A new level of motive-attribution


dam

Damion Reinhardt:

Originally Posted by Brive1987
The current tag team efforts against DJ, with no real objective other than to get him fired or grind him into resigning sums up why I loathe the SJ brigade.
Agreed! They really seem to hate his guts, for some reason. Elyse even took a poll of whom they hate the most and he was right up there with Professor “Dear Muslima” himself.

Originally Posted by Brive1987 
Only consolation is that both the CFI and JREF Boards must have become inured to the relentless calls for the sacking and discipline of their CEOs.
It does seem to be a constant refrain. I’d go so far as to wager that Women in Secularism has become an annual sacrificial atonement at this point, an offering of flights and hotels and booze to appease the pantheon of wrathful bloggesses.

Yes it’s all for the free booze, or it would all be for the free booze if there were any free booze, which there isn’t. Or it it would all be for the free booze if there were any free booze and I loved inhaling large quantities of booze, which I don’t. Or it it would all be for the free booze if there were any free booze and I loved inhaling large quantities of booze so much that I was willing to travel 11 hours eastbound and 14 hours westbound for a total of 25 hours within 4 days just to get it.

25 hours. To get…what? Maybe $15 worth of free booze (which wasn’t on offer at all, don’t forget)? I don’t think I can drink more than that over three evenings. 25 hours of acutely uncomfortable travel for $15 worth of free booze which actually wasn’t provided anyway?

I did get some nice hotel lotion. They had nice lotion, the Alexandria Westin. But they’re just those tiny little tubes. I wouldn’t have spent 25 hours of travel time to get them.

Also? I’m not a “blogess.” Blogging isn’t more of a guy thing. I’m every bit as much allowed to blog as Damion Reinhardt is (and I’m better at it, too). I don’t need a special feminized ess word to name what I do as opposed to what normal, male people do.

Also? That’s so fucking insulting to women such as Taslima Nasreen, Barbara Ehrenreich,  Katha Pollitt, Rebecca Goldstein, Susan Jacoby, Soraya Chemaly, Lindsay Beyerstein, to name only a few of the brilliant women who were speakers at that conference.

It’s also fucking insulting to CFI.

Other than that, good call.

Comments

  1. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Hmm. I’m beginning to think maybe this guy isn’t the brilliant thought leader he thinks he is.

  2. says

    “For some reason,” says the guy who spends endless hours trying to figure out how to deny, cast doubt on, or cover up the actual reasons.

  3. says

    Why is everything hate and rage to them? Looks like so much projection to me …. For the record I think DJ looks like a laughably incompetent “leader”, someone better should be appointed. I don’t hate DJ, Dawkins, etc … At a push I hate some of the things that result from their incompetence and arrogance, but that’s about it.

  4. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    I hate some of the things that result from their incompetence and arrogance

    Exactly. I don’t even know these people outside of online, why would I hate them personally? I just think they’re toxic for atheoskepticism and wish they would go play in their own sandbox far, far away from us.

  5. says

    He gives fictitious invented motives in every comment (and that’s a lot of comments) on that page. As if there’s some need for an invented motive. Why do I think DJ Grothe shouldn’t be running a big skeptic organization? Because he keeps inviting known harassers to speak at his conventions, and in the long run that’s not good for skepticism. I say “in the long run” because in the short term it apparently is good: it’s attractive to a lot of people. But in the long run? I don’t think it will be.

    In the long run I think QED is the much better model. They treat people decently. It’s that simple.

  6. says

    I love how the claims of the pro-harassment/anti-SJ bunch are always entirely context free. There’s no issues about Grothe’s behavior that have been hashed out in agonizingly fine detail… nope, it is just blindly angry people trying to tear him down for absolutely no reason whatsoever. No matter how many times the actual reasons are given, for them it is always “for some reason” that they make up out of their twisted, pathetic imaginations.

    The reasons have been stated again here… let’s see if one of those assclowns shows up to pretend that they don’t understand. Again. Sadly, their behavior has two explanations: they are either lying, evil shitweasels, or they are so incapable of reading comprehension and rational thinking that they cannot be held accountable for themselves.

  7. AsqJames says

    no real objective other than to get him fired or grind him into resigning

    I’m no expert (I’m not exactly ‘active’ in the secular movement, I just read a few blogs and try to be a decent person so I know precisely zero people involved in any of this), but it seems pretty obvious to me there is a real objective. I’ll spell it out as I understand it and those with more knowledge, experience or insight can correct whatever I get wrong…

    The objective is to have a broad, deep and strong secular movement.

    Pretty nefarious eh?

    Some people think having gropey/grabby/rapey people in influential positions in the movement (and influential organisations in the movement who appear to condone those individuals and their behaviour) might deter people who don’t like being groped/grabbed/raped from joining/staying within the movement or those organisations. Which makes sense.

    I think there’s probably quite a high percentage of people who don’t appreciate gropey/grabby/rapey behaviour. I know I’m one of them and it’s not even as if I’m a popular target for it. I can’t imagine how much less those who are would like it. So as Ophelia said in #5, accepting or condoning such behaviour is, in the long run, likely to make the movement narrower, shallower and weaker. Even the perception that such behaviour is accepted would be unhelpful.

    I see parallels with the two flavours of “patriotism” we often see when issues which affect national pride are pointed out. Some people think patriotism is saying “I love my country and I want to contribute to making it a better place, so let’s try and solve this problem.”. Others think patriotism is defending anything and everything about your country, says “If you don’t like America/Britain/Wherever, why don’t you just leave” and is quick to label critics or dissidents as traitors.

