Sexual harassment at TAM?! - Page 74

RemieV · 2nd July 2012, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Well, I guess we'll see.

One of her friends has threatened someone she doesn't like with physical violence, and she has the opportunity to say and do something about it.

So we'll see where she stands on the culture of violence against men.

I'm not optimistic.

As brodski said, there is an alternate explanation there of in-group; out-group. For instance, on this forum, we have several people defending Randi's partner, Jose, for identity theft - a crime I imagine we would condemn others for - just because it's Jose.

You are taking an extraordinarily narrow and difficult to understand view, and have yet to provide evidence of Skepchick condoning a violence culture toward men beyond the initial bias of Rebecca which she recognized and then said was unreasonable.

RemieV · 2nd July 2012, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

If Laden still speaks at the conference: Wouldn't this be embarrassingly hypocritical for any organization, let alone one promoting skepticism?

It would seem to marginalize all Skepchick has fought for here. Laden's letter (though imo it wasn't all that harsh) was (nonetheless) far worse than anything EG did, even if EG exuded creepy when he did it.

Laden's harassment was harsh enough to get him fired from a fairly prominent blogging site. In contrast, assume RW had complained to security about EG. I can't imagine they would have even questioned EG, let alone boot him from the conference. In fact, it's possible they might have laughed at her complaint after she left (whether right or wrong).

Two years (?) and millions of words (likely literally) spent on harassment, to the point where the skeptical community is at least somewhat torn and definitely obsessed with the issue.

Now we have the interesting scenario where the lady who initiated this (not downplaying the vehement response against her, but she did initiate this) must decide whether a known harasser speaks at her conference.

Allowing Laden to still speak would immediately repeal any credibility Skepchick has on the issue. So much so that whether she instigated this truly because she feared EG, or did it for self promotion, is now again in play.

I think it would be a serious blow for feminist skeptics. All jmo

bpesta, when will you get this? Nowhere did Rebecca claim that EG should have been booted, or that she would have lodged a formal complaint of any kind. EG was used as an example of something Rebecca personally didn't appreciate; not as a condemnation of all men, or even that man.

brodski · 2nd July 2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by RemieV

bpesta, when will you get this? Nowhere did Rebecca claim that EG should have been booted, or that she would have lodged a formal complaint of any kind. EG was used as an example of something Rebecca personally didn't appreciate; not as a condemnation of all men, or even that man.

The problem is that so much has been written about this, by people far less reasonable than Rebbecca (on both sides) that it has been very easy for some people to get a false impression about what Rebbecca's position is.

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by RemieV

I agree with brodski that he probably won't be asked to step down - and that it is for the reason he suggested, which has nothing to do with perpetuating violence against men. Please read his comment and then give a quote wherein Skepchick has condoned violence against men. I, too, will eat my words if you are able to do so.

They can't have their cake and eat it too (even if they bake two cakes here).

If laden speaks, Tam should amend its policy to exempt in-group harassers, and harassment where the victim is not female.

Show me where Laden's letter does not violate any of the above cited harassment policies? It's a different forum than a conference, but Laden is now clearly a known harasser.

But, the victim was not a lady...

In terms of credibility, Skepchick has no choice but to boot him. Letting him speak is pure disparate treatment sexism.

RemieV · 2nd July 2012, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

They can't have their cake and eat it too (even if they bake two cakes here).

If laden speaks, Tam should amend its policy to exempt in-group harassers, and harassment where the victim is not female.

Show me where Laden's letter does not violate any of the above cited harassment policies? It's a different forum than a conference, but Laden is now clearly a known harasser.

But, the victim was not a lady...

In terms of credibility, Skepchick has no choice but to boot him. Letting him speak is pure disparate treatment sexism.

If you take a look at TAM's current policy, it says nothing about speakers. Therefore, in-group IS exempt. In fact, many of the complaints that DJ referred to were about speakers.

brodski · 2nd July 2012, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

If Laden still speaks at the conference: Wouldn't this be embarrassingly hypocritical for any organization, let alone one promoting skepticism?

It would seem to marginalize all Skepchick has fought for here. Laden's letter (though imo it wasn't all that harsh) was (nonetheless) far worse than anything EG did, even if EG exuded creepy when he did it.

Liftbloke isn't the case this shoudl be compared against, it would be much better to compare it with the guy who sent a threatening letter to Ophelia Henson, or The FTB commenter who, during an argument, said he didn't want to kick all women in the ****, just the women on FTB (and by association DJ who was accused of supporting him). Blog after blog was posted about that.

16.5 · 2nd July 2012, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

If Laden still speaks at the conference: Wouldn't this be embarrassingly hypocritical for any organization, let alone one promoting skepticism?

Hell, you'd think that they would be embarrassed to host a self-absorbed jack-a-ninny who would write something like this:

"Don’t ever, ever find yourself in my presence or think you deserve to breath the air that I, and Jen, and Stephanie, and Gret and Ophelia and PZ and the rest of us breath, because you do not. If you do make that apology it better be from laying face down in the mud."

