Michael Shermer has once again responded to Ophelia Benson for having dared to criticize him for saying something dumb and sexist and he’s going for the full persecution pose, complete with allusions to witch hunts, inquisitions, McCarthyism, purges and — yes — Nazis. You can read that response, which was published as a response to Ophelia’s criticism of him in Free Inquiry, here.
Let me provide another example of moral progress that at first will seem counterintuitive. It involves a McCarthy-like witch hunt within secular communities to root out the last vestiges of sexism, racism, and bigotry of any kind, real or imagined. Although this unfortunate trend has produced a backlash against itself by purging from its ranks the likes of such prominent advocates as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, I contend that this is in fact a sign of moral progress.
Leaving aside the first and last clauses, which strike me as rather irrelevant, one has to ask: Dawkins and Harris have been purged? In what universe, exactly? I write often about the alternate reality on Planet Wingnuttia, but it appears that Shermer lives on one of the moons orbiting that planet if he thinks that Dawkins and Harris have somehow been “purged” from the atheist movement. They remain probably the two biggest names in the non-believing world, with legions of readers and listeners, millions of books sold and constant invitations to speak at the largest and most prestigious events. No one has purged them, nor could anyone do so even if they wished (and no one, as far as I know, has even suggested such a thing). But the bad analogies are just getting started:
To date, I have stayed out of this witch hunt against our most prominent leaders, thinking that “this too shall pass.” Perhaps I should have said something earlier. As Martin Niemoller famously warned about the inactivity of German intellectuals during the rise of the Nazi party, “first they came for…” but “I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a…”
Really? Seriously? Do I even have to explain how ridiculous this Nazi reference is? I certainly hope not.
When self-proclaimed secular feminists attacked Richard Dawkins for a seemingly innocent response to an equally innocent admonishment to guys by Rebecca Watson (the founder of Skepchicks) that it isn’t cool to hit on women in elevators, this erupted into what came to be known as “Elevatorgate.” I didn’t speak out because I figured that an intellect as formidable as Richard Dawkins’s did not need my comparatively modest brainpower in support.
No, Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” comment was not “seemingly innocent.” It was condescending and dismissive and, yes I’ll say it, irrational. That is not something we’re used to from Dawkins, which is why people were shocked enough by it that most wondered if the comment really came from him or whether it was someone deliberately trying to make Dawkins look bad. But no, he did say it and yes, he did look bad. And deservedly so. One wonders how Shermer might have said if he’d chosen to speak out. Would he have pointed out that Rebecca’s admittedly “innocent admonishment” was exactly that and that Dawkins’ insulting response to it was pretty vile? One doubts it.
But perhaps I should have spoken out, because now the inquisition has been turned on me, by none other than one of the leading self-proclaimed secular feminists whose work has heretofore been important in the moral progress of our movement. I have already responded to this charge against me elsewhere,* so I will only briefly summarize it here. Instead of allowing my inquisitors to force me into the position of defending myself (I still believe in the judicial principle of innocence until proven guilty), I shall use this incident to make the case for moral progress.
What does innocence until proven guilty have to do with any of this? That is a legal concept and you are not on trial, no matter how much you imagine yourself to be. You said something dumb and sexist in a public forum and someone else pointed out that it was dumb and sexist in a public forum. And the truth is that you are defending yourself, primarily by going on the offensive and accusing your critics of trying to destroy you and others the same way the Catholic Church, the McCarthyites and the Nazis did to their opponents.
All of this is such an hysterical overreaction that it leaves my jaw agape. No one has been “purged” in any “inquisitions” or “witch hunts.” What they have been is criticized for saying dumb things now and again. You’d think that Shermer, who has spent most of his adult life encouraging people to think critically would recognize criticism when he sees it, but he squeals like a stuck pig when the harsh glare of criticism is turned on him.
All of this leaves me with just one question: Is it really that difficult to just admit to having made a mistake? Is it really so hard to say, “Yeah, what I said was dumb. I should have thought it through more. I’m sorry”? I’ve had to do it many times. I bet most other people have too. Why is that so difficult? When Shermer said that the reason there are so few women speaking at atheist conferences is because being “intellectually active” was “more of a guy thing,” that was a really dumb and sexist thing to say. Yes, it was an off the cuff remark in response to a question he may not have been prepared to answer, but why not just say that? Why not just say “I said something dumb without really thinking it through and it was wrong” and then replace it with a more thoughtful and reasonable explanation?
If he had done that, this would all have been over long ago. In fact, it could have been a good opportunity to have an interesting discussion about how to increase diversity in our communities. He could have actually used that opportunity to help lead that discussion. But he didn’t. He chose instead to make it far worse with these hysterical and paranoid claims of presumptive martyrdom and he is making himself look very, very bad in the process.
I like Michael Shermer. I’ve written for his magazine and had interesting conversations with him at a couple of events and I’m even sympathetic to his libertarian political views, unlike a lot of others in this community. But he is embarrassing himself here and the only reason I can think of to explain it is vanity. I wish he would stop. There’s still a serious discussion to be had about diversity at atheist events but it cannot be had with someone who is making these ridiculous claims of witch hunts, inquisitions and Nazi purges.
And once again I am struck by how much this rhetoric mirrors that of people in stark opposition to the goals of atheists and skeptics. When Paula Kirby refers to Rebecca Watson and her defenders as “feminazis,” she is using exactly the same language used by Rush Limbaugh (who invented that term, or at least made it famous). When Al Stefanelli claims that Watson and her defenders just “hate white men,” he is using exactly the same argument used by right-wing Christians for decades. And when Shermer talks about witch hunts, inquisitions and purges, he is using precisely the same rhetoric that right-wing Christian anti-feminists have used, and continue to use, to describe not only feminists but the entire secular community as well. And he is acting just like those fundamentalist Christians who are practically addicted to false claims of persecution.
I am also struck by the fact that even in a community that is ostensibly dedicated to rational thinking, we have developed cults of personality that surround prominent members of the community with sycophants willing to defend them against any criticism, no matter how reasonable or justified that criticism may be (I’ve even seen it in some of my own readers when I’ve been criticized, even with the low level of “fame” that I have and it’s creepy there too). That’s not a surprise, of course; it’s pretty much human nature. But shouldn’t we strive to transcend such thinking? Shouldn’t atheists and skeptics, of all people, put in the mental effort necessary to overcome those tendencies and evaluate each and every argument and claim using the same rational criteria? Shouldn’t we, of all people, be willing to admit when we’ve said something dumb?
Look, I’m as guilty as Shermer of circling the wagons around myself from time to time, of getting defensive and remaining obstinate in the face of accurate and legitimate criticism. And anyone who says they haven’t behaved this way at one time or another is lying to you and to themselves. So the answer to my question above? Is it really that hard to admit to saying something dumb? Yes, it is. But part of being a skeptic is recognizing that we all behave irrationally from time to time, we all use cognitive shortcuts and make bad arguments sometimes and we all allow our vanity or our emotions to override our use of reason. And it’s always easier to spot it in others than it is in ourselves. I get it. I’ve been there and I’ve done it. But at some point you have to be intellectually honest enough to engage in genuine self-reflection, admit that you’re doing it and make amends. I think Shermer still has the opportunity to do that, but he’s got to stop making the hole he’s in deeper.
Shermer, like Dawkins and Harris, has done a great deal to advance atheism and skepticism in the world. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for the lifetime of dedication to fostering a more rational world. But they aren’t perfect and they aren’t above criticism. Nor am I, or Ophelia, or Rebecca Watson, or PZ Myers, or anyone else. And when any of is criticized for legitimate reasons — and we all have been, at one point or another (and for me, at many times) — we must put our vanity and our ego aside and evaluate our own behavior as closely as we do those we oppose. It’s not easy. It never is. But it’s necessary if we are to deserve the title of skeptic.
Editor’s Note: Kacy Ray, you are banned from the comments on this thread. The last thing we need is another 200 comments about how unfair it is that people won’t meet you out back behind your Facebook page for the conversation you insist on having.
401 comments
4 pings
Skip to comment form ↓
rjlangley
January 17, 2013 at 2:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re. cults of personality, I for one was glad, in a weird way, when Dawkins made the ‘Dear Muslima’ comment. It was the first time I’d ever truly disagreed with him, where previously I’d been open to charges of treating him like an ‘atheist pope’ or whatever new tu quoque the religionists and accomodationists are using.
A certain former FTB blogger has a similar kind of sycophantic following…
Giliell, professional cynic
January 17, 2013 at 2:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thank you for that laugh, I could use it.
whiskeyjack
January 17, 2013 at 2:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I learned a few years ago how to admit when I was wrong, misinformed, or ignorant.
Really, it’s like a superpower.
Strewth
January 17, 2013 at 3:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
whiskeyjack, I love you.
Kevin
January 17, 2013 at 3:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s this exact type of remark that brought down the President of Harvard a while back. One would think that Shermer would be aware of this.
I had the exact same response to this thing at the outset. Shermer should have taken the opportunity to say something like, “I probably say or write a million or so words in public forums a year. I said about a dozen words that were ill-considered, and upon further reflection, I agree they were wrong. My apologies. Skepticism and leadership in the skeptical community are not now nor have they ever been ‘more of a guy thing. It was a dumb thing to say. Forgive me.”
He would have been applauded. Lionized, even.
Instead, we get this.
Hint, Michael. Women probably make up about 50% of the book buying public — maybe even more. Stop pissing off half your target audience. You dunderhead.
mandrellian
January 17, 2013 at 3:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well said, Ed. Shermer’s been acting like a gradeschooler over this. It’s probably not completely surprising but you’d think someone of Shermer’s skeptical credentials would have a little more self-awareness – and a little more class than to invoke the Nazis in response to some mild criticism. Half a dozen members of my family put themselves on the line to rid the world of those bastards and, having always had keen interest in and knowledge of the Nazi story, I find it histrionic in the extreme and deeply offensive to see someone compared to a totalitarian despot in response to mild (but well-earned) criticism in a blog article.
Gnumann+, Radfem shotgunner of inhuman concepts
January 17, 2013 at 3:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed:
I can think of another one.
As an ex-libertarian (man – I’ve been a lot of loathsome things in my life…), I can tell you one of the things libertarian fear the most is the acceptance of the societally stacked deck. To admit the playing field isn’t even (and won’t be without redistribution and regulation) is anathema.
In a sense, to admit social barriers to women’s participation in his play-pen is also to admit his political ideology is defunct.
Gnumann+, Radfem shotgunner of inhuman concepts
January 17, 2013 at 3:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
By the way – has anybody heard from Orac yet? My google-fu turned up zilch…
oolon
January 17, 2013 at 3:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Some people have mentioned that Shermer was a global warming denier as a negative thing against him, I’d counter and say it was fucking amazing that he rationally reasoned his way out of that corner. So many people get stuck in entrenched positions and refuse to consider they are wrong. I hope he can do it again, only thing is in this case its all about he said / she said rumour and disinformation so a lot harder to reason your way out. The hyperbole should embarrass him when he reads that article back…
Giliell, professional cynic
January 17, 2013 at 3:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Orac only objects to uppity women making comparisons with Nazi Germany
sawells
January 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think you, and Ophelia Benson, and PZ, etc., think it’s obvious that people should be able to admit error and correct themselves, because that’s been your branch of atheism/skepticism. You could call it “Enquiry skepticism” – with the view that the skeptical method is for everybody, we should all be using it, it’s not personal, and it’s supposed to be public and self-correcting.
Unfortunately it looks like Shermer is part of a different branch, one which is about smugly being right where other people are wrong. And the trouble with that branch is that (i) it isn’t about spreading critical thinking, because that would reduce the number of other people who are wrong, and then who would we feel superior to? and (ii) it’s incompatible with publicly admitting you were wrong, because being wrong is for other people, not you. We can call it “Asshole skepticism”.
Gnumann+, Radfem shotgunner of inhuman concepts
January 17, 2013 at 3:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hmmm…
This wasn’t the message I got from him way back when. Here I though he was a staunch crusader against all slightly hyperbolic nazi comparisons.
Did he … lie to me ..?
Or is it that he is just a staunch crusader againstslightly hyperbolic comparisons, while the crass and obviously irrelevant ones get a free pass. That would fit (though not make a lot of sense).
R Johnston
January 17, 2013 at 3:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@7: Exactly.
Libertarianism short circuits skeptical and critical thinking when it comes to any admission of stacked decks, collective action problems, or the role that luck plays in success. Libertarianism is a fundamentally religious belief that intrudes on one’s ability to skeptically consider socioeconomic matters. Libertarianism has the same relationship to basic decency and economic literacy that christianity has to acceptance of evolution.
Ed Brayton
January 17, 2013 at 3:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think everyone should lay off the “Why hasn’t so and so said something about this.” That’s the same kind of thing I get from some people whenever I don’t write about some story they think is important. There are a million things to comment on in this world and people have lives.
yiela
January 17, 2013 at 3:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@7: Gnumann, I think you made a good point here.
Gnumann+, Radfem shotgunner of inhuman concepts
January 17, 2013 at 3:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sorry Ed.
I don’t think your comparison is quite valid here. Actions in the past might lead to a moral obligation in the future.
I get that you don’t want me to diss Orac on your blog though, and I’ll stop. I’m Sorry.
F [nucular nyandrothol]
January 17, 2013 at 3:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Kevin
Yeah, if Shermer just said what some of his apologists keep claiming he meant, this would have been a non-issue. It’s his reaction to a mild initial criticism which is showing what he’s really all about.
Ed Brayton
January 17, 2013 at 3:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think that comparison is perfect. That’s exactly the argument I’ve heard against me when I fail to comment on some story. The argument is always made by someone who is just dying to conclude that I’m a hypocrite, so the fact that I’ve written about story X in the past but not story Y now is their evidence — since I’d commented on one, I had a moral obligation to comment on the other or I’d been proven a hypocrite. But that conveniently ignores the fact that there are other possible, even likely, reasons for it. In most cases, I hadn’t even heard about story Y.
Orac is a big boy and can certainly defend himself. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to jump to a conclusion that he’s being a hypocrite here.
Ophelia Benson
January 17, 2013 at 3:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Just for the record – to explain why people said that – Orac went out of his way to rebuke me (at considerable length and quite aggressively) for a comparison of DJ Grothe scolding women for complaining about harassment to scolding Jews in 1936 Germany. He never ever comments on my blog or interacts with me in any other way, and it was at the height of the wrangle with DJ – and it was shortly before TAM, and he and I were both scheduled to be there. Given all that, it was pointed and unpleasant. People didn’t mention him above just because he’s the Nazi-mention patrol.
Now I’ll shut up.
shouldbeworking
January 17, 2013 at 4:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I learned many years ago to admit being wrong or off base. It’s simple: practice,practice, practice.
2ndserve
January 17, 2013 at 4:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Shermer wrote, “I do not believe that women are, in Benson’s characterization, “too stupid to do nontheism” or that “unbelieving in God is thinky work and women don’t do thinky”. I don’t believe that for a moment, and in any case the evidence (as I outlined at the beginning of this essay) overwhelmingly demonstrates that women are more than capable of thinking, writing, speaking, and debating about God and theism. Unquestionably. Unequivocally. After reading Greta Christina’s book, for example, if I were a believer heading into a debate with her about God, I would be trembling in my boots as much as many theists I know were when they faced the great Christopher Hitchens.”
Once Benson pointed out the “It’s a guy thing.” it would have been nice if Shermer had stated he mispoke or if he had apologized. People often have a hard time admitting they were wrong. I know I do. Shermer’s later comments make it clear he doesn’t think women are stupid or unthinky. I wish there were more “benefit of the doubt” given on both sides of this.
This makes me sad.
eric
January 17, 2013 at 4:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And that is a spectacular indication that the defense was a ‘cult of personality’ thing based on bias rather than reason. If you can’t believe X said A because A is so outlandish, then you find out X did, and your response is to change your position on A, then your defense of A is based on an acceptance of authority rather than a rational analysis of A.
Anyone who thought the ‘Dear Muslima’ comment was offensive or stupid before they believed Dawkins said it, but then thought it was a perfectly valid satire or criticism after they confirmed that Dawkins said it, is demonstrating the exact sort of tribal or cult bias we criticize in others.
poxyhowzes
January 17, 2013 at 4:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Giliel @ 10:
The only Nazi woman recognized in her own right from 1933 to 1943 was Leni Reifenstahl (sp? – I did it from memory).
So when someone of the female persuasion (let’s call such an hypothetical someone “OP”) types the word “Nazi,” then Orac and his Zombie Hitler is all over her immediately because she (that is, the hypothetical OP) impertinently rises above the Nazi feminist ideal of “Kinder, Küch, und Kirch.”
But, of course, if a person of the male persuasion (someone we might call, for discussion purposes, “MS”) accuses someone of being “Nazi,” then we must carefully examine the facts in the case, refer back to the history and the historiography of the 1930s and 1940s, and, and,.. and,… patiently await the verdict of history. No Zombie Hitler to be invoked
And I bet females are no good at cancer surgery, either!
pH
Dennis N
January 17, 2013 at 4:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Same here, in the sense that it was the first time I was a complete 180 from him. He was definitely wrong there, but I don’t recall him responding the way Shermer is now; though I don’t follow these back and fourths that closely, so I’m open to being corrected.
smhll
January 17, 2013 at 4:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Look, I’m as guilty as Shermer of circling the wagons around myself from time to time, of getting defensive and remaining obstinate in the face of accurate and legitimate criticism.
Good article. Thank you. I suspect some of the perpetual friction comes from different lines about what criticism is “legitimate” and what criticism dwells on things someone else thinks of as unimportant.
Rodney Nelson
January 17, 2013 at 4:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
By now Shermer has too much pride invested in his defense for him to admit he said something which was sexist. His vanity won’t allow him to accept reasonable, mild criticism. Instead, he’s ramped up the controversy and changed it from him making a sexist remark to others making hateful, unwarranted attacks on him.
kacyray
January 17, 2013 at 4:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Seriously??
kacyray
January 17, 2013 at 4:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Heh… was just checking.
Don’t worry… I’m not going to do whatever it is you thought I was going to do. I don’t even think I had a comment to make on this topic.
2ndserve
January 17, 2013 at 4:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I knew it.
poxyhowzes
January 17, 2013 at 4:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sorry to have somewhat cross-posted with Ophelia @19
And Ed @ 18, ORAC is anything BUT a “Big Boy,” in my opinion. As you say, he can defend himself, but he hardly ever does. He invokes “Zombie Hitler” at whim and at random. Hence the repeated
In contrast, many folks at FtB have certain “awards” or “citations” they offer for which they cite the criteria over and over again. Orac has never, to my knowledge, explained when he will invoke “Zombie Hitler.”
pH
poxyhowzes
January 17, 2013 at 4:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Whoops!
….hence the repeated questions on this blog and this thread about “where is ORAC.”
eric
January 17, 2013 at 4:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, that makes no sense whatsoever. If Alice won’t answer my question I don’t run over to Bob and ask “hey Bob, why won’t Alice answer my question?”
I mean, are we two now? Mommy’s busy so people are going running to daddy to tug on his shirt and say “daddy daddy, mommy’s not paying attention to me! Make her pay attention to me!”
Gregory in Seattle
January 17, 2013 at 5:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“…within secular communities to root out the last vestiges of sexism, racism, and bigotry of any kind”
How can this be a bad thing? Is Shermer actually saying that we should NOT be working to root out sexism, racism and bigotry?
Tabby Lavalamp
January 17, 2013 at 5:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dennis N wrote…
His response wasn’t quite as egregious, but he did respond poorly to the criticism.
http://www.blaghag.com/2011/07/richard-dawkins-your-privilege-is.html
For a major figure in a movement that makes as much noise as we do over prayer in schools or the biblical verse in courtrooms to make this argument…
wneroaster
January 17, 2013 at 5:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe this has already been discussed (here or elsewhere), but would elevatorgate have ever become an issue if the guy had just asked her to have coffee at a coffee shop or down in the hotel restaurant instead of his room? Is there something still too presumptuous going that direction, instead?
Tabby Lavalamp
January 17, 2013 at 6:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
wneroaster, it might have mitigated some of it (and given the “he was just asking her for coffee!” crowd a more valid argument from that aspect), but there would have still been an issue of him not listening to Watson say she’s tired and is going to bed.
Wowbagger, Designated Snarker
January 17, 2013 at 6:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In my opinion, ‘elevatorgate’ (oh, how I loathe that term) is just the straw that broke the camel’s back. If it hadn’t been that it would have been something else, some other woman would have spoken out, painting a target on herself and receiving the same levels of abuse and obsessive harassment that Rebecca Watson’s received.
That’s the thing about those who are, ignorantly, citing this as creating ‘deep rifts’ in the atheist community – the rifts were always there; it’s just that people were pretending otherwise. Some people wanted to stop pretending while others were content with the status quo (the always charming ‘I’ve got mine so y’all can go fuck yourselves’ philosophy) and here we are.
mattand
January 17, 2013 at 6:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@35:
Dude hit on Rebbeca in an elevator at 4 AM, in a hotel where she had just given a speech about women being objectified at skeptic conferences.
Seriously, you might need to research the incident a wee bit more.
olivercrangle
January 17, 2013 at 6:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
The Internet admonishment to not compare others behaviors to NAZIs certainly does not include not comparing our own failings with those of Pastor Niemoller in standing up for others being bullied.
When I tell you I believe FreeThoughtBloggers are often abusive of others, and I reference Pastor Neimoller for inspiration, I am not calling you a NAZI or saying FTB is like NAZI Germany.
I am reminding myself of the importance of standing up to bullies, even when the people they bully may not be my cup of tea.
And Ed, isn’t that the very foundation of social justice and atheismplus? Are you really saying Atheism Plus has no room for Pastor Neimoller’s poem?
http://www.cls.utk.edu/pdf/holocaust/sectione.pdf
Question for Ed Brayton:
Is the University of Tennessee comparing its students to NAZIs?
Yahoo Answers:
http://www.washoe.k12.nv.us/americanhistory/secondary/lessons/lessons_std08/gray_d19.html
Question for Ed: Is Ms. Gray saying her students are NAZIs? Is she saying US society is NAZI Germany?
Question for Ed: What is Ms. Gray saying?
Question for Ed:
SAT Question for Ed:
What is the most correct answer:
1) Michael Shermer was comparing Ophelia Benson and others to NAZIs
2) Michael Shermer was stating he had failed in not speaking out for others, and reminding us all of the importance of doing so, even when we may disagree with those being bullied.
Shermer makes an explicit compares what he, Dawkins, Harris, and many others have suffered to McCarthyism. Address him on those grounds.
The claim he has compared Benson’s behavior to NAZI Germany is weak and relies on being able to ignore the explicit comparison and rests on a twisting of what is now a well known cultural theme, and a good one, that we must speak out for others even if we disagree with them, even if they are different from us.
How can a social justice movement run away from Pastor Niemoller?
Wowbagger, Designated Snarker
January 17, 2013 at 6:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Looks like olivercrangle is looking to be banned from yet another of the FT blogs. I can’t say I’m unhappy about that prospect.
Suido
January 17, 2013 at 6:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I started reading olivercrangle’s trainwreck, and gave up when he quoted Yahoo answers.
I think I just got stupiderer.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
January 17, 2013 at 6:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Seriously, SAT questions? How fucking arrogant can you get, you cheapskate child-hating sexist asshole?
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning)
January 17, 2013 at 6:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ll admit, I’m stubborn, and I can be stupid and dig my claws in. I still struggle with it.
wneroaster
January 17, 2013 at 6:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s not really what I asked. I also didn’t know he badgered her after she declined (so you’re right that maybe I didn’t know enough to pose the question). But I appreciate you assuming I was trying to make Rebecca look melodramatic.
Let me rephrase the hypothetical (keeping with the 4am thing) to make it general (i.e. not about Rebecca Watson): is it ok to ask a stranger at a conference if they’d like to go have coffee downstairs in the restaurant or at a coffee shop as they were ascending to their room in an empty elevator? I ask b/c long-term relationships get started this way. Seems like it’s not too crazy to imagine somebody would entertain such a question.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
January 17, 2013 at 6:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Shermer’s self-aggrandizing, pants-shitting temper-tantrum makes ME want to puke. Does that count?
Marcus Ranum
January 17, 2013 at 6:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He was definitely wrong there, but I don’t recall him responding the way Shermer is now
Dawkins stopped shovelling and climbed out of the hole, then walked away and let it die down. Good strategy.
It works much better than calling in a steam-powered backhoe, or climbing out and throwing yourself on one’s shovel while singing operastyle.
Dawkins did not fill the hole in behind him, though. Since the internets never forget, academe’s “let it blow over” strategy is suboptimal compared to saying, “oops!” and filling the hole before taking one’s shovel and letting the grass grow over one’s mistake.
uno1
January 17, 2013 at 7:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@44 wneroaster, This is off topic, and not the best thread for you to ask about this, so its probably a bad idea to keep asking about this. But one thing I got out of reading about that situation is making an advance on a woman, alone in an elevator (in any place she can’t choose her distance of interaction or walk way), has the potential to make a woman feel very uncomfortable, especially if she doesn’t know you. The right time to ask her out would be before she gets on the elevator (and then don’t follow her on if rejected). And of course, be polite and respectful. There isn’t a set of hard and fast rules, just be mindful of how the other person might feel, and when women tell you something makes them feel uncomfortable, listen.
Marcus Ranum
January 17, 2013 at 7:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dude hit on Rebbeca in an elevator at 4 AM, in a hotel where she had just given a speech about women being objectified at skeptic conferences.
I bet it was the National Rifle Association guy. I mean, with shark-jumping skills like that, who else could it be?
Steersman
January 17, 2013 at 7:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The thing is Ed, that neither you nor Ophelia nor all of the pack braying at Shermer’s heels have ever managed to prove that his “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing” actually qualifies as a sexist statement. And considering that that premise undergirds most of the subsequent attacks against him it seems that the dearth of evidence to justify the charge might reasonably be construed as evidence of a witch-hunt and an attempt to crucify him. Nice bunch of people.
However, on the question of proof, should you actually want to do “due diligence” and retain your qualifications or claim to being a skeptic, you might want to consider some facts. Consider that most of the people in prisons for violent crimes are overwhelmingly males by a 10:1 ratio about which one could also say “[violent crime], it’s more of a guy thing”. Sexist or a statement of fact? How about Pinker’s observation in his The Blank Slate that men “have a much stronger taste for no-strings sex with multiple or anonymous partners, as we see in the almost all-male consumer base for prostitution and visual pornography”. Sexist or a statement of fact? And, relative to the point in question, a recent Atheist Census with 24,000 respondents puts the population at 32% female and 67% male. Maybe some justification for the Shermer’s assertion that “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing”?
Once you’ve proven that Shermer’s statement was, in point of fact and not as an article of dogma, actually sexist then, and only then, can you and the rest of the pack have some justification for complaining about accusations of witch-hunts and the like.
Ed Brayton
January 17, 2013 at 7:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
olivercrangle wrote:
Well yeah, this might make sense if he hadn’t already accused his critics of engaging in a witch hunt, an inquisition and a “purge,” all references to some of the most totalitarian and horrible events in history. He says he failed to speak out for others who were victims of these non-existent purges, inquisitions and witch hunts. So yes, the analogy is clearly to some fascist witch hunt that he wrongly thinks has happened to others and is now happening to him. The horrible things that happened to those he imagines he has failed to speak up for did not happen and are not happening, to him or to anyone else. And his critics are not witch burners, Stalinist thugs, Catholic inquisitors or Nazi stormtroopers.
Improbable Joe
January 17, 2013 at 7:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman is clearly one of those Cargo Cult pseudo-skeptics who expects people to pull out pie charts to “prove” things, rather than actually using his brain to think about things.
Maureen Brian
January 17, 2013 at 7:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman, dear, we all long ago accepted that Shermer mis-spoke. No big deal! We all do it from time to time.
His first opportunity to say, “oops! badly phrased” was right there in the interview which was being recorded. The fact that he didn’t say it was mentioned in passing by Ophelia. The article she wrote was not about Shermer at all and this was months ago.
Since then, the man has missed no opportunity – and people have been foolish enough to give him those opportunities – to slag off everyone who does not worship his total perfection, in the manner he thinks fit. In the course of which he has been quite willing to twist, distort and make up what ever facts he thought might strengthen his case.
I for one have long since stopped worrying about his sexism. It’s there but we have no reason to think it is worse than anyone else’s. His arrogance and self-obsession, though, are in a class of their own.
Steersman
January 17, 2013 at 7:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Improbable Joe said (#51):
As opposed to Improbable Joe’s tendency to gesture hypnotically or sacrifice some beast or gaze into his crystal ball for divine guidance.
If you’re going to use words you have to be able to show how the definitions apply to the situations and circumstances you wish to describe with them. Simply asserting something without evidence – ipse dixit – tends to betray some unfortunate and problematic similarities with fundamentalist Christians ….
olivercrangle
January 17, 2013 at 7:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Well yeah, this might make sense if he hadn’t already accused his critics of engaging in a witch hunt, an inquisition and a “purge,” all references to some of the most totalitarian and horrible events in history.”
The purge he refers to explicitly is in social movements in general and objectivism in specific.
And you ignore once more his chief comparison, which is to McCarthyism. And McCarthyism however terrible, was not really one of the most totalitarian and horrible events in history.
So engage Shermer with an argument that what has happened is not on the scale of the social movement purges or McCarthyist purges.
But all you have done here Ed, is throw in with a “me too” tribal defense of your friend. But her argument is overwrought, and her claim to a comparison of Naziism very misplaced.
And hey, if you observe the daily blogs of PZ, Stephanie Zvan, Christina, Benson, Skepchick, Lee, etc., these are bloggers that go purposefully out of their way to out the evil “slymepitters”, banning them for mere participation at the SlymePit forum, and not banning them for behavior more typically associated with banning (spamming, libel, threats, doxxing, etc.)
At face value, the comparison to McCarthyism, and the comparison to “witch hunts” as the cultural meme understands that, seems accurate to me.
Improbable Joe
January 17, 2013 at 7:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman, let’s go ahead and treat you like a Creationist, since you’re just as irrational:
What do you consider “proof” of sexism? What standard must a comment meet before you’ll accept the possibility that it is sexist?
Steersman
January 17, 2013 at 7:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maureen Brian said (#52):
Maureen – dear, that is precisely the problem, because you simply have not proven the case that his statement was sexist. Simply that y’all have “accepted that Shermer mis-spoke” hardly qualifies as any type of proof – as least by all the rules of logic and evidence with which I’m familiar. Why the fuck should Shermer or anyone else accept your acceptance of the charge of sexism as evidence of fuck-all except that your standards of proof are idiosyncratic at best if not outright bigoted and prejudiced and manifestations of dogma?
Wowbagger, Designated Snarker
January 17, 2013 at 8:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
olivercrangle wrote:
Important question, olivercrangle: what was McCarthy’s position/occupation during the time at which the ‘witch hunts’ took place?
shadowmant
January 17, 2013 at 8:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To be fair, your blog is misleading. At no time did he say that:
the reason there are so few women speaking at atheist conferences is because being “intellectually active” was “more of a guy thing,”
—
The comment in question was directed as to why no woman were available to come onto the TV show. He actually went on to mention that women actually made up about half the speakers at conferences later and never said anything about “there are so few women speaking at atheist conferences”
—
The way in which you have clipped two parts of the quote out of the whole and placed them together is also very misleading. Here is the actual quote in response to a question as to why every female asked to come on the show rejected the offer:
“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”
—
To me, this comes across as four variables would be needed in a person to show interest in coming on the show and that finding all four of these specific variables together would be a guy thing. Is this accurate? No idea, perhaps it was just bad luck not being able to find a female to join the panel or perhaps another variable not mentioned that is more common amongst males was involved in the decisions made by the folks asked to join.
—
My personal opinion: To tie directly together that he meant that woman are not intellectually active seems a large stretch of imagination. One would either need to be looking for an excuse to be offended or else get their information from a blog that perhaps displayed a partial quote out of context.
To me this being paralleled to a witch hunt would be accurate.
Maureen Brian
January 17, 2013 at 8:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Suppose, steersman, that I were to ask you why there are so few African-Americans in the US Senate and you were to reply that it’s not a place they seem to hang out. That wouldn’t be an explanation. It would be circular reasoning and an attempt not to address a perfectly reasonable question which was put to you.
That is what Shermer did – he tried to bat away a question. Not good going for a skeptic, let alone a skeptic super-hero.
But you stick with your idolatry. It clearly means a lot to you.
TCC
January 17, 2013 at 8:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, it would in fact be sexist to make those specific statements, since it would suggest a reason for the gender disparity. Saying “[violent crime], it’s more of a guy thing” is essentially saying “being male makes you more prone to commit a violent crime,” which isn’t necessarily the case. (And I sincerely hope you aren’t saying that the Atheist Census actually provides evidence for a gender disparity in atheism, which would be one of the stupidest things you’ve said here – and that’s really saying something.)
Steersman
January 17, 2013 at 8:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Improbable Joe said (#55):
Considering that I offered 2 analogous cases – which I note you didn’t address – in support of my argument, analogy being essentially a case of ratios, the word being the root of “rationality”, I would have to say that’s a real thigh-slapper there, Joe.
Well, here’s a thought: we could always start with some dictionary definitions – which I very much doubt that anyone in Free-from-Thought-Blog-land actually thought to do before now – and see where the chips fall:
sexism:
stereotype:
So, do show us all how it is that Shermer’s statement manifested any discrimination. Did he assert that because “atheism is more of a guy thing” that women shouldn’t be allowed to be atheists or go to atheist conventions? Did his statement actually promote any simplified – i.e., inaccurate, false or misleading – conception of the composition of the population of atheists? Before trying to answer that question do try to wrap your head around the fact that a simple statement of fact – as my examples about prison populations, “the consumer base for prostitution and visual pornography”, and the Atheist Census were designed to illustrate – does not qualify as any type of “oversimplified conception”.
This failing to exercise due diligence in even attempting to justify the charge of sexism is, at the very least, the most egregious and odious case of anti-intellectualism that I have ever seen. And more than enough evidence to justify all of the counter charges of witch-hunting and feminazis and atheist-cults.
shadowmant
January 17, 2013 at 8:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Improbable Joe
January 17, 2013 at 9:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why would we reduce human interaction to simplistic dictionary definitions, unless it is for the purpose of disappearing complexity and depending on that simplicity to make an “argument” that falls apart in the real world?
Of course, making the statement “it is a guy thing” is BY DEFINITION appealing to a stereotype… you nitwit. Emphasizing the word “more” doesn’t change it, unless you’re appealing to a absolutist “straw-sexist” fantasy, which seems really likely.
Plus, you keep saying “due diligence” for some unknown reason.
Jafafa Hots
January 17, 2013 at 9:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Those are the only options given on the Official Sexist Language Exemption Determination Test.
(Please be sure to use a number two pencil.)
jenniferphillips
January 17, 2013 at 9:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think there needs to be some internet law, á lá Godwin and Scopie, whereby invoking a dictionary definition as part of your argument results in forfeit.
Michael Heath
January 17, 2013 at 9:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Shermer:
Gregory in Seattle @ 33 quotemines Shermer by clipping the above quote down to this:
TCC
January 17, 2013 at 10:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
shadowmant, those actually are problematic in terms of gender since they are sex-linked traits. And even if pointing out gender as a reason – which it’s not in the cases you gave – is not a sufficient condition, it does seem to be a necessary one. Your examples are (mostly) not ones that rely on a stereotype; Shermer’s absolutely does. And saying that sexism requires some attempt or intent to subjugate the other gender is exactly wrong; that would be like saying that the statement “I think dark people are inferior, but I don’t want to take away their rights” isn’t racist. No, it is most certainly is; it just doesn’t advocate legal discrimination. So your definition isn’t exactly helpful there.
gregaryous42
January 17, 2013 at 10:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Okay, I can’t stand it any more!
Seriously, I really don’t get it. RW makes what appears to me to be a somewhat odd suggestion that invitations prefaced with “don’t get me wrong” are somehow veiled and threatening, a few people make that observation out loud (and granted a quite a few other lose their collective shit over it) and then all of a sudden any comment in either direction is labelled with the most extreme charges.
I’m not kidding it all seems utterly over the top on all sides, some one point me at something that explains why you’re all going ballistic over each others rather bland stories and comments.
Persecution Freak!
Drama Queen
Mysoginist
I’m not sure Mr Shermer hasn’t got a point. Can’t anyone just make an offhand remark without having it savaged to pieces by the mob. “Maybe it’s a guy thing” so?? Maybe it is, so what? Make it a girl thing then. Actually it sounded like more of a sarcastic joke than anything else.
Anyway sorry if it all sounds like one more dumb uniformed mysoginistic, drama queen, bigot . . . whatever.
Wowbagger, Designated Snarker
January 17, 2013 at 10:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
gregaryous42 wrote:
No, that’s quite obvious. And yet, instead of going away and reading up on exactly what happened, what the responses to it were, and what’s happened since, you chose to keep on writing while assuming it’s somehow everyone’s else’s job to fill you in.
Newsflash: it’s not. Maybe try doing so research first so you have at least a chance of being able to contribute to the discussion.
Steersman
January 17, 2013 at 10:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Improbable Joe said (#63):
What horseshit. If you can’t actually address much less refute the points and evidence advanced in support of a case then simply dismiss them through recourse to some ethereal, nebulous, and unsupportable set of “ideas”. Seems to have some similarities with “The Courtier’s Reply” which was apparently originated by PZ – “don’t do as I do, but as I say” – Myers ….
But Shermer did use “more” – contrary to Benson’s attempted hatchet job on him – which is what changes it from a categorical statement – which is probably unsupportable and sexist – to one which is factual. Consider, if you’re capable and haven’t yet drunk all of your Kool-Aid, these statements: “all carbon atoms have 12 neutrons”, and “most – i.e., more – carbon atoms have 12 neutrons”. Entirely different kettles of fish – and anything but a “straw-chemist” fantasy – as they describe false and true statements, respectively.
Maybe because it has some relevance to the discussion? Specifically:
In this case, “buying” the “hypothesis” – and I use the term loosely – that Benson, Brayton, Myers and Company – a company which should be disbanded if not charged with fraud – have been peddling that Shermer’s statement was sexist. And one that many in FfTB-land have bought hook-line-and-sinker.
Michael Heath
January 17, 2013 at 10:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
You are of course correct on the rhetorical fallacies and weaknesses of Michael Shermer’s argument. And I’m glad you’re pointing them out, we need to do what the religionists won’t, which is maintain awareness of our own performance and call out performances accordingly. But I see this post as beneath you. Specifically, your lead is:
Ophelia Benson didn’t merely criticize Shermer, she grossly misrepresented what he stated in a way that makes it appear what he said was far worse than what he actually said. I find your lead here misinforms readers of what Shermer was responding to in his post. My percpetion changed significantly after reading Shermer’s post and Benson’s (linked below).
Here’s what Shermer said:
I think it’s also critical to consider everything else he stated in that show to properly weigh the level of sexism above. The dumbness employed is self-evident on its own and needs no further context. But this statement wasn’t made in a vacuum where the surrounding verbal exchanges are supportive of this being more of a dumb statement than convincing evidence of even mild sexism, compelling perhaps, but certainly not risible to the level of sexism Ms. Benson falsely accuses Shermer of perpetrating here.
And here’s the gross misrepresentation by Ms. Benson:
Go after Shermer, he deserves it, but I think it’s unfair of you to also not go after Benson as well. All I know about this is pretty much contained on this blog post thread. And that is that Shermer needs some lessons in argumentation, dispassionate critiquing, and room to develop his emotional intelligence . Ms. Benson on the other hand reveals a morally repugnant willingness to defame another person; where I find that to be a far worse moral failing here than the buffonery on display by Mr. Shermer.
Steersman
January 17, 2013 at 10:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jenniferphillips said (#65):
Good idea. Why not follow that up by burning all of the dictionaries so that no one can ever use a dictionary in any argument ever again. And then all of the books that you personally disagree with ….
P.S. Ed, here’s another charter member for your “atheist cult” ….
hypatiasdaughter
January 17, 2013 at 10:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#62 shadowmant
Shermer made that comment after being told by the host of the show that they couldn’t find a woman to interview on the topic (He also said that the ratio of women in the movement was about 50/50 – his comment about “a guy thing” was specifically referring to activism.)
He was speaking as a representative of the skeptic/atheist community. What he should have said was “You didn’t look hard enough. I have met many women who write, blog and speak on the topic.” He has met many of them at conferences and in his role as the editor of Skeptic magazine.
Was his remark sexist? For me it was more the indifference about setting the record straight. He was being interviewed to set the record straight about skeptics and atheists – but about women in the movement? Meh. Not that important. I find the ennui about women’s role, the barriers they might face, the indifference to finding reasons, is the sexist part. The actual words said are just the tip of the iceberg of an underlying attitude.