    I suspect both sides of the social justice divide in the secular movement would identify themselves as the first type of patriot. Certainly those active in the movement are working to make changes in American society, which kind of suggests they think things might not be perfect. However, only one side is applying the same principles within their own community.

  8. says

    It does seem to be a constant refrain. I’d go so far as to wager that Women in Secularism has become an annual sacrificial atonement at this point, an offering of flights and hotels and booze to appease the pantheon of wrathful bloggesses.

    Booze? Bloggesses? Really? And it all comes with a free side of creeps, harassment, and cover-ups. Guess he left that out.

  9. Stacy says

    Only consolation is that both the CFI and JREF Boards must have become inured to the relentless calls for the sacking and discipline of their CEOs

    (Cross-posted from Facebook):

    There’s a relentless call for the sacking and discipline of Ron Lindsay? Gee, I thought he apologized a year ago and people accepted his apology and moved on.

    Skeptics sure seem to have difficulty keeping their facts straight.

    .

    P.S. The reality-based segment of our community may be pleased to know that Lindsay actually got quite a warm reception for his opening remarks at WiS this year.

  10. Stacy says

    Booze? Bloggesses? Really? And it all comes with a free side of creeps, harassment, and cover-ups. Guess he left that out.

    He’s talking about WiS. Women in Secularism has no harassment or cover-ups. And the only creep in attendance was Vacula, last year. People worried about his presence beforehand, but at the conference he just sat at the back and typed. Nobody paid him much never mind.

  11. says

    @8 AsqJames: As someone who is unlikely to be groped or grabbed without my consent (or raped)…the fact that they continue to invite gropey, grabey, rapey people is certainly a key reason why I do not attend any JREF events.

    In the end it’s clear that to a lot of those folks no matter how much you explain your objections it must always be something you’re not saying. So much for a charitable reading. My charitable reading of Reinhardt is that he hasn’t actually read any of the objections. At least, that’s the only charitable reading possible for something so ignorant.

    My community includes more people than those like me: white men. If I want to do right by my community in a secular way (or a skeptical way or an atheist way), I want to be a part of an organization that actually speaks to the other people in my community. CFI has generally done this. JREF has decidedly not done this and, in fact, acted willfully against other perspectives at many turns. And they’ve got increasing competition from, as PZ puts it, local and regional organizations and gatherings. I’m actually excited to go to NECSS or Skepchickcon one of these years (and Women in Secularism if they ever choose not to do it on my birthday).

  12. Al Dente says

    Reinhardt uses his hyperskepticism when someone is accused of being “gropey/grabby/rapey” but can’t even summon up enough skepticism to find out why certain people are not impressed by DJ Grothe.

  13. says

    No, of course we don’t have a problem with the things that were actually stated (my, this seems to be quite the pattern, no?), we hate people and want to cause them grief because Other Reasons!

  14. kellym says

    DJ Grothe has emailed a threat to “try to ruin [the] career/life” of a scientist if she does not deny the attempted sexual assault by Michael Shermer that occurred in 2008. The same attempted sexual assault that DJ personally prevented and has recounted to many others over the years. Possibly because of unprofessional malicious acts like this, Damion considers DJ to be a “generally righteous dude.” Threatening to try to ruin a scientist’s career/life, unless she lies for DJ and Shermer, is cool for Damion. By not disciplining DJ, the James Randi Educational Foundation is now also on record as approving of his threat. Who knows, this threat may help the JREF with fundraising, attracting more people to TAM, and with preserving Randi’s legacy.

  15. Maureen Brian says

    My charitable explanation of Reinhardt? That he’s been so busy shaking his head in disbelief that the various parts of his brain have become disconnected. That might account for his inability to understand a statement of reasons™ which, as he types, is all of an inch away.

    I’m also wondering whether he understands time, given his habit of trying to rearrange a sequence of observed events so that they support his message.

  16. Athywren says

    Honestly, I can’t see the point of a skeptical movement if the only thing that separates us from cults and quacks is that we’re not buying or selling bullshit metaphysical claims.
    Why would we want sexual predators in our midst? Why should we support the people who protect them and hide them from scrutiny? How can we claim to be paragons of reason if we’re behaving like the catholic church?
    I completely fail to understand why they would support the lowering of the movement to that level.

  17. John Morales says

    <snicker>

    bloggesses.

    writeresses.

    artistresses.

    gardenesses.

    driveresses.

  18. Athywren says

    writeresses.

    Actresses… oh.
    Also, I think you’ll find it’s “authoresses.” *snoot*

    Sometimes I think we should start referring to men in roles like that as “male driveresses” or something like that, just because.

  19. Jackie the wacky says

    Athywren,

    I know you’re joking, but it has been considered more appropriate to call female actors “actors” too for a while now.

  20. Athywren says

    Jackie,
    I didn’t know that, but good. :)
    (I’ve known for a long time that it’s ridiculous to stick gendered suffixes on job titles just so you can differentiate between “actors” and “women who act” but I didn’t know that it was a commonly held view. Good stuff.)

  21. deepak shetty says

    When this initially started out , i can say I had atleast a little sympathy for the hyper-skeptical viewpoint (innocent till guilty , yadda yadda even though it meant having zero understanding of life) – but the more this continues , the more it is apparent that the “skeptics” dont really apply their standards uniformly – If you are someone they like , then unless there is DNA evidence along with a few eyewitnesses of their choosing (all male) then innocent of all wrong doing – When its someone they dont like , then all motives/actions/evils can be attributed to the person.

  22. says

    Blogatrix!?!

    You do realize referring to Ms. Benson in such a fashion could get you a session on the spanking couch?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *