Today I share my thoughts on what happened with Richard Dawkins and the NECSS. Find out where I come down on that whole mess! Heavy spoilers: I have criticism for all involved.
After that, I talk about the myth of the Bernie Bro. It’s an incredibly frustrating slander on the part of Hilary feminists.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 40:03 — 36.8MB)
Subscribe: RSS
You know, I really don’t think I’m misogynistic per se. I like Angela Merkel and I thought Margaret Thatcher was a disaster (if you don’t believe me ask some working-class Brits). It has nothing to do with either of them being women. It’s their politics and the actions they take/took. I had a fair amount of respect for Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi, though they both got more than a little dictatorial for my tastes. You might argue how well a woman, especially a particular one, might run a country, but one thing that’s not arguable is that it would be difficult to do a worse job than men have done in the past.
I like Bernie because his net worth is in the same range as my parent’s. He’s a regular old Joe. He’s not poor, but he’s certainly not rich by today’s standards. Bill and Hilary have managed to insert themselves into the oligarchy. Good for them! I wish I was worth $100 million. When Bernie retires, he will need the pension he gets from being a US senator (or the President of the United States) if he wants to maintain the same life style he had while he was working. Bill and Hilary could live in abject comfort for the rest of their lives if neither of them ever made another dime.
And there’s the rub, folks. This country, for many years now, has been run almost exclusively by people who don’t need to work. They already have more than enough. The country is peopled, however, by people who will be in serious shit if that next paycheck or social security deposit doesn’t show up. There’s a fundamental disconnect here and I’d like to see if Bernie can begin to remake some of the connections between the government and the governed. Maybe the bought-and-paid-for congress will block his every move the way they have Obama’s, but I’d like to try it just for giggles.
For someone in my income bracket, with a president like Trump or Cruz or probably even Hilary, the giggles are going to be few and far between.
I am loathe to be in agreement with someone whose opinions I find distasteful. (However I see it as them being in bed with me rather than I with them).
It is simply a fact that some feminists defend Islamism. To explain how this tendency arose you’d have to start discussing the very origins of the feminism with a lot of reference to other movements within the left in general (everything from Stalinist “socialism in one country” to post-modernism, third worldism ect). I don’t have the space here. Nick Cohen’s book “What’s Left” is very good on this subject. Also people should try some of Orwell’s essays especially “Looking Back on the Spanish War”, “Pacifism and War” and “Notes on Nationalism”, which don’t discuss the subject directly but the parallels are obvious.
Now let me mention some feminists who are very good on Islamism: Ophelia Benson; Kate Smurthwaite; and Swedish deputy Prime minister Margot Wallström. Notice they are all white. If I mentioned any of the non-white feminists who tackle this question such as Sara Haider, Tasmila Nasreen, Ayann Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji or Maryam Namazie they would be dismissed as not counting at best and smeared as “native informants”, “porch monkeys” and “coconuts” at worst. This is why the term “regressive left” is more than appropriate; anytime a non-white, ex- or progressive Muslim asserts herself she is shouted down with the most retrograde terminology because she refused her divinely sanctioned role. This is regression defined.
Just to show people it’s not just the Goldsmith’s feminist society who do this (they could be seen as naive anomalies), people should remind themselves of Germaine Greer’s view of the fatwa against Rushdie, the vaginal mutilation of young girls and (more obscurely) the reaction to Monica Ali’s novel “Brick Lane”. You may be surprised but I have the feeling you can already tell.
As for “Bernie Bros” it’s just bitter nonsense. Hilary is being mocked because she is mediocre not because she is a women. As to her feminist credentials people seem to have forgotten that she took part in the one of the greatest slut shamings in US history. If you read Hitchen’s book “No One Left to Lie to” you’ll never look at that sordid family the same way again.
I think some if not a lot of this boils down to how seriously you take “online harassment”, and how important speech is to you. Call me heartless but I don’t think online harassment is even a thing. No platforming, and attempting to silence people’s online voice is.
Say what you will about the anti-sjw’s I have never heard of one trying to get people no-platformed, or banned from using certain websites. They are willing to engage in a war of words.
Now as far as big red, if there was EVER a feminist worthy of lampooning it’s her. I don’t know if she was “harassed” online, but the harassment of men she engaged in in Canada (including laughing about the suicide rates among men, disrupting a speech by an MRA advocate, including a fire alarm being set off by her group) was REAL harassment.
I wanted to add if big red was the target of actual threats rather than the “you need to get laid” comments that many feminists will label rape threats then I certainly don’t condone it, but real threats, or online harassment don’t make her or any public figure, off limits to parody.
