fire, pull the alarm!” you wouldn’t do it?
These intellectual straw-vulcan games used to silence the victims of sexual violence are fucking evil.
The problem is that PZ attributed credibility to a woman who claimed she was raped by a high muckity-muck of atheism and he believed in the high muckity-muck’s long-standing and widespread reputation for harassment. He should have tried to convince to victim to un-pull the fire alarm, and if he couldn’t do that then he should have at least shoved her back in the building. and locked the door.
If you go around believing women, you’re doing something wrong. That appears to be the subtext of Chris61’s bleatings.
Never mind PZ has EVIDENCE as testimony from the person involved. You ignore that, which means you are a rape apologist…..
R Johnston @ 42:
Especially if they’re drunk!
Anytime one ignores the testimony of the victim, to believe a known womanizer, is a rape apologist. Why are you doing that Chris61? What is it about a woman’s word you don’t believe, compared to man’s word. Think about that for five years, then get back to us….
The thing I’ve noticed about all of Adam Lee’s critics is that none of them, not Coyne and certainly not Dawkins, have actually given specifics about Lee’s “lies.” They all say how nasty Lee is but none of them describe the nastiness except in the most general and nebulous terms.
Al Dente @ 46:
A couple people try in the comments, but they do a piss poor job of it. Mostly, it’s defending Dawkins’s tweets about a drunk woman getting raped. If you’re up to it, follow the link in Andyo’s #34.
andyo @34:
I wonder how long Adam’s response will stay up? Hasn’t Coyne deleted comments from people he disagrees with? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Adam’s response will stay up so that Coyne’s commentariat can let fly with the non-responsive sleaze. Anything defending Adam in response to the sleaze will, of course, be deleted. This is utterly predictable.
Maybe she missed it.
Hey, chris61:
Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t have spoken out against Shermer’s behavior because I learned about it from PZ, rather than Alison?
@50 Tony
Nope. Not suggesting that at all.
The lack of explanation as to what you were suggesting is telling.
Tony #48,
I don’t know, I don’t follow WEIT that much, but I did leave a few comments following that thread of Adam’s reply, which are held in moderation. The uber vast majority of the comments there are parroting Coyne’s sentiments though, I don’t think I saw any that disagreed, strongly at least. But the thing is, they say the same thing about FTB, so I wouldn’t be quick to judge it as deleting comments frivolously. There’s probably enough mutual dislike to comment on each others’ blogs.
SallyStrange wrote:
Ooh. Scary. But, don’t worry Richard, I’ve found the appropriate advice for those who think the jackbooted [free-]thoughtpolice are coming to get you: Stock up on guns. Lots and lots of guns and ammo. Then move to a remote compound with your extended family and announce that you’re not going allow them to deport you to a FEMA camp. From this compound, you can be Free — a sovereign citizen, if you will. No one will be able to tell you what you can and cannot say, and if they try, you will have the means to defend your Freedom.
And surely Richard has some evidence of this scary new world, right? Certainly he’s been disinvited to speak at some conferences, or had his books banned somewhere, right? Oh, he hasn’t? Curious.
chris61 @51:
Well then, your comment here makes little sense:
I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from, and instead of clearing things up, you’re doing a good job at obfuscation. I gave an example of behavior that I spoke out about that I did not witness-the rape of Alison Smith by Michael Shermer. Why is there a difference between *that* and if I had spoken out because I was a witness to the rape of Alison Smith by Michael Shermer? In what way is this difference in any way meaningful?
Maybe a different example will help you clarify what you mean more:
I was not present when George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. I was not a witness to that. I did, however, speak out against his actions, based on what I heard from the media. What is the difference between that and if I *had* been present at the killing and spoke out and why is this difference meaningful? Is my opinion invalidated because I wasn’t present, yet I criticized anyways? Is it wrong for me to criticize behavior I do not directly witness?
****
andyo @53:
You do realize I was asking whether or not that was the case, no? I didn’t say that Coyne deletes comments. I’d heard that he did, and was unsure, hence my inquiry.