And what is this obsession with the word “sexist”? I see so may people get twisted in knots over that label. Is is worse than calling someone an “asshole”, an “idiot” – or even a Nazi, an inquisitioner, or a witch hunter?
Michael Heath
January 17, 2013 at 10:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
hypatiasdaugher furthers the lie:
You need to read Shermer’s entire post. While the portion he’s being criticized for is dumb, he pretty much stated in other parts of the show what you wished he had stated as a response to that question. The fact we’re attacking someone in the exact dishonest tribalistic manner we criticize conservative Christians for doing does not bode well for us. In this case playing David Barton’s foil and not reading the cites but instead depending on the preferred tribal narrative to be true when in fact that narrative is not true.
Jafafa Hots
January 17, 2013 at 10:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Just like “racist” or “bigot,” accusing someone of these things is officially worse than BEING one.
Steersman
January 17, 2013 at 10:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jafafa Hots said (#75):
A Hermit
January 17, 2013 at 11:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He’s not being “savaged” for that remark; he got a t=rather mild criticism for saying somethin gwhich, on the face of it, reinforced a sexist stereotype.
He’s getting some pushback now for over-reacting to that rather mild critique and comparing it to witch hunts and inquisitiions and Nazis oh my!
Gretchen
January 17, 2013 at 11:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath said:
Yeah, Ophelia Benson “defamed” another person, whereas Michael Shermer did the same to every “self-proclaimed” skeptical feminist out there. Clearly what she did is far worse….
Jafafa Hots
January 17, 2013 at 11:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman, you have provided plenty of evidence,
Just not evidence of what you’re asserting.
Steersman
January 17, 2013 at 11:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jafafa Hots said (#79):
And what evidence do you think I’ve provided and what do you think it is that I’m asserting?
The thing is that Benson, Brayton, Myers and Company have been the ones to make the completely and totally unsubstantiated – if not wild and bordering on criminally negligent – accusations. I’ve offered far more real tangible evidence than they have for the counter-claim, i.e., that Shermer’s statement can not reasonably be construed as sexist. Most skeptics with any appreciation for what the word entails are likely to judge accordingly. As Hitchens put it: “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
January 17, 2013 at 11:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath:
Shermer’s statement was not made in a vacuum. Ophelia’s response was reasonable under Duck Theory given her actual experiences with public sexism, and Shermer had a chance to prove he’d been mischaracterized and blew it spectacularly.
I used to think you were smarter than this.
Steersman
January 17, 2013 at 11:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen said (#78)
That is only plausibly true if Shermer had actually made a sexist statement , that his “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing” qualifies as such. Have you proven that? Have you addressed the points of my counter claim, that it’s only sexist if there’s discrimination involved or that it promotes a stereotype?
Absent that proof, your rather risible umbrage looks little more than a discreditable and egregious attempt to railroad someone for your own failures in applying logic and analyzing the facts of the matter. I think it’s called prejudice and bigotry ….
P.S. Ed, another charter member for your cult …
Gretchen
January 18, 2013 at 12:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, it’s only plausibly true if Shermer posted a broadly overreaching and histrionic diatribe blaming skeptical feminists in general for a McCarthyistic Nazi witch hunt against him because a few particular members of that group posted some mildly critical comments of what he originally said. Which is, sorry to say, not only plausibly but undeniably the case.
Vice cult leader in charge of brainwashing. Get it right, squire.
tomh
January 18, 2013 at 12:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman wrote:
if not wild and bordering on criminally negligent
Now that’s hilarious. “Criminally negligent,” no less. Just what is the law against describing someone’s words as sexist, again?
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 12:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen said (#83):
Maybe. But what and who started the ball rolling? Methinks it was the hatchet-job that Benson did on him in that Secular Humanism article several months ago. If the charge she made is fabricated and totally false then he might well have some justifications for being bent out of shape, particularly when the charge of sexism was subsequently compounded by further piling-on after his quite reasonable response. Sort of like shooting an intruder in your home.
And unless you address that point, that charge that he made a sexist statement, then I think that qualifies as railroading and witch-hunting. Unless you want to argue that people aren’t entitled to defend their homes and selves.
Sorry … your VCLiCoBW; credit – even if only for some sense of humour – where credit is due ….
jenniferphillips
January 18, 2013 at 12:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman @72 said:
Yes, because pointing out that dictionary definition arguments are stupid and ineffective is EXACTLY like censorship. I see you studied at the Michael Shermer School of Hyperbole.
Jafafa Hots
January 18, 2013 at 12:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kevinstone
January 18, 2013 at 12:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I find this railing against Shermer absurd. On one hand, Shermer made a sexist-sounding comment that was spontaneous, unthinking, and in-eloquent, compounded by the recent unrelated sexual harassment incident and the fact that there is a distinct gender bias in our everyday language–it’s a guy thing, hey guys, man up, man made, etc. On the other hand, Shermer has been very explicit in his position on the role and importance of women in the atheist movement, and women in general. And what he has said about women has been wholly positive. So unless you can demonstrate that he was being insincere lauding all of these women atheists, then there is no particular reason for you to believe that there is some underlying berg of sexist ice which we are only seeing the very tip of. For even if that were the case, provided the berg remains substantially submerged, the problem rarely if ever manifests, does it not? And if that’s the case then what’s the big fucking deal? One could argue we all have giant bergs of one sort of ice or another that we keep submerged; we call them character flaws. One such character flaw that I would like to see submerged more often is paranoia. Yet that one, more than others, has a tendency to surface, made buoyant by over-active pattern detection. When examined objectively there is no pattern here to detect. Sexism implies that the person speaking in sexist ways believes what they’re saying is true, and thus a pattern of behavior should be evident. If that’s not the case–and it clearly isn’t in Shermer’s case–then it’s just a matter of language and fuck you. Yes, he could have chosen better language when asked . Yes, his words were offensive to some. But it does not represent a pattern of behavior, and therefore I don’t believe Shermer is any more a sexist than I am a theist. Saying “it’s a guy thing” makes Shermer a sexist about as much as saying “Jesus fucking Christ” makes me a Christian.
dsmccoy
January 18, 2013 at 12:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s crazy to argue whether Shermers original statement was sexist or not. If you actually read Shermers replies he pretty much admits that it was a slip if the tongue. The problem is that he doesn’t stop with that, but goes on with some crazy counter-attack in revenge for having it pointed out to him making sweeping generalizations about groups of people, all way out of proportion to his original comment or OB’s original fairly minor criticism of it. Where is all the outrage coming from? Nothing warranted it. Even if he didn’t agree that the original statement was sexist, fine, then he could just say he disagrees with the OB’s opinion on it, without any need to go railing on about witch-hunts, inquisitions, and Nazi’s.
Iamcuriousblue
January 18, 2013 at 12:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m just going to say my peace and let the inevitable insults and bashing take their course -
The point that those of us who find this corner of the atheist movement to be increasingly authoritarian or totalitarian is not that you have anything close to the power of a Fascist or Stalinist government. But that your movement, as manifest in the kind of extreme ideological feminism* so often on display here, it looks like many historical authoritarian movements that were not in power and which still are very damaging. I look at the kind of creepy Marxist entryism that all manner of liberation movements of the past have experienced and see quite a few parallels with the social justice warrior/ultra-feminist contingent of the atheist movement. The destruction of the 60s anti-war movement into squabbling little cults after an organized takeover of SDS by the Marxist cult Progressive Labor Party strikes me as having a whole lot of parallels with what’s going on now. (I might also add that the PLP were the ones who assaulted E.O. Wilson for advocating an early form of evolutionary psychology, an action I’m sure would win the hearts of more than a few Aplussers.)
I think there are some pretty clear parallels with Scientology as well, with it’s nasty ingroup-outgroup dynamic, it’s delusions of being a righteous but persecuted group battling to save the world, and its nasty campaigns against its critics.
So calling you a bunch of crypto-totalitarians in the sense of creating a nontheistic cult where religion is simply replaced by an uncritical embrace of a narrow political ideology? I say, y’all resemble that accusation. Calling you the equivalent of the Stalinism? No, not really – that would take the perfect storm of atheism, hard-line ideology, and state power, and the third ingredient is thankfully missing. But it’s why so many of us don’t want people like you anywhere *near* political power, and don’t want any part of a “secular” movement that’s going to help that along.
*(which, from where I’m sitting, looks like the worst kind of 70s radical feminism, minus the transphobia, and maybe with the occasional pretense of being “sex positive”)
Jafafa Hots
January 18, 2013 at 1:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kevin, hiding character flaws does no good.
Digging them out, exposing them to the air, examining and OWNING them is what you’re supposed to do.
If you say things that reveal a bias (and we all have biases) how the hell does ignoring that bias and pretending it doesn’t exist, and losing your shit when someone points to your iceberg do ANYTHING to help?
Upping the ante is NOT a sign that those who saw bias in your speech were wrong.
It’s not necessarily evidence that they are right, either – but it sure doesn’t help your case.
I’m not going to call you a bigot because I see no evidence you are one.
But I do see that you are not only startlingly ignorant about the course of civil rights activism in the US, you’re also ignorant of the fact that the very style of argument you are using is what some of the milder apologists for bigotry (or the unwanted remnants of bigoted speech or thought in those who are otherwise enlightened) have long used….
…and that that approach proved not only not to help, but actually to impede progress.
There is an underlying berg of sexist ice in all of human culture.
If a person does not have the capacity to own up to their own unwanted remnants, then they are in denial of their own acculturation. This isn’t particularly helpful.
It happens to us all. In my case, I am in such confusion over an event this week and so unsure about whether or not I can see my motivations clearly, whether there may be some residual racism or bias, that I have scheduled an appointment with a counselor to discuss it.
This shit takes work, and the work never ends.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 1:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tomh said (#84):
I did say “bordering on”, although the law on defamation seems to cover the circumstances:
As to the facts of the matter, the “claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual”, consider Benson’s statement in that Secular Humanism article:
For one thing he most definitely did not say “that’s a guy thing”, and, even more most definitely, he did not say “unbelieving in god is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky” nor the even worse “women are too stupid to do nontheism”, both of which are strongly implied – “to be factual” – by Benson’s “said exactly that”. Hatchet-job, indeed. I figure she’s lucky he hasn’t sued her for slander or libel.
Jafafa Hots
January 18, 2013 at 1:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I figure that people in the legal system don’t particularly like legal arguments that have been pulled out of someone’s ass. Unsanitary.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 1:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jafafa Hots said (#93)
I figure that type of dismissal of an argument without considering the facts presented is par for the course here in free-from-thought-blog-land ….
Jafafa Hots
January 18, 2013 at 1:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
First you have to present some facts. Not deliberate distortions, not opinion, and not statement that you claim support your argument which don’t.
I usually try to give such empty dishonest rhetoric the attention it deserves.
Occasionally I give it more attention than it deserves, such as now.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 1:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jafafa Hots said (#95)
I’m not a mind reader – which argument are you referring to? In both cases – #80 & #92 – I provided or referenced specific facts which you have yet to address. Or maybe you were waiting for only those facts that you agree with? ….
georgebean
January 18, 2013 at 2:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wish there was more accountability expected of “celebrities” in the atheist community, most particularly Sam Harris, who seems to be revered for no other reason that I can see but that he’s a “famous” atheist. He’s written some of the most oversold, yet embarrassingly fatuous and amateurishly supported claims about religion, morals, etc I’ve ever read (caveat-I won’t read Rick Warren or any of that ilk so I’ll concede there will certainly be far worse overhyped crappola on the bookshelves than I’ve bothered to read).
He doesn’t irritate me because he’s “not PC”. He really gets my hair up because he tries to apply this patina of “science and reason” on his own “my gut tells me” nonsense, liberally bolstered with cherry picked factoids and the same hocus pocus “divination”, “gap plugging” and deflective handwaving as any self respecting creationist or climate change denier. It is immensely irritating to me he is fawned over rather than castigated for what amounts to pumping truckloads more pseudoscience out there, and I think it’s because his atheism (and politics) grab all the attention.
Years ago I was urged by a Christian to read “Mere Christianity” because (he told me) it was a solidly “logical” and evidence based, as opposed to “dogma-based”, argument for the truth of Christianity. My reaction reading it was exactly the same as it’s been reading much by Harris-that I was being flimflammed. Harris, like Lewis, merely wanked with “reason” to amuse himself filling up pages while giving the illusion we’re getting to the proof, the core, upon which everything else follows. Except neither use it to demonstrate or prove these core premises. They’re using it to market their premises, both of them exposing, really, that their key premises are merely “givens”.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 2:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Iamcuriousblue said (#90):
Well, you certainly won’t get that from me at least as I thought your arguments and points were spot on.
While I don’t know many of the details of the “60s anti-war movement” as I was only peripherally involved and that here in Canada, I have read Pinker’s description – in his How the Mind Works – of several incidents of assault against Wilson where people poured water over his head and brought noise makers to his class. Really sort of an eye-opener that made me realize that dogma – and its consequences – was not restricted to religious cloisters and seminaries ….
tomh
January 18, 2013 at 2:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman wrote:
I figure she’s lucky he hasn’t sued her for slander or libel
Oh, so now it’s not “criminal” any more, he should just sue her for some sort of damages? I guess she must have knowingly made false statements about Shermer, with actual malice intended, since he’s a public figure of sorts, see New York Times v Sullivan (1964). Here’s a clue for you – you don’t win a defamation suit by suing someone over their opinion of you.
Ed Brayton
January 18, 2013 at 2:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman wrote:
I think claiming that there are more men speaking at conferences than women because men are more “intellectually active” is quite obviously both dumb and sexist. I don’t think this is really stepping out on a limb at all.
It’s fascinating seeing the two completely contradictory excuses being offered for Shermer’s sexist statement. The first one, offered by Shermer himself, is that because he said that he thinks the real ratio of men to women in atheism “probably really is fifty-fifty,” he could not possibly have said something sexist. But if the ratio really is 50/50 then the problem of relatively few women speakers and relatively few women in attendance is even more of a problem. If there are just as many atheist women as men, why don’t they come to meetings? It certainly cant’ be explained by the absurd claim that men are more “intellectually active” than women.
And now we have your defense, which is the exact opposite, that the ratio isn’t 50/50 at all so that makes his statement justified. But he wasn’t arguing that there aren’t an equal number of men and women leading discussions and speaking at conferences because there aren’t an equal number of male and female atheists; in fact, he says the exact opposite of that, as explained above. So your argument is not a defense of what he said, it’s a defense of an entirely different statement.
Is it actually 50/50? Probably not, because polling shows that men are more likely to be atheists than women (at least in the United States) — not by a huge margin, but enough that it probably can’t be expected to be 50/50 at this point. But that isn’t really the relevant question. The relevant questions are: why in many of our communities do we see very low numbers of women in attendance? And why do we see so few women in speaking roles or leading discussions? We have heard from many women that they feel uncomfortable going to events because they are often singled out and sexualized, especially if there’s only a small number of them and a very large number of men. I’ve spoken to many women who have told me exactly that, that if they go to a local atheist event they end up being hit on constantly and that isn’t why they’re there. We can take that testimony seriously and try to change the atmosphere, or we can put our head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t happen and the status quo will continue. It doesn’t mean we have to throw people out for flirting, for crying out loud. It means we need to set a more respectful tone and educate people to be aware of how their behavior may be affecting people. This is hardly an unreasonable suggestion.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
January 18, 2013 at 2:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hah! Funny, appeals to dictionary usually fail but in this case it looks like a bingo to me.
Shermer was asked why there seem to be more men around. In response, he appealed to the stereotype that atheism/skepticism, being “intellectually active” about it, and speaking in public about it, are a “guy thing.” In the context of the question “why are there more men?”, the response “it’s a guy thing,” really does not communicate much criticism of the premise of the statement “it’s a guy thing.” He ended up perpetuating, rather than challenging, a sexist stereotype. It’s obvious that he did so without conscious intent, so in fact his gaffe is a perfect example of something Shermer himself is always lecturing us about: unconscious bias. Didn’t mean to appeal to a stereotype, but did so anyway, because thoughtlessness. Happens to everyone. Happened to me today.
And that’s just about what Ophelia said. Not that Shermer hates women, not that he ought to be purged.
Just like with RW, the response is disproportionate to the alleged offense.
mikee
January 18, 2013 at 2:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Do I expect leaders in skepticism and atheism to always say the right thing? – No, they are only human.
Do I expect them to own up when they get things wrong? Damn right I do – that is the only rational thing to do.
Do I expect them to listen to other people’s views? Damn right I do. If they expect everyone to listen to them, without questions, then they have become the sort of people skeptics and atheists have been fighting against .
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
January 18, 2013 at 2:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, that’s always the first thing those fascists always do, make fun of you! You poor, poor preemptive victim.
georgebean
January 18, 2013 at 2:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
(Now that I’ve vented some of the steam I feel about the unfounded reverence paid to Harris)….I can’t help but notice that this whole “feminism” issue has led to an epidemic of over-defensiveness and there’s a shortage of chill pills now just when so many could use them.
It’s such a *simple idea* (gender equality), and yet it’s proving to be one of the most complicated this community has been forced to address. And look how prickly (if not downright crazy) people are reacting over this! I mean, seriously – I’m old so I remember the Friedan and Robin Morgan feminist wave and hell yes was some of it ridiculously over-the-top (I also remember some inexcusably over-the-top excesses by LG activists in the 1980s – the BT political phase was yet-to-be). So when I see the kinds of relative nothings that have triggered this “anti-feminist” defensiveness it astonishes me how reactionary so many in this “reason based community” are.
Confirms my darkest fears, really, that “reason” doesn’t resolve much outside the bounds of a given cultural perspective.
dingojack
January 18, 2013 at 3:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Did Shermer actually say: “It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.””
So, is he suggesting that men are more likely ‘to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it’? If this is so, why might that be Mr Shermer?
And is he seriously saying men are more likely to be ‘intellectually active’ about skepticism and atheism? Seriously?
Dingo
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 3:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
georgebean said (#104):
I can sympathize and I generally agree with you about Harris, although I haven’t read enough him to say much except to note, as I think you suggested, that it seems various philosophers have criticized his over-reliance on science to decide questions of morality.
However, on the question of your “simple idea” of gender equality – at least in the sense of civil rights, I don’t think many actually dispute that point. My impression is that one of the larger bones of contention is the question of to what extent are our psychologies determined by genetics and by culture – the old nature-nurture debate. And the implications of that debate seem to have some significant relevance to a number of issues, notably the extent to which various behaviour patterns are “girl things” or “guy things” ….
georgebean
January 18, 2013 at 4:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“My impression is that one of the larger bones of contention is the question of to what extent are our psychologies determined by genetics and by culture – the old nature-nurture debate. ”
Uh, well.. I submit that would be you *reading into* the debate what may be key sub-textual contentions that caused so many to go haywire. But remember there’s the “appeal to nature” fallacy that (I should hope) most self-respecting secularists abjure so if that’s what the debate’s about, few of the anybodies engaged in it are admitting that’s what it’s about.
I don’t think that’s what it’s really about myself. I think what it’s really about is oftentimes rationalized to be about that.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 4:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dingojack said (#105):
Assuming for a moment that that is what he said, why is that such a hard concept to wrap your head around? As I mentioned above, a recent Atheist Census with some 170,000 respondents worldwide [60,000 in the US] shows a distribution of about 25% female and 74% male from which one could probably extrapolate that the gender distribution in the US is very similar. However, a recent Pew Forum poll puts the distribution at about 42.5% female and 57.5% male [approximately; pg 21] based on a sample of some 3000 people surveyed by phone. And the discrepancy is, I think, probably due to the fact that the former seems to be Internet based while the latter is just plain old telephone so may get an older demographic.
Now, assuming that the first survey is polling those who are more “intellectually active” within the atheist community, the numbers would seem to justify Shermer’s contention that it is the males who happen to be more so. However, that still says absolutely nothing about the reasons for that disparity – maybe there are more males because more males happen to be interested in geek science and the Internet and so are more aware of those types of surveys or more willing to answer them and consequently more aware of the various atheist conventions and discussion boards. And maybe there are more women who are more intellectually active on other issues and in other venues. Or maybe there are economic disparities that prevent more women from accessing the Internet and so unable to be involved in various activities.
But, regardless of the reasons for those disparities, it seems rather difficult to argue that they don’t exist. That atheist activism isn’t “more of a guy thing”.
Jafafa Hots
January 18, 2013 at 4:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah. Maybe girls just don’t have atheism genes.
