Thomas Smith wraps up his experience at the Mythcon conference. It wasn’t good. It’s clear that Carl Benjamin is a waste of time, as are his followers. He ends with the suggestion that next year, if they double down and invite yet another group of shitlords, let ’em have a shitlord conference…but if you’re anyone with a drop of social awareness and even a hint of conscience, don’t participate and don’t attend. The only problem with that, unfortunately, is that white supremacy has become a fruitful path to become YouTube-famous, so they’ll still have an audience. They just won’t have prominent mainstream atheists, and they’ll also be lacking all the atheists who support social justice (the only atheists worth listening to). Dig the rift deeper, and cut them loose.
Meanwhile Skepticon is about a month away, and if you want to help out the decent side of atheism, donate to help it happen.
Matt Dillahunty delivers his position on the conference.
Sir, you have my complete agreement. Becoming an atheist should lead anyone with a social conscience to support the left and social justice.
It was nice to see Silverman repudiate these awful human beings. But I’d bet other prominent atheists like Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne and Michael Shermer will have no problem with Mythicon and as usual they will trot out free speech as their defence.
Ya here’s a link to what Dave Silverman said, and some words from another speaker at the conference, Melissa Chen.
Ugh. I had no idea Chen was such a full-of-herself asshole. She fit right in.
I just read that post and some of the replies.
Apparently she calls Christina Hoff Sommers “Based Mom” as well, soooooooo…
Steve Bruce @2:
It’s been particularly strange watching Coyne, who rarely misses an opportunity to remind people he’s Jewish and bans people from his blog for expressing sympathy for Palestinian civilians, speaking out in support of actual anti-Semites.
Goddamn….that interview of the organizers defending Sargon was awful, but the stuff Matt Dillahunty describes…
Since Elevatorgate I have not had a single moment of doubt that the only way forward is to celebrate the GREAT RIFTS. This some compelling evidence supporting that position.
And I can’t stop giggling. Matt revealed the reason behind all of this: they’re (probably) silly movie. Why suck up to Sargon and the other doofuses? They want people to watch their movie.
…their…
A whole stupid controversy to gin up publicity for Batman and Jesus…
Can someone provide a quick summary of the Dillahunty video? Seventy minutes is a little more than I have to spare right now….
Some interesting stories about horrible people – Carlgon and the Organizers.
Semi-kind words for the other two YouTubers.
Strong condemnation of the people cheering in the crowd.
Explanation for why he felt he needed to attend.
He gives a run down of the fundamentals in the first 5min of the video. He will not be going back unless there is a change in leadership.
Thanks!
Brian Pansky @3:
Silverman writes:
It’s almost funny that he said this, given that he’s an enthusiastic yearly CPAC tabler. That said, I do mostly agree with this anti-harassment post of his.
One part of Dillahunty’s video I found a bit odd (around 23 or so minutes in) related to remarks about people calling the venue warning them that some speakers were a danger to women. He described this as somewhat of a fascist technique, which I am OK with, but then lost me when he suggested this was because they couldn’t provide a convincing argument against the speakers that would prevent people from attending in the first place. Matt of all people should damn well know that people don’t necessarily change their minds even if they are presented the most rock solid argument possible, so how does he reach such a conclusion? Perhaps I am misunderstanding his point.
Leo Buzalsky @ 13- I think he was, more or less, going into a bit of “both sides do it” since he goes into a longer rant about it toward the end. I can’t say that it didn’t happen, that no one called and made such claims about it being a danger to women, but I follow a lot of people who contacted the organizers over them inviting Sargon* and their warnings were simply letting them know what kind of person they invited**. Matt doesn’t say where he got this information, but he does tear right into “both sides” territory later on so I’m wondering if he was told this happened and it just played into a narrative he already had in mind.
* People had issues with Armored Skeptic and Shoe, but most of the objections were over Sargon.
** From what Matt said of the organizers, it probably did nothing but confirm they made the right choice.
I know Matt Dillahunty is a big name but admittedly this is the first I’ve ever watched him. He seems like a classy guy.
People sending warnings to the venue is bad, but it would be difficult to argue that this is somehow symmetric to Sargon’s badness. Sargon has millions of followers, and the person who contacted the venue doesn’t.
To prepare for his debate with Sargon, Thomas Smith watched The Red Pill and then did an episode on it refuting a lot of the claims.
The next episode of Serious Inquires Only will be Thomas Smith hitting himself in the face with brick for 45 minutes and then saying how good it feels when he stops.
@Leo Buzalsky, Jeremy Shaffer:
I’ve idly watched a fair bit of Atheist Experience, as well as a couple of his debates. I get the impression that Matt Dillahunty believes very strongly in the power of reasoned argument (as you might expect from a man who reasoned himself into atheism through intensely analysing his religion’s premises while he was training for priesthood). He makes an effort to treat even the most insultingly stupid platitudes from callers like arguments that can be analysed, and debates even people who he knows argue in bad faith.