Also, I hadn’t heard the same said of FtB. I’ve heard the same said of PZ (leaving aside the truth of the claim for the moment) but he’s not the whole of FtB, despite the tentacles.
ck @55:
Does ‘guys, don’t do that’ count?
Tony,
I didn’t mean to imply that you were judging, just that I don’t like to say that cause I don’t know. It was just a long-winded “I don’t know” answer to your question. The people there accuse bloggers here of deleting comments frivolously, to clarify.
andyo @58:
Ah ok. Thanks for the clarification.
Man… those comments over at WEiT… Sheesh. The sound of a thousand trilbys popping off of their owner’s heads all once.
andyo:
I saw several in basic agreement with Lee, unfortunately, they were countered by people who wanted to say nasty stuff about the commentariat here. :shrug:
People can say what they like about the commentariat, it is a rough and demanding environment here. What really bothers me is the wholesale jumping on the hyperbole express, this notion that criticism is the equivalent of a physical attack, a near-mortal wounding of those Science™ has blest with the Vulcaning. I don’t even know how this has happened, but it effectively shuts down any discussion on any issue.
I do understand about getting bristled over criticism; I’m an artist and photographer, critique is part and parcel of what I do. I don’t like getting criticism, and I’ve been on the receiving end of some very harsh and blunt critique, and yes, tempering your criticism with kindness is helpful. That said, I haven’t received criticism that wasn’t on point, no matter the delivery. You really have to take a deep breath, remember it isn’t personal, and consider what someone has offered. I find it pretty damn disturbing that people in fields which demand rigor and critique have declared themselves above criticism.
I just had a thought about this 3rd party bullshit. Lots of people act on second or third hand reports of all sorts of things. As a member of an executive committee of a union, I/we often had letters or verbal reports of interactions between of someone and other someone/s where none of the people concerned were present or able to comment. Amazingly enough, we were able to discuss the range of possible approaches to dealing with such problems … despite none of us being directly involved. And also surprisingly to those who know nothing about industrial relations, we never decided to go out on strike on such a basis but we were able to arrive at a decision on who needed to do what about it. (Going on strike would be the union equivalent to getting police involved in other cases.)
Not so amazing really. Lots of people in all sorts of organisations and occupations do exactly the same thing.
I presume that a loosely organised group of skeptics and atheists is different from all other professional associations and voluntary groups of people because … we’re so special, unique and superior to those other plebeian bozos. Or something. /s
It’s amazing (as in depressing) to see all the dudebro’s circling the wagons. If there’s any doubt that we’re living in a rape culture, this proves it, because all this shit is because Michael fucking Shermer was allowed for years to rape and sexually assault women with impunity.
If the dudes who think it should be a legal trial to accuse them of being shits then they should look up “preponderance of evidence” It is just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true.
It just cracks me up that the dudes want us to ignore all the personal stories and known insider stories and claim it didn’t happen unless there was a trial.
I think Coyne’s position on Israel and the Palestinians is a bigger fault than his support of Dawkins et al. Anyone who takes an uncritical zionist line and considers the Palestinians as targets and not Human beings is beyond the pale. I gave up on Coyne when it became obvious that he lacked common humanity.
robro@16:” So called hearsay evidence may not be allowed in court”
And “may” is the key word there. Take a class in evidence (or study for the bar exam portion on evidence) and you’ll find you spend more than half your time learning about all the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Everyone should read the essay White Fragility [warning: 17 page PDF] by Robin DiAngelo. It’s about how and why white people react to discussion of racial inequality with temper tantrums and pretenses to superior objectivity and understanding, but it can also work to explain a hell of a lot about men’s parallel reactions to discussion of gender inequality. And, given the race of the “Holy Gods of Atheism,” one can just imagine how the racial dimension DiAngelo talks about must reinforce the gender dimension, even when race isn’t the immediate subject.
The wrongness of Dawkins et al is analogous to Ken Ham’s “Were you there? gotcha.
Just had a look at Jeremy Stangroom’s twitter feed – hilarious.
A. Noyd @67
Want to post that on the ‘Good morning’ thread as an aside? Kind of fits with the several surveys that have been posted up.