I would imagine someone like Jerry Falwell was the target of many death threats given his controversial views, but no one came to his defense when Hitchens or Larry Flynt mercilessly mocked, and parodied him. It seems to that it’s only those who are perceived as oppressed groups. and who are saying the “right” things that are off limits.
I want to start out saying I haven’t had a chance to listen to the episode yet – that’s queued up for this evening! – but I have to ask: you don’t think telling women “you need to get laid” is online harassment and that online harassment doesn’t exist? Thats just absurd. Thomas has talked about this on this podcast! I mean, was it like two weeks ago he mentioned that Emma Watson was subjected to an online campaign of men posting photos of them jizzing all over her picture because they don’t like that she’s a spokesperson for HeForShe?
As for the “you need to get laid” comments, those are also really horrible! They’re not just jokes, because they tell the person receiving them that what they have to say isn’t worth listening to and that their social worth is entirely dependent on whether there’s some man who is able to stick his penis in her. And it also implies that if only she had a man in her life, she’d start seeing things his way and abandon her silly frivolous views. It’s incredibly demeaning and condescending and disheartening and I tend to avoid online comments altogether because people are so vicious. So yeah, that IS harassment and it IS “silencing.”
Anyway, hope this isn’t too off topic, and I’m looking forward to listening after work!
It may be different where I’m from, so I’m not having a go at you if meanings are different.
In my area of England, when we say that people need to get laid we mean they are to tense and worked up and need to relax and enjoy themselves a bit. In the past few weeks we’ve mentioned it about both a male and a female so it has nothing to do with rape here. We even say things like ‘she needs to find a good man and get laid, or a good woman if she likes that’.
Now it may be looking at other comments around the phrase give it different meaning, I just wanted you to know HOW not everyone sees it as you do.
Regards
“you don’t think telling women “you need to get laid” is online harassment and that online harassment doesn’t exist? Thats just absurd.”
I didn’t say it doesn’t exist, I said it’s not a thing, The same way you can’t shoot, or assault, or rape someone online. It certainly exists in people’s minds. AND I said “you need to get laid” isn’t rape threat. In the same way saying to a man “I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire” isn’t a death threat. How about reading and comprehending what people say before responding.
“I mean, was it like two weeks ago he mentioned that Emma Watson was subjected to an online campaign of men posting photos of them jizzing all over her picture because they don’t like that she’s a spokesperson for HeForShe?”
And how the hell does that hurt her? In what world is that a thing worthy of even being noticed by sane rational people? If she or someone else made an issue of it, the only motivation I can imagine them having is to gain sympathy, and/or to demonize reasonable critics she may have.
“As for the “you need to get laid” comments, those are also really horrible! They’re not just jokes,”
I consider labeling that “horrible” on ANY scale of things that actually are that’s absolutely a joke, and a trivializing of actual horrible things. They are silly words on a screen. I got over shit like that in primary school. Did you never hear the expression from a parent “sticks, and stones can break your bones…”. Maybe I’m particular thick skinned, making me better able to see this rationally without emotions getting in my way.
“So yeah, that IS harassment and it IS “silencing.”
How is it silencing? Every time a woman, unlike the response a man gets, claims they are being harassed, they get showered with sympathy, get a huge boost to the attention they receive, and her critics (even those who don’t engage in “harassment”) are demonized. Sure some people might curl up in a ball, and cry, and turn off their computer the first time they get negative comments, but that’s a character defect on the persons part in my opinion.
No one does or should have any obligation to not hurt someone’s feelings. It’s funny how atheists have said this for years when it comes to hurting Christians feelings with mocking, and ridicule, but it’s wrong when it’s done to women. Yes I know what the rationalization is for that hypocritical double standard, it’s idea of punching up, or down. It’s ok to hurt men or Christians feelings cause that’s punching up, but women, or Muslims are off limits. Whether they are deserving is irrelevant.
“How is it silencing? Every time a woman, unlike the response a man gets, claims they are being harassed, they get showered with sympathy, get a huge boost to the attention they receive, and her critics (even those who don’t engage in “harassment”) are demonized”
Compare that with the 3 year ordeal suffered by Gregory Alan Elliott who was charged with harassment (and ultimately found not guilty) for some tweets made towards a couple of feminists. During that time he was banned from even using a computer, and it cost him hundreds of thousands in lawyer fees. He was the victim of REAL harassment.
Wow.