So I can see why he’d be especially upset to see “his” side resorting to (what he obviously perceives as) argument-free slander and scare tactics.
The Merseyside Skeptics spend considerable time discussing Mythcon and its flaws and their avoidance (the flaws).
Really, Mr. Dillahunty?
Your reason why you went there is that you really cannot be bothered to pay a tiny bit of attention to whom you link yourself up with and then you go after the people who actually raised those concerns and chastise them that “you cannot call everybody you disagree with a Nazi”.
Really? After CVille? What are they, very fine people?
I mean, just yesterday Buzzfeed published and extensive article showing the links between the Youtube and Twitter trolls, Breitbart and the White House, but sure, go on telling us how we’re overreacting. Go on telling us that it’s unethical to say that a place where “rape jokes” are cheered on is a danger to women.
“People sending warnings to the venue is bad, but it would be difficult to argue that this is somehow symmetric to Sargon’s badness. Sargon has millions of followers, and the person who contacted the venue doesn’t.”
What don’t two wrongs make? Repeat after me?
One thing I will say about Matt Dillahunty is that he sure seemed dismissive of reputation systems, and he wanted to judge everything and everybody for himself. Perhaps he forgets that the vast majority of us aren’t celebrities who get to go around to conferences meeting everybody. Most of us have to rely on reputation.
@vytautasjanaauskas,
You’re making an argument that bears no relation to me so I’m going to ignore you.
Zeppelin @ 17:
True, and on that point I agree with him. There are always bad actors no matter the group or “side”, and calling the venue like that in this case wasn’t great. That said, it seemed he was inflating the amount of rancor and vacuousness of the arguments from those who objected to Sargon so there was some sort of parity of awfulness. It could just be me, but watching the video that seemed to be the be-all, end-all of the objecting arguments in as far as he was concerned or knew.
More, he gave the impression he wasn’t very keen on delving into the matter on his own, which suggests he didn’t really hear any of this first hand. It could be that what he was told was incorrect, misrepresented, or exaggerated*. I can’t blame him on not wanting to get into the drama surrounding it- even if he had there’s years of crap to wade through, along with intentional untruths and revisions of events entered into the mix, which makes it difficult to get a handle on what’s what unless one wants to devote an excess amount of time- but if he’s going to accuse people of engaging in defamation and scare tactics, he should first check for himself to make sure they did or at the very least make sure such was the substantial thrust of the opposition. That he doesn’t appear to have made that effort, it seem he was willing to take what he was given at face value, perhaps because it plays into something he’s been chewing on for a while now given some of his other statements in the video.
Mind you, I’m not trying to say this was intentional on Dillahunty’s part. It could simply be an outsized reaction because he expects better from people he agrees with, or who are ostensibly on his “side”. Then again, it could also be touching on a blind spot of his own: an unrecognized bias, maybe, or just a reticence to acknowledge that there are tactics other than his own that are also effective.
* The “Sargon’s a Nazi, and he’ll turn it into a Nazi convention” would be a good example of this. I can’t say for certain that absolutely no one would have said this, but I do know of some points against Sargon that could easily be embellished into this claim.
Jerremy Schaffer
The word you’re looking for is privilege.
Dillahunty can simply choose to be lofty and oh so rational about the rape apology (but oh so critical about the supposed abuses by the people protesting it).
Just like you can simply label the whole thing “drama”.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @19
Totally agree.
Matt had a delightful stimulating conversation with Carl Benjamin for 1.5 hours, a racist guy who harasses women, including at conferences, including rape survivors. Because Matt doesn’t care about the targets of harassment, as long as he’s treated cool. Matt wouldn’t want to be one of those feminists who have the audacity to complain about harassment. What nags they are, amirite?!
Matt’s “both sides” contortions were also disappointing. He seemed credulous in believing the known liars who told him of the venue manager being contacted in protest of the misogyny conference. We don’t know what was really said to the venue people, but Matt’s taking the word of liars to help his argument.
Matt’s denial of Nazi stuff at MythCon is a useful endorsement that I bet will be used. I hope he’s sure about it. I mean Benjamin and fans’ open racism and misogyny is one thing, but they wouldn’t dream of doing Nazi stuff.
To paraphrase Silverman, I am too damn old to associate with assholes.
Basically here to agree with Giliell.
Matt seems to be starting from biases, at least some privilege related, that gets turned into both-sidesism.
In particular, from comments I’ve seen on facebook as well as the comments above, he seems to be starting from the assumption that any Nazi comparisons, or other serious accusations like ‘a danger to women’s, are hyperbole. And not actually investigating, or even listening to what people are saying. (Seemed to be where Seth Andrews started from too.)