+++
As fo the OP, psshhhh… What else can I say? Dawkins has made himself clear, as have Harris and Nugent. Now, Coyne has, too. Waiting on the ‘big names’ to say something decent seems futile. I’ll stick with the ‘unknown’ bloggers and feminists, thank you. I think I prefer the hivemind here to the cesspit of wilful ignorance over there.
Ah yes, everyone should take Richard Dawkins’ approach: instead of naming names, be explicitly clear by using broad and abstract implied hypotheticals, criticise large swaths of people without saying who belongs to a group and then double down with the smug response that you were only asking questions.
Daaaaagh!
Why is naming names bad? WHY? I guess if you are talking about random unsubstantiated gossip, it’s best not to divolve that at all. But if you’re talking about actual accusations from known people and the actual words, the actual responses of those accused, how can you not name names? And if you’re criticising the specific words of specific people, you’re going to use citation which will most often make it completely clear who you’re talking about.
From the Patheos post (very well done!):
No, I bet people of colour have a Melanin Vibe that makes them more obedient and willing to follow rather than lead. :P /sarcasm
(That one nearly hurt to type out.)
=8)-DX @ 71
Because it’s the form the criticism is taking at the moment. If you remember back a couple years ago when the subject of anti-harassment policies first came up and there was talk of a grapevine through which atheist/skeptic women warned each other of men with reputations as sexual predators, there was a deliberate decision not to name names. Back then the criticism was that, if there was really something inappropriate going on, these women would be willing to name names.
Well, that one really came back to bite, didn’t it.
I’m done with Coyne. i’ll miss the biology stuff but i’ve had enough of him. It’s not just that he is wrong, it’s that he is so disgustingly protective of his wrongness.
The same goes, doubly, for Dawkins….that quote of his on WEIT is just fucking surreal. What the fuck is happeniiiiiing?? Raaaaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhh!!
Highly amusingly Jerry Coyne seems to be banning anyone civilly pointing out there are no lies on that post. Even a commenter pointing out an example of a “lie” was no such thing. Commenting here at Free “from” Thought Blogs, censorship central, stalin mind control bunker no1 … I’m feeling in a pretty lofty position right now ;-)
(No pitters, I’m not whining about censorship. Coyne can moderate his blog how ever he likes, I can use my right to free speech to laugh at him on whatever platforms will allow me to!)
Not everything that is bad is illegal or prosecutable.
I know the “American way” is to sue the last pair of pants off of people, a practice that I guess leads to people believing that unless someone is willing to take someone else to court the accusations they are making aren’t real enough, but people can actually sometimes deal with things outside of courtrooms.
Whether that’s because the situation isn’t covered by law (with or without good reason), because of lack of financial resources (how convenient – court battles cost money and in a society where you are made powerless without a lawyer at your side… some people are just fucked. Oh well), because of fear (of police, of unfair legal system, re-victimization, …) or simply because they believe a supportive well organized community can deal with issues by itself.
rq,
They are very apt at goalpost shifting, so that bite barely slowed them down.
andyo #53, Tony! #56: there’s a commenter over at Ophelia’s claiming to see comments disappearing from Coyne’s comment section. (link to B&W) Here’s one:
Pteryxx @78
This is not a new phenomenon, SC, amd other commentators, had a similar problem some years ago during another dust-up (over I believe Feminism). I would also point out that some of Coyne’s comentators are formenr Pyrangulites who flounced after a blazing row over language(and Feminism)
More commenters saying they’ve been banned from WEiT in Ophelia’s latest thread (which doesn’t have a title, link might change)
Ricky D. sez:
[A] world where dogma is king, emotion is queen and evidence is exiled
Oh well, no human roadkill pizza then, I guess.
Yes, Seven of Mine@73: I distinctly remember that era too.
see also Alex Gabriel’s comments (here).
-_-
Jason Thibeault posted an updated timeline last week, and here’s one of the comments. (Link) (bolds mine)
for background, Zvan listed all the evidence and accounts *besides* Smith’s memory: Dawkins tries again
and noting that the anonymous New Statesman writer, who Dawkins says he believes because she has “clear and convincing memories”, is describing the exact same memory fragmentation as Smith did. (Warning for rape description) (Comment at Dana Hunter’s)
So the fear of retaliation against women for coming forward has been justified, and then some – after Smith went directly to the JREF board and named names without going public.
It has been explained over and over again why rape victims may not go to the police and how the police often re-traumatize, victim blame and attempt to get women to recant when they do seek justice. Even if their case gets to court, they can expect the court to repeat that process, the public to harass them and their rapist to get away with it or merely receive a slap on the wrist. either Nugent could not be bothered to educate himself, he doesn’t believe women about those experiences either or he does not care. If after witnessing the treatment of the Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown cases where rampant, horrific racism has been brought to light, these assholes still do not believe that misogyny is also present in toxic levels in our justice system despite what women tell them, I don’t even…
Last night I walked into my mum’s living room and she happened to be watching The Unbelievers on Netflix. There were Dawkins and Krauss up on a stage in front of an audience talking about the study in which atheists were deemed to be less trustworthy than rapists. Every time they repeated that, the audience laughed. I nearly choked coughing up the irony.
For myself, I’m pretty much done with even considering getting involved in any way with a secular, atheist, or even humanist community/movement. At least not as long as the misogynists are in charge and regarded as spokespeople. Sure, I think religion is harmful, especially to already marginalised people whether that’s women, people not white, the poor, lgbtq people, or the disabled, but if political secularism is also harmful to the oppressed classes, it’s part of the system propping up the kyriarchy too and I’m just not interested in joining in.
Ibis3,Lets burn some bridges @86
I recently read “Humanism” by Tony Davis where he pointed out that Humanism has always been miogynyistic and class based. My hope was that we were growing out of this. Davis is a Literary theorist not a “Scientist” and his take on Humamism is worth a look.
Oh, dear lardy me! Quick grab the smelling salts, this man is about to faint!
Well the US and UK are indeed dominated by such people (i.e. conservatives), so we do in fact live in such a world. But putting that aside, pray tell what “truths” and “factual evidence” are Dawkins’ critics avoiding? Funny, neither he nor his supporters are able to say. We’re all just liars, because they say so. Neener-neener. Super convincing. Great work, there.
Oh, he must mean that vitriolic abuse and ostracism inflicted upon Pamela Gay (as Pteryxx notes). Yes, quite so.
WHAT?! He means sexists and anti-feminists like himself (what brave dissenters from orthodoxy! truly original and rare in their evidence-free views about women!) are “ruthlessly punished by vitriolic abuse or ostracism” and “suppressed by verbal if not physical jackboots”? If only.
Again, where is any of this exiled evidence or despised facts?
Here’s some evidence: none of these sexist asshats shows any sign of shutting the fuck up, ever. I guess we need better verbal jackboots.
LMAO. What a putz.
Adam Lee:
I’ve followed Coyne’s blog for years, on and off – the ‘off’ periods were caused by his pro-Israel stance – but after today’s fiasco I wash my hands of him.
@=8)-DX #71:
If you name names, you’re being rude and bullying. At best, you’ve exposed a few bad apples that we can deal with, and then the problem is solved. At worst, you’re deliberately trying to destroy good men’s reputations and take them down so you can assume their level of power or because you have a grudge or because you had a consensual relationship with them and are now regretful or embarrassed or jealous or crazy. See also: Smith vs. Shermer, Stollznow vs. Radford, lots of people vs. Monopod Man, Steubenville, etc.
Of course, if you don’t name names, then you’re being too vague and protecting the perpetrators, who should be named and shamed and be subjected to the full extent of the law. At best, you’re exposing a systematic problem that’s just too big to deal with, and at worst you’re making the whole thing up for attention. See also: Pamela Gay, Karen Stollznow (before the name was named), Rebecca Watson vs. Elevator Guy, Senator Kirsten Gillebrand, etc.
It’s almost like the rules are made so that no woman or victim can ever hope to actually follow them, and so the privileged always have an easy excuse to ignore the problem and defend the status quo. Weird how that is. Totally coincidental, I’m sure.