Apparently things you’ve not personally experienced can’t possibly exist. And psychological harm is imaginary. And harmful words can’t have tangible effects on people’s lives. Right.
I don’t know the story of Gregory Allen Elliot, and if you’re representing it right, that’s unfortunate. I’m not at all in favor of the “gang up on people we don’t like” habit that both sides do and it’s wrong regardless of who said what. Saying something stupid online shouldn’t ruin your life.
And, FWIW, I’m not the kind of atheist who mocks Christians. I’ll mock the dumber bits of their beliefs to my similarly minded friends, but you’ll never find me saying anything disrespectful to a Christian. I’m happy to argue apologetics with them, but it’s never rude.
But, anyway, you’ve already established that I’m incapable of “reading and comprehending what people say before responding” so I’ll just go take my lady brain somewhere more appropriate like the kitchen and make you a sandwich.
Oh, and I wanted to add one more thing about instances where it is in fact possible you are being harassed online. If someone is sending you something on twitter, or facebook, or youtube, and you block them, and they then go on to create new accounts to continue to do so then that would qualify. That’s not normally the complaint however, the complaint normally is that they ever had to receive the message in the first place, or that they were forced to have to block someone as though it’s hard to do.
“Apparently things you’ve not personally experienced can’t possibly exist.”
As someone who has owned, and operated a chat network for nearly 20 years, and has been on youtube for 10 I’ve experience every insult you can imagine. I even had someone who didn’t like some criticism I had of him make a channel that was a virtual mirror of mine accusing me of being a pedophile. It wasn’t until he found out my real name, and where my daughter went to college, and threatened to go their, and kill and rape her that it became worthy of upset.
“And psychological harm is imaginary. And harmful words can’t have tangible effects on people’s lives. Right.”
Certainly people who have already existing problem can be hurt, but people are under no obligation to make that assumption. Bullying children is an exception.
“I don’t know the story of Gregory Allen Elliot, and if you’re representing it right, that’s unfortunate.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/01/22/verdict-in-alleged-harassment-of-toronto-feminists-could-change-the-twitterverse.html
The best quote from the judge in his ruling, and one that largely sums up my opinion about the problem with claims of online harassment was that “Elliott’s actions failed to reach the level of criminal harassment, because it was not reasonable, on the facts of the case, for Guthrie and Reilly to fear for their safety” In other words it was just their subjective opinion. No one is responsible for how someone might react to words.
“But, anyway, you’ve already established that I’m incapable of “reading and comprehending what people say before responding” so I’ll just go take my lady brain somewhere more appropriate like the kitchen and make you a sandwich.”
Once again you have unsurprisingly misrepresented what I said. I never said you were incapable of reading, and comprehending what I said. I said you had failed to do so in that instance, and that’s a fact. Oh, and I prefer salami on toast with mustard since you’re offering. I’m usually the one who is making sandwiches for my wife around here, that would be nice for a change. :p
So, I think I will adopt your strategy of quote-and-reply:
“As someone who has owned, and operated a chat network for nearly 20 years, and has been on youtube for 10 I’ve experience every insult you can imagine. I even had someone who didn’t like some criticism I had of him make a channel that was a virtual mirror of mine accusing me of being a pedophile. It wasn’t until he found out my real name, and where my daughter went to college, and threatened to go their, and kill and rape her that it became worthy of upset.”
That’s really terrible, and I’m sorry to hear that. Fuck that guy. Things like that make me wish there were a hell so that he could go rot in it for a long time.
“The best quote from the judge in his ruling, and one that largely sums up my opinion about the problem with claims of online harassment was that “Elliott’s actions failed to reach the level of criminal harassment, because it was not reasonable, on the facts of the case, for Guthrie and Reilly to fear for their safety” In other words it was just their subjective opinion. No one is responsible for how someone might react to words.”
I somehow missed this news story, so I’ve read up on it a little bit. Basically, to me it sounds like Elliott is a jackass and those two women were out of line for trying to publicly shame him and harm his reputation – you’re right that what they did sounds like a form of harassment too. As a side note, it also sounds like the judge who ruled in that case had no clue about how Twitter and teh interwebz work, so I’m not 100% convinced he has a great grasp on whether or not they should have been fearful. One of the articles I read (can’t remember which) argued that part of his reasoning for that decision was that the women fought back online, which he thought meant they must not be afraid; but in reality, fighting back loudly and banding together is a coping mechanism for dealing with online harassment. That doesn’t change the fact I still think they were also in the wrong, but their wrong shouldn’t make his wrong okay.
