Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

Double wank and shit chips
Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#196

Post by Aneris »

Submariner wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
Submariner wrote: To be honest, I don't believe modern feminism (postmodern feminism?) with it's presuppositions such as patriarchy, and the Marxian theme switch of "gender" where previously was "class", can be reconciled with skepticism.
Academic feminism, which does seem to be a branch of postmodernist critical theory, isn't going to be reconciled with skepticism. That doesn't mean, however, that "feminism" can't be reconciled. Feminism (equality, egalitarian, evolutionary, gender, rad etc) has so many branches and competing theories that some of these can probably be encompassed by skepticism.
Peezus defines feminism as "the radical notion that women are people."
The Secular Women organization recently defined it as the opposition to sexism.
If these are legitimate definitions then it is not going to be difficult to fit skepticism in somewhere.
With an unfalsifiable premise at it's core (Patriarchy Theory) 3rd wave feminism is incompatible with skepticism (which is why I said "modern..(postmodern?...)" above. If you disagree that Patriarchy Theory as described is NOT unfalsifiable, well that's a topic I would debate with you.

There are different branches, each with a different way of framing issues. Like other socio-political (your democratic-republican-whatever) views, they aren't really falsifiable.

I wanted to have some overview and now compiled one, I hope it is somewhat useful. I've linked to Wikipedia for convenience sake. In the box at the side you find many more variants.


Main Categories
  • 1st Wave . . . . . . . . . .
  • First Wave Feminists at the time fought gross de facto inequalities. Chiefly: the right to vote.

    2nd Wave . . . . . . . . . .
  • Socialist Feminist think that patriarchy is linked to capitalism, or uneven distribution of wealth between the genders. They reject the Radical Feminist view that it's all about Patriarchy but accept the general idea that there is some sort of status quo that is economically beneficial for men.
  • Marxist Feminsts are similar to Socialist Feminists, but place emphasis on the role of class and private property. A higher class rules in their interest and exploits lower classes. Historically, women were the exploited ones (and seen as property of men) and were thus excluded from participation, then economically were in a weaker position, resulting in lesser influence. It usually does not operate with Patriarchy.
  • Liberal and Individual Feminists see the issue in legal systems, or the setup of society in it's laws. Other than that, it is individualistic and places responsiblity on the individual to be treated fair and equally.
  • Radical Feminists think it's all about Patriarchy. It the view espoused at FreeThoughtBlogs, at least by PZ Myers, he speaks out against TERFs (see below), which rather underlines that he is a radical feminist.

    3rd Wave . . . . . . . . . .
  • 3rd Wave Feminists came about due to disputes over sex work, porn and the like and could be considered a synthesis (or "moving on"). It favors individualism over dogma and can be summarized as the dissolving of "feminity", introduction of queer, etc. with the introduction of post-structuralism.
  • Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminists (TERFs), continuation of Radical Feminism, this time rejecting the 3rd wave stuff.
  • New Feminists are really super old ones, and are also difference feminists that view men and women as complementary. I'd place Traditional Women's Rights and other conservative views here.
Some Complementary Categories
  • Equality Feminists believe that both men and women, while biologically and anatomically different, enter the world with the genetic inheritance of a mother and a father and from that respect, human nature is androgynous, neutral, and equal.
  • Difference feminists stress that men and women are ontologically different versions of the human being. In the second wave, so called "reverse Reverse gender polarity" became popular, stating that woman are superior to men (reversing Aristotle's, and thereby traditional and widespread view through history that men were superior to women).
  • Sex-Positive Feminists came about against core Radical Feminists (such as Dworkin) and are about sexual freedom (the divide that caused the third wave). Noteworthy as it came up a few times, Greta Christina and AFAIK Watson have been mentioned in that category.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#197

Post by Submariner »

Aneris wrote:There are different branches, each with a different way of framing issues. Like other socio-political (your democratic-republican-whatever) views, they aren't really falsifiable.
Patriarchy theory is an assertion regarding the function or structure of society. From wikipedia:
In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women.
Even if this "dominance" is in fact the state of affairs in society, defining it such that any and all social mechanisms which "reproduce and exert" it is begging the question.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#198

Post by JackSkeptic »

As no doubt some of you will have noticed the process has been stalled for some weeks now. A consolidation statement was to be produced but due to unavoidable external issues this has been delayed. This statement should allow us to move on and it is hoped it will be produced in the next week or two. However this is not set in stone as it is an onerous task for anyone to do.