I guess some atheists can only recognize contradictory rules designed to support a particular power structure when they’re numbered and printed on extremely thin paper.
The rule that I find weirdest is the rule that if two people are drunk, and some sort of sex occurs, the man is not only not responsible, but is protected by all other men, while the woman is completely responsible, and any of her friends who even express sympathy are horrible, man-hating, man-attacking, witch-hunters.
Guys, drunken sex with strangers is a bad idea. If you drink enough to have it happen, you are drinking too much. Drinki …. no, giving advice to guys is wrong. I must stop.
Why shouldn’t people name names to anyone they wish? That’s how society used to work: if someone did something bad or dishonorable, people made sure that this behavior was told to other members of the community, who could then choose whether or not to associate with someone who acted like that. You know, one’s reputation, they used to call it. Certainly they didn’t confine themselves to speaking to the police!
Sure, this led to a lot of gossip and false accusations (because people are always people, sorry about that), but it also led to persons’ actual wrongdoing being brought to the attention of others who could then be on the look-out. That’s how societies work, and always have and always will. They used to tell each other in person, or by letter, now we speak online.
No one’s forcing you to cut ties with anyone on account of their bad behavior, but those who choose to are quite free both to criticize the behavior and to cut those ties.
Really, naming Shermer’s name was necessary, and good for TAM and the JREF. If nobody had named his name, the whole association would have been tarnished by association. If the women who were aware of Shermer’s problems and who wanted to protect other women, had just passed to word to not attend TAM, to not socialize with the male contingent, to not trust anybody in charge, or anybody at all, without naming Shermer, there would have been an undercurrent of fear that could have brought down the reputation of everything (and apparently there was). Naming Shermer, on the other hand, lets women avoid drinking with him in particular, and everyone can pretend he is the one bad apple, and TAM is saved, and, incidentally, Shermer is kept from getting himself and the institution into further disrepute. Naming names was the best thing to do.
Seriously, passing the word to not go drinking with Shermer was the best thing to have done. Naming names is the best move. Truth, dammit!
As it is now, certain names are tarnished forever: Shermer, Randi, Dawkins, TAM and the JREF. They are at fault, and they will not admit that they are responsible for their own actions.
@rq (#70)
Done.
General comment.
Perhaps this side of the rift needs a category of some sort to better distinguish ourselves from the sorts of atheists are are acting like Harris, Dawkins, Nugent, and Coyne? I like something like “SJA” (Social Justice Atheists/Atheism). That grabs onto the thing that seems to be getting opposed over on the other side, it would be nice to also reference this motivated reasoning and group think. Many on the other side of the rift would say they are for social justice goals in principle (and when you avoid the words), but when anyone actually tries to do social justice this kind of mess results.
@chris61
Your differences don’t make any sense.
The first, second, or even third party difference is meaningless without an analysis of what is wrong with statements being criticized. PZ passed along something from someone else that the community got to use to compare with reality (very effectively too). Folks like Nugent and Coyne have given emotional characterizations of what they have seen, but have given no information on why the feel the way that they do. When someone is a first person observer and does not actually describe what they observed beyond feelings of outrage about it I get suspicious. Many like PZ and Ophelia on the other hand have said why the the comments were worth being outraged about. That is a difference that matters.
Also I don’t think that hypocrisy is the implication. Rather the implication is fallacious reasoning and authority protecting group think.
@35
This is a terrible analogy. For it to work the smoke and fire would have to be invisible to many people (to get at the perspective bias issues ), and in this analogy someone has already pulled the alarm. We are now outside talking about what happened and trying to describe what the smoke and fire look like. Something about predators that hide in plain sight might be better.
Wasn’t that what A+ was all about?
Richard Dawkins is not afraid that The Party™ will be the sole arbiter of what is true.
He’s afraid to be booted from the Party Comitee. He just can’t imagine a world without very important white men at the top.