That is junior high level rhetoric.

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by RemieV

bpesta, when will you get this? Nowhere did Rebecca claim that EG should have been booted, or that she would have lodged a formal complaint of any kind. EG was used as an example of something Rebecca personally didn't appreciate; not as a condemnation of all men, or even that man.

Ok, I now appreciate her level of sensitivity to issues regarding harassment and potential harassment.

The facts now go from "I didn't appreciate EG's behavior, though he didn't harass me" to "Laden is a known harasser". Given how sensitive RW is to these issues, whether Laden should speak at her conference is a no brainer, if indeed her motive for this mess was feminist / rational (letting Laden speaks makes the last two words the oxymoron).

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by RemieV

If you take a look at TAM's current policy, it says nothing about speakers. Therefore, in-group IS exempt. In fact, many of the complaints that DJ referred to were about speakers.

Lol.

TAM has no obligation to protect you poor ladies against known harassers as long as those harassers have a microphone?

This is something you really want to defend?

The Central Scrutinizer · 2nd July 2012, 01:36 PM

Someone should send her an email or post on Facebook about this.

brodski · 2nd July 2012, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Lol.

TAM has no obligation to protect you poor ladies against known harassers as long as those harassers have a microphone?

This is something you really want to defend?

I don't think RemieV is defending the current policy at all. That's kind of the point of a lot of this thread.

The Central Scrutinizer · 2nd July 2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Lol.

TAM has no obligation to protect you poor ladies against known harassers as long as those harassers have a microphone?

This is something you really want to defend?

Hey baby, wanna see my Telefunken U47???

RandFan · 2nd July 2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

The problem is that so much has been written about this, by people far less reasonable than Rebbecca (on both sides) that it has been very easy for some people to get a false impression about what Rebbecca's position is.

I'm not trying to stir the pot but I honestly wonder if she is any kind of standard for reason. Don't get me wrong, as a long time fan of SGU and the fact I was here close to the beginning with RW and have some history, I know there is no question of her capacity for reason. But given the patriarchy stuff and the blow up doll straw man stuff, not sure where to even list her on a scale that involves reason. I would say she's somewhat like The Little Girl With A Curl. Then again many if not perhaps most of us are. It's just not a good trait for representative voices in the community.

qayak · 2nd July 2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by RemieV

I believe that she's pointing out a squick factor which makes her initial reaction to two similar things vastly different, and that in the quote I just gave which she said summarized her feelings well, she points out that she is aware that the two different types of violence are equally bad.

Agreed. The issue is that it wasn't until the violence against women caused her to become squeamish that she re-examined her position on violence against men. In fact, up until that point she found it funny and was going to re-post the video. To quote her:

Quote:

... I had a long internal debate about it and never posted it. The reason? Because a male fake-kicking a male ******* in the crotch made me laugh, but a male repeatedly fake-kicking a female ******* in the crotch and then tazing her made me wince and think about glorifying violence toward women.

Now, look at what she says. It only made her think about violence against "women" not about violence in general and certainly not about violence against men.

She goes on to say:

Quote:

So, yeah. A part of me feels bad about laughing at any kind of violence...

But the only video she had an issue re-posting was the one with violence against women. The other two depicting violence against men were "over the top enough" or she "found it funny" so they were okay to re-post.

What is it about fake violence against women that looks more real to her? Or maybe what she is saying is that she can't actually "see" violence against men being as being "real."

brodski · 2nd July 2012, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm not trying to stir the pot but I honestly wonder if she is any kind of standard for reason. Don't get me wrong, as a long time fan of SGU and the fact I was here close to the beginning with RW and have some history, I know there is no question of her capacity for reason. But given the patriarchy stuff and the blow up doll straw man stuff, not sure where to even list her on a scale that involves reason. I would say she's somewhat like The Little Girl With A Curl. Then again many if not perhaps most of us are. It's just not a good trait for representative voices in the community.

however reasonable or unreasonable you think she is, there have still been people far less reasonable than her who have spewed forth on this for blog after tedious blog.

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

I don't think RemieV is defending the current policy at all. That's kind of the point of a lot of this thread.

Skepchick rationalizing Laden being allowed to speak with this argument (if that's what RV intended) is absurd to me. If that's not what RV intended, I apologize.

Even if prior speakers at prior conferences were pervs, yet allowed to speak, then -- even more so-- Skepchick is in a unique position to set policy and precedent consistent with safe spaces and a pro-feminist (nay, humanist) agenda. Not doing so results in an implosion (again imo).

What if Laden wrote that to a lady?!

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Hey baby, wanna see my Telefunken U47???

Wow, even courteous enough to cup the base. Is it to late to register?!

RemieV · 2nd July 2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Skepchick rationalizing Laden being allowed to speak with this argument (if that's what RV intended) is absurd to me. If that's not what RV intended, I apologize.

Even if prior speakers at prior conferences were pervs, yet allowed to speak, then -- even more so-- Skepchick is in a unique position to set policy and precedent consistent with safe spaces and a pro-feminist (nay, humanist) agenda. Not doing so results in an implosion (again imo).