For myself, before people ask, I have seen no evidence at all that either side is stalling. I also fully accept that some people's real life circumstances can and often will cause delays. Despite the understandable objections I do feel this process has been valuable in not only showing a form of dialogue is possible but also in allowing both 'sides' to express and discuss their views in a rational manner.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#199

Post by Skep tickle »

http://i.imgur.com/331DXfY.png

Screenshot taken just now, 50 days after I submitted that post asking Setar to please clarify his "bomb" comment.

Planning to post it also in the Heathen Hub "Open Letter to Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland" thread, here:
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1712

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#200

Post by Skep tickle »

So it's possible this may end the dialogue process, or at least my involvement in it, as it seems unlikely Ms. Zvan will wish to continue with me on the project after this post I just made in the comment thread at Gurdur's "Open Letter" post at Heathen Hub:

http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?bt=9267
Skep tickle wrote:So I did peek a bit at the last of the multiple threads about me at FtB Butterflies and Wheels. Some of my posts do look egregiously snarky, so I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that often relevant context wasn't posted alongside.

For example, when I wrote something and added that people could reply (paraphrasing here) "using their 4th grade writing skills or whatever level writing skills" they had, that looks mean...but what's missing is that I was echoing an insult that had been directed at me not much earlier in the thread (about my writing skills being 4th grade level).

And, as has been mentioned before, so often only the more aggressive comments get through and are thus visible for posterity. The calm reasoned ones don't.

Here's an example alluded to up-thread of a post of mine not being allowed through moderation. At Stephanie Zvan's Almost Diamonds on April 12th, in a thread about the dialogue project hosted and coordinated by Michael Nugent, of which Stephanie Zvan is or was one of the participants and I am or was one of the moderators, Setar here wrote (links removed here):
Setar wrote:So when do we get to point out that their ideology and tactics mirror those of libertarian “gun rights” advocates and anti-choice zealots? When do we get to note that Melissa Harris-Perry received similar treatment from the Right for simple comments about changing how we view kids, as Rebecca Watson did for her comments about changing how we view women? At what point can we say that dehumanizing ideologies lead to dehumanizing behaviour?

Do they have to actually bomb a conference or get on some major atheist podcasts and start saying the things they’ve been documented as saying already? When do we call this waddling, quacking ball of feathers a fucking duck?
About 12 hrs later, on April 13th, I posted a response which as of this moment, 50 days later, is still awaiting moderation. I took this screenshot on within the last hour (on June 2nd):
http://i.imgur.com/331DXfY.png

Well, Almost Diamonds is Stephanie Zvan's blog, and she has every right to allow through the posts she wants to and the posts she doesn't. She can use any criterion she chooses.

I don't know what lead her to decide not to post my submission below (which I'd copy/pasted elsewhere, suspecting it would not be let through; I can provide the link upon request, but understand Gurdur would prefer no links to the 'Pit).

The submitted-but-not-posted comment (from April 13th) looks pretty reasonable and polite to me, though it's possible I'm simply missing whatever about it someone might find unacceptable:
Do they have to actually bomb a conference...
Setar, could you clarify, were you using the verb "bomb" literally or figuratively?

"Actually" seems to imply actually "attacking with explosive devices", but perhaps that's not what you meant.

Thank you.
The juxtaposition of "bomb" and "get on some major atheist podcast" suggests possibly Setar didn't mean "bomb" literally - instead, perhaps, xe meant "fail spectacularly" or "show up en masse and disrupt completely". On the other hand, the adverb "actually" does suggest xe might have meant "bomb" literally. Since it's still in moderation, xe never saw it, so we'll never know, so let's move on.

Again: Stephanie Zvan (and any other blogger) has the power to decide what gets through to be posted and what doesn't, based on any criteria they like. But then that also makes her responsible to some extent for the comments that are posted there.