As for Nugent, I’m wondering if he’s going around telling the women who suffered in the Magdalene Laundries to shut up or go to the police, too
LykeX @ 98:
Yes. A+ as opposed to A*, for all the good it did. And ‘SJA’ would never fly, given the constant tossing about of social justice warrior [SJW] being the most terrible thing a person could be.
@ LykeX
Yes. It would also be good if that term got picked up again. I could be happy with that or picking a name that has what we want as a more obvious part of it.
@Iyéska
There is going to be push back against anything social justice related. I’m at the point where I’m fine accepting the term social justice warrior. I even see uses in the jokes about social justice mages, clerics, assassins… not everyone can work on social justice the same way or even should do it the same way.
Too many will say they are fine with the goals in abstract (like Dawkins, Harris and others saying they care about women and differences in outcomes). But when someone wants to do something specific, or call out specific biased, prejudiced, or discriminatory behavior there is push back and excuse making.
Brony:
This is not about what you find fucking acceptable.
@ Iyéska
It’s seems to be about push back from sexist asshole authority figures that can’t take being called out, and sexist assholes rallying around said authorities to keep the cultural status quo. It also seems to be about these same people using all the same stupid tactics and arguments as every other group with cultural power that can’t take having their sexism pointed out to them.
I don’t really see how mentioning that I like the term they think is a slur is a problem. Struggling against people that don’t want to stop being sexist or admit to it often results in conflict even when someone is not trying to be confrontational. But if you don’t want to try to explain I’ll just leave it at that.
“Liberal atheist” is a fine description. “Secular humanist” also works, but it carries a different king of baggage. Of course, they’d dispute both of those, just like they’d claim to be feminists.
Anyway, there’s no need* to reinvent the wheel every few months, with a new brand name/acronym/logo/website/fundraising drive/etc. And if this is really just about some ephemeral reactionary impulse against those particular shitheads, do it the old-school way and put yourself in the “anti-Dawkinsian” faction or whatever. The bonus there is that it will seem nice and quaint in a hundred years when no one knows who he is.
*But maybe this isn’t about ‘need.’ You don’t need to do only what’s necessary.
Uhhh….. different kind of baggage.
The King of Baggage is totally different.
Brony:
It’s not a problem, it’s sidetracking away from the actual problem. On a personal level, being called an SJW doesn’t bother me, and that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that SJW is being used to express derision and contempt, as well as a way to completely dismiss all people who proffer argument or criticism.
In much the same way that some people want to reclaim bitch, that’s fine, however, it does not, in any way, cancel out the widespread negativity of its usage. Also, in a wider sense, focusing a discussion on labels is not terribly helpful.
CR @ 104:
Yes. I find all these types of discussions to take away from the actual problems too, especially as it doesn’t matter what a new name or acronym is, it will end up a term of contempt anyway.
Straight from the mouth of The Most Rational Man in the World. Who alone can avoid clickbaity faux outrage, witch hunting and demonizing critics, and histrionic exaggerations of victimhood and persecution. Truly Dawkins will preserve the world from the inevitable Orwellian Nightmare that is Uppity Feminism.
Sigh. Even if Dawkins bought Shermer’s story, one hundred percent, Shermer did, by his own account, do great wrong. He say that he did pretend to drink in a social situation, attended a function that involved heavy drinking while a speaker and a leader of a conference, had sex with a person that he had just met, had sex with an attendee of a conference at which he was a speaker and a leader, had sex with a person much younger than him, had sex with a person who had been drunk not long before, and had sex with someone who regretted it afterward.
I mean, his defense, carefully crafted over time, started the story with an admission of social dishonesty. And pretty much adds up to casual sex with a groupie. He is using TAM and his leadership position to score some one-night sex, according to the behavior in his own account. What the hell else was he possibly doing? Even his supposed white-knight gallantry doesn’t entitle him.
Look, if he happened to have a long-term affair with a much-younger woman, and it started off fast, I’d still expect some frowny faces from his peers and fellow “leaders”. But he says nothing about her as a person, or plans for the next day, or how he was going to call. He just gets him some and goes away — by his own defence account, it was casual, based more on gratitude than mutual interest. She was much his junior in years and he was a famous leader, and they had sex the first time they met, in a place where he was in charge.