Also probably using much stricter definitions of things like Nazi. And danger. Then not taking time to actually learn what people angry at Carl and his ilk are saying, like he does with someone like Sam Harris. It’s a double standard he may not realize, but is starting to look glaring.
I don’t disagree with any of the criticisms of Dillahunty. I think, in addition to privilege, he’s also just not informed about who these people are and what they do (of course, he has the privilege to ignore them – they don’t stalk his every move and launch harassment campaigns against him – at least they haven’t yet).
But I do see some value in his effort to try and be civil with them. It failed. Miserably. He gave it his white-guy best and try to bro-philosophy down with Sargon, and it ended in a glorious clusterfuck.
He loves to do the “crazy people to my left, crazy people to my right, I must be the only rational one,” but he hasn’t fallen off the deep end. He hasn’t gone in for the straight misogyny ticket, and judging from the video, I think he at least learned something about how useless and vile Sargon and his ilk are.
@kellym:
Matt Dillahunty’s whole draw, for me, is his ability to be civil towards people he genuinely, vehemently disagrees with or even despises, and to mercilessly dismantle their arguments while remaining “nice”. He’s a useful man to have on your side that way, because even the hyperskeptics have a hard time accusing him of being “emotional” or “irrational”, their usual putdown for people more humane than them.
But to convincingly embody this he has to be especially scrupulous, which is what you see in that hour-long video full of carefully-phrased explanations and caveats. His criticism of the conference and organisers is mildly phrased (because he’s careful to be even-handed and professional about something that is, after all, part of his job), but actually fairly damning. He basically calls them incompetent shills with no moral backbone who let awful things happen on their watch.
Being pointedly civil with someone like Carlgon* certainly isn’t the only valid approach to dealing with noxious views like his, but I do think it’s a valid approach.
*whose rape tweet and attempts to justify it Matt calls “despicable” and “terrible” before thoroughly dismantling each of them, so he’s hardly playing softball
I agree with #27.
Matt’s strengths:
Being constantly reasonable and cautious. We need people like that.
Matt’s weaknesses:
Being so fair that he bends over backwards to castigate people on his own side at length to show balance.
Being so good at talking that, dear god, he goes on and on for over an hour.
That last bit seems to be a youtube disease. I keep seeing these youtubers who put up a new talky video every day, and they keep talking for 3 hours at a time. I don’t listen to those. I can’t. Even if I could, I’d fall asleep partway through, no matter how exciting they try and make them.
I’m a college professor. Occasionally they try to rope me into class times that run on an hour and a half or two hours (that happened last spring, with an 8am course in a 100 minute block). It doesn’t work. It’s better to have a shorter session and send them off to read and think on their own, or split that long block into different chunks to break up the time: lecture for a while, then discuss. Or group work, then student presentations. Anything but the endless drone. There are way too many youtubers who just like to hear themselves talk, and are kind of disorganized about it anyway.
I usually watch talky YouTube videos at 2x speed. Even then, I rarely watch them, cause I’m old and would rather read.
I remember the two and a half hour Medieval Theology and Philosophy lectures at Christ Church every Wednesday morning when I was a postgrad. Well, I say I remember them, I have a dim recollection of the world swimming in a sea of disconnected syllogistic noise. In retrospect this may have been due to Tuesday night being LGBT night in Oxford, and my having got less sleep than it takes to fruitfully engage with the minutiae of Scotus and Ockham. Which is all the sleep. In truth I attended more as a penitential offering to the gods of academia than through hope of learning anything.
I’m glad, but also not surprised at all, to see Matt take this position. Matt is still one of my favorite people in the movement, and one of the few that I have near absolute respect for. (It’s probably Matt Dillahunty, Daniel Dennett, and Aronra.) I don’t know enough of the details, and perhaps he has made mistakes in his analysis and reporting, and I take a “no contest” to those points. Let me watch this video.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @ 23-
Actually, privilege was not the word I was looking for. Yes, it fits, it’s accurate; but, it definitely wasn’t the word I was looking for. In fact, I was intentionally avoiding the word.
See, as much as I criticize Dillahunty’s dismissal of or inability to see much value in any tactic other than the one he prefers, that doesn’t mean he isn’t right when he points out that some of the ones used aren’t good ones. Some are not just ineffectual, they’re outright self-destructive in terms of achieving our goals. From time to time, we should be willing to reexamine our methods and strategies, see if they’re in reality getting us closer to our objective, even if that means considering critiques from people we disagree with. Perhaps even from those we outright regard as enemies.
One such thing we need to look at is how we use privilege. Yes, it is important that people understand and take into account the advantages they may have in society, regardless of how they may have come by them. Especially in how they relate to marginalized people. Obviously a primary objective is to make it a level playing field, but convincing people with those benefits to use them towards that goal isn’t just a valuable and sensible approach, it’s pretty much a necessary one. And I’m hard pressed to think of a worse way to foster that than to haphazardly swing the word privilege around like a cudgel, as I’ve seen way too many people do.