What if Laden wrote that to a lady?!

bpesta, I don't even LIKE SKEPCHICK. Gah! It's not me who is on their side, I'm just continually being PUT on that side throughout the course of this thread. If you think that them having Laden speak will be bad, then tell them that. If you think it's hypocritical, tell them that. Perhaps they haven't examined their position critically. Or, perhaps they'll default to the "you can't be sexist toward men" position. I have no idea.

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by RemieV

bpesta, I don't even LIKE SKEPCHICK. Gah! It's not me who is on their side, I'm just continually being PUT on that side throughout the course of this thread. If you think that them having Laden speak will be bad, then tell them that. If you think it's hypocritical, tell them that. Perhaps they haven't examined their position critically. Or, perhaps they'll default to the "you can't be sexist toward men" position. I have no idea.

I apologize; I have consistently done that to you. Getting better though, as I changed a hypothetical in a reply to you above from "you" to "them".

RandFan · 2nd July 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

however reasonable or unreasonable you think she is, there have still been people far less reasonable than her who have spewed forth on this for blog after tedious blog.

I don't know. I really don't. I've read some god awful crap that made me want to break things. I Just don't know. I see a slash and burn mentality and so much self righteous vitriol to wonder what's the point? You want me to say RW is somehow better than some? I think statistics alone would bear that out. If that's important to you, sure. But isn't she a leader of some sort? Couldn't she extend a hand? Couldn't she try to find common ground? What about Gretta Christina, PZ Myers or Thunderf00t? I realize an appeal of "can't we all get along" isn't going to work. But how about someone admitting what Jeffery Haidt wrote in his book Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided, that none of us are purely rational agents and we are all wrong to some degree about most things.

A little humility would be nice. But, hey, we are the righteous ones. To quote PZ Myers, "suck it".

See Sig File.

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 02:18 PM

I'm torn / any advice here?

Money is tight but I still hope to vacation this year with my impressionable son. We considered Skepchick, but now we hear this brutish, Laden guy will be speaking there. He is a known harasser (got fired for it, even!), and I saw his comments cited above-- seems like he may actually have committed a criminal offense with his direct threats of violence.

His victim was a burly soldier too. We are just normal males and have no training in self defense.

It's unlikely Laden will attack us, but I figure my money is valuable and I can't justify spending it on a non-safe space. It's not a place I'd let my son wander around while I'm at the bar anyway.

Should I go to TAM instead? I hear their new anti-harassment policy actually covers males too?

shuttlt · 2nd July 2012, 02:25 PM

I've been idly thinking about the game theory elements to this. It's surely to both groups (though arguably not all members) advantage to stop picking away at all these open wounds, climb down and reach some kind of accommodation. But instead both groups have been harmed and we're all still picking away at it.

ConspiRaider · 2nd July 2012, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I'm torn / any advice here?

Money is tight but I still hope to vacation this year with my impressionable son. We considered Skepchick, but now we hear this brutish, Laden guy will be speaking there. He is a known harasser (got fired for it, even!), and I saw his comments cited above-- seems like he may actually have committed a criminal offense with his direct threats of violence.

His victim was a burly soldier too. We are just normal males and have no training in self defense.

It's unlikely Laden will attack us, but I figure my money is valuable and I can't justify spending it on a non-safe space. It's not a place I'd let my son wander around while I'm at the bar anyway.

Should I go to TAM instead? I hear their new anti-harassment policy actually covers males too?

If it doesn't - I sure as hell hope the author of same fancies knuckle sandwiches.

Cleon · 2nd July 2012, 02:30 PM

At this point I suspect that even if Laden were publicly dismissed and banned from anything to do SkepchickCon, the response wouldn't be "good show, Skepchicks" so much as speculation about Rebecca's ulterior motive, how she was forced into it, or various other reasons why she's still evil.

Call me cynical.

brodski · 2nd July 2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

At this point I suspect that even if Laden were publicly dismissed and banned from anything to do SkepchickCon, the response wouldn't be "good show, Skepchicks" so much as speculation about Rebecca's ulterior motive, how she was forced into it, or various other reasons why she's still evil.

Call me cynical.

Probably, in much the same way that no matter what DJ does at this point the JREF will still get hammered for its previous inaction. But that shouldn't stop either side (and however much I dislike it this has become about sides for many people) doing what is right to stop inappropriate behavior.

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

Probably, in much the same way that no matter what DJ does at this point the JREF will still get hammered for its previous inaction. But that shouldn't stop either side (and however much I dislike it this has become about sides for many people) doing what is right to stop inappropriate behavior.

Agreed!

I pasted my vacation request for advice post here to Skepchick, in the thread that announces their harassment policy. It's awaiting moderation...

Cleon · 2nd July 2012, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Agreed!

I pasted my vacation request for advice post here to Skepchick, in the thread that announces their harassment policy. It's awaiting moderation...