Jafafa Hots
January 18, 2013 at 4:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
(should have referenced #106.)
Jafafa Hots
January 18, 2013 at 4:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
One thing we know for sure – claiming it’s more of a guy thing is more of a guy thing.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 4:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jafafa Hots said (#109)
Right. The same way girls also don’t have the genes that lead men to commit violent crimes more often – at least based on the fact that there are 10 times as many men in jail for those types of crimes than there are women ….
Or maybe you don’t think that genes have any influence on our behaviours, and that Jehovah – or his Wife – put them there for decoration?
We all have pretty much the same genes, but there are variations and they do have at least some influence on our behaviours. And some of them can be rather problematic and some of them quite beneficial, some more so than others. But it generally helps to know about their effects and how they can be compensated for or used to their fullest extents, although it seems that we’re not quite there yet.
You might be right about that, although there’s still the question of why that is the case. Generally there have been more guy scientists, although there have also been a great many brilliant gal scientists as well so that if a large part of being a scientist is genetic then it isn’t something that is exclusive to any one sex.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 5:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
georgebean said (#107):
Yes, “unexamined” biases and conceptions can be rather problematic. Unfortunately, that we can sweep problems under the rug tends not to be any guarantee that they still can’t trip us up – and frequently at the most inopportune times.
There’s a difference between acknowledging a certain set of behaviour patterns in various subgroups in a population, and asserting that any of them are “good”, “bad”, or “indifferent”. But I find that one can’t do much about “accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative” if one can’t face the facts about which are what to begin with. And that is, I think, a major stumbling block for many.
My impression from a fair amount of reading is that more than a few others are of a similar mind. For instance, you might not be aware of but be interested in this Wikipedia article on equity and gender feminism – a division which mirrors the nature-nurture debate. In addition there is this chapter on Gender in Stephen Pinker’s The Blank Slate.
huntstoddard
January 18, 2013 at 5:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This has been my general conclusion. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Yes, what Shermer said was kind of dumb, but that doesn’t excuse Benson’s hit piece on him, which wildly misrepresented what he said. Even worse, it wildly misrepresents what Shermer almost certainly stands for and believes.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 6:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jenniferphillips said (#86):
But you didn’t say they were “stupid and ineffective”; you said “… there needs to be some internet law … whereby invoking a dictionary definition as part of your argument results in forfeit”. Which looks to me rather much exactly like censorship: “to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable”.
Relative to which you might want to reflect on something from a German writer, Heinrich Heine:
From the suppression of books to the burning of them is a fairly common progression found in the historical record. And it frequently doesn’t stop there – why it’s very bad karma to even suggest anything remotely like the first step.
Masters and Ph.D. Highly recommended – I would suggest that you start with his The Believing Brain….
uno1
January 18, 2013 at 6:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman, for fucks sake, please stop using the Atheist Census as though it’s an accurate measurements. It’s essentially an internet poll in terms of sampling. Also, as a side-note, visibility does not equal intellectual activity.
How about you respond to Ed’s response to your initial points, or acknowledge where your reasoning is dodgy.
Wowbagger, Designated Snarker
January 18, 2013 at 6:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What the anti-feminists practice isn’t skepticism, any more than what a creationist practices is science – it’s a cover for dismissing thing they don’t happen to like or agree with out of hand; rolling the turd in glitter because they know it can’t be polished.
We know there are fewer women in the community – though even this is something that’s called into question by the so-called skeptics – and we could do something about it easily enough and see if things changed for the better. It would grow the numbers of the movement and maybe even help free more people from the shackles of religion and the problems it causes.
But no, they want to shout ‘extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence!’ on every aspect of it, despite the fact there’s nothing extraordinary about the issues outlined whatsoever. But that doesn’t matter to them; they just want to maintain the status quo, where they can have their egos stroked and their particular interests focused upon, no matter how little that matters to other parts of the community or how much that prevents them from wanting to be involved.
They don’t give two shits about anyone who’s not currently satisfied with how things are in the community – the always endearing ‘I’ve got mine so y’all can go fuck yourselves’ attitude, with skepticism being the tool through which they seek to maintain their privileged positions.
I’d just wish they were honest enough to admit it and put aside the pretence of skepticism. If the so-called skeptics were as ‘skeptical’ about their daily lives as they are about this issue, none of them would even cross the road. Or possibly even leave the house.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 6:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
uno1 said (#116):
Not sure how much weight I was actually putting on it. I also referenced the Pew Forum statistics as well which was based on a substantially smaller sample size. Even absent some measure or estimate on the realibility of the AC it still seems better than nothing which was what was available before.
Maybe not exactly, but, assuming you were referring to the AC, that 170,000 people – 60,000 in the US – provided the relevant information to them means that there was at least that amount of “intellectual activity” and whatever else of a similar nature goes along with being a “net-izen” ….
Responding to Ed’s comment is going to take some thought and more time than I have at the moment ….
dingojack
January 18, 2013 at 7:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman – let’s imagine a hypothetical alien race. One sex makes up 99% of the population, other other 1%. The sex with the lesser number zip around, flitting from one location to the other, the other lethargically drags themselves at only a few centimetres per hour. Which has greater energy levels?
Bald percentages don’t tell you anything about ‘intellectual activity’ levels, levels of intellectual activity would do that. Any evidence in that regard?
Dingo
——–
BTW The Atheist survey is an self-selecting Internet survey any so is unreliable. The Pew survey is for 3000 person, contacted by phone within the US, therefore age-biased, self-selecting and of restricted geographical usefulness. Neither speaks accurately of atheists in general.
dingojack
January 18, 2013 at 8:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman – I don’t know if having 510 women and 690 men (out of a total of 1200 atheists*) is statistically significant. I’ll let others who are more familiar with the calculations make the call.
Dingo
——–
* or is that 42.5% female and 57.5% male of all atheists?
Michael Heath
January 18, 2013 at 8:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A Hermit wrote:
No, that’s certainly not all. Ophelia Benson greatly distorted what Mr. Shermer said; falsely turning him into a raging sexist when if you read what Shermer actually said within the context of everything else he said, was worthy only of the mild criticism you and some others in this thread claim he received from others. (I know only what I’ve read in this thread, Benson’s false attack on Shermer, and Shermer’s response).
Mr. Shermer’s original statement is worthy of criticism, but he also has a legitimate beef against Ms. Benson. The fact his response to her defamation is so pathetically bad and remedial is worthy of ridicule, but Ms. Benson’s defamation he responds to here is repugnant. I’d argue his original statement was a 2 – 3 on a scale of sexism, Ms. Benson’s descent into demagoguery in response has me scoring that a 6 out of 10. The fact her demagoguery works is disappointing, see Gretchen’s post below your’s as one more illustration of the type of tribalistic thinking one can observe in the freethinking society.
Gretchen
January 18, 2013 at 8:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath said:
Good lord. I not only said not one word in favor of Benson but even granted without argument your assertion that she “defamed” someone, which is a “morally repugnant” thing to do. I submit, Mr. Heath, that you wouldn’t recognize tribalism if it hunted you down wielding a tomahawk. You just don’t like that I consider it far worse to insult a broad category of people while adopting a comical persecution pose than to possibly misrepresent, for whatever reason, a single public figure in order to cast blame on him. Whichever one of us is right, I find it ironic that your own behavior more closely resembles the one you consider worse.
P.S. What, I would also ask, is the point of banning Kacy Ray from this thread when there is no shortage of people willing to carry his moronic torch of tribalism in his stead?
Sarah
January 18, 2013 at 8:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael a huge part of the problem here is that what Shermer said wasn’t in a vacuum. Women have been told pretty regularly that they aren’t intellectual enough to be atheist, or that we aren’t welcome as part of the community in one way or another. What he said was especially dismissive with that background. Then he compounded it by doubling down.
Benson’s response arose from that background. The one where we’re told to “sit quietly” or at best to make any complaints we have as “nicely” as possible, preferably with a smile. That she didn’t is what I think has upset the apple cart.
You might want to consider that background for a moment.
dingojack
January 18, 2013 at 8:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael – Shermer said: “It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.””
Which Benson interpreted as meaning ‘I think these things are activities and qualities more suited to men*”. Which I would contend is a reasonable interpretation of his intent.
When asked to clarify this statement, he could have said ‘no, that’s not what I intended to convey at all. It was a clumsily worded, off-the-cuff statement. I’m sorry if I sounded as if I was saying women skeptics and/or atheists are incapable of doing these things’. or something a little more elegant, instead he doubled and tripled down on the statement.
Dingo
——–
* including being more ‘intellectually active’ than women, apparently
BTW I’d suggest you re-read what Ophelia Benson wrote more carefully before accusing her of defamation.
Deen
January 18, 2013 at 8:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Where did she do that? From what I’ve read, she only quoted him saying something that she claims confirms a common sexist stereotype (a claim that you seem to agree is quite defensible). She doesn’t ascribe malice to Shermer, or assign sexist motivations at all in the original article, nor anywhere else that I’ve found. I *am* seeing a lot of people ascribing malice to Ophelia Benson, though.
Raging Bee
January 18, 2013 at 9:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The thing is Ed, that neither you nor Ophelia nor all of the pack braying at Shermer’s heels have ever managed to prove that his “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing” actually qualifies as a sexist statement.
Go to bed, Steersman, we’ve already dealt with your bogus quibbling and hairsplitting in Ed’s “Atheist Cult” post. All of your arguments got refuted from multiple directions, and now you’re back repeating the same flat denials all over again. What do you do for an encore — deny there’s any “proof” that “n*gg*r”
is an insulting word?
I suggest you read comment #21 above, and take it to heart: another defender of Shermer admitted this one comment of his wrong, but managed to dfend him by saying it wasn’t representative of Shermer’s stated opinions overall. That may or may not be the truth, but it’s a hell of a lot more credible than your desperate attempt to deny any error on his part. You should learn from that example — and so should Shermer.
Raging Bee
January 18, 2013 at 9:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What time-zone is Steersman in? Did he really stay up all night churning out this relentless trolling drivel? What an obsessive one-track idiot.
sawells
January 18, 2013 at 9:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@125: I think a lot of the anti-feminist overreaction stems from a faillure to distinguish between “that thing you said was a sexist thing to say” and “you are a sexist”. They don’t grasp that a person who isn’t A SEXIST in their identity can quite easily say something which is a sexist thing to say – what with sexism being rife in our culture, history and language.
So they see a mild criticism – that Shermer said something which reinforced a sexist stereotype – and they react as if somebody had said “Shermer is vile sexist scum and must be eternally shunned and purged from our ranks”.
It’s a self-image thing. They know that they are Not Sexist, and so any ascription that anything they said or did might be sexist must ipso facto be wrong and an evil Nazi witch-hunt.
Okay, it’s also a stupidity thing.
kacyray
January 18, 2013 at 9:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen, Ed himself conceded the idea that the comments frequently take on a tribalistic tone.
I’ve demonstrated example after example of tribalism.
If you don’t see it… that’s probably because the last people to notice tribalism would be members of the tribe. That’s human nature. This thread is a bit of a refreshing departure from that trend, but it doesn’t change the overall nature of the community. It is what it is.
Anyway… I was preemptively banned. I’ll shut up now.
dingojack
January 18, 2013 at 9:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#129, – With which part of ‘he doubled and tripled down’ are you having difficulty?
#129 – ‘I’ve demonstrated example after example of tribalism’. – uh no you haven’t you’ve whined that you can’t present your plethora of alleged evidence, despite there being no barrier to you doing so, and that’s about it.
Dingo
Gretchen
January 18, 2013 at 9:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, they do. However (brace yourself; this might come as a bit of a shock) disagreement with KacyRay or Michael Heath are not, in themselves, examples of that.
ildi
January 18, 2013 at 10:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MH:
Wait a minute, if your information is based on this thread, how do you know that Benson greatly distorted what Shermer said? You didn’t bother to read the original article she wrote for context, but now you’re able to evaluate Shermer’s statement in context based only on this thread? If you’re going to make the pretty outrageous statement that she’ s ‘falsely turning him into a raging sexist’ doesn’t it behoove you do to a little more fucking research?
Raging Bee
January 18, 2013 at 10:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Anyway… I was preemptively banned. I’ll shut up now.
That comment is so self-refuting I had to laugh. Kacyray doesn’t seem to understand that a claim of “persecution” doesn’t work if it’s funny, bless his little heart.
oolon
January 18, 2013 at 10:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why are Steers et al whining on about Ophelias hideous accusations of sexism? She never labelled him a sexist or misogynist in the first place so why bother arguing over it!
Ophelia…
She just used him as an example of a prominent sceptic who trotted out the tired old stereotype without any one picking up on it or challenging it…
Personally its a real shame this vanity whine has glossed over the actual controversy there –> comments that it was hard to get women speakers when only two had been asked!
jenniferphillips
January 18, 2013 at 10:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman:
Do you truly not understand what the word ‘forfeit’ means in the context of Godwin’s or Scopie’s law? My apologies if you are not familiar with all internet traditions, but these laws (and the corollary that I proposed in my original comment) mandate that any person invoking Nazi Germany, the whale.to website or dictionary definitions during a debate will be considered to have lost the argument and, often, ribbed a bit for their absurdity. ‘Forfeit’ in this case means ‘lose the argument’. Not ‘lose your personal freedom or your life’.
But you know what, even if you didn’t know the history of Godwin’s law, and couldn’t be arsed to google it, your inability or unwillingness to consider all the possible meanings of ‘forfeit’ and jump to the worst possible interpretation is pretty much par for the course. This tendency to overreach for any possible mud to sling is part of the reason this fight has raged on for going on two years now.
And I see you actually used a dictionary definition of ‘forfeit’ to challenge my new law. How very brave of you.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
January 18, 2013 at 11:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Quoted and repeated for truth and emphasis.
Gretchen
January 18, 2013 at 11:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Otherwise known as the “that thing you said” conversation. See: Jay Smooth on Youtube talking about the concept when it comes to racism. It should come up with by simply searching “Jay Smooth racism.”
Ophelia Benson
January 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Good grief. I “greatly distorted what Mr. Shermer said” and I “defamed” him – by quoting exactly what he said and commenting on it.
Dudes, I quoted exactly what he said. You can’t “greatly distort” and “defame” people by quoting exactly what they say.
heddle
January 18, 2013 at 12:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson,
Of couse you can. It’s called a quote-mine and it happens all the time. Surely you don’t really believe what you just wrote.
Ophelia Benson
January 18, 2013 at 1:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, and if the house bursts into flames then you’re allowed to get out of bed. I used to pull that trick on my mother when I was 5 too.
I didn’t quote-mine.
You people claiming I lied and defamed do realize that Free Inquiry has editors, right? And that editors don’t let contributors lie and defame?
Michael Heath
January 18, 2013 at 1:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sarah to me:
I get the context and did when I posted previously. But his gaffe must also be considered within the context of the other things he stated which were overtly pro-equality. That context strongly suggests his gaffe was more insensitive, what others have called dumb, than blatantly sexist; though I still think it was sexist where I arbitrarily rated it a 2 -3 out of 10.
Re Shermer’s “doubling down”: Is there a response from Shermer other than the one Ed linked to here that you are referencing? Because what Shermer originally said in no way justifies the gross misrepresentation of what Shermer stated by Ophelia Benson. Her defamation certainly justifies Shermer defending himself from the demagoguery she’s working here; albeit his defense is as pathetically ridiculous as Ed noted. And that’s a notable distinction, his audience (people like us) can discern how pathetic his persecution complex argument is, while Ms. Benson’s demagoguery strikes bone with tribalistic freethinkers – to the point they can’t even confront what she wrote.
I’m reminded of noticing the speck in another’s eye while being unaware of the mote in one’s one. (not you Sarah, but those who avoid/deny what Ms. Benson stated or try to justify or minimize her dishonest character attack).
aaronbaker
January 18, 2013 at 1:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m of two minds about this:
Shermer’s response to Benson borders on (or falls right into) unhinged; however, I don’t believe he was insinuating that women are too dumb for “thinky” pursuits, as Benson charged. He could at least as plausibly be understood to mean that women tend to be less assertive than men (maybe a problematic generalization, too, but not obnoxious). Not being a mind reader, I see no good reason to prefer one attribution of intent to the other–and I’m disinclined for reasons of fairness to read the the worst possible intent into people’s statements without some corroborating evidence.
heddle
January 18, 2013 at 2:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson
I didn’t claim that you did quote-mine. I’ll keep my opinion on that to myself. My comment was limited to your claim in #138, which is demonstrably false.
Michael Heath
January 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Me earlier:
Deen responds:
This is a perfect example of the type denialism I referred to earlier. I suggest re-reading what each stated, i.e., Ed’s link to Shermer in the main body of this blog post and my link to Benson’s response at comment post 71. You’ll find she didn’t merely quote what he said, she instead created an imaginary Shermer with attendant ilk who express all sorts of atrociously sexist things. The problem is Mr. Shermer did no such thing.
Raging Bee
January 18, 2013 at 2:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But his gaffe must also be considered within the context of the other things he stated which were overtly pro-equality.
If he’d clarified or amended his gaffe, then yes, we’d have to consider that broader context. But when he doubled down on the stupid and started crying about Nazi persecution, then he’s the one who blew his original words out of that context, not us. His asinine crybaby attacks are the reason we’re not talking about whatever else he’s said over the years.
He could at least as plausibly be understood to mean that women tend to be less assertive than men (maybe a problematic generalization, too, but not obnoxious).
Yes, it’s still obnoxious, because it’s something that was said with zero regard for facts or circumstances. And yes, it’s still “sexist;” your more charitable interpretation makes it a little milder, but not excusable.
…and I’m disinclined for reasons of fairness to read the the worst possible intent into people’s statements without some corroborating evidence.
What’s his unhinged doubling-down — chopped liver? Refusal to admit error is a pretty strong indicator of bad intent, as are outlandish self-pitying Nazi references.
Raging Bee
January 18, 2013 at 2:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…she instead created an imaginary Shermer with attendant ilk who express all sorts of atrociously sexist things.
Care to quote some specific examples?
spartan
January 18, 2013 at 2:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I do agree with almost everyone’s criticism of Shermer’s comments, but I don’t think that criticism of Ophelia on this is that out-of-bounds. Although I can see how she got there, I think ‘women don’t do thinky’ is pretty close to the worst paraphrase you can make of Shermer’s statement, that in my mind is not that unambiguous. And I don’t think selecting the worst interpretation is, well, skeptical. That kind of shit used to happen all the time here with, speak of the devil, Mr. Heddle, where someone would say ‘heddle said/believes arglebargle’ and when you actually find where they are getting it from, it is, at best, one possible interpretation of what he said. I don’t find the tactic any more valid just because the topic is sexism/feminism as opposed to atheism v theism. Which is not to say that Ophelia, who don’t get me wrong is overall an excellent blogger, has no cause at all to react in that way, but I don’t think it’s consistent with this from Ed: “Shouldn’t atheists and skeptics, of all people, put in the mental effort necessary to overcome those tendencies and evaluate each and every argument and claim using the same rational criteria?” And gack, before someone utters the banal, ‘intent is not magic’, I didn’t say it was. But it’s not irrelevant either.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 2:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson said (#138):
What unmitigated horseshit, Ophelia.
Shermer said: “… it’s more of a guy thing”.
You said at one point at the beginning of the article:
While your “said exactly that” is somewhat open to interpretation, the most charitable one to you is that it is referring only to “that’s a guy thing”. Which he, in no uncertain terms, simply never fucking said.
And that “more” of his makes all of the difference in the world in changing a categorical statement to a conditional one: asserting that all men are rapists is sexist; noting that there are 136 times more men in prison for rape than there are women is a simple statement of fact.
hypatiasdaughter
January 18, 2013 at 2:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#74 Michael Heath
I totally agree. Which is why I actually viewed the video of both The Point panel discussion (in which nothing was said about women in atheism at all) and the Q&A session that followed, where Shermer made the comment. And I also read Benson’s original article that Shermer was quoted in.
You, on the other hand, seem only to have read Shermer’s posts defending his words. It seems your definition of tribalism is anyone that anyone getting the facts from Benson or Brayton are being lied to ; whereas anyone getting them from Shemer is being told the gospel truth. Shermer said it. I believe it . Case closed.
Do you have enough honesty and introspection to see the tribalism in your own position and behavior?
I will post links to the two videos and a transcript of the relevant section of the Q&A sessions, if Ed permits.