Case in point, the second line I quote from you above. Sure, drama is often used to dismiss something as a trivial and trifling matter. However, that’s hardly it’s only meaning, and given the context in which I used it- a criticism that Dillahunty was being dismissive- it should have been clear that I was not using it to diminish or write off the circumstance in any way, that I was instead giving it the importance it deserves. Might I have fucked making that apparent up? Yes. Could I have used a different word? Sure. Am I open to suggestions on other word to use? Certainly. Then again, when all I’m being told is essentially to check my privilege by someone who couldn’t even be assed to spell my fucking name correctly, I don’t get the impression someone is out to be constructive. Instead I only see someone zealously looking to swing their club, which makes me only want to step away from them.
So, no, the word I was looking for was not privilege.
Okay, I finished the whole Matt Dillahunty video, and these observations and questions occurred to me at various points throughout. Sorry for the length.
– He says many times that he was obligated to go because he had agreed to the previous year. Was he still obligated if the event he agreed to attend had changed dramatically from the event he was expecting?
– He says when the objections started he didn’t have any idea who the speakers were, and he hadn’t seen their content. Why didn’t he watch some of their content after hearing the objections? He wants to “decide for himself”… but he doesn’t gather any information about the attending speakers by listening to their content before attending? After being warned that they were despicable people. Why on earth not?
– He’s very critical of calling people nazis and fascists – calls it lazy and hyperbolic and the people doing it ridiculous – but there’s no context there. Is it ever accurate by his standards to say “nazi” or “nazi sympathizer”? Are people wearing swastikas or nazi symbols and giving the nazi salute okay to call nazis? If you embrace those people and support their ideas can we say nazi? If you give cover and credibility to those people what should we call you? He and I disagree about nazi punching.
– He had a “good conversation” with Sargon. About “philosophy stuff”. He seems blissfully unaware that this “good conversation” was only made possible because he is a white guy and so a full human to be talked to in Sargon’s eyes. He’s later surprised (lol) that Sargon uses a circular argument to defend his “wouldn’t even rape you” tweet.
– He walks away a lot in his narrative. Often when he’s made uncomfortable, or he feels like he’s “wasting his time”. Must be nice to be able to walk away from the sexism, racism, etc… and he calls this conflict “drama”, which I would argue is a lazy way to dismiss the very real concerns of minorities who don’t share his ability to walk away.
– He was – and I cannot even get my head around this – surprised that the crowd cheered Sargon’s rape tweet. Wow. I mean… a single afternoon of effort applied to looking at this guy’s content and followers and he would not have been so shocked.
– He appears to disagree with de-platforming (on college campuses for example) but later states that “some ideas don’t deserve public debate”. Which ideas Matt? The ones you have decided? How did you decide?
– He is against “name calling” (I guess when people like me do it), but then goes on to call Sargon a shock jock, and his ideas disgusting and backward. Is he taking the vulcan rational high road, or not? I’m confused. Is name calling and strong emotional language only okay when Matt deems it appropriate? Where are his counter arguments to Sargon’s bad ideas?
– And then he says something along the lines of how calling these people nazis only eggs them on and “that’s how we ended up with Trump”. Uh, wut? Also, really? I gotta say that you could call me whatever name you want and it would never provoke me into voting for a racist, misogynist, lying, authoritarian bully with a sadistic streak a mile wide who shouldn’t be trusted to watch a rock collection much less a country of actual people. So, uh, bullshit?
Final thoughts: You don’t get a cookie for denouncing garbage people – that is a bare minimum bar to meet for being a decent person. He pulled a lot of “both sides” bullshit. For as intelligent as I think he is, he sure hasn’t put the same time or thought into social justice issues that he has into atheism – and it shows.
I am massively disappointed in him. I don’t think he’s a bad person at this point, but boy is he not an ally.
I’ve been disappointed in his silence on issues that in my view are fundamental to being a decent human for a long time now – this incident and video just continues the trajectory of my declining regard for him.
EnlightenmentLiberal @31
I wonder if any women who have been targets of harassment feel the same way? Matt is being given a lot of credit for denouncing the misogyny he personally witnessed at MythCon. Now he never needs to mention it again and will still be regarded as a Brilliant Atheist Speaker, joining the Pantheon along with Dawkins, Harris, and Krauss. If Matt ever gave a fuck about the targets of harassment, he wouldn’t have been able to have such a long and enjoyable conversation with Carl Benjamin, for no other reason than he wouldn’t have given his name and presence to promote a misogyny fest.
Matt being “furious” at the cheering of the sexual harassment of a woman would be like him going to a Trump rally and being surprised at the racism. Matt seriously didn’t believe Carl Benjamin’s critics or his fans, who were unsurprised.