Given that, IMO it's troubling to have someone who's relatively prominent in the A/S community, including speaking at A/S conferences, allowing the suggestion to sit on her blog that the "other side" (of which I'm one) might be so similar to "anti-choice zealots" and have "dehumanizing ideology" which could soon become "dehumanizing behaviour" such as "actually bomb[ing] a conference.". And not only letting it sit on her blog as if it were a reasonable comment, but also without letting through a pretty basic request for clarification.

If the "other side" is effectively demonized and marginalized, they (we) might be less likely to attend said conferences - and they (we) will be less likely to be invited as speakers. And the apparent facilitation of that demonization by someone who is, or some people who are, also frequently conference speakers concerns me - whether or not it's done intentionally or simply all a part of a big misunderstanding.

Finally, allowing Setar's "actually bomb a conference" comment and others like it to sit in view, unexamined (even when an opportunity arose), may baselessly fuel the concern some people have apparently been feeling about their safety at A/S conferences, and IMO is also fairly irresponsible behavior from a leader and frequent conference speaker.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#201

Post by Skep tickle »

Screenshot of Setar's "actually bomb" comment, in case it should accidentally disappear from Almost Diamonds.

Xir comment:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-226267

Link to full image: http://i.imgur.com/OKJ5Ov7.png

I have not figured out why my images are so large; it's annoying, and as in this one the right side gets cut off; tips appreciated:
http://i.imgur.com/OKJ5Ov7.png

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#202

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Skep tickle wrote:Screenshot of Setar's "actually bomb" comment, in case it should accidentally disappear from Almost Diamonds.

Xir comment:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-226267

Link to full image: http://i.imgur.com/OKJ5Ov7.png

I have not figured out why my images are so large; it's annoying, and as in this one the right side gets cut off; tips appreciated:
http://i.imgur.com/OKJ5Ov7.png
It's something to do with the maximum width setup for the slymepit forum.
Save images with a width of less than 620 pixels and you won't have this problem.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#203

Post by Skep tickle »

Thanks.

Say the word if you have any comments on my actual post, too. I'm a little nervous about it.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#204

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Skep tickle wrote:Thanks.

Say the word if you have any comments on my actual post, too. I'm a little nervous about it.
That post by you is entirely vanilla. There's nothing snarky or sarcastic, or even unreasonable about it.
I can't see any neutral party reacting in any other manner than being shocked by Svan's action in this instance.

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#205

Post by Metalogic42 »

Skep tickle wrote:Thanks.

Say the word if you have any comments on my actual post, too. I'm a little nervous about it.
All your posts over there have been excellent, and the one on Zvan and Setar is especially important. The same criticism should often be leveled at Batshit Benson, too. She deleted my "here's why Mark Thomas can't be skep tickle" post, yet let "scared of the truth, Ophelia?" through; not to mention Pteryxx's "skep tickle is like Ted Bundy" post.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#206

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Skep tickle wrote:Screenshot of Setar's "actually bomb" comment, in case it should accidentally disappear from Almost Diamonds.

Xir comment:
http://i.imgur.com/OKJ5Ov7.png

Slightly o/t -- some observations on Setar's comment, which I've just read in full for the first time:

1) Melissa Harris-Perry (form. Lacewell) is a professor at Tulane, published author of several books, and host of her own show on MSNBC. Rebecca Watson posts amateur videos on Youtube and occasionally gets invited to give amateurish talks at skeptic conferences which, though they might seem big-time to the attendees, are small ponds in the grand scheme of things. Yet Setar the elf-sheriff sees them as peers. Ze really ought to venture beyond zir magical woods once in a while to get zome perspective;

2) Harris-Perry is not "[simply] changing how we view kids", she's advocating more funding of public education because, as she sees it, all children are partly society's responsibility. That's a socio-political position, one of several Harris-Perry forcefully expresses. Conservatives will naturally disagree, and forcefully express how they're just fine with their present view of kids, thank you very much. That's not "dehumanizing"; it's how debate in a free society works;