Because that's way more constructive than just posting (or even emailing) "Hey, I think Laden's threats and actions here were outrageous, and I feel that it would be appropriate for you to disinvite him from Skepchickcon."

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Because that's way more constructive than just posting (or even emailing) "Hey, I think Laden's threats and actions here were outrageous, and I feel that it would be appropriate for you to disinvite him from Skepchickcon."

Agreed, not at all constructive. Was not my motive.

Cleon · 2nd July 2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Agreed, not at all constructive. Was not my motive.

Which is exactly the problem. When that changes, then maybe we'll start to see some progress.

brodski · 2nd July 2012, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Which is exactly the problem. When that changes, then maybe we'll start to see some progress.

Well no, the world will always have *********.
Doing the right thing- and leading by example- shouldn't be dependent on it being what the ********* may want you to do (or say they want you to do).

Cleon · 2nd July 2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

Well no, the world will always have *********.
Doing the right thing- and leading by example- shouldn't be dependent on it being what the ********* may want you to do (or say they want you to do).

No idea what you're responding to here, but it's nothing I wrote.

The core of the problem is people, like bpesta, who have no interest in being constructive.

When that changes, maybe things will get done. That's what "constructive" means.

Checkmite · 2nd July 2012, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by remiev

i don't even like skepchick. Gah! It's not me who is on their side, i'm just continually being put on that side throughout the course of this thread.

But REBECCA WATSUuuurrrghh!!!!

RemieV · 2nd July 2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

But REBECCA WATSUuuurrrghh!!!!

I'm sorry, but who gives a flaming bag of dog poo about Rebecca Watson. She is not the voice of anything but her site.

*hugsies*

Wait, sorry,

*permission for hugsies?*

brodski · 2nd July 2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

No idea what you're responding to here, but it's nothing I wrote.

The core of the problem is people, like bpesta, who have no interest in being constructive.

When that changes, maybe things will get done. That's what "constructive" means.

It is precisely what you wrote, and repeated, that I'm responding to. If organizations, like JREF and Skepchick, have the power to make changes for the good then they should do so regardless of whether some people are not being constructive or are actively trying to be destructive.

At this point removing a special guest who has sent threats of violence should be a no-brainer, and should be a positive move for showing what anti harassment policies are about (and that no-one is exempt). The fact that skepchick will be hammered either way by people who have no interest in being constructive shouldn't matter. Blaming people who don't want to be constructive for things not getting done is pointless, when their lack of constructive input in no way makes doing the right thing any harder.

Cleon · 2nd July 2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

It is precisely what you wrote, and repeated, that I'm responding to. If organizations, like JREF and Skepchick, have the power to make changes for the good then they should do so regardless of whether some people are not being constructive or are actively trying to be destructive.

At this point removing a special guest who has sent threats of violence should be a no-brainer, and should be a positive move for showing what anti harassment policies are about (and that no-one is exempt). The fact that skepchick will be hammered either way by people who have no interest in being constructive shouldn't matter. Blaming people who don't want to be constructive for things not getting done is pointless, when their lack of constructive input in no way makes doing the right thing any harder.

That's just making excuses for trolls and double standards.

Nothing is going to change for the better unless people want to change things for the better. Right now, nobody seems to want to do that. So obviously, it ain't happening.

I don't see much to disagree with, there.

brodski · 2nd July 2012, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

That's just making excuses for trolls and double standards.

I'm not making any excuses for anyone. I'm saying that trolls opinions should be irrelevant. Not doing the right thing cos then the trolls win, or not doing the right thing until the trolls stop being trolls is a really bad idea.

The trolls aren't helping, of course, but they shouldn't hinder either.

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

No idea what you're responding to here, but it's nothing I wrote.

The core of the problem is people, like bpesta, who have no interest in being constructive.

When that changes, maybe things will get done. That's what "constructive" means.

The interest behind my one, specific post was not constructive...that's all I said. I can't be the poster boy for why people are still in bitter disagreement here.

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

That's just making excuses for trolls and double standards.

Nothing is going to change for the better unless people want to change things for the better. Right now, nobody seems to want to do that. So obviously, it ain't happening.

I don't see much to disagree with, there.

Aren't you assuming we all have equal power to implement change? I don't control the speakers list here or there.

Cleon · 2nd July 2012, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Aren't you assuming we all have equal power to implement change? I don't control the speakers list here or there.

The question is, do you actually want to change who's speaking, or do you just want to be snide? Are you willing to engage, or do you just want to attack?

bpesta22 · 2nd July 2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

That's just making excuses for trolls and double standards.

Nothing is going to change for the better unless people want to change things for the better. Right now, nobody seems to want to do that. So obviously, it ain't happening.

I don't see much to disagree with, there.

Oh, and I don't think I'm a troll. I think you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. That's very constructive.