That, even if it were all true and all that happened, and the way it happened, is not behavior of which Michael Shermer should be proud, nor acts of which James Randi should be tolerant. Nor should Richard Dawkins be defending it.
Hey Zeus, we impeached Bill Clinton for getting involved with Monica Lewinsky, and that was an affair that was technically non-sexual. But Shermer gets to do what he claims he did? And Dawkins defends that?
I am certain that Shermer did far worse, that night and at other times, than he claims to admit to. But what he admits to is terrible. There is no need for JREF to go to the police, he has confessed to crimes enough to be cast out.
Shermer should be cast out of any decent society. Shermer should not be defended by anyone, even those who believe his account.
Pteryxx @79, quoting a deleted comment:
To me, that suggests there’s still some goodwill in Dawkins, or that he doesn’t realise he’s hurting people. I don’t give him the credit of that sort of cluelessness. To me, he reads as malevolent and outright misogynistic. He’s nowhere near as intelligent as he thinks he is (ie. more than at least 3.5 billion people put together) but he sure as hell knows what he’s doing here.
Dawkins wants a fan base. He has had one for his books, and his speeches, among the atheist community. But atheists, by and large, are not really followers. He may have been the Atheist Pope, but that isn’t a big enough deal. Now, with the MRAs, he has atheists who follow. With Shermer, another atheist in need of worship, he has a pal and a common fan pool.
@Menyambal:
The religious gave him the title, status, and influence of an “Atheist Pope”. For Dawkins to have the power, however, atheists would have to treat him as The Atheist Pope.
While we can never be inside the mans head (and…ewwwww), it must be weird and certainly appears to be frustrating to Dawkins to be treated like the atheist pope whenever he’s among the religious, only to return to the fold and be treated like…some guy on twitter.
I can’t recall the exactitudes, but didn’t Dawkins show up here on Pharyngula once, in the middle of a spirited comment discussion? He wanted us to take his argument just on his authority as being Richard Dawkins. He got severe disrespect for that. (Three years back? )
And yeah, that Twitter stuff is bogus. One of his defenders was trying to put everything in context, and had to keep reminding folks about the limitations of Twitter. Which pretty much cedes what everybody has been asking — why the fuck does he even try to nuance on such a limited medium?
Menyambal @113– wasn’t that when he first did the Dear Muslima (did he in fact publish it here, or was it quoted here?). It was elevatorgate, and he was trolling furiously, to the point where PZ had to confirm that yes, this was the real Dawkins, not someone else trying to make him look like a raging misogynist.
I’m still waiting for Tim Minchin to compose a song about Dawkins similar to his ode to the pope, or is fan of brave heroes too?
Menyambal@113
I think it’s exactly the opposite. Books, speeches, blogs and the like don’t allow opportunities for the behaviour that he indulges in on Twitter. He can now do the off-the-cuff things that he couldn’t do in those formats.
Where else can he give free rein to his inner smarty-pants-newbie-in-a-Philosophy-101-tutorial? And when he’s called out or criticised for what he says, he claims the medium restricts his ability to expand on his “thoughts”. Just as “throwing out an idea” in a conversation or a tutorial doesn’t allow all the “nuance” of a considered essay.
That was back at the scienceblogs site. And yes, that was indeed the Dear Muslima incident. The original thread is archived here.
This isn’t a new behavior for him. Frankly, he’s been a jackass for a long time. It’s just become more and more obvious as he has increasingly been aligning himself with the douchebro brigade.
Funny how most of us “Dawkins’ haters” couldn’t believe it was him and thought someone was trolling under his name.
Who’s Michael Nugent?
Michael Nugent? Atheist Ireland.
Yet another one I thought was reasonably OK until this week.
@ Iyéska 106, consciousness razor 104
Thank you. I’m still developing a sense for what is or is not useful, and what ends up being a distraction. My thoughts were on taking that tool of dismissal away from others. But if that is not going to be worth while that is something useful to know. I’ll get a better sense of what ends up being a distraction regardless of my intentions at some point.
mildlymagnificent @120:
I began to worry about him when he tried to “open a dialogue” with that crowd.