It’s okay because women who have been targeted for harassment are used to not being believed, and those of us who leave Atheism because of it are no great loss. As long as cool guys like Matt are ok.
silverfeather @ 33
Great example of Matt being reasonable and cautious!
Legally? Perhaps. He made a contract, even if it’s just a verbal contract. So, my guess is yes.
You’re obviously not a regular watcher of the Atheist Experience.
This is the main objection. It seems that your entire complaint is that he didn’t do what you wanted him to do.
For example, he didn’t break the contract on the say-so of strangers(?) like yourself. I would never shun someone without having personal evidence of the horribleness of someone, and it seems that Matt would not either.
You’re mad that he talked to him, to get first-hand experience. You’re mad that he didn’t trust you enough to shun this person automatically. This is one of those rare times which I do have to claim “echo chamber”. This sort of complaint is the worst kind of echo-chamber and tribalism. What is wrong with having a personal conversation with the other side? For example, I would have a personal conversation with Hitler if I could, for no other reason than curiosity. Is that damn-worthy? No. It’s not like he’s sharing a stage with him. What the fuck?
Alternatively, if I’m being charitable, your major complaint is that you are mad that he didn’t do extensive research on other people attending the confederence on the say-so of strangers(?). Further, you’re mad that he didn’t violate his contract based on the evidence that he would discover from this research. Remember, he’s not omniscient. He doesn’t follow the scene at all. He would have to a relatively significant amount of time to come to a conclusion, and even then, I’m unsure whether all of the facts, even if known, rise to the level of morally justifying violating the contract. It would be a pretty big asshole move to cancel near the last moment to the conference organizers and the speakers of the debate which he was supposed to moderate.
So, maybe you’re just mad that he’s doing some amount of “both-sides-ism”. Yes. There’s some of that. However, it’s ludicrous to compare Matt to Dawkins and Harris. Matt clearly and unequivocably condemned Sarggon, the conference organizers, the crowd, and he took pains to say that one side is clearly worse than the other. Matt has been consistent in doing this for his entire career. You should feel ashamed of yourself. You are exactly the sort of cancer in this movement that is trying to alienate a great ally like Matt Dillahunty. And it pains me to even make point, because whenever someone makes these sorts of complaints, they’re usually extremely wrong, but this time the complaints are on the nose. And to be clear, I’m only applying this complaint to you, and no one else in this thread.
EnlightenmentLiberal @35
I’m not certain how much energy I have to spare for you considering that you seem particularly prone to trying to strawman my words, you thought it was acceptable to call me a “cancer” in this movement (btw, still not voting for Trump), and you didn’t bother to read carefully enough to realize that you have conflated two different people’s comments into one. I guess we’ll see.
That is actually a thing I am curious about. My understanding is that AronRa (and several others) had also agreed to attend but then decided against it and pulled out. Are they facing legal action? Should they? If a person makes a verbal contract with an organization to attend an event, does the organization have any obligation to put on the actual event the person agreed to attend, or can it change the core messaging of said event after the fact and still require attendance? Is only one party in that contract responsible? I don’t think a verbal contract is nearly as simple as your guess.
1.) You are quoting and responding to a different person.
2.) I actually am a very frequent listener of the Atheist Experience, going back at least ten years. Not that it makes a bit of difference to the content or validity of my arguments, but I actually credit that show (and Matt Dillahunty in particular) with exposing me to some very important and worthwhile ideas. Sadly, this does not mean that he, or anyone, gets to live on a pedestal in my mind for all time, immune from criticism.
My first complaint is that I think he went about responding to valid concerns in a careless, thoughtless way that ended with his name being used to lend legitimacy to an event where an audience loudly cheered sending a rape tweet to a rape survivor (among other deplorable things).
My second complaint is that this situation was completely avoidable – as evidenced by the many other decent folk who manged to avoid it – including the aforementioned AronRa.
Who’s argument is this? I don’t see it being made in either of the two posts you conflated into one.
My issue, for the record, is that after hearing a multitude of criticisms from strangers (strangers in his movement, strangers leaning toward his side of the political spectrum, strangers like P.Z. Meyers and other atheist bloggers) he said that he wanted to “decide for himself” and then it appears that he did no actual information gathering to make a decision prior to going to this garbage person platforming con.
My question is, why? It isn’t as though he only got a few emails from some random strangers online – there was a whole lot of criticism about this and it appears from his video that he actually took the time to read at least some of it. He watched as other atheists that he does know dropped out.
It boggles my mind that in the face of all this smoke, humanist, left leaning Matt did not (apparently) bother to look at the content of the speakers that was available a keystroke away to try to ascertain for himself if there was a fire. Unless you are claiming that somehow hours of video evidence of horribleness is not valid and only a face to face conversation will suffice as “personal evidence”, you should agree that he could have “decided for himself” before ever setting foot at Mythcon.