2nd July 2012, 01:15 PM	#2921
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,215	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Well, I guess we'll see. One of her friends has threatened someone she doesn't like with physical violence, and she has the opportunity to say and do something about it. So we'll see where she stands on the culture of violence against men. I'm not optimistic. As brodski said, there is an alternate explanation there of in-group; out-group. For instance, on this forum, we have several people defending Randi's partner, Jose, for identity theft - a crime I imagine we would condemn others for - just because it's Jose. You are taking an extraordinarily narrow and difficult to understand view, and have yet to provide evidence of Skepchick condoning a violence culture toward men beyond the initial bias of Rebecca which she recognized and then said was unreasonable.
	__________________ Visit me at Unbridled Chaos. For funsies. There's Watson pix involved. Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

2nd July 2012, 01:17 PM	#2922
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,215	Originally Posted by bpesta22 If Laden still speaks at the conference: Wouldn't this be embarrassingly hypocritical for any organization, let alone one promoting skepticism? It would seem to marginalize all Skepchick has fought for here. Laden's letter (though imo it wasn't all that harsh) was (nonetheless) far worse than anything EG did, even if EG exuded creepy when he did it. Laden's harassment was harsh enough to get him fired from a fairly prominent blogging site. In contrast, assume RW had complained to security about EG. I can't imagine they would have even questioned EG, let alone boot him from the conference. In fact, it's possible they might have laughed at her complaint after she left (whether right or wrong). Two years (?) and millions of words (likely literally) spent on harassment, to the point where the skeptical community is at least somewhat torn and definitely obsessed with the issue. Now we have the interesting scenario where the lady who initiated this (not downplaying the vehement response against her, but she did initiate this) must decide whether a known harasser speaks at her conference. Allowing Laden to still speak would immediately repeal any credibility Skepchick has on the issue. So much so that whether she instigated this truly because she feared EG, or did it for self promotion, is now again in play. I think it would be a serious blow for feminist skeptics. All jmo bpesta, when will you get this? Nowhere did Rebecca claim that EG should have been booted, or that she would have lodged a formal complaint of any kind. EG was used as an example of something Rebecca personally didn't appreciate; not as a condemnation of all men, or even that man.
	__________________ Visit me at Unbridled Chaos. For funsies. There's Watson pix involved. Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

2nd July 2012, 01:21 PM	#2923
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066	Originally Posted by RemieV bpesta, when will you get this? Nowhere did Rebecca claim that EG should have been booted, or that she would have lodged a formal complaint of any kind. EG was used as an example of something Rebecca personally didn't appreciate; not as a condemnation of all men, or even that man. The problem is that so much has been written about this, by people far less reasonable than Rebbecca (on both sides) that it has been very easy for some people to get a false impression about what Rebbecca's position is.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066

2nd July 2012, 01:26 PM	#2924
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by RemieV I agree with brodski that he probably won't be asked to step down - and that it is for the reason he suggested, which has nothing to do with perpetuating violence against men. Please read his comment and then give a quote wherein Skepchick has condoned violence against men. I, too, will eat my words if you are able to do so. They can't have their cake and eat it too (even if they bake two cakes here). If laden speaks, Tam should amend its policy to exempt in-group harassers, and harassment where the victim is not female. Show me where Laden's letter does not violate any of the above cited harassment policies? It's a different forum than a conference, but Laden is now clearly a known harasser. But, the victim was not a lady... In terms of credibility, Skepchick has no choice but to boot him. Letting him speak is pure disparate treatment sexism.
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

2nd July 2012, 01:30 PM	#2925
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,215	Originally Posted by bpesta22 They can't have their cake and eat it too (even if they bake two cakes here). If laden speaks, Tam should amend its policy to exempt in-group harassers, and harassment where the victim is not female. Show me where Laden's letter does not violate any of the above cited harassment policies? It's a different forum than a conference, but Laden is now clearly a known harasser. But, the victim was not a lady... In terms of credibility, Skepchick has no choice but to boot him. Letting him speak is pure disparate treatment sexism. If you take a look at TAM's current policy, it says nothing about speakers. Therefore, in-group IS exempt. In fact, many of the complaints that DJ referred to were about speakers.
	__________________ Visit me at Unbridled Chaos. For funsies. There's Watson pix involved. Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

2nd July 2012, 01:32 PM	#2926
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066	Originally Posted by bpesta22 If Laden still speaks at the conference: Wouldn't this be embarrassingly hypocritical for any organization, let alone one promoting skepticism? It would seem to marginalize all Skepchick has fought for here. Laden's letter (though imo it wasn't all that harsh) was (nonetheless) far worse than anything EG did, even if EG exuded creepy when he did it. Liftbloke isn't the case this shoudl be compared against, it would be much better to compare it with the guy who sent a threatening letter to Ophelia Henson, or The FTB commenter who, during an argument, said he didn't want to kick all women in the ****, just the women on FTB (and by association DJ who was accused of supporting him). Blog after blog was posted about that.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066

2nd July 2012, 01:33 PM	#2927
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602	Originally Posted by bpesta22 If Laden still speaks at the conference: Wouldn't this be embarrassingly hypocritical for any organization, let alone one promoting skepticism? Hell, you'd think that they would be embarrassed to host a self-absorbed jack-a-ninny who would write something like this: "Don’t ever, ever find yourself in my presence or think you deserve to breath the air that I, and Jen, and Stephanie, and Gret and Ophelia and PZ and the rest of us breath, because you do not. If you do make that apology it better be from laying face down in the mud." That is junior high level rhetoric.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602