Read it. Watch the video. Sean Carroll, a Theoretical Physicist from CalTech, made the very points that I would expect to come out of the mouth of someone who was being interviewed about the A/S community, who edits a major magazine about the skeptic community and who, by his own admission, is well aware of the Deep Rifts in the community that have been brewing over the last two years. I expect that Shermer actually agreed with everything Carroll said so why the hell didn’t he say it first? Why didn’t he have an opinion on the topic that was as insightful as a fucking physicist ?
Answer: Indifference. Problems for women in the A/S community are not his fight. Shrug But the problems of the guys who are being criticized by feminists…..Well, now he knows he should have stood up and been counted with them.
Michael Heath
January 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Me @ 71:
ildi
January 18, 2013 at 3:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MH: Ah, so you did read the article, missed that. Ok, lets put that quote in context:
Benson uses hyperbole. Shame on her! However, nothing in her narrative justifies
or
Talk about a plank in one’s eye! Can you be any more hypberpolic yourself? By this ‘logic’, when people criticize heddle for his beliefs about the morality of the Canaanite genocide, they’re calling him a genocidal murderer.
ildi
January 18, 2013 at 3:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
hypberpolic – alternate spelling of hyperbolic
Michael Heath
January 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson @ 138 to me:
You didn’t merely comment on “it”, you created a distortion of what he stated and commented on that. I’ll repeat both. Shermer as quoted by me @ 71:
Ophelia Benson then stated:
You owe Mr. Shermer an apology, as does he for what he stated.
Michael Heath
January 18, 2013 at 3:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Me earlier:
Raging Bee responds:
This doesn’t make sense. I’m claiming a set with a population of one, so there’s no need for examples; instead my assertion on this one quote is either fair, not fair, or something in-between. I’m comfortable I described her defamation for what it is. That would be the article and quote I linked to and quoted @ 71, which I just posted above again immediately above @ 153.
eric
January 18, 2013 at 3:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Heath:
Yes, Here. Now look: here is OB’s original response. She quotes Shermer’s ‘its a guy thing.’ Then she parahprases it. Then she says ‘Shermer said exactly that.’ It is pretty clear that when she says ‘Shermer said exactly that,’ she’s referring to the quote one line above, i.e., that Shermer said “its a guy thing.” Which he did. But now go back and look at that first response of Shermer’s. He quotes her paraphrase and implies she’s misquoting him. But she obviously isn’t. There is only one phrase of Shermer’s in quotation marks in her article, and its “its a guy thing.” That’s the quote she uses, and that quote is accurate.
Do you get it now? OB is not implying that her entire (initial) paraphrase was a direct quote. There’s quotation marks around one thing, and that thing is accurate.
Her later parahprase of Shermer’s comment is ‘women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up, they don’t talk at conferences, they don’t get involved—it’s “a guy thing,”’ As far as I can tell, your substantive complaint is that the thinky part may not be an accurate paraphrase – Shermer may only have meant that speaking up and talking at conferences is a guy thing.
Do I have that right? Is that your substantive complaint?
Can you understand how others may consider that a distracting quibble, and that the remaining bits – that speaking at conferences is a guy thing – is quite bad enough? Do you also understand that OB’s whole point in her criticism – ‘this sort of comment is incredibly discouraging to women’ – directly applies to Shermer’s comment, even if you interpret Shermer as ‘merely’ saying that speaking at conferences is a guy thing?
Now, since you seem to be drawing from this post of Eds but not earlier sources,
here is the list of OP’s threads on the matter. I’d particularly invite you to look at the Dec 13 one, “morning cleanup,” where she states – twice – that she is not attempting to draw any conclusion about Shermer as a person, call him sexist or misogynist. She’s talking about this one, specific comment of his being discouraging to women. In other words, your “created an imaginary Shermer with attendant ilk who express all sorts of atrociously sexist things” was a position she repudiated over a month ago.
***
Which maybe brings us to the gist of the matter. Do YOU think someone saying “It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing” is discouraging to women, or not?
I do. OB does – that’s the point she is trying to make. Shermer either doesn’t think its discouraging to women or thinks, well, I don’t really know what else he could think if he’s defending saying that.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 3:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee said (#146):
Gawd, you’re clueless. Or your reading skills are the shits.
Benson said some 5 months ago the following which started this whole drama:
Her inference, if not a bare-faced lying statement, is that Shermer thinks that “unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because that’s a guy thing.”
Hatchet-job, indeed.
Michael Heath
January 18, 2013 at 3:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
hypatiasdaughter to me @ 149:
Michael Heath
January 18, 2013 at 3:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ildi to me:
Not even close; Ms. Benson created an imaginary Shermer and then trashed that one. Strawmen are one of the most remedial forms of rhetorical fallacies, and they’re particularly repellent when they’re used to defame another person.
jenniferphillips
January 18, 2013 at 3:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath:
I’ve been trying really hard to determine what, exactly, you find so repellent about the original article–I truly don’t see the imaginary Shermer you speak of. Is it that you believe “women don’t do thinky” is too broad an interpretation of “It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”?
Raging Bee
January 18, 2013 at 3:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Although I can see how she got there, I think ‘women don’t do thinky’ is pretty close to the worst paraphrase you can make of Shermer’s statement.
Here’s Shermer’s actual statement, as quoted above:
… It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”
So, yeah, “women don’t do thinky” isn’t really that far from what Shermer said, as the text in bold should remind you. He really did seem to be saying that bieng “intellectually active” is one of the things he considered “more of a guy thing.”
Raging Bee
January 18, 2013 at 3:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Benson uses hyperbole.
That’s nothing compared to her older brother Doug, who uses…sarcasm!
ildi
January 18, 2013 at 4:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MH: I’m comfortable describing the imaginary Shermer as existing only in your fervid imagination. Hey, you and heddle finally have something in common!
A. Noyd
January 18, 2013 at 4:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath (#153)
You really need to think a bit more about why Ophelia included that bit that goes “it’s ‘a guy thing,’ like football and porn and washing the car.” [Emphasis added.] Here’s a clue: It provides context that should help you understand whether she thinks what Shermer said was normal or unusual.
hypatiasdaughter
January 18, 2013 at 4:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#156 Michael Heath
And did you view the original video, as I did when you accused me of “depending on the preferred tribal narrative to be true when in fact that narrative is not true.”? Of buying the “lie”, without investigation? You told me “to read Shermer’s entire post.” I SAW THE ORIGINAL VIDEO. I know exactly what he and the other panel members said. (I even wrote a transcript that I am hopeful Ed will post – I had some borked links in it which may be why it hasn’t appeared).
And “those like you who avoid Benson’s demagoguery and defamation of Shermer.”- hmm, I am not aware that I made any defense of Benson or anyone else’s position in any of my posts. See #73 and #149. I have my own issues with Shermer’s conduct.
Deary me, Mikey, you keep accusing me of of saying things I haven’t said. Of holding positions I haven’t stated. Something about me seems to be getting under your skin…..and it can’t be because I “tribally” side with Benson, because I haven’t stated that I do……
aaronbaker
January 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee wrote:
Maybe it’s because I find it really hard to believe that Michael Shermer actually thinks women are “too dumb to do ‘thinky’,” but why isn’t this (as its context suggests: “It’s who wants to stand up . .., go on . . . , go to . . .” ) a really lead-footed way of saying that men are more active, in the sense of being more aggressive, more assertive, more willing to confront others, and the like? If that’s what is, it’s still maddeningly complacent and I think inaccurate–but it’s not what Benson charged him with saying.
spartan
January 18, 2013 at 4:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, yeah, “women don’t do thinky” isn’t really that far from what Shermer said, as the text in bold should remind you. He really did seem to be saying that bieng “intellectually active” is one of the things he considered “more of a guy thing.”
Let’s set aside ‘intellectually active’ for a second. If Shermer had said everything else except that, is it absolutely ridiculous to paraphrase that answer as, ‘it appears that more men than women in the atheist community want to stand up and talk about it and go on shows and conferences about it.’, would you have an issue with that? It is entirely consistent with the idea that I fully buy in to and is shared by all that I know of at FTB: there are damned good reasons why women would not want to participate in these conferences, due to the inexcusable and juvenile harassment some of them have to endure. If you don’t see my paraphrase, if it was what was actually said, as objectionable, is it then ridiculous to look at the words ‘intellectually active’ and put the emphasis on the ‘active’ part, and see it as a restatement of the earlier statement; i.e., ‘intellectually active’ refers to ‘wanting to stand up and talk about it and go on shows’, in other words, take an active role in promoting atheism? These are ‘intellectual’ functions, as opposed to going and and soliciting donations for atheism groups or something which would be ‘active’ but questionably ‘intellectual’. I know that I”m not so positive that ‘it’s a guy thing’ has a specific unambiguous meaning, is it as objectionable if it’s being used descriptively as opposed to prescriptively?
I’m not trying to excuse him, ‘intellectually active’ is a terrible choice of words and yes he has responsibility for the ambiguity in ‘it’s a guy thing’ also. But when I see essentially, ‘Shermer said that women don’t think as well as men about atheism’, that’s a strong negative statement, and to me I’m expecting to see roughly that exact statement from him, and I don’t. Maybe it boils down to this: I don’t know that Ophelia is being skeptical about whether what this statement means to her is actually the only reasonable interpretation, and I think when you’re going to say something pointedly, and unambiguously, negative about someone you have the responsibility to be as skeptical as possible and totally rule out other interpretations prior to paraphrasing them and accusing them of definitely saying ‘x’. And does this statement fit at all into some other larger body of evidence and statements from him where he has essentially suggested that same thing, that ‘women don’t do thinky’? If it doesn’t, then where exactly is skepticism intersecting with Ophelia’s paraphrase?
Ed Brayton
January 18, 2013 at 5:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here’s where I would quibble with Ophelia’s representation of what Shermer said. I think the focus should have been kept on his claim that men are just more “intellectually active” rather than equating that to “women don’t do thinky.” A distinction can be made between women having the ability to think and women being interested in taking a public stand on atheism or secularism. But here’s the thing: What he said is still incredibly sexist and dumb even without that paraphrase, whether fair or not. And it’s probably wiser to be very careful not to give one’s enemies any ammunition to shoot at you.
But Gretchen is right that even if you consider her paraphrase of his words to be a misrepresentation or exaggeration, what he said is not only still sexist it’s far more important and serious because it insults and demeans half of the species. So trying to shine the light on Ophelia and make accusations against her does absolutely nothing to make what Shermer said any less dumb or sexist.
And again, please note the point of this whole post: I get it. I understand the tendency to circle the wagons and get defensive and go on the attack mode against one’s critics rather than just admit that you made a mistake or said something dumb. This is a very basic human tendency and I’m as guilty of it as anyone else at times. But one very important part of being a skeptic and a critical thinker is to recognize these tendencies and the way they undermine our rationality and to make the effort to overcome them.
And that is true of all the other cognitive shortcuts that undermine our rationality, including tribalism. It’s all too easy to draw a line, to put everyone who disagrees with on the other side of the fence and to pretend that everyone we put over there is wrong and/or evil in all of the same ways. This kind of simplistic thinking is something we have all done, me included, and some of us do it automatically and without ever questioning those assumptions. And we eliminate any middle ground and presume that anyone who isn’t in 100% agreement with us must be one of the evil bad guys on the other side of the fence and they must therefore agree with everything the worst people over there think. This is lazy, sloppy thinking. And again, we all do it. I’ve done it more times than I can count. But we must try to not do this, to recognize a range of opinions rather than a simple black or white, to consider the nuances rather than doing the George Bush “you’re either with us or against us” thing.
Raging Bee
January 18, 2013 at 5:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe it’s because I find it really hard to believe that Michael Shermer actually thinks women are “too dumb to do ‘thinky’…”
If he didn’t think that, then he shouldn’t have said what he said; and he should have retracted and reworded his comment when he realized he’d said something that didn’t represent what he “actually thinks.”
…and I think when you’re going to say something pointedly, and unambiguously, negative about someone you have the responsibility to be as skeptical as possible and totally rule out other interpretations prior to paraphrasing them and accusing them of definitely saying ‘x’.
Are you saying that to Shermer, or just to Ophelia?
spartan
January 18, 2013 at 6:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Are you saying that to Shermer, or just to Ophelia?
Definitely both, although as I said I think there is a difference in these particular statements. I’m on the fence as to who was worse and I’m not even sure how to measure it. Pro-Shermer: what he said, and definitely meant, I think has some ambiguity. Anti-Shermer: there is no question to me that one possible interpretation of what he said is how Ophelia paraphrased it, he has responsibility for that and and again as Gretchen noted it is potentially an insult to a vastly larger number of people. Pro-Ophelia: what Shermer said is definitely worthy of criticism. Anti-Ophelia: there is less ambiguity in my mind as to what Ophelia said and meant and I don’t know that the accusation/insinuation is justified by this one statement. Again, with admitting that there may be some larger context in which Shermer has been sexist in the past that I’m unaware of.
And to be clear, and honest, I really don’t think anything about this particular episode is that big of a deal and any criticism I have of both parties is an insignificant speck that is miniscule next to all of the other excellent things they’ve both done and written.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 6:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed Brayton said (#167):
I hope you do more than just “quibble” with “Ophelia’s [mis]-representation of what Shermer said” as it was the rather odious snowball that started the avalanche of vituperation that has landed on Shermer’s head. But I quite agree with you that it is important to make that “distinction … between women having the ability to think and being interested in taking a public stand on atheism”. However, your subsequent statement, as follows, still suggests an unwillingness to consider the facts of the matter in spite of your quite commendable acknowledgement of tribalism and its consequences, as well as your quite credible plea to “consider nuances” and to guard against “lazy, simplistic, sloppy thinking”:
And there’s the rub: seems to me that none of you are providing any evidence or argument supporting your contention that his statement is actually sexist or “demeans half the species” nor have you made any attempt to address the countervailing evidence I’ve provided in an attempt to refute it: most here are simply accepting that contention as a given, as a catechism, as an “ipse dixit” from various bishops and priestesses. Not a particularly credible position for those claiming to be skeptics.
And “fair or not”? What a ridiculous statement to make – if the “exaggeration” completely changes the meaning and intent behind the original statement – as seems quite evident, a contention it seems you’re simply not willing to address – then you’re still using that mistake of yours to justify your attacks on Shermer. That’s not skepticism and rationality, but categorical thinking, anti-intellectualism, tribalism, dishonesty and dogma.
huntstoddard
January 18, 2013 at 6:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But I think this is less about ranges of opinion than about, as Shermer put it, rooting out every vestige of sexism in our group, when we all know that sexism is operative even within the minds of those among us who purport to be most purified of it. This is why I don’t think comparisons to witch hunts or McCarthyism are unwarranted. The metaphors hold. The danger lies in placing “purity” above all other concerns, backed by the supreme importance of the cause, whether it be stopping a slight against half the species, stopping communism intent on destroying us as a nation, or stopping the ‘Evil One’ here to defile our souls. The parallels are always striking, because we as human beings will always be subject to the same type of thing, as you note. And what is casually defaming a person, or drowning the witch, or destroying the person’s career, when you’ve been faced with the unmitigated evil of the opposition? I mean, we know that sexism is bad, right? Not only is it bad, it’s wrong against half the population. How can anyone possibly quibble about a man’s career when the motivation is so righteous? In a way, this is a throwback to the rationale that even minor sins against God were worthy of death. The sin might be minor, but consider, it’s a sin against God!
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath said (#153):
[repost because of links causing ‘held in moderation']
I’ll readily agree with you that Benson owes Shermer an apology, although I’m not sure that I’ll agree that he does as I don’t see what your “what he stated” is referring to. If it is his latest response published in the Free Inquiry magazine then I might agree that some of it is at least somewhat overwrought. However, if you’re referring to his original comment on the The Point then that seems a rather untenable position. And, more particularly, that is because I think he was largely just stating a simple fact on par with Pinker’s observation [link above] that “men have a much stronger taste for no-strings sex with multiple or anonymous partners, as we see in the almost all-male consumer base for prostitution and visual pornography” – de gustibus non est disputandum.
As for the question of how much evidence there is for the suggestion that “[atheist activism], it’s more of a guy thing”, I recently ran across some additional statistics on the composition of the atheist community. It is a Discover blog post [Gene Expression; Nov 19, 2010] which references a World Values Survey and lists some raw data showing the percentages of the sample by gender in the groups “Religious”, “Not Religious”, and “Atheist”. And for men in the US the numbers are, respectively, 65.1%, 28.9%, and 6.0% while the numbers for women are 78.6%, 20.1% and 1.2%. So, making the quite reasonable assumption that those who actually identify as atheist are those who are more “intellectually active about” their non-theism than those who only identify only as “not religious”, one can quite reasonaly argue that, as Shermer actually said (as opposed to what apparently happened in Benson’s fevered imagination), “[atheist activism], it’s more a guy thing” – and by a factor of 5 to 1.
A disparity, I might add, that is strongly supported by the recent Atheist Census data: the very fact that responding to that Internet survey requires a not inconsiderable amount of “activism” substantially selects for those who are, in fact, “atheist activists”. And the numbers show, here again, “it’s more of a guy thing” – and by a factor of about 4 to 1.
But I think the above suggests a large part of the reason why this conversation has gone, or is perilously close to going, off the rails, and that is largely the difficulty in comparing the statistics of various populations and making conclusions about the populations based on the statistics. For instance, I would say that even Pinker’s “men have a much stronger taste for … prostitution and visual pornography” is somewhat problematic because it suggests that all men have that stronger taste whereas I expect that he meant and the statistics support the contention that more men than women have that taste, i.e., there are probably some men without that taste, and some women with it.
And likewise with Benson’s bit of demagoguery, her aspersions on Shermer’s character, that “unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because that’s a guy thing.” That there might be more men than women in “atheist activism” – potentially or hypothetically 6.0% of the population versus 1.2% of the population – say’s absolutely diddly squat about whether women can “do thinky”. Maybe women can do, and probably and actually do, “thinky” better in some areas other than atheism which are, maybe, even more important than atheism is – the sun doesn’t rise and set on the atheist empire. But the point is that Shermer did not make that rather illogical if not egregious “leap of faith” – that was entirely Benson’s doing and she can’t very well condemn Shermer for her failures to use logic properly.
Wowbagger, Designated Snarker
January 18, 2013 at 7:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
huntstoddard wrote:
LOL. I love how you’ve taken “Hey, maybe he needs to think about what he said and the impact it might have” and twisted it into “ZOMG! How dare you imply he might have said something like that! You’re threatening his CAREER!” Slippery slope much?
What a dishonest bunch of shits. Like I said upthread, stop pretending that this is anything other a reflection of your desire to maintain the status quo and continue to have your preferences catered for at the expense of the size and diversity of the atheist community.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 7:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
huntstoddard said (#171):
Yes, quite agree that there’s more than a little justification for the “comparisons to witch hunts and McCarthyism”. Some unfortunate and problematic echoes of several passages in Dr. Strangelove:
We all seem to have the potential of becoming “true believers” – schrodinger’s believer – and allowing the end to justify some quite problematic if not horrific means. Seems the most useful prophylactic against that is simply to consider – as Ed suggested even if he seems unable or unwilling to follow-through in this case – the other person’s arguments with some degree of honesty.
Ed Brayton
January 18, 2013 at 8:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I notice, Steersman, that despite saying that answering my comment from last night would take too much time and effort, you’ve left several long comments in this thread since then and still haven’t answered it. Why do you continue to assert a defense of Shermer’s words that contradicts his own argument in defense of that statement?
By the way, this statement clearly shows you don’t know a thing about how polling is done:
Uh, no. The discrepancy is that the Atheist Census is a poll that relies on a self-reported sample while the Pew Poll is a genuine poll with a random sample. The Atheist Census is an important project, but no pollster would ever use a self-selected sample group and think that they got a representative sample of the population. Random sampling is a much better way of modeling the demographic traits of any population. And Pew, by the way, includes cell phones in their surveys, so the premise of your absurd explanation is as false as the conclusion.
huntstoddard
January 18, 2013 at 8:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m not sure how selective your reading must be to go from:
to
It is an amazing thing to behold though.
Raging Bee
January 18, 2013 at 8:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m on the fence as to who was worse…
You mean you can’t figure out whether criticizing a poorly-worded statement is better or worse than equating criticism with genocidal persecution? Seriously? Grow up two decades and come back next week.
huntstoddard
January 18, 2013 at 9:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“You’re threatening his CAREER!” Slippery slope much?”