That he did not bother makes him appear at best thoughtless and careless, and at worst utterly apathetic about legitimizing disgusting, racist, sexist behavior.
Once again, who said this? See my previous response.
Ugh. That depends I suppose. Is this a candlelit dinner, all cozy and one on one? Gross, but not damn worthy – enjoy your meal and feel free to stare dreamily into his eyes.
Is Hitler being given a public speaking platform to disseminate his ideas at a conference where the vast majority of the other speakers are his Nazi generals? Are the organizers of the event Nazi sympathizers? Do you have a not insignificant following of people who say things like “EnlightenmentLiberal is still one of my favorite people in the movement, and one of the few that I have near absolute respect for” while your name is being used to advertise said conference? Yeah, I think I could make an argument that if you are a humanist you would not allow yourself to be used to promote Hitler’s messages. I could make an argument that you were doing the wrong thing. I could certainly say that I was massively disappointed in you.
1.) The argument that he doesn’t follow the scene only works if he walked into this with no warning. It sounds more like an excuse to me than an argument – that is if one is claiming to be a humanist and to care about issues like racism and sexism.
2.) If you are “unsure” whether knowing all the facts about these speakers morally justifies violating a verbal contract that was made in good faith a year prior, to attend an event which had subsequently been drastically altered in purpose and quality from what was originally agreed upon, then you must be a white man! Just kidding – got you though, right? What I mean to say is that you have a very, very different value system than I do. :)
Different person again.
Okay random stranger on the internet!
OH! I see what you did there! All the mirthless laughter forever!
Right. Just me, and the other person commenting that you quoted side by side with me, because we are apparently the same person in your mind. Got it. Thank you for being clear.
There are several points to consider:
Is there legal consideration? That’s a technical term in contract law. Loosely, in order for an agreement to be a binding contract, there must be an exchange of goods or services, etc., from both sides. I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine that if the organizers provided Matt Dillahunty money for a plane ticket, or provided a plane ticket directly, in exchange for Matt’s services, then this satisfies the consideration requirement, and it’s a legally binding contract.
Can one prove that the contract exists in court? If it’s verbal, that can be difficult. In particular, one must be able to show that they intended to make a binding agreement, and that it wasn’t a joke, etc. In these particular cases, it appears that there is plenty of evidence that Matt and Aronra did agree to the terms, including personal blog posts and youtube videos where they clearly admit it, and therefore it should be easy to show in court that a contract was made.
Is it even worth suing? What are your lawyer fees going to be, vs what can you reasonably expect to gain in damages? Also, how likely is it that you would recover lawyer’s fees?
Do you even want to sue? That’s a great way to end a personal relationship, and ensure that the other person will never work with you again. It’s also a great way to earn bad publicity.
Finally, how does one’s own morals stack up? Does one feel that one is morally justified in pursuing legal action in the particular case, regardless of the legality of the situation?
He managed to avoid it by breaking an agreement, and probably a contract (I’m assuming that their plane tickets were paid for in some way by the conference organizers). Further, these problems don’t relate AFAICT to the two particular people in the debate that Matt was supposed to referee, and it would be rude to those two persons to cancel. It would also be rude to all of the attendees who paid money with the expectation that one would be at the event.
So, it is a question: Which is worse: Breaking one’s word and agreement (and contract) and hurting lots of people (the debaters, the audience, the conference organizers), or participating and giving some sort of legitimacy to the other speakers at the event. I don’t know what I would do.
Yes, we may have different weighting on certain values. It may also be that we have come to different determinations about the likely harm that would be done by attending. I think I would downplay the harm that was done by attending, compared to how you would portray it, especially when Matt went out of his way to distance himself from the event and speakers after the fact, and also attacked the event and speakers vigorously.
Personal curiosity? Again, when people like you attack him over his good-faith engagements with people “on the other side” to the extreme degree that you have, it just makes Matt trust people like you less and less, and I guess that this also includes PZ Myers.
I am more or less completely in agreement with PZ Myers and the commitariat on most, almost all social issues. However, we’re having a disagreement over tactics.
For example, in atheism vs religion discussions, I am a firebrand, and I believe that this is generally the correct course. I am particilarly annoyed when accommodationists of all stripes attack firebrands like myself as wrong-headed. Generally, I do not attack accommodationists, because I recognize that I might be wrong, and I recognize that sometimes other tactics can be more effective than firebrand tacitcs.
Sometimes, emphasis sometimes, there is a problem in certain elements of the feminist and social justice community where they too quickly attack and otrasicize others, like Matt Dillahunty. I will be the first to embrace extreme language and division in many cases, but sometimes other tactics will produce better results, and we shouldn’t immediately reach for the “nuke it from orbit for even the slightest disagreement”.
Why didn’t he do the research? I don’t know. I’m not sure that I got an answer from that video. I got pieces of answers.