2nd July 2012, 01:34 PM	#2928
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by RemieV bpesta, when will you get this? Nowhere did Rebecca claim that EG should have been booted, or that she would have lodged a formal complaint of any kind. EG was used as an example of something Rebecca personally didn't appreciate; not as a condemnation of all men, or even that man. Ok, I now appreciate her level of sensitivity to issues regarding harassment and potential harassment. The facts now go from "I didn't appreciate EG's behavior, though he didn't harass me" to "Laden is a known harasser". Given how sensitive RW is to these issues, whether Laden should speak at her conference is a no brainer, if indeed her motive for this mess was feminist / rational (letting Laden speaks makes the last two words the oxymoron).
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp. Last edited by bpesta22; 2nd July 2012 at 01:37 PM.

2nd July 2012, 01:36 PM	#2929
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by RemieV If you take a look at TAM's current policy, it says nothing about speakers. Therefore, in-group IS exempt. In fact, many of the complaints that DJ referred to were about speakers. Lol. TAM has no obligation to protect you poor ladies against known harassers as long as those harassers have a microphone? This is something you really want to defend?
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

2nd July 2012, 01:36 PM	#2930
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,264	Someone should send her an email or post on Facebook about this.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

2nd July 2012, 01:38 PM	#2931
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066	Originally Posted by bpesta22 Lol. TAM has no obligation to protect you poor ladies against known harassers as long as those harassers have a microphone? This is something you really want to defend? I don't think RemieV is defending the current policy at all. That's kind of the point of a lot of this thread.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066

2nd July 2012, 01:42 PM	#2933
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,051	Originally Posted by brodski The problem is that so much has been written about this, by people far less reasonable than Rebbecca (on both sides) that it has been very easy for some people to get a false impression about what Rebbecca's position is. I'm not trying to stir the pot but I honestly wonder if she is any kind of standard for reason. Don't get me wrong, as a long time fan of SGU and the fact I was here close to the beginning with RW and have some history, I know there is no question of her capacity for reason. But given the patriarchy stuff and the blow up doll straw man stuff, not sure where to even list her on a scale that involves reason. I would say she's somewhat like The Little Girl With A Curl. Then again many if not perhaps most of us are. It's just not a good trait for representative voices in the community.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd July 2012, 01:42 PM	#2934
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by RemieV I believe that she's pointing out a squick factor which makes her initial reaction to two similar things vastly different, and that in the quote I just gave which she said summarized her feelings well, she points out that she is aware that the two different types of violence are equally bad. Agreed. The issue is that it wasn't until the violence against women caused her to become squeamish that she re-examined her position on violence against men. In fact, up until that point she found it funny and was going to re-post the video. To quote her: Quote: ... I had a long internal debate about it and never posted it. The reason? Because a male fake-kicking a male ***** in the crotch made me laugh, but a male repeatedly fake-kicking a female ***** in the crotch and then tazing her made me wince and think about glorifying violence toward women. Now, look at what she says. It only made her think about violence against "women" not about violence in general and certainly not about violence against men. She goes on to say: Quote: So, yeah. A part of me feels bad about laughing at any kind of violence... But the only video she had an issue re-posting was the one with violence against women. The other two depicting violence against men were "over the top enough" or she "found it funny" so they were okay to re-post. What is it about fake violence against women that looks more real to her? Or maybe what she is saying is that she can't actually "see" violence against men being as being "real."
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

2nd July 2012, 01:45 PM	#2935
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm not trying to stir the pot but I honestly wonder if she is any kind of standard for reason. Don't get me wrong, as a long time fan of SGU and the fact I was here close to the beginning with RW and have some history, I know there is no question of her capacity for reason. But given the patriarchy stuff and the blow up doll straw man stuff, not sure where to even list her on a scale that involves reason. I would say she's somewhat like The Little Girl With A Curl. Then again many if not perhaps most of us are. It's just not a good trait for representative voices in the community. however reasonable or unreasonable you think she is, there have still been people far less reasonable than her who have spewed forth on this for blog after tedious blog.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066

2nd July 2012, 01:47 PM	#2936
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by brodski I don't think RemieV is defending the current policy at all. That's kind of the point of a lot of this thread. Skepchick rationalizing Laden being allowed to speak with this argument (if that's what RV intended) is absurd to me. If that's not what RV intended, I apologize. Even if prior speakers at prior conferences were pervs, yet allowed to speak, then -- even more so-- Skepchick is in a unique position to set policy and precedent consistent with safe spaces and a pro-feminist (nay, humanist) agenda. Not doing so results in an implosion (again imo). What if Laden wrote that to a lady?!
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

2nd July 2012, 01:48 PM	#2937
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Hey baby, wanna see my Telefunken U47??? Wow, even courteous enough to cup the base. Is it to late to register?!
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