Career destruction was in reference to actual McCarthyism, where careers really were destroyed. I doubt there is much potential for this to hurt Shermer’s career, but then again you never know how these things will blossom. It could certainly damage his reputation. Some, of course, will think that this is appropriate. We now operate in the “call out culture,” where every transgression must and will be prosecuted, even those voiced by the tiniest Who in Whoville. Even those in the highest stations will be brought down by that teenager in the Red Guard uniform.
spartan
January 18, 2013 at 9:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You mean you can’t figure out whether criticizing a poorly-worded statement is better or worse than equating criticism with genocidal persecution? Seriously? Grow up two decades and come back next week.
The irony is never lost on me Bee of your telling others to grow up given that were I to sum up in one word the vibe of your typical post it would be ‘whine’. I didn’t say anything about the genocidal persecution bit, I think that’s just stupidity; yep Shermer’s being idiotically over the top, what’s ‘worse’ about that fact, I think he’s harming himself more than anybody else. Regardless, I happen to think that it is secondary to the original statement and Ophelia’s response, ya know, what I was specifically talking about.
dingojack
January 18, 2013 at 9:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For those of you that have come late to party here’s what (I think) has happened so far:
a) Shermer said some dumb off-the-cuff remarks.
b) Benson criticized him for saying them
c) Shermer doubled down on the stupid*
d) Some criticized him, still others defended him.
e) Shermer tripled down, with a paranoid half-pike
f) Again others criticised and defended him
g) Strings of defective arguments, with poorly thought-out logic ensued
Have I missed anything out?
Dingo
——–
* Here’s where Shermer could have broken the chain. If he had said ‘That’s not at all what I intended to convey. Those remarks were poorly worded and clumsily constructed, I apologised if it came across as suggesting that women in the skeptic/atheist movement are unable or not permitted to do these things or have these qualities. (What I actually meant was X)’. There would not have been such a storm of criticism, in fact probably he would have been praised for the adult way he handled the problem.
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 10:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed Brayton said (#175):
Apologies for that, but it was 4 A.M when I called it a day and the other posts were topical and “hot” and the issues raised were a large part of my planned response to you so thought to kill two birds with one stone. I expect to address them later this evening, if I don’t address them in the following, and plan to reference or use those earlier comments.
Largely because I think his original response in December’s eSkeptic was the more reasonable and credible one, and that his latest one in Free Inquiry with its allusion to “slips of the tongue”, while suggestive of some willingness to compromise, looks somewhat forced and is therefore somewhat of a bridge too far that I probably won’t try to defend.
I certainly don’t know everything about sampling and polling and statistics, but I’m not completely unfamiliar with the math and techniques involved either. And while there are, as you suggest, problems with “self-selected samples”, I think you have your thumb on the scales. For one thing, if you wanted to do a survey, for example, on the prevalence of prostate cancer and advertised in the newspaper for respondents then you already have a “self-selected sample group” on the basis of gender: that by itself is insufficient to discredit a survey as you seem to suggest.
In addition and somewhat along the same line, there is the question as to which population it is that we wish to sample. And my impression is that it is not just the “Not Religious” or “Unaffiliated – which the Pew Forum indicates is about 44% women and 56% men – but the atheists and, more particularly, those who are actually “intellectually active”. And in the case of just atheists even the Pew Forum indicates that they “are much more likely to be male (64%) than female (36%)” [pg 37; Nones on the Rise], although I note that the World Values Survey shows a greater disparity [5:1] which might be due to the sampling method. But it seems that even those Pew Forum numbers are enough to justify “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing”.
However, in the case of “intellectually active”, neither the Pew Forum nor the World Values Survey seem to have asked about the degree of “intellectual activism” so the only recourse one has, that I can see, is to surveys such as the Atheist Census. And I really see that as little different from broadcasting on a school’s PA system asking all those who might be interested in doing political activism to show up in the gym: obviously it’s a “self-selected sample”, but it is still an entirely accurate sample – i.e., the whole population of those who are interested enough to show up. And I expect that the Atheist Census is pretty much the same thing – considering the ubiquitous influence of the Internet I would think a large percentage of those who are intellectually active and who wish to promote atheism are going to have a presence on or a substantial degree of familiarity with the Internet and so be aware of that Census.
Consequently those results seem to give more than a little justification for arguing that the population of atheist activists who are intellectually active consists of from 64% [Pew] to 75% [AC] male, and 36% to 25% female. Ergo, unless you’re able to demonstrate other reasons for that disparity, it is quite reasonable to accept that “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing”.
huntstoddard
January 18, 2013 at 10:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“b) Benson criticized him for saying them”
Uh, no. I’m in general agreement with the gist of your argument, but this isn’t accurate. It would be accurate if what she said was (as per my #176): “Hey, maybe he needs to think about what he said and the impact it might have.” Instead she said Shermer thinks women are stupid.
And that’s where Shermer should have said “What I said was wrong and stupid, but what Benson said was maliciously unfair, and I want an apology.” Maybe he would have gotten one, maybe not.
dingojack
January 18, 2013 at 11:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman – prostate cancer analogy. Fail. Reason: Women don’t have prostates. Testing women would be like testing how flattened the arches of the feet are in those who don’t have feet. This isn’t an example of ‘self-selection’ it’s simply an example of testing only those who one can meaningfully test.
The surveys you mention:
a) How, where, and how many were polled? How significant are the results, statistically?
b) What question(s) were asked? How were they asked?
c) Do the results hold true generally, or only in the specific groups asked? (ie. how representative are these sub-populations in relation to the population as a whole?)
d) Can the surveys be directly compared to each other at all?
e) Not a measure of how ‘intellectually active’ one is, merely a measure of who can be bothered to answer a survey. (not even close to being the same thing)
Dingo
dingojack
January 18, 2013 at 11:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
huntstoddard – Shermer clearly said that being ‘intellectually active’ is ‘more of a guy thing’. Which seems to imply that: being ‘intellectually active’ is something that mostly only men are capable and/or permitted to be, and, by the implied antithesis, that women are expected to be capable and/or permitted to being ‘mostly passively unintellectual’. I’d say that Benson’s interpretation is a reasonable criticism.
Especially in view of his doubling and tripling down without clarification or denial (in fact his failure to address the issue could be seen as a kind of tacit acknowledgement oof his orginal intent).
Dingo
Steersman
January 18, 2013 at 11:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dingojack said (#183):
Yes, I was aware of that and it was meant to suggest, on which I may have fallen short, “testing only those who one can meaningfully test” which is what I think the Atheist Census does contrary to Ed’s suggestion. Which then makes it a valid measure of some credibility and certainly consistent with the Pew Forum one.
The Nones: “http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Unaffiliated/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf”.
Appendices 1 and 2 give the methodology and the questionaires used.
Atheist Census: “http://www.atheistcensus.com/”
If they’re done right – which the Pew Forum surveys give every indication of having been – then they normally say something like the results are accurate to within, I think, +/- 5%, 19 times out of 20 – i.e., if they repeat the surveys then 19 times out of 20 you’ll get the same results within that error band.
That seems to be the case which is why, I think, they publish the methodologies so that people can compare various results.
And what evidence do you have for that assertion? I’ve generally put the phrase in quotes because Shermer didn’t give much indication as to what he meant by it, and it is likely to cover a lot of possibilities. But one of them would seem to be “engaged in public discussions on the objectives, principles, values, and initiatives of atheist activism” which would seem to cover a great many of the individuals on these discussion boards and who show up at various conventions.
And because of the nature of those discussions and the common thread – the Internet – it seems plausible to argue that a great many of those who are “intellectually active” are going to be aware of that Census and so provide it with the relevant information. Maybe there is some disparity by gender in those who do so, but as that seems to be the question in play – which gender is more intellectually active within the atheist community? – the results still seem of more than passing relevance to it regardless of that disparity. In any case, the Pew Forum results seem to be the bottom end of the spectrum – the lowest percentage for male atheists – so that even if the AC results are somewhat questionable the hypothesis – “atheism, it’s more of a guy thing” – is at least still strongly supported.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 12:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dingojack said (#184):
There, I think, is one of the primary places or types of places this conversation – and others of a similar nature – goes off the rails. Shermer said, and Benson quoted him as saying:
As his “it” can quite reasonably be construed as “atheism”, it is, I think, an egregious case of misinterpretation, bad-faith, tribalism, and sloppy thinking to assert that he said anything remotely like what you’re trying to put into his mouth. He most definitely did not say that “being ‘intellectually active’ is ‘more of a guy thing’” nor that “‘intellectually active’ is something that mostly [sic] only men are capable of or are permitted to be”. What he said was that “[intellectually active about atheism], it’s more of a guy thing”. Entirely different kettles of fish, if not entirely different species.
dingojack
January 19, 2013 at 12:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman – thanks for the links to the methodology. However you haven’t shown that filling in a survey is a good proxy for ‘intellectually active’*. If a person thinks that filling in a useless on-line survey, rather than actually doing something in the community, is a waste of time does that make that person not ‘intellectually active’?
Dingo
——–
* ie a person who actively thinks about issues and communicates that thought to others via a variety of ways.
(BTW what’s your local time?)
dingojack
January 19, 2013 at 12:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steerman – *sigh* I would have thought that even the most stunned mullet would have realised that I was speaking in the context of atheism/skepticism as that was the topic under conversation, but apparently not.
It is implying that women should be quiet and sit a the back of the atheist/skeptic bus*, because of their sex.
Dingo
——-
* for those with a little nous, apologies, but some need their noses rubbed in the obvious
jenniferphillips
January 19, 2013 at 2:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Even with your clarification, it’s still a sexist thing to say! If Ophelia had put it in your piece exactly as you paraphrased it, it still would have served as an example of her main thesis (which was not about Shermer at all) on the pervasive sexism in the atheist community. So, no. Not different kettles of fish. Just smaller ones.
jenniferphillips
January 19, 2013 at 2:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
if Ophelia had put it in HER piece exactly as you paraphrased it…
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 5:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dingojack said (#187):
I wasn’t trying to show that it was a “good proxy”. I said “it seems plausible to argue that …” there is some degree of correlation. An open question, but a plausible hypothesis, particularly since the survey seems designed to appeal to those who are “intellectually active”, i.e., those who wish to promote the goals of atheist activism.
How much time do you think it would take to fill out the form? How do you know that it is a “useless on-line survey”? That seems rather a questionable assumption at best. Seems to be all sorts of benefits that could follow from “being counted” – the AC certainly seems to think so. As do some 170,000 respondents.
But to answer your question, no, of course not: those who don’t fill in the survey aren’t necessarily “not intellectually active” [IA]. But the question is whether those who fill out the survey and happen to be IA – which they almost are by definition – are representative, in terms of gender, of those who are IA and don’t fill out the forms. Considering that the Pew Forum results put atheists at 64% male and 36% female to begin with it seems not implausible that those who are IA should reach the 75% male and 25% female that the Atheist Census strongly suggests.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 5:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dingojack said (#188):
That looks rather disingenuous and intellectually dishonest at best, and outright cheating and fraud at worst as you said “Shermer clearly said that being ‘intellectually active’ is ‘more of a guy” which is a flat-out lie. The context of Shermer’s statement was only atheism while Benson’s was much broader and included all “thinky work” which you were supporting by intent or carelessness by dropping Shermer’s explicit references to atheism – which is more or less confirmed by your own inference that “women are expected to be … mostly passively unintellectual”. Looks rather categorical to me and entirely consistent with Benson’s several statements about the “thinky work” stereotype, notably this:
That was Benson’s thesis – that Shermer’s statement was part of a promotion of a stereotype of “women as stupid and passive” – and damned if she was going to allow a fair reading of his statement to get in the way of its advancement. Something that more than a few here – from Ed on down, including you – seem to be fully in agreement with.
What unmitigated horse manure – it is implying absolutely nothing of the kind. You simply can not make those types of statements about individuals based on statistical distributions in a population. Does knowing that the mortality rate is 2% tell you when you’re going to die?
Consider a case in which there is a population of 500 men and 500 women with say 300 men and 300 women with IQs of 100, and 200 men and 200 women with IQs of, say, 110 such that the latter group are entirely capable of doing the same types of “thinky work” and who we will call “intellectually active” over some spectrum of fields. But now say that there is some activity – atheism, for example – that causes some subset of the entire population – say, 5% or 50 people – to gravitate into some particular loose organization. And further let us stipulate that the distribution by gender in the atheist group is 70% male and 30% female – 35 males and 15 females – which matches the average of the Pew Forum and Atheist Census statistics.
Now in the above, without any consideration about the capabilities of those 35 individual males and 15 individual females to do “thinky work”, it is still a true fact without any hint of sexism or stereotyping that one can quite credibly and reasonably say, “atheism, it’s more of a guy thing”. But since Benson has thrown a whole boatload of “thinky work” red-herrings onto the crime scene, let us now stipulate that our particular grouping of 50 individuals has the same distribution in each gender of those who can do “thinky work” as does the larger population, i.e., 60% of both males – 21 individuals – and females – 9 individuals – can’t do “thinky work” while 40% of both males – 14 individuals – and females – 6 individuals – can, in fact, do the “thinky work”. So now our population of atheists includes 21 males and 9 females who can’t do “thinky work” as well as 14 males and 6 females who can. So let us consider what we can say about our group: it is, or should be, manifestly obvious that we can still quite credibly and without a whiff of sexism say that “intellectually active atheism – aka, manifesting the ability to do “thinky work” – is still more of a guy thing”.
And further observations relative to the above sub-group can be made: assuming, as indicated above, that the distribution of those who can do the “thinky work” in each gender is equal, the fact that there are more males than females in the atheist grouping who are capable of that type of work means that there is some other grouping in the larger society in which there will be more females than males who can do that type of work, i.e., “intellectually active {needlepoint, quantum mechanics, haute cuisine, HIV research, ….}, it’s more of a gal thing”. Simply no observation about the relative frequency of ability to do “thinky work” – or any other type of work or activity for that matter – in any sub-group says diddly squat – except statistically speaking – about the frequency in any other subgroup. There is simply no way that one can reasonably infer – simply because someone has made an observation about the distribution of those able to do “thinky work” in one sub-population – that that means they are making any assertion as to the distribution in any other sub-population or the whole one.
And finally, relative to your rather egregious and decidedly obtuse “women should be quiet and sit at the back of the atheist bus”, that I along with others might be in the position of those unable to do “thinky work” of a certain type, particularly in comparison to someone like Dawkins who is, certainly doesn’t mean that our civil rights – notably our right to any particular seat in the bus – are any less than his.
As I’ve mentioned several times before, comparing populations and assigning rights and attributes to individuals based on statistical distributions in those populations can be decidedly tricky and problematic. I’ve found that due care and attention to the details and nuances – and the sciences – along with healthy doses of skepticism is a necessity.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 7:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed Brayton said (#100):
You keep using that word [sexism]; I do not think it means what you think it means. Which calls into question your subsequent uses of it. But have you actually taken a look at my previous posts where I raise the question as to what constitutes “sexism”? As I indicated or argued [#61], unless you’ve got discrimination or the “promoting of a stereotype” you really don’t have sexism. And simply asserting that something is “obviously” the case with diddly-squat in the way of evidence to justify the charge looks rather too much like the assertions of religious fundamentalists.
Apart from the rather egregious case of begging the question in asserting that Shermer’s statement was in fact sexist – that is the bone of contention, not a proven case of law, science, or morality – you might have a point about the “contradictory excuses”. However, as I indicated before I think he’s wrong about the ratio probably being fifty-fifty as the Pew Forum results [#181] puts the ratio at 64% male and 36% female.
I’m not arguing that there are as many atheist women as there are men so you can’t expect me to answer why non-existent women don’t come to the meetings. And I think you – and many others here – are misconstruing Shermer’s “intellectually active” as he actually said “intellectually active about it, i.e., atheism”. It is saying absolutely nothing at all about women being intellectually active – or not – about any other topic, subject or field, only that guys are, as a simple statement of fact – almost a tautology, “intellectually active about atheism”. And that misconstrual is where I think you and Benson and many others have gone off the rails. I’ve discussed the point in greater detail in #192.
That he was, in effect, arguing that there are “an equal number of male and female atheists” doesn’t change the fact that the statistics strongly suggests that there is a significant disparity. But that doesn’t in the slightest change the fact that he is being raked over the coals for his “it’s more of a guy thing” for it supposedly being sexist when there isn’t a single solitary shred of evidence and proof to justify the charge. Witch-hunt, indeed.
Maybe because, in part, most women aren’t all that interested in the goals and principles of “atheism” – at least as they are promulgated? Your sales promotional material isn’t appealing enough? The prevalence of dogma is a turn-off, particularly for those who have fought long and hard to be free of it? But I kind of have to wonder at this “categorical imperative” that every field of endeavor and interest has to possess exactly 50-50 representation in actors and audience.
Yes, well that is certainly a horse of a different colour. And there are probably many reasons for that, one of which is the actual disparity that the statistics strongly suggest is the case. What extra efforts are required in that case to ensure some degree of decorum, I can’t really say. But refusing to face the facts can’t be a good starting point.
huntstoddard
January 19, 2013 at 7:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Or his “doubling and tripling down” can be interpreted as an outraged reaction to Benson’s baiting response. That’s kind of what people do, you know, when incensed by baiting. Personally I’m willing to write off all of Shermer’s replies to the original objection. This whole things should get a big fat “Do Over,” starting with Benson’s first response.
huntstoddard
January 19, 2013 at 7:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Or preferably, with Shermer’s discussion. I’m pretty sure, at this point, he would alter his words.
TCC
January 19, 2013 at 8:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman et al. – Compare the following statements:
1. “Being intellectually active about atheism is more of a guy thing.”
2. “There seems to be more men than women being invited to talk about atheism publicly.”
Is there a substantive difference between these statements, and would one be preferable over the other in terms of a fair assessment of the situation?
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 9:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed writes @ 167:
Of course, and that’s a strawman. The problem here isn’t that people are avoiding the objectionable comment Shermer stated – anyone worthy of consideration is in agreement what he did was dumb, insensitive, and easily perceived as sexist though it’s questionable whether he intended to be sexist (as opposed to oblivious). But denying or avoiding the far more objectionable character assassination Ms. Benson does against Shermer when it’s a classic example of demagoguery is not a fair assessment of this situation. Shermer has a legitimate beef, and his using that opportunity to dig his hole ever deeper with a pathetic reaction you post about here Ed in no way negates the far more egregious behavior of Ms. Benson.
Ed concludes @ 167:
To meet this standard obligates us to point out all the bad behavior and fairly weigh assess the level of egregiousness – not just relatively but to a normative standard as well. In this we’re obligated to not avoid the thoroughly dishonest defamation of Shermer by Ms. Benson by condemn her, which I do here. I think it’s far worse than Shermer’s sin, though I concede that’s arguable as Gretchen asserts, but to a normative behavior Benson’s behavior here is disgusting and should be called out.
dingojack
January 19, 2013 at 9:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
huntstoddard – ooh I think the whole ‘do over’ thing could start a little earlier than that.
Kacy – well whadda ya know, the Internet connection on yer rubber dingy turned out to be better than you thought! (it took me awhile)
Steersman TL;DR – I’ll do it in the morning. Goodnight.
Dingo
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 9:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
hypatiasdaughter to me @ 164
That’s some weapons grade projection going on there. I blockquoted everything you stated which I then directly rebutted. Here you just conjure up an assertion about me without quoting anything I wrote which supports your claim.
This is a fine illustration of how tribalists act when they don’t want to confront the bad behavior of their side. In this case, how Ms. Benson distorts what Mr. Shermer actually said; though Shermer’s doing himself no favors with his pathetically absurd reaction as Ed rightly points out in this post. But Shermer’s behavior makes him appear immature and kinda dumb about these things – as opposed to Benson falsely painting him as something far worse by her dishonest distortion of what he actually stated.
Stacy
January 19, 2013 at 10:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Character assassination? Hyperbole is hyperbolic. Pointing out that Shermer said something sexist is not “character assassination.”
Whether or not he intended to say something sexist is beside the point. He said something sexist. That is what Ophelia Benson addressed: his words, and the stereotype they convey.
Thanks though for making your priorities clear: calling out sexist drivel is character assassination and needs be condemned.
sawells
January 19, 2013 at 10:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here’s an interesting point.
What Ophelia pointed out is that what Shermer _said_ – the “It’s more of a guy thing” comment – is sexist as it implies women are intellectually inferior.
Steersman keeps claiming that Ophelia said Shermer _thinks_ that women are intellectually inferior.
Do you think Steersman will ever grasp his fundamental misunderstanding? I’m not optimistic. Instead I think we’ll get more endless quibbling megaposts.