However again, I think the central point of our disagreement is about the level of harm that Matt caused by attending the event, taking into account his video after the fact where he denounced the event and many of the speakers. I don’t see much harm being done. In fact, I think that a good argument might be made that he did more good by attending, getting a first hand experience, and vloging about it, with the extra credibility that he was a personal attendee. Do you really believe that he did more harm than good by attending, taking into account the public statements that he made after the fact? How much harm? Enough to compare him to Hawkins, Harris, and Krauss, as you or another poster did? I believe not. Nowhere close. That particular comparison, plus the insinuation that any communication with the other side is always bad, is what made me post with such a strong and upset tone.
PS:
I believe that a complaint was made that he even had a personal conversation with Sargon, and that he admitted that he enjoyed parts of that conversation, and that this was somehow deplorable, even without the conference at all. My response in that portion was only to this complaint. My complaint about the “echo chamber” and rank tribalism applies only to the mistaken notion that it’s just wrong to talk to the other side in any case whatsoever, and to express agreement on any issues whatsoever with the other side.
EnlightenmentLiberal @37
You’ve gone more in depth outlining some of the many complications of this question. You have still not addressed whether or not the other party (i.e. the person or people responsible for the conference) has any obligations to meet regarding putting on the event that was agreed to. I am not a lawyer any more than you are, but I would imagine that this adds another layer of complication should the organizers try to sue. The legality of this is not cut and dried.
That being said, I think (hope) we can agree that what is legal is not always what is morally correct, and so the legality of a thing is often a flimsy shield to try to hide behind when what is being criticized is the morality of a stance or a choice. Being put in the position of being in a binding contract (let’s just assume it was legally binding for this point) to attend an event that is platforming racist, misogynist, disgusting rhetoric is unfortunate, but it does not negate any moral responsibility for attaching your name to it.
My understanding is that AronRa paid the organizers out of pocket to reimburse them for the cost of his ticket and accepted the financial loss. You seem to place a very high value on not breaking agreements and legality, and a relatively low value on what the morally correct course of action is.
and
From this point forward I am going to be operating under the assumption that you have more than a 101 understanding of social justice concepts. I am not assuming agreement with them. If put in that position, and if (big if) one cares about doing the right thing, one should evaluate the harms of one’s possible actions and then try to choose the best course of action – often the course of action which causes the least amount of harm.
On the one side, we have an event that is promoting rhetoric that props up the hateful, uninformed, reactionary bigotry that feeds systemic oppression of all kinds – white supremacy, patriarchy, anti LGBTQI discrimination, etc. This systemic oppression manifests in many different ways, almost all of which are harmful to vast numbers of the population mentally, financially, and physically. On top of that, the rhetoric of some of these speakers actually goes so far beyond dog whistles that it is not just feeding people’s unconscious biases, it is full on feeding the bigots’ active hate, rage, and sense of aggrieved entitlement, while simultaneously causing some other attendees to feel so disgusted, unsafe, or unwelcome that they have to leave.
On the other side we have the personal/reputational matter of breaking your word (and I do think it should be factored in that the organizers had already violated basic expectations for this event), and the possible legal issue of breaking your word, maybe contract – which seems a muddy matter at best. We have rudeness and inconvenience to two debaters (who honestly might also want to re-think their association with the event in its current form). We have possible financial harm to the event organizers, including the organizers who actively support Carl Benjamin’s bigoted rhetoric. We have possible disappointment and arguably possible financial harm to attendees of the event, including the many attendees who went to the event specifically to have their hate and bigotry stoked in public.
A person is of course free to make either choice in this situation, but the choice made clearly signals their priorities. And the choice to hear the warnings, to watch fellow attendees drop out, and to not look into the matter any further before attending also signals priorities… hence my massive disappointment.
It seems that we do and we have, very much so.
Yes.
As I said in my original post, denouncing garbage people doing garbage things is a bare minimum bar to clear for being a decent human, and I’m not very impressed by it. You hold this up almost as though I should be grateful and appreciative that he managed to do it?
Additionally, while he did clear that very low bar (which is why I said that at this point I don’t think he’s a bad person), he also packed his video full of both siderism, castigated many of the people criticizing him in a very thoughtless and shallow way, and apparently even in full hindsight does not think that he could have handled the situation any better than he did.
I keep expecting better from him, and I keep being disappointed.
Is personal curiosity more important than allowing your name to be used to lend legitimacy to vile, harmful ideas? There’s that display of priorities again.
1.) How on earth have I “attacked him” to an “extreme degree”? I strongly disagree with him here, both with what he did and with a lot of his final analysis of the situation. I am massively disappointed in him, and I am discussing why. It’s not like I called him a cancer on the movement or said he should be ashamed of himself! I mean…
I would ask that you consider that you are letting just a wee bit of hero worship cloud your judgement in this matter.