2nd July 2012, 01:53 PM	#2938
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,215	Originally Posted by bpesta22 Skepchick rationalizing Laden being allowed to speak with this argument (if that's what RV intended) is absurd to me. If that's not what RV intended, I apologize. Even if prior speakers at prior conferences were pervs, yet allowed to speak, then -- even more so-- Skepchick is in a unique position to set policy and precedent consistent with safe spaces and a pro-feminist (nay, humanist) agenda. Not doing so results in an implosion (again imo). What if Laden wrote that to a lady?! bpesta, I don't even LIKE SKEPCHICK. Gah! It's not me who is on their side, I'm just continually being PUT on that side throughout the course of this thread. If you think that them having Laden speak will be bad, then tell them that. If you think it's hypocritical, tell them that. Perhaps they haven't examined their position critically. Or, perhaps they'll default to the "you can't be sexist toward men" position. I have no idea.
	__________________ Visit me at Unbridled Chaos. For funsies. There's Watson pix involved. Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

2nd July 2012, 02:04 PM	#2939
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by RemieV bpesta, I don't even LIKE SKEPCHICK. Gah! It's not me who is on their side, I'm just continually being PUT on that side throughout the course of this thread. If you think that them having Laden speak will be bad, then tell them that. If you think it's hypocritical, tell them that. Perhaps they haven't examined their position critically. Or, perhaps they'll default to the "you can't be sexist toward men" position. I have no idea. I apologize; I have consistently done that to you. Getting better though, as I changed a hypothetical in a reply to you above from "you" to "them".
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

2nd July 2012, 02:14 PM	#2940
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,051	Originally Posted by brodski however reasonable or unreasonable you think she is, there have still been people far less reasonable than her who have spewed forth on this for blog after tedious blog. I don't know. I really don't. I've read some god awful crap that made me want to break things. I Just don't know. I see a slash and burn mentality and so much self righteous vitriol to wonder what's the point? You want me to say RW is somehow better than some? I think statistics alone would bear that out. If that's important to you, sure. But isn't she a leader of some sort? Couldn't she extend a hand? Couldn't she try to find common ground? What about Gretta Christina, PZ Myers or Thunderf00t? I realize an appeal of "can't we all get along" isn't going to work. But how about someone admitting what Jeffery Haidt wrote in his book Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided, that none of us are purely rational agents and we are all wrong to some degree about most things. A little humility would be nice. But, hey, we are the righteous ones. To quote PZ Myers, "suck it". See Sig File.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd July 2012, 02:18 PM	#2941
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	I'm torn / any advice here? Money is tight but I still hope to vacation this year with my impressionable son. We considered Skepchick, but now we hear this brutish, Laden guy will be speaking there. He is a known harasser (got fired for it, even!), and I saw his comments cited above-- seems like he may actually have committed a criminal offense with his direct threats of violence. His victim was a burly soldier too. We are just normal males and have no training in self defense. It's unlikely Laden will attack us, but I figure my money is valuable and I can't justify spending it on a non-safe space. It's not a place I'd let my son wander around while I'm at the bar anyway. Should I go to TAM instead? I hear their new anti-harassment policy actually covers males too?
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

2nd July 2012, 02:25 PM	#2942
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	I've been idly thinking about the game theory elements to this. It's surely to both groups (though arguably not all members) advantage to stop picking away at all these open wounds, climb down and reach some kind of accommodation. But instead both groups have been harmed and we're all still picking away at it.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

2nd July 2012, 02:28 PM	#2943
ConspiRaider Writer of Nothingnesses Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 11,169	Originally Posted by bpesta22 I'm torn / any advice here? Money is tight but I still hope to vacation this year with my impressionable son. We considered Skepchick, but now we hear this brutish, Laden guy will be speaking there. He is a known harasser (got fired for it, even!), and I saw his comments cited above-- seems like he may actually have committed a criminal offense with his direct threats of violence. His victim was a burly soldier too. We are just normal males and have no training in self defense. It's unlikely Laden will attack us, but I figure my money is valuable and I can't justify spending it on a non-safe space. It's not a place I'd let my son wander around while I'm at the bar anyway. Should I go to TAM instead? I hear their new anti-harassment policy actually covers males too? If it doesn't - I sure as hell hope the author of same fancies knuckle sandwiches.