@Tony! The Queer Shoop #26: I’m currently embroiled in a debate with a longtime family friend (who pointed me to FtB in the first place!) about this, and he has been studiously not reading the longish comments I’ve been making (apparently becasue Facebook, which is confusing because I know the guy reads, with some regularity, books that are far longer than the totality of what I’ve posted) and failing to address much of the content. It’s aggravating, especially because I didn’t think I’d have to be having this debate in the first place as I’ve never seen him defend sexism before, but apparently some atheist feminists on Greta’s blog were mean, so now fuck social justice? He is a big fan of Coyne and, to a lesser degree, Harris, so that may be some of it.
@chris61 #35: You terrify me. If someone comes up to you and shouts that the building is on fire and you need to call 911, I’d really hope you’d do it instead of spending time questioning them about their lack of a cell phone or demanding video of the fire or taking the time to go back through the building to see for yourself. For your own sake as a person who is potentially sometimes in danger, can you at least appreciate when other people prioritize your safety over hyper-skepticism?
@ 123 John Horstman
It was a flippant response to what I perceived to be a false equivalency introduced by Tom Foss @33. In fact in the situation you describe I’d likely hand them my cell phone since they are in a better position to convey relevant details than I am.
@chris61:
And we’ve established how reliable your perceptions are.
Once again, you’ve demonstrated that you have no problem with what PZ did, which was to give his “cell phone” (blog) over to the “witness” (victim) because they were in a better position to convey relevant details.
Tom Foss @125:
To add to that, IIRC, part of Alison’s goal was to warn other women about Michael Shermer. I imagine she figured that since PZ gets a lot of traffic on his blog, that he could bring her warning to a large audience.
I notice chris61 has still failed to explain both the difference between speaking up about behavior one personally witnesses vs behavior one is informed about from a third party and why that difference is anything significant.
As I said upthread:
Come on chris61. Can you explain your reasoning here? You’ve asserted that there’s a difference, but you haven’t explained what that difference is, nor why it is at all meaningful. I get that you just want to say “that’s your opinion and this is my opinion”, but why don’t you back your opinion up with reasoning and logic?
@126 Tony
Saying person A tweeted or posted something on a blog is easily verifiable by anyone with access to that blog or twitter account. Everyone can form an opinion based on the same information. Saying person A did something because you were told they did it by an unnamed person is not verifiable if the only two people present when this thing took place were person A and the unnamed person.
chris61 @127:
1- This isn’t a fucking court of law.
2- Your use of ‘verifiable’ shows that you don’t think people should have believed Alison Smith. Great. You’re an apologist for Michael the rapist Shermer.
3- Everyone who read the Grenade thread had access to the same information. They can form opinions based on that information. They didn’t need to know who Alison Smith was to believe her story. Commenters know PZ. Many of us trust him based on our prior knowledge of his character. So when he says “I have information from a woman I trust who wants me to share her story with people so they can be aware of someone who is a sexual predator”, there is no reason for us to disbelieve him.
Clearly you think there is. You *don’t* (or didn’t) believe Alison Smith. What…did you think PZ was lying? Why would you think that?
First it was your odious views on abortion, now this…
Chris61:
Jesus Christ, you’re an asshole and an idiot. You can shut the fuck up anytime, Chris61, rather than indulge your usual hole digging.
@128 Tony
No I don’t think PZ was lying. He described it as an accusation that he couldn’t personally vouch for. All I was pointing out in my original comment was that among all the accusations being flung around between PZ, Dawkins, Nugent, Harris et al. that this particular accusation was one that none of them could vouch for.
@129 Iyeska
Shutting the fuck up now.
Nope, you lie and bullshit through your teeth. He vouched for it in the “grenade” thread. Repeated the words given as evidence (you are aware that testimony by a woman is evidence in a court of law). So, where is your real problem? You don’t like the reputation of know harassers and rapists being “tarnished” in public? They should be. That would end some problems if they are ostracized.