3) Watson's attention-seeking antics and slacker-science drivel do not even rate as socio-political positions. They might have worked for her in junior high, but they will not get her tenure or a network TV show;

4) Setar's self-appointment as head of the PC posse is part & parcel with the insidious fascism of not only the A-plussers, but also much of the progressive Left in America. Not only are certain views deemed wrong -- they are declared heresies, forbidden even to be held much less expressed; those who do are evil and must be silenced. Call it manichaean, call it bolshevist, call it the Spanish Fucking Inquisition, but it emulates religious dogma in all but belief in the divine.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#207

Post by Skep tickle »

Can you link me to " Ted Bundy" and "scared yet" posts? (Unless someone here is already posting these examples in the Open Letter thread. Thanks.

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#208

Post by Metalogic42 »

Skep tickle wrote:Can you link me to " Ted Bundy" and "scared yet" posts? (Unless someone here is already posting these examples in the Open Letter thread. Thanks.
Ted Bundy: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-557499

Scared of the truth (I assume this is what you meant): http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-557812 // Her response: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-557827

Freezepage: http://www.freezepage.com/1370212532JZCRNKRPCE

Linked comments are 7, 57, and 61.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#209

Post by Skep tickle »

Thanks - Bundy comment offered as a consideration, no direct statement.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#210

Post by Skep tickle »

Putting up another (long) comment in the Open Letter thread:
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?bt=9271
Ariel, I understand; hope you're enjoying your weekend!

I have to focus on work for the next couple days but will peek in to see if you've had a chance to respond.

Unless you find that my wall o' text above brings up so many areas for clarification or of disagreement that your plate o' response is full, I'd be really interested in your comment on this blog post by Stephanie Zvan: The Ethics of Unmasking

I think it's quite relevant to doxxing, to abuse/harassment, and to snark or rudeness vs actual harm or illegal activity. I'm really glad she posted it.

Ms Zvan focuses on the situation of a person, presumably including (if not limited to) bloggers, who feels subjected to abuse by a person posting pseudonymously. She argues that the recipient of abuse has an obligation to decide whether the behavior crosses a threshold to abuse, and that it's unethical to require the recipient to protect the abuser from exposure of their personal information.

She says, "The abused don’t ask for abuse" and that "Tying social consequences to social behavior...is how we function together."

She does not mention the power differential, in which the blogger can simply not let through moderation the posts of the person who is felt to be abusive, or might (depending on the setup of the blog) route the person's posts automatically to a spam folder, or block the person from posting all together (under that account or name/email combination, anyway).

I don't see how the situation might not apply in the other direction, in which a person trying to participate in an apparently open blog or forum has the unpleasant experience of being "piled on" by regular commenters. Perhaps the person is not currently or probably never will be a good fit for those already there; perhaps they're simply new & don't know the local culture & inadvertently say the wrong thing, or they have not read and agreed with all of the "101" topics before posting, or perhaps (even unintentionally) they use sexist or ableist language. Perhaps, even, it's a group member or ally who disagrees on the in-group's interpretation of a recent event at a conference, based on her own experiences as a conference organizer. (Most of the people who attacked the woman in this example were, as is commonly the case, posting under pseudonyms).

If "abuse" could go the other way - directed by regular commenters and/or blogger onto individuals participating at the site - the ramifications would be significant for Ms Zvan's proposal that "unmasking" of abusers be an option.

It would mean that regular commenters anywhere, including but not limited to regular commenters at Freethought Blogs and Atheism Plus forum, who "abuse" others could potentially be considered not only "fair game" but in fact appropriate candidates for said "unmasking" (aka doxxing).

Of course, I doubt Ms Zvan's intent was to cast the net so widely. But as she so eloquently said, "the abused don’t ask for abuse" and "tying social consequences to social behavior...is how we function together."

In the "reverse situation" I brought up, the blogger's powers of moderation (and persuasion and example) would be the first line of defense against such abuse, with potential release of the personal information of the blogger's regular commenters who have been behaving abusively as a subsequent step that for consistency's sake, we should ask the community to consider if Ms Zvan's proposal is considered.

The other key consideration is: what is "abuse"?