2nd July 2012, 02:30 PM	#2944
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,503	At this point I suspect that even if Laden were publicly dismissed and banned from anything to do SkepchickCon, the response wouldn't be "good show, Skepchicks" so much as speculation about Rebecca's ulterior motive, how she was forced into it, or various other reasons why she's still evil. Call me cynical.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

2nd July 2012, 02:34 PM	#2945
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066	Originally Posted by Cleon At this point I suspect that even if Laden were publicly dismissed and banned from anything to do SkepchickCon, the response wouldn't be "good show, Skepchicks" so much as speculation about Rebecca's ulterior motive, how she was forced into it, or various other reasons why she's still evil. Call me cynical. Probably, in much the same way that no matter what DJ does at this point the JREF will still get hammered for its previous inaction. But that shouldn't stop either side (and however much I dislike it this has become about sides for many people) doing what is right to stop inappropriate behavior.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066

2nd July 2012, 02:39 PM	#2946
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by brodski Probably, in much the same way that no matter what DJ does at this point the JREF will still get hammered for its previous inaction. But that shouldn't stop either side (and however much I dislike it this has become about sides for many people) doing what is right to stop inappropriate behavior. Agreed! I pasted my vacation request for advice post here to Skepchick, in the thread that announces their harassment policy. It's awaiting moderation...
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

2nd July 2012, 02:50 PM	#2947
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,503	Originally Posted by bpesta22 Agreed! I pasted my vacation request for advice post here to Skepchick, in the thread that announces their harassment policy. It's awaiting moderation... Because that's way more constructive than just posting (or even emailing) "Hey, I think Laden's threats and actions here were outrageous, and I feel that it would be appropriate for you to disinvite him from Skepchickcon."
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

2nd July 2012, 02:52 PM	#2948
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by Cleon Because that's way more constructive than just posting (or even emailing) "Hey, I think Laden's threats and actions here were outrageous, and I feel that it would be appropriate for you to disinvite him from Skepchickcon." Agreed, not at all constructive. Was not my motive.
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

2nd July 2012, 02:58 PM	#2949
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,503	Originally Posted by bpesta22 Agreed, not at all constructive. Was not my motive. Which is exactly the problem. When that changes, then maybe we'll start to see some progress.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

2nd July 2012, 03:05 PM	#2950
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066	Originally Posted by Cleon Which is exactly the problem. When that changes, then maybe we'll start to see some progress. Well no, the world will always have *******. Doing the right thing- and leading by example- shouldn't be dependent on it being what the ******* may want you to do (or say they want you to do).
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066

2nd July 2012, 03:11 PM	#2951
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,503	Originally Posted by brodski Well no, the world will always have *******. Doing the right thing- and leading by example- shouldn't be dependent on it being what the ******* may want you to do (or say they want you to do). No idea what you're responding to here, but it's nothing I wrote. The core of the problem is people, like bpesta, who have no interest in being constructive. When that changes, maybe things will get done. That's what "constructive" means.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

2nd July 2012, 03:13 PM	#2952
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,875	Originally Posted by remiev i don't even like skepchick. Gah! It's not me who is on their side, i'm just continually being put on that side throughout the course of this thread. But REBECCA WATSUuuurrrghh!!!!
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

2nd July 2012, 03:22 PM	#2953
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,215	Originally Posted by Checkmite But REBECCA WATSUuuurrrghh!!!! I'm sorry, but who gives a flaming bag of dog poo about Rebecca Watson. She is not the voice of anything but her site. hugsies Wait, sorry, permission for hugsies?
	__________________ Visit me at Unbridled Chaos. For funsies. There's Watson pix involved. Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

2nd July 2012, 03:29 PM	#2954
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066	Originally Posted by Cleon No idea what you're responding to here, but it's nothing I wrote. The core of the problem is people, like bpesta, who have no interest in being constructive. When that changes, maybe things will get done. That's what "constructive" means. It is precisely what you wrote, and repeated, that I'm responding to. If organizations, like JREF and Skepchick, have the power to make changes for the good then they should do so regardless of whether some people are not being constructive or are actively trying to be destructive. At this point removing a special guest who has sent threats of violence should be a no-brainer, and should be a positive move for showing what anti harassment policies are about (and that no-one is exempt). The fact that skepchick will be hammered either way by people who have no interest in being constructive shouldn't matter. Blaming people who don't want to be constructive for things not getting done is pointless, when their lack of constructive input in no way makes doing the right thing any harder.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066

2nd July 2012, 03:36 PM	#2955
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,503	Originally Posted by brodski It is precisely what you wrote, and repeated, that I'm responding to. If organizations, like JREF and Skepchick, have the power to make changes for the good then they should do so regardless of whether some people are not being constructive or are actively trying to be destructive. At this point removing a special guest who has sent threats of violence should be a no-brainer, and should be a positive move for showing what anti harassment policies are about (and that no-one is exempt). The fact that skepchick will be hammered either way by people who have no interest in being constructive shouldn't matter. Blaming people who don't want to be constructive for things not getting done is pointless, when their lack of constructive input in no way makes doing the right thing any harder. That's just making excuses for trolls and double standards. Nothing is going to change for the better unless people want to change things for the better. Right now, nobody seems to want to do that. So obviously, it ain't happening. I don't see much to disagree with, there.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich Last edited by Cleon; 2nd July 2012 at 03:38 PM.

2nd July 2012, 03:40 PM	#2956
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066	Originally Posted by Cleon That's just making excuses for trolls and double standards. I'm not making any excuses for anyone. I'm saying that trolls opinions should be irrelevant. Not doing the right thing cos then the trolls win, or not doing the right thing until the trolls stop being trolls is a really bad idea. The trolls aren't helping, of course, but they shouldn't hinder either.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066