Stacy
January 19, 2013 at 10:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
She did not paint him as anything. She repeated his words and paraphrased them, as part of her discussion about stereotypes. She said that he said something sexist. That is, as Ian Cromwell would point out, a cognitive failing, not a moral one.
(Do you understand the difference between (for example) “You said a racist thing” and “You are a racist”? No? I suggest you read some Ian Cromwell.)
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 11:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
I’m increasingly troubled by this blog post. Your lead states:
But that is not what motivates Mr. Shermer, instead it was Ms. Benson’s misrepresentation of what he said as Shermer writes in the very article to which you link:
I think you owe those readers who care about objective truth a retraction. Right now this blog post thread provides convincing evidence you’re effectively helping to promote Ophelia Benson’s demagoguery.
Stacy
January 19, 2013 at 11:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@sawells
Neither am I. Heath is making the same error.
Jason Thibeault
January 19, 2013 at 11:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath:
So, what? There is no background societal prejudice that women are less capable of thinking than men? Or Shermer’s “it’s more of a guy thing” isn’t playing into that prejudice?
Or is it that you, like others in this conversation, think Ophelia is saying Shermer actively thinks this, rather than having said something stupid accidentally? And that’s what you consider demagoguery, that she’s not making a rational argument in accusing Shermer of something that she didn’t even accuse him of?
ildi
January 19, 2013 at 12:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I have a question for you, Michael Heath:
If Benson had not paraphrased Shermer’s statement from “who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing” to “women don’t do thinky”, would you still be accusing her of repugnant character assassination, defamation and demagoguery?
Ophelia Benson
January 19, 2013 at 12:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yikes. What a lot of incomprehension.
Michael Heath @ 203 – That’s Shermer saying, in response to what I wrote, that he doesn’t believe women are stupid etc. That’s totally irrelevant. I never said he believed. I have no idea what he believes. I said what he said. I began with the fact that it was in a discussion, which means it wasn’t a written claim, which means he didn’t have time to think again or the ability to delete it and start over.
It was about what he said. The column as a whole was about stereotypes. It wasn’t about Shermer. I never said that Shermer is a sexist or that he thinks women are stupid. I said what he said. His replying afterward that he doesn’t believe that does nothing whatever to contradict my claim that he said it.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 1:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Somebody in this thread wrote:
jenniferphillips
January 19, 2013 at 1:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m baffled that so many heretofore rational people are arguing the justified use of Nazi, Witch hunt, Stasi and McCarthyism comparisons when sexist remarks made by people they like are called out. I’m further baffled that many of these same people are turning a blind eye to the endless tsunami of obsessive internet hate that the people doing the calling-out–every last one of them–receive on a daily basis. Baffled, and truly saddened that there is such disparity in prioritizing harm.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 1:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
someone upthread writes:
Raging Bee responds:
More dishonesty. Mr. Shermer wasn’t reacting to mere criticism, but instead defamation by Ophelia Benson who didn’t merely criticize what he stated, but instead created a false strawman and falsely attributed it it Shermer.
Shermer was quite clear in the linked article he was responding to demaoguery where the evidence Ms. Benson was doing exactly that is a perfect illustration of demagoguery. And as evidenced by this thread, an effective demagogic effort at that.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 1:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
huntstoddard writes:
What’s particularly egregious here is that Mr. Shermer’s no longer being vilified only by what he stated and his absurd defense, but instead and I think far worse, being vilified by what Ophelia Benson falsely attributes to him.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 1:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Stacy writes:
Uh no, you’re instead lying about what Ophelia Benson actually did. Which is exactly the type of tribalistic behavior we ridicule when conservatives do it. The interesting question is whether you do so obliviously or purposefully, which is exactly the same question we ask when conservatives present evidence of either delusion or dishonesty.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 1:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jason Thibeault @ 205 to me:
I’m referring to this definition of the term :
Ms. Benson’s mischaracterization of what Mr. Shermer actually stated fits this definition to a tee, and the results it’s worked are clearly evident in this thread.
Jason Thibeault @ 205 to me:
Of course there is, no one worthy of considering argued otherwise, including Shermer. Whether purposefully or inadvertently you also misrepresent my position on Shermer’s original objectionable comment. I’ve repeatedly criticized him in this thread, in fact I’ve criticized him for it every single time I referenced that statement. What he stated was dumb, insensitive, and arguably sexist – I think so and put it a 2-3 out of 10, though it’s questionable whether he realized what he said was sexist or oblivious of the implications. But his objectionable statement in no way excuses Ms. Benson’s defamation of him and the effectiveness she’s enjoying of her demagoguery.
This is my beef; we’re rightly condemning the content Shermer originally stated, rightly criticizing him for what he said, and justifiably ridiculing him for his Godwin-rich defense of what Ophelia Benson wrote about him. However that’s a defective framing of this issue, the other reality which is avoided or denied here is Ms. Benson’s repugnant character assassination of Mr. Shermer using a self-contrived strawman which does not represent what Shermer stated.
Ed’s lead sentence here also isn’t true when it comes to reporting what motivated Shermer to respond. Shermer’s response wasn’t due to mere criticism, but instead as Shermer writes and I quote above, a response due to an untrue attack. That has Ed effectively promoting Benson’s demagogic defamation of Shermer.
Jason Thibeault @ 205 to me:
I have no idea what Ms. Benson thinks beyond what she writes. She’s not making a rational argument, she’s instead created an imagined argument, a strawman, and then attributes it to Shermer. And it’s worked splendidly as evidenced by this thread. She’s got supposed freethinkers abandoning their critical thinking skills to make even the most remedial rhetorical and logical fallacies to avoid or even deny her bad behavior.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 2:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ildi writes:
Notice how I quote what people state and respond; without misconstruing what they stated into something else. That’s what I expect.
I won’t speculate on a hypothetical as you request of me here. I’ll stick to what was actually stated by all parties; that’s what matters, not hypotheticals.
In addition, if I were going to write and publish an article like Ms. Benson did, I would have held actual truth in enough regard to attempt to interview the subject prior to commenting on what he wrote. And if that person refused, I still wouldn’t perceive that rejection as license to lie about what the subject actually stated.
Ms. Benson had an opportunity to move the debate forward if she’d only interviewed Shermer and analyzed what he actually stated rather than create a strawman to demagogue Shermer’s objectionable comments; instead she did what Rush Limbaugh does. I find such even more objectionable on our side than Limbaugh’s because honesty and critical thinking are supposed to be attributes of freethinkers.
This is not rocket science. High school journalism classes teach the remedial level of standards for both reportage and opinionated analysis I advocate for here.
Jason Thibeault
January 19, 2013 at 2:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, Ophelia had the gross temerity to mention Michael Shermer by name and quote his words as an example of the sort of background sexism women experience. How dare she give a concrete example of a stereotype that a rational person might unknowingly have. How demagogic of her to provide examples of her argument.
I know you really want to make this about Ophelia smearing Shermer. She didn’t. So stop.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 2:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson writes:
The best rebuttal is to repeat what Shermer said and how you characterized it. Shermer:
And you respond, cherry-picking his statement as well by not including his “fifty-fifty” comment; though I think that’s trivial to your misrepresentation of what Shermer stated:
Shermer never claimed women don’t think. If somebody asserted, “women dont do thinky”, they wouldn’t merely be a sexist, but an outright misogynist. So here you are attributing a misogynist statement to Shermer, in spite of his never even raising the subject, let alone making such an objectionable claim.
Ms. Benson, if you had any integrity, you’d publically apologize to Michael Shermer for your defamation of him to a degree that gets equal visibility to your defamation of him. Shermer has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do as well, but his dumb and bad behavior doesn’t justify your defamation of him; regardless of whether his original statement was more egregious to your defamation of him as Gretchen argues.
And claiming some editor let it slip by so it must be OK as you previously asserted is not a valid excuse to anyone who takes responsibility for their behavior. Anybody who is capable of not succumbing to tribalism or looking beyond their biases can clearly observe that your attribution of Shermer claiming women don’t think is clearly a lie when we look to what Mr. Shermer actually stated. So I suggest a credible apology.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 2:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson @ 140:
Italics below are directly relelvant to Ms. Bensons’s claim.
Shermer reports [1]
Shermer responds [1]:
Ophelia Benson rebuts Shermer:
Shermer’s “fifty-fifty” response directly refutes your, “they don’t get involved”. The fact you left out the very statement which reveals your “don’t get involved” is not something Shermer stated validates you do quote-mine. Whether it was inadvertent or not is not something I can know.
I think this is misrepresentation of Mr. Shermer by quote-mine is relatively trivial compared to Benson’s dishonest claim Shermer claims women don’t think. Worthy of apology yes, but not as risible.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 2:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jenniferphillips writes:
Please inform this thread which commenters meet this level of behavior and at least their respective post numbers where they do so.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 3:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jason Thibeault, apparently to me:
You’re lying in your response to me about what I stated. I’ve repeatedly criticized what Shermer originally stated and repeatedly asserted it’s worthy of criticism. I’ve also repeatedly asserted my objection quite clearly, my objection is that Benson lied about what Shermer said, turning what he said into something far worse and pinning it on him.
Jason Thibeault stated:
You are now denying reality which is obvious with the quotes I present @ 216. Benson has Shermer arguing that women don’t “do thinky”. That’s a horribly misogynist thing to assert; which Shermer never asserted. Instead Benson created this lie. If you don’t think this is a smear, well here’s the definition:
Claiming someone should just shut up is a typical response when someone can’t perceive or formulate a credible defense while wanting to avoid adapting their position when inconvenient facts are presented. In this case Ms. Benson’s defamation of Mr. Shermer and Ed’s lead sentence which is simply not true as I validate @ 203 by referencing what Shermer wrote that contradicts Ed’s lead sentence.
ildi
January 19, 2013 at 3:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Minor detail: Benson did NOT say that Shermer claimed women don’t think. Benson deserves an apology for your repugnant mischaracterization of her statement.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ildi to me:
I’ll emphasize the applicable phrases of what Ms. Benson wrote in direct reference to what Shermer stated:
What Shermer actually said:
Hopefully my bold and italics gets you back to reality.
Ophelia Benson
January 19, 2013 at 3:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Boy. Michael Heath sure does like to say that people are lying. I was trained to be very cautious about saying that. Actually I was trained never to say it, but I occasionally do, when people lie about me. But Michael Heath just announces it and repeats it, over and over and over. Not the mark of a responsible commenter.
spartan
January 19, 2013 at 3:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I know you really want to make this about Ophelia smearing Shermer. She didn’t. So stop.
Yes, yes Jason, your arguments become much more compelling when you apparently use your telepathic powers to state what people you do not know ‘want’, and project this false dichotomy (‘this’ can be ‘about’ more than one thing thank you) on to the discussion. Why are you so desperate to absolve her of any criticism? Also, it’s annoying behavior to tell people to stop on blogs that are not your own, so stop. ;)
Shermer and Ophelia in my mind are about equal on this, they certainly both could have communicated what they were trying to say in a much better way. No skeptic should believe on this statement alone that Shermer believes that women don’t think as well as men, and neither should anyone think on her statement alone that Ophelia actually believes that Shermer actually believes that. So what Shermer said was poorly communicated in regard to his intent and has an interpretation that unfortunately reinforces stereotypes, and what Ophelia said was poorly communicated as one interpretation of what she said is that she is accusing Shermer of believing or unambiguously stating that women are inferior intellectually. I think I disagree with Michael on his rankings of offense but I do think he has a point, and overall I’m not sure how rational or skeptical it is to assume the worst possible interpretation of what someone says without further evidence to support it in the first place.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 4:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson writes:
It’s a lie I just announced it and repeated it. I instead validated your lies by comparing what Shermer stated and how you turned that into something different and far worse.
The fact you focus on someone calling you a liar rather than confronting and responding to the lies you told doesn’t speak well at all about your character.
You obviously struck a nerve with me; it’s for two very simple reasons: the advantage freethinkers and pro-science people have over conservatives is our honesty. If people on our side are willing to be dishonest, we lose a primary competitive advantage we have to encourage people to reject magical thinking, join reality, and hopefully – begin to promote causes based on science-centric premises. Secondly, humanity suffers when we tolerate dishonesty.
I suggest acknowledging your lies, apologize to Mr. Shermer for defaming him, and retract your false statements wherever they were published.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 4:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
spartan writes:
I think we have a moral obligation, and certainly a journalistic one, to get a subject’s response to a conclusion that is so very different than what the subject actually stated when publishing in the type of venue which published Ms. Benson’s article. Especially when that conclusion easily turns a sexist statement into a misogynistic one while also easily qualifying as defamation as Shermer validates it to be in the very link Ed embeds in his blog post.
ildi
January 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ll break it down for you, Michael, since your bias is obviously interfering with your critical analysis.
Notice that I when I quoted from Benson’s article back up in #151, I included the previous paragraph, where she quotes social psychologist Cordelia Fine from Delusions of Gender:
Her next sentence after quoting Fine:
It’s pretty clear for anyone without a strong bias to read Benson in the most unfavorable light that she is using “don’t do thinky” as shorthand for the Fine quote. So when Shermer says being intellectually active is a guy thing, he is exemplifying the very implicit associations that Fine describes.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 4:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jenniferphillips said (#189):
You keep using that word [sexism]; I do not think it means what you think it means. Have you actually taken a look at my previous posts where I raise the question as to what constitutes “sexism”? As I indicated or argued [#61], unless you’ve got discrimination or the “promoting of a stereotype” you really don’t have sexism. Is it sexism to note that there are ten times as many men as women in prison for various crimes? Simply making a statement of fact about gender disparities in various populations – which is all that Shermer’s did – simply does not qualify as sexism. And simply asserting that something is the case with diddly-squat in the way of evidence to justify the charge looks rather too much like the assertions of religious fundamentalists – and bigots.
That there is sexism in the atheist community I won’t dispute. But that isn’t the crux of the matter – it is the entirely discreditable, egregious, odious, and mephitic charge that Shermer’s statement – “it’s more of a guy thing” – qualifies as such.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 4:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
TCC said (#196):
Seems to me that each of them are describing two very different scenarios. The first one is speaking to the motivations of all those involved – speakers, conference goers, bloggers, commenters, etc.; it seems to be asserting that there are more guys than gals who are involved and who are “intellectually active about atheism”. The second one describes only the population of those speaking and says nothing about the reasons for the disparity – maybe there’s a quota system in operation; maybe there are questions of availability and expenses; maybe there’s some bias in play. But the probable existence of more male than female speakers who are “intellectually active about atheism” is probably a large one.
Because they describe different situations it doesn’t seem reasonable to argue that one is preferable over the other.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 4:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson said (#207):
No you didn’t “say what he said”. He said “it’s more of a guy thing”. You said that he said “it’s a guy thing”. Note the extra word that you dropped because you, apparently, wanted to fit it into a different narrative.
To say that he said something that he didn’t say is to lie which makes you a liar. To pigheadedly continue to repeat it gives one some justification for thinking that your modus operandi is: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
ildi
January 19, 2013 at 4:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Except that he wasn’t merely making a statement of fact; he was responding to the issue of why there are less women speakers by saying that being intellectually active is more of a guy thing. That is promoting a stereotype.
To use your prison analogy, it’s one thing to say that 67.89 percent of drug offenders in prison are African-Americans. It’s another thing to say, well, doing drugs is a black thing.
ildi
January 19, 2013 at 5:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, I just noticed, MIchael; since Shermer later explained his dumb comment and put it in context, all is happy with the world (oh, wait, no he didn’t), but when Benson actually comes to the thread and explains what she meant, you call her a liar.
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 5:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ildi writes:
I’ll repeat what Ophelia Benson said that’s relevant in bold. I’ll repeat what Ophelia Benson said which directly asserts this is what Shermer said in bold italics. Here it is:
So from this perspective, your’re not only projecting your own bias onto me, but denying the very plainly worded claims Ms. Benson makes about Shermer’s statement which do not reconcile to what Mr. Shermer actually stated.
This is really getting sadly comical. This venue never denies the dishonesty and obvious fallacies made by conservatives, but when it’s a progressive on a popular cause doing the same . . . well, this is not pretty.
And I have no idea what bias you think I have. I do know my biases related to this matter. Those biases are objective truth, reality, my contempt of dishonesty – especially the defamation of others even when it’s directed to contemptible people, and fealty for critical thinking . Whatever other bias(es) you think are involved is imagined.
jenniferphillips
January 19, 2013 at 5:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman, it doesn’t become true if you just repeat it over and over again. You were wrong at #61 and you’re just as wrong at #227. If you apply yourself, I expect you’ll still be wrong at #419. ildi and others have already said why, most recently at 230. Shermer didn’t state a statistical fact, he stated an opinion, phrased in a way that many reasonable people found rather sexist. Enter the Nazis and book burners.
I’m obviously not going to change your mind, so please feel free to continue your absurdly furious overreactions and privileged posturing without my input.
jenniferphillips
January 19, 2013 at 5:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath, I’ve always found you to be a thoughtful contributor to this blog, but you’re barely less ridiculous than Steersman in this case. It must be hard to be a Champion of truth, reality, honesty and critical thinking when you can dismiss ridiculous, extended descents into persecution imagery (prominently featured in TWO articles from Shermer responding to Ophelia) as silly and unfortunate and write post after post roaring at Ophelia to apologize for what was, at worst, a clumsy characterization of Shermer’s remarks. Are you writing equally passionate pleas on Shermer’s blog asking him to walk back all the Witch Hunt/McCarthyism/Nazi talk? If not, why not?
Michael Heath
January 19, 2013 at 6:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jenniferphillips writes to me:
In regards to your comment about me posting at Shermer’s, I’m not commenting there or at the blog post Ophelia Benson has on her blog about this topic. Ed’s blog is the venue I choose to express myself. Your imagined motivations of me are exactly that – imagined. If you want to know my motivations I make them quite clear @ 224 and several other posts in this thread.
You’re lying about me when you claim I dismissed Shermer’s response. I’ve repeatedly pointed out its worthy of criticism and in many posts ridicule as noted in my comment posts @ 71, 74, 121, 141, 197, 199, 211, 213, 216, and 219 – many of those posts have detailed criticisms. The fact you can’t make that observation and instead lie about my behavior here continues to validate and illustrate my claim about how triablism has infected those who would have us deny or avoid Ms. Benson’s defamation of Mr. Shermer.
In regards to your previously noting my being a thoughtful contributor here, one conclusion is the following. I’m not the one arguing differently in this thread, but instead demanding we apply the same standards, which I do here, to Ms. Benson that we do to Bryan Fischer, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and all the others on the right who defame and demagogue. I think the evidence is overwhelming this conclusion is the most parsimonious.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 6:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ildi said (#230):
But he didn’t’s say that “being intellectually active is more of a guy thing; he said “[being intellectually active about atheism], it’s more of a guy thing”. That some field happens to have more men than women being “intellectually active” about it says nothing in favour of the argument that all fields will have that disparity. Nor does it preclude the quite likely case – as I illustrated in #192 – that other fields will exist where one can credibly say “[intellectually active about {needlepoint, quantum mechanics, haute cuisine, HIV research, …}, it’s a gal thing”.
In addition, the definition of “stereotype” stipulates that it entails an “oversimplified conception” in which one is, for example, insisting that the characteristics of some subgroup in a population are true of all subgroups. Which would be the case in your own “intellectually active is more of a guy thing”.
But the latter is a stereotype because, as per the definition, it asserts that the doing of drugs – which is manifestly true for those blacks so charged – is applicable to all blacks. However, if you had said that “doing drugs is more of a black thing” then that is only stating a fact. It may not actually answer any questions as to why that is the case, but it is not at all racist.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 6:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jason Thibeault said (#215):
So, by your assessment, she’s asserting that he said something that is sexist? In my book – the dictionary – saying that someone said something that is sexist is tantamount to calling them a sexist. One can be somewhat mealy-mouthed – as seems to be the case in this neck of the woods – about trying to deny that, but it really doesn’t seem to be a charge that you can stick-handle around.
And that presumably being the case, maybe you can point out exactly where Ms. Benson actually adduced the requiste evidence and managed to prove that the charge is true. Or is that just a central article of faith in the FfTB catechism and therefore sacrosanct and immune to any challenge?