“Once again you have unsurprisingly misrepresented what I said. I never said you were incapable of reading, and comprehending what I said. I said you had failed to do so in that instance, and that’s a fact. Oh, and I prefer salami on toast with mustard since you’re offering. I’m usually the one who is making sandwiches for my wife around here, that would be nice for a change. :p”
In my defense, what you said was “How about reading and comprehending what people say before responding” and also, later, that “[I’m] better able to see this rationally without emotions getting in my way.” Which definitely doesn’t make it clear that you’re referring to a specific instance, since it sounds a lot like you don’t think much of my cognitive abilities at all. And it’s not a “fact” that I failed to comprehend what you said; “I didn’t say [online harassment] doesn’t exist, I said it’s not a thing” makes no sense at all. How can something that does exist simultaneously not be a thing? Or are you saying it exists in the sense that anyone who claims to be harassed is imagining it, so it exists only in that person’s head and not the external world? This episode of This American Life describes a psychologically brutal attack on Lindy West (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/545/transcript), and even worse, there are stories all over the news of teens who kill themselves because other people online kept telling them to (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/06/hannah-smith-online-bullying). Those effects sound real to me, so I don’t know how this doesn’t count as being a “thing.”
Something occurred to me today that I wanted to add. Imagine if the NECSS was as sensitive to insults/criticism/harassment, how ever you want to label it, against theists, as they are when it’s women. Don’t you not think Hitchens would have been disinvited, were he alive, and scheduled as a speaker, for his comments about Jerry Falwell after he died? Saying he was celebrating his death, and “If you remove the shit, you could bury him in a matchbox.”? And before you say “but he was dead”, his family wasn’t, I can imagine such comments hurt them.
I don’t see how anyone could argue that wasn’t “worse” than Dawkins tweeting a “questionable” video.
Again it’s quite simple, that’s the NECSS’s right to do in both cases. I’m really not seeing what point you think you’re making here. It’s their free speech to do either, and live with the consequences.
Of course it’s their right to do so. I’m simply pointing out what I see as double standards. If you disagree that there are double standards I’d love to hear you address my actual point.
It’s not a double standard, it’s a standard. They don’t want to associate with someone who they perceive to be anti-feminist. They probably don’t mind associating with someone who is anti-murderer, or anti-pedophile, or anti-nazi, or maybe anti-theist. Just as they don’t need to let in a flat earther to their conference, they don’t have to have Dawkins.
“They don’t want to associate with someone who they perceive to be anti-feminist.”
I don’t recall that being the justification for it. Perhaps I misunderstood but I thought it was because it had lampooned an actual feminist who had allegedly been “harassed”. If they have taken on feminism as part of their agenda, and are now The Northeast Conference on Science Skepticism, and Feminism my problems with what they did would be better stated by Mr Deity.
“to me it sounds like Elliott is a jackass and those two women were out of line for trying to publicly shame him and harm his reputation”
I never said he wasn’t a jackass, but when harassment is treated as a thing, and by thing I mean something that is deserving of punishment, (whether that be criminal punishment, no-platforming people, or taking away their access to social media) it’s too easy to weaponize, and the line between someone just being a jackass, and someone who happens to be a jackass, but is exercising his right to free expression is blurred.
“This American Life describes a psychologically brutal attack on Lindy West ”
I’m sorry I just don’t get it. Why would what some anonymous assholes on the internet have to say bother her. I can understand that when it’s kids, but most of us when we become adults we stop caring what people we don’t know think about us. I suspect Lindy is rather narcissistic. I’m not at all. I’ve been known to climb out of bed, and go to the store without combing my hair, and often times wearing my pajama bottoms, and slippers. What people who have no say in my life think of me is meaningless.
“In my defense, what you said was “How about reading and comprehending what people say before responding””
I think the context in which I used that sentence makes it clear, but I won’t hold that against you.
“also, later, that “[I’m] better able to see this rationally without emotions getting in my way.””
I’ll clarify. I suspect you are someone who would be upset if you were harassed. I think that’s clear otherwise you wouldn’t be able to empathize with people it does bother. Empathy after all requires one to imagine how they would feel in a given persons shoes. That causes you to think with your emotions on this issue. Again I’m only referring to this issue, I certainly can’t form any opinions beyond that.
I wanted to add one last thing. I would never engage in the type of things we’re discussing. I’m not an asshole, and I see no need to treat people who are undeserving of disrespect with disrespect. That being said some people are assholes. That doesn’t mean they should be silenced.