Besides lawbreaking or risk of physical violence, what words or behavior qualify?

Does the definition of "abuse" depend on the reaction of the person being "targeted"?

Does it depend on the intent of the person causing the discomfort?

Where's the line between vigorous (or sometimes even mild) disagreement or pursuit of meaningful discussion?

And who decides all of this?

Is behavior exempt from being considered abusive if it follows PZ Myers' The Desert Tortoises With Boltcutters Civility Pledge, or does that document only apply in society in general (somehow) but not online interactions? (Jump down to "flense" comment below to use if the pledge is not felt to be relevant here.)

If PZ's civility pledge might apply, how is that document interpreted, and who does the interpretation?

That pledge says, in part (with bolding changed from original by me, for emphasis):
I recognize that the very notion of “civility” is defined in large part by those in whose benefit the status quo is maintained. I further recognize that the structure of “civility” at least in part has been created with the express purpose of bolstering chronic injustices. ...

I pledge to remember that civility and compassion are not the same thing. ...

I pledge to remember that a fetishized civility is a field mark of insulation from suffering. ...

I pledge to keep a sense of perspective. Tossing basic civil rights under the bus in order to maintain a jury-rigged superficial peace in a single-issue movement is a bad bargain.

Rather than worry overmuch about civility, I pledge to be as kind as possible. And sometimes the kindest possible contribution to a discussion with someone acting in bad faith and harmfully is to tell them to go fuck themselves sideways.
If I think someone is acting in bad faith and harmfully, is it okay then for me to tell the person to "go fuck themselves sideways"? (Which I would never do; I repeat it here only for purposes of discussion.)

If you think someone is acting in bad faith and harmfully, is it okay then for you to tell the person to "go fuck themselves sideways"? (Again, for the purposes of discussion.)

If PZ or his regular commenters think someone is acting in bad faith and harmfully, is it okay then for him or them to tell the person to "go fuck themselves sideways"? Because they actually do that. Well, they've cut back since that meme was pointed out as being "bad form", or at least the rusty knife and the porcupine parts of the meme are now de trop. (And then there are the prior exhortations by one FtB regular for someone - a woman, as I recall - to "go die in a fire, I really mean it"; that person remains an apparently valued participant in FtB.)

As another piece of evidence that PZ wants his commenters to abuse (in my understanding of the word "abuse") some people who post on Pharyngula, there's this:
... Yeah, I hate that faux-Vulcan shit so many skeptics and atheists love to pull, but I’m not forbidding it — I encourage the commentariat here to instead draw their knives and flense it so thoroughly the dispassionate ass is feeling the pain in every nerve ending.

It’s a difference between this site and McEwan’s. McEwan would rather provide a sanctuary for the oppressed. I’m more interested in rhetorically arming and inflaming them.
So, would that type of posting behavior be considered "abuse"?

Should, then, pseudonymous regular "armed and inflamed" Pharyngulites who "flense" "faux-Vulcan" posters, be doxxed?

If not, why not?

Does their agreeing with PZ and/or doing it with PZ's encouragement change it from "abuse" to something acceptable for which any resemblance anyone might think exists to "abuse" can and should be ignored?

If you don't want to take this on, I'll understand. ;)

But I do think it's relevant and important to "the movement" to discuss openly among all interested parties. Thanks!

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#211

Post by Skep tickle »

FWIW, my comment from April 13, 2013, asking Setar to clarify the "bomb a conference" line is STILL in moderation at Almost Diamonds.

For me, this links to the placeholder where the comment would be, w/ the words "Your comment is awaiting moderation":
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-226405

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

#212

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

Skep tickle wrote:FWIW, my comment from April 13, 2013, asking Setar to clarify the "bomb a conference" line is STILL in moderation at Almost Diamonds.

For me, this links to the placeholder where the comment would be, w/ the words "Your comment is awaiting moderation":
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-226405
Clearly your comment wasn't moderate enough. In fact, it was so immoderate the process of moderating it is indecently long - which is, in itself immoderate, and so has to be moderated etc etc.

Nothing amiss there then. Pass the Victory Gin, would you?

Locked