2.) It doesn’t matter if Matt trusts “people like me”. I never asked or expected him to just blindly follow anyone’s lead. I do expect him to actually care enough about the possibility of his name helping to legitimize and advertise for an event that actively promotes racism and sexism that he would deign to do some homework. Beforehand. He could easily have denounced this trash in advance, and it would have been much more meaningful.
I agree with this as a general statement.
In this specific instance, my expressing disappointment in someone, and criticizing their specific words and actions is not “nuking the site from orbit”, not anywhere close… so I wonder why you would use that turn of phrase. I’ve found the flip side to elements of the feminist and social justice community being too quick to attack is the tone policing we get when we try to bring up a valid concern. No matter how calm or precise or thoughtful my language, there are always people out there who want to label me as irrationally hysterical because they would rather shut me up than address my actual points.
Yes.
Wow, this again. That was, in fact, a different person, and to be completely fair I think you are probably oversimplifying her point as well. However, I can’t speak for her, seeing as how we are not using the same brain, so I’m going to let that drop.
If you are asking for my opinion I will tell you that in general I wouldn’t compare Matt with Dawkins or Harris. I actively think that both of the latter are bad people, and I actively expect them to do the wrong thing in many situations. They don’t often surprise me in that regard, sadly. In a more nuanced sense I can absolutely find some similarities between the three that make me very unhappy, but I don’t find it useful to link them together or compare them to discuss that. (I leave Krauss out because I’m not particularly familiar with him. If we’re naming him alongside Dawkins and Harris, maybe that’s for the best).
And the extra funny thing about that, speaking as the person you felt it was acceptable to emotionally unload on over the interwebz, is that Dawkins/Harris/Krauss were brought up by a different person, and I never said that communication with the other side is always bad.
Here’s what I said:
He had a “good conversation” with Sargon. About “philosophy stuff”. He seems blissfully unaware that this “good conversation” was only made possible because he is a white guy and so a full human to be talked to in Sargon’s eyes. He’s later surprised (lol) that Sargon uses a circular argument to defend his “wouldn’t even rape you” tweet.
This comment is more of a massive eye roll on my part than a complaint, and really… do you actually read this and hear:
Honestly?
It struck me as I was listening to him talk about this encounter that it didn’t seem to have even crossed his mind that his intellectual outing with Sargon would likely be taking a much less enjoyable turn if he was, say, a little more brown, or a little more, uh, female. In my eyes, he narrated this story in a massively privilege-blind way – the classic white guy “this doesn’t happen to me so it must not happen” sort of thing. The cherry on top was his surprise at Sargon’s response to being questioned on his lovely “Wouldn’t even rape you” tweet.
Like every guy in every clickbait story who ever signed onto their dating site as a woman, or exchanged email addresses with a female co-worker for a week, he discovers that WOAH! Men on dating sites are sending me dick pics/ clients are talking down to me/ this Sargon guy couldn’t logic his way out of a paper bag… and he’s kind of an asshole!
Um, yeah dude, lol, we told you!
Naw, I only have a cursory, 101 level of understanding of law. I am not a lawyer. I am a fool.
No contest.
Then my comments were aimed at the other person. Apologies to replies to two people in the same post, and apologies for possibly confusing the two persons and their arguments.
That seems like an entirely accurate description.
Acceptable.
Apparently we don’t have any substantial disagreements. Sorry to for being difficult, an ass, maybe misreading, and overreacting.
EnlightenmentLiberal @39
Apology accepted :)
Thank you for pleasantly surprising me by not doubling down.
See, Jeremy, this is what I would call drama. Sure, I get being annoyed at somebody misspelling my nym, after all, if I had a buck for all the times mine was misspelled on this website I could probably pay off my mortgage, but you’re a bit too upset at something that boils down to a spelling mistake.
Still the same crowd. PZ Myers told the females brains the facts. That 4-word sentence was painstakenly converted into my inside joke special comic sans font and copied into my blog as my service to womankind.
Now I will not trigger your pretty little brains with a link to the original. I had to give those mansplainers an excuse that links would show as hits. I know you don’t want those bad people to benefit. Trust me, they are bad! If Atheists were “smart enough to shut off thinking for themselves based on my trusted words alone, surely you women deserve the benefit on other topics, too!
Intellectual curiosity killed the unethical cat.
Atheism isn’t a religion, damn it! We just lack belief, hate religion, can’t figure out there is a difference between religion or if a “god” exists. But we believe in our trusted PZ Myers to tell us what to believe.
When you make the decision to imprison your mind into an ideology, dissent becomes a contagious disease to avoid. LOL I exposed myself to this cultish mindset and I didn’t die from it.
Call me a bratty rebel, but “because I said so” was a joke reason to not answer my question.
Bye I am leaving this visit to the echo chamber!