Aaron Logan
January 19, 2013 at 6:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t know. I read the statement “Michael Shermer said exactly that” as him employing the ‘exact’ stereotype that Fine describes and then “women don’t do thinky” as a restatement of Fine, not as restatement of Shermer. That seems to be the more charitable reading. I’m also rather surprised that the editors allowed, in Heath’s and Steersman’s opinions for example, such egregious defamation to be published. For now, I’m going to trust the editors’ as seeing no defamation rather than missing it.
sawells
January 19, 2013 at 6:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman, when you say @237: “In my book – the dictionary – saying that someone said something that is sexist is tantamount to calling them a sexist.” you are fundamentally wrong and making an error which I pointed out to you already @128. Please stop being wrong about this, you’re embarrassing yourself, and you’re using the wrong dictionary too.
Consider “everyone who runs is a runner”. No, I run for a bus on occasion, but I am not A Runner the way Mo Farah is A Runner.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 6:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jenniferphillips said (#233):
Have you ever thought to actually use that organ on the top of your neck – I think it’s called a brain – and think through an argument, to weigh the evidence and judge accordingly, on your own without being spoonfed and brainwashed?
“privileged posturing”? That’s a new one – freshly minted by the gynocracy and their fascist running dogs? What a laugh.
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning)
January 19, 2013 at 7:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And Steersman finally shows his true colors.
tomh
January 19, 2013 at 7:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And Steersman finally shows his true colors.
Oh, he showed them a long time ago. He thinks Benson should be locked up for “criminal negligence,” and Shermer should sue her for “defamation,” presumably because Shermer’s feelings were hurt. All because Benson expressed her opinion that Shermer’s remark was sexist.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
sawells said (#239):
This shows that “runner” is generic. You’re insisting on a particular qualification that doesn’t necessarily have to apply. Mo Farah is a runner, but so am I when I run down to the store for a loaf of bread:
And Merriam-Webster has “runner: one that runs”.
Maybe saying something that is sexist isn’t necessarily proof that one is a sexist as there are a number of “use-attribution” variations that allow one off the hook. Which is why I said “tantamount”.
jenniferphillips
January 19, 2013 at 7:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh no! Clever Steersman has stumbled onto my Dastardly Gynocratic Plot to burn all the dictionaries and persecute all the True Skeptics forevermore. The fascist running dogs will be ’round to tattoo ‘Sexist’ across your chest shortly.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 7:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And WMDKitty finally shows his ability to present and understand a detailed and cogent argument ….
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 7:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tomh said (#242):
No – because she makes “a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image”; because she – and many in her cohort – are peddling a bare-faced lie.
tomh
January 19, 2013 at 7:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And that legal wizard Steersman says, Lock her up! Throw away the key!
Jason Thibeault
January 19, 2013 at 7:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Which dictionary is THAT in?
“Hey that thing you said is racist!” != “Hey, you’re a racist!” Why would that equation work differently for sexism?
Oh, because we really want to defend persecution complexes. Perhaps you’re being witch-hunted RIGHT NOW by my request for a dictionary that actually defines accidental sexist language as an intrinsic property of a person’s identity.
Gretchen
January 19, 2013 at 7:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman said:
No, that would be the genius who actually replied to an argument by referring to a “gynocracy.”
I wasn’t actually very bothered by Shermer’s initial remarks. You know, about skepticism being “a guy thing.” Even “intellectually active” didn’t really rouse my ire, because I figured he was just trying, in a very clumsy way, to suggest that men tend to be more outgoing and willing to take risks, and being openly atheistic can be a hell of a risk. But when he compared himself to Dawkins without the slightest acknowledgment that Dawkins actually did anything wrong, and proceeded to claim that they were both like victims of a totalitarian regime because some people had spoken out and criticized statements they’d made as sexist, well…..it suddenly became very difficult to make a meaningful distinction between what he was saying, and Rush Limbaugh declaring that any woman who stands up for herself and declares that she has a right to make decisions about such important things as her own reproduction is a “feminazi.” Or, of course, a “femistasi.”
And now you, perhaps in a fit of desperation, have started spouting the same bullshit. Women who disagree are like dictators. The whole body of them are like a fascist regime, bent on ruthlessly squelching any dissent.
Except……in reality, it’s nothing like that. It’s just another persecution complex on the part of the people with the real power, who perceive any move toward equality as their own victimization. Just like the Christians who whine about a war on Christmas are the people who declare that any criticism of speech on the grounds that it’s sexist is tyrannical censorship on the part of a totalitarians.
Get over yourselves.
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning)
January 19, 2013 at 8:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman, you really are an idiot. Why don’t you go troll somewhere else?
hypatiasdaughter
January 19, 2013 at 8:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#199 Michael Heath
Now, Mikey, you are making me laugh. You have quoted selective parts of my posts. You have never once answered my questions. Like, did you ever watch the video of the interview?
In post #164
Since you seem to have problems with the English language, I ask you again – where in any of my posts have I defended “the demagoguery and defamation” of either the Benson or Ed? I have never mentioned either one in my posts.
And hey, Mikey, have you noticed that huntstoddard and Steermans are acting a little “tribal”? Are you planning to take them to task? Or would that be turning on your fellow tribesmen?
Ophelia Benson
January 19, 2013 at 9:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath, you really should stop saying I lied (and, yes, calling me a liar). I provided the exact quote. It’s right there on the page. Then when I comment I say “it’s a guy thing” instead of “it’s more of a guy thing” – but the exact quote is immediately above, and it’s obvious to any experienced reader which one is the exact quote. It’s not lying to give a paraphrase in the commentary when the original is right there.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 10:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tomh said (#246):
No, I didn’t say that at all. Either your reading comprehension is the shits or you’re trying for demagogue of the year …. and in the face of tough competition from various FfTB’s ….
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 10:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jason Thibeault said (#248):
And if the thing said isn’t retracted then the implication if not inexorable conclusion is, ipso facto, that the person is a racist. The reason why I did say “tantamount”: “equivalent in effect or value” but not exactly equal. More particularly, if sexism is this:
Then a sexist, as a person, has to be:
So if a sexist is one who exhibits sexism – i.e., those behaviours or attitudes – and someone has done such exhibiting then it follows that they are a sexist. Or maybe you can explain to me how discrimination, or “behaviour and attitudes that foster stereotypes” can exist without the discriminator or the person exhibiting those behaviours and attitudes. Like I said, “tantamount” ….
Who said anything about accidental? That’s your inference as to his intent. Shermer presumably made the statement because he thought it was an accurate, if maybe noncommittal, description of the reasons for the disparity. If it was something he believed to be true then why would he change it except if you’ve managed to convince him that it was sexist? As he hasn’t – at least that I can see in his December eSkeptic article – and as many here continue to call it a sexist comment, it seems perfectly reasonable to infer that you’re calling him a sexist. And with diddly-squat in the way of evidence and proof to justify the charge. Which tends to look rather much like a witch-hunt ….
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 10:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen said (#249):
Seems to be some over here also who are somewhat challenged by sarcasm, mine being entirely justified by jenniferphillips’ “priviledged posturing” with it’s echoes of “The Patriarchy” ….
Apart from the fact that I was a long way from “spouting the same bullshit” (over-react much or often?) as it was only a sarcastic needle, considering the prevalence of people ascribing all sorts of nefarious and egregious activities to “The Patriarchy”, one might be forgiven for suggesting a feminist organization equally as nefarious and egregious.
ildi
January 19, 2013 at 10:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MH: You even bold it, and can’t see it. Amazing.
Women “don’t do thinky” is not the same as saying women “don’t think.” It mystifies me how you can ignore the context of the Fine quote in your quest for the objective truth. Shermer makes an off-the-cuff sexist remark and Benson uses it as an example of the types of implicit assumptions about the sexes that are still rampant in our society, even among progressives.
Your bias shows in that you have no problem interpreting Shermer’s statement as more dumb and ill-conceived rather than sexist, but that you consider (your flawed understanding of) Benson’s interpretation of that sexist statement to rise to the level of character assassination and repugnant demagoguery.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 10:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
WMDKitty said (#250):
Curious that so many people are so quick to level the charge of “troll” when they don’t have any rebuttals to the “troll’s” arguments …. I wonder why that is ….
Gretchen
January 19, 2013 at 10:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
1) Comprehension of the term “patriarchy” utter fail. I don’t especially like it either, in part because it is so easily misunderstood, but seriously….when you don’t even try, it doesn’t count.
2) I’m sure that works splendidly when arguing with black people about racism and you refer to the “negocracy.” Because it’s always totally cool and inoffensive to pretend that minorities are in fact their own organized powerful entity of which you, majority member, are the victim. Sarcastically or no.
Fuckwit.
ildi
January 19, 2013 at 10:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, saying doing drugs is more of a black thing because there are more blacks in prison for drug offenses is not just stating a fact, it’s making an assumption without having all the facts in place. It tells you nothing about the use of drugs in the general population, it just tells you who is arrested for, tried for, and found guilty of drug offenses. Saying it’s more of a black thing is racist when you ignore all the other dynamics.
Steersman
January 19, 2013 at 10:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson said (#252):
More horse-manure there, Ophelia.
You really should re-read your own article. The first statement of Shermer’s you mis-quote is “that’s a guy thing” which you immediately follow up by saying “Michael Shermer said exactly that”with your “that” clearly referring to the “that’s a guy thing” – as well as to the “women don’t do thinky work” – in the previous paragraph.
That you subsequently quote him correctly saying “it’s more of a guy thing” detracts not in the slightest from the fact that you made an assertion as to what he said that is simply not true.
tomh
January 19, 2013 at 10:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman:
Seems to be some over here also who are somewhat challenged by sarcasm
That would be you – since I didn’t put ‘Lock her up’ in quotes I guess I knew you didn’t use those words. You did, however, say that Benson’s words bordered on “criminal negligence” and she could be sued for “defamation.” Probably the most ridiculous assertion you’ve made in a long line of them that you’ve made. That’s what happens when you get your legal knowledge from Wikipedia.
I’m sure of one thing out of all this – Steersman got a new dictionary for Christmas. It’s heartwarming, really, to see how he depends on it.
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning)
January 19, 2013 at 11:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersmann
Keep digging….
sawells
January 20, 2013 at 5:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Isn’t it funny how, if Ophelia quotes Shermer saying “more of a guy thing” and later paraphrases “It’s a guy thing”, then OMG MISREPRESENTATION, but if Steersman chooses to believe that “that thing you said was sexist” is “tantamount to” saying “you are sexist”, then we must all prostrate ourselves before his interpretation even though it’s not at all what was said?
Stacy
January 20, 2013 at 9:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Michael Heath:
Assuming you mean that comprehensively–”I know all my biases related to this matter”–you are a fool if you really believe that.
We all have biases we don’t consciously perceive.
You very clearly have misunderstood Ms. Benson’s point. She did not say that Shermer said “women don’t think.” She did not call Shermer A Sexist.
She pointed out that he said something sexist (you’ve admitted he did,) by way of explaining the tenacity and ubiquity of sexist stereotypes.
You, like Shermer himself, have attempted to paint that as an egregious crime. You’ve attempted to make a column that was about sexist stereotypes into a column excoriating Shermer.
Stacy
January 20, 2013 at 12:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Once again, for the self-righteous and the obtuse as well as those honestly grappling with this: sexist thinking is a cognitive failure, not a moral one. Ophelia Benson understands this. Michael Shermer apparently doesn’t. He was not pilloried.
(Persisting in sexist thinking after it’s been revealed to be a cognitive failure may in some circumstances be a moral failure, but we all know how long it can take for even smart people to change an entrenched way of thinking.)
ildi
January 20, 2013 at 12:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’d think Shermer would, in fact, understand this, Stacy. He just published The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths last year.
Steersman
January 20, 2013 at 12:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ildi said (#259):
You’re trying to move the goalposts. The question wasn’t one of addressing “all the other dynamics” of one part of my analogy, but of the consequences and import of the word “more”. It is that which turns a categorical statement – “it’s a guy thing” – which might justifiably be called sexist and stereotyping into one – “it’s more of a guy thing” – that is a simple statement of fact. And relative to which you might actually want to take a look at the Pew Forum statistics that I quoted earlier which quite conclusively demonstrates that the atheist population of the US is comprised of 64% male and 36% female. Something which is rather conclusively corroborated by the Atheist Census which strongly suggests a ratio of 74% male and 25% female.
Steersman
January 20, 2013 at 12:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
sawells said (#263)
You might want to try putting brain in gear before putting mouth in motion – and reading Ophelia’s article first.
If you had done so you might have noticed that she FIRST mis-quoted Shermer as saying “it’s a guy thing” and THEN she said “Shermer said exactly that” – where there is no possible way of inferring that her “that” was referring to anything other than “it’s a guy thing”if not other more problematic statements – and THEN she FINALLY said that Shermer said “it’s more of a guy think”. Do note the progression: lie if not libel THEN “said exactly that” THEN “it’s more of a guy thing”.
Yea, put me on a jury and I doubt that I would have much difficulty rendering a verdict of guilty of libel.
As for my interpretation of sexist – which is more or less corroborated in thousands if not millions of dictionaries; I recommend you actually take a look at one of them – I suppose then by your “logic” that if someone commits a crime then they are not a criminal? That if you say I have murdered someone that you aren’t then saying that I’m a murderer?
Steersman
January 20, 2013 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
WMDKitty said (#262):
Another transparent attempt to dismiss a person instead of actually trying to address their arguments. Maybe you’re incapable of that ….
What a bunch of fucking clueless intellectually-dishonest assholes – and I’m being charitable ….
sawells
January 20, 2013 at 1:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The thing about a sexist culture, sweet little Steersman, is that it leads to people saying sexist things, even if they aren’t consciously sexist. Describing the person as sexist would be unfair; describing the statement as sexist is only accurate. In re. the discussion of racism, Gretchen already pointed you to a resource, which I’ll quote for you:
“Otherwise known as the “that thing you said” conversation. See: Jay Smooth on Youtube talking about the concept when it comes to racism. It should come up with by simply searching “Jay Smooth racism.””
Now you could choose to advance your education, or you could keep mindlessly repeating your dictionary argument. To refute which, note that Stephen Hawking is known to have climbed a tree at least once, before his dystrophy set in; wherefore it would according to you be perfectly accurate to describe Stephen Hawking as a tree-climber. Ridiculous enough for you yet?
Hey, I just realised what this reminds me of – it’s the religious gotcha about “Have you ever told a lie? What do we call people who tell lies? You are A LIAR and require God’s forgiveness.”
Stacy
January 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
/engage *shudder* Steersman:
You do know that the word functions as both adjective and noun, right?
(Fuckin’ word sense, how does it work?)
Are you a runner, Steersman? I used to run around a lot when I was a little kid. Does that make me a runner?
I can play chopsticks. Am I a pianist?
By your definition, everyone is sexist. It simply makes more sense to make a distinction between expression of a cognitive bias we all share to one degree or another (sexism) and being a person with a deliberate, conscious belief in the inferiority of women.
I suggest everyone read Ian Cromwell (The Crommunist). He makes the same point with regards to racism.
/disengage
dan4
January 20, 2013 at 1:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@115: I don’t care about this controversy, but I find it amusing that Steersman seems to believe that the second word in Mrs. Phillips’ “internet law” characterization of her distaste for people online using dictionary definitions was actually meant in a literal legal sense (how else to interpret his overheated ‘looks like censorship to me!” response to said characterization?).
dan4
January 20, 2013 at 1:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ironically, I would think that a court would be more sympathetic to a libel claim by Mrs. Phillips against Steersman for claiming that the former wants to ban books than one based on a “it’s a guy thing/”more of a guy thing” differentiation (yeah, this comment should have been part of @272. My apologies for that).
Ophelia Benson
January 20, 2013 at 3:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Right because there would totally be no problem with trying to sue me for libel over the difference between “it’s a guy thing” and “it’s more of a guy thing” when both versions are given and it’s clear which one is the direct quote. You bet! Any ambitious lawyer would jump at the chance? Court costs? What court costs? The case is a sure-fire winner!
Stacy
January 20, 2013 at 3:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Shit. Everyone is sexist. I meant to say: By your definition everyone is a sexist.
sawells
January 20, 2013 at 4:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@275: well, he’s already said that for him both I and Mo farah are “runners”, so I think this one is irony-proof.
ildi
January 20, 2013 at 5:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman:
Yes, the question IS one of addressing all the other dynamics. Why do more men self-report atheist than women? Why would this difference in self-reporting indicate that being intellectually active in the atheist movement is a more of guy thing? It’s circular logic to say that it’s more of a guy thing because more guys participate. To call that just stating a fact about why things are that way is perpetuating a stereotype; i.e., it’s a sexist statement.
jenniferphillips
January 21, 2013 at 11:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dan4 @ 272/3
Yes. The word ‘forfeit’ also seemed to unduly alarm him. The dictionary arguments are coming fast and thick, so even subtracting all the faulty logic and sexist dog whistles he’s deployed here, I think it’s safe to declare him the loser at this point.
Scopie’s Law is a bit obscure, but I find it hard to believe that Steersman has never heard of Godwin. The pitters & MRAs were so recently touting it in triumph when Ophelia made her ‘women creating a climate where women feel unsafe by speaking out against sexism–> jews creating a climate where Jews felt unsafe by speaking out against antisemitism in 1936 Germany’ analogy. (here)
Michael Heath
January 21, 2013 at 8:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aaron Logan @ 238:
To clarify a point. I never claimed the editors were at fault for Benson’s defamation. When Ms. Benson tried to avoid her own culpability by deferring to her editors I rebutted that @ 216 arguing she’s responsible for her actions.
I don’t know the level of scrutiny editors enjoy or their skill set so they could very well have missed it. I am instead assigning responsibility to Ms. Benson for failing to interview Mr. Shermer prior to misrepresenting what he said and then defaming him by misconstruing what he actually said by making it far worse. Misrepresentation which clearly meets the definition of defamation and as evidenced this thread, working quite well as demagoguery with those unable to confront what Shermer actually stated and what Benson falsely claims he meant.
Michael Heath
January 21, 2013 at 8:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tomh @ 242:
The objection by Shermer and my condemnation of Ms. Benson isn’t about her “opinion” but instead her premises – which are demonstrably false. There is a difference between an opinion and the premises which support an opinion.
Here’s Shermer in the article Ed linked to:
I quote Shermer from my post @ 203 because the link Ed provided in the body of his blog post isn’t currently accessible.
If people had a honest, well-framed, coherent defense of Ms. Benson, we’d see it. I’ve yet to observe anything that avoids even remedial rhetorical and logical fallacies along with enormous volumes of avoidance and outright denial.
Michael Heath
January 21, 2013 at 8:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen @ 249,
You make a valid argument regarding Michael Shermer’s bad behavior. But why do you avoid responding to Ophelia Benson’s misrepresentation of Shermer which motivated Mr. Shermer to lash out? Why do you avoid the fact her criticism of Shermer didn’t depend on what Shermer actually said but instead her false characterization of what he stated? Why do you not criticize her for failing to seek out a more fleshed-out perspective by interviewing him to ask him what he meant rather than confront what he actually said? Or if he refused, sticking to what stated rather than conjuring up the false characterization of him that she used to make her case.
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning)
January 21, 2013 at 8:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath
Oh, shut up already. Ophelia DID NOT misrepresent, misconstrue, or otherwise “twist” Mr. Shermer’s words. She quoted exactly what he said, and pointed out that it was, in fact, sexist.
Michael Heath
January 21, 2013 at 9:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson to me @ 252:
Why would I stop claiming you lied when not only did you lie, but you refuse to retract your lies and even lie in this post as well?
In this quote above, you didn’t do an, “exact quote” of Shermer. That’s a lie which has been pointed out to you by a handful of people, including Shermer in his response to your article which Ed linked to in the body of his blog post. You quote-mined Shermer which effectively buttresses your false characterization of Shermer, i.e., leaving out his, “I think it probably really is fifty-fifty“. I validated this @ quote-mine at 217 with all the relevant quotes.
I previously didn’t claim you lied by quote-mining Shermer because it could very well have been inadvertent as I acknowledged @ 217 when I stated, Whether it was inadvertent or not is not something I can know.. However the exclusion of that statement helped sell your lies about Shermer. And now, your claiming (disingenuously?) you did an, “exact quote”; well, hat has you purposefully misinforming this thread’s readers given the quote-mine has been demonstrated @ 217 and noted by Shermer’s response.
And I repeatedly demonstrated you in fact lied about Mr. Shermer said . No reasonable person can claim the moral gravity of what he said that started this ruckus compares to the misogynistic characterization you described. Mr. Shermer also validates that you misrepresented what he stated in the very link Ed provided in his quote which I repeat here:
Ms. Benson, if you don’t want to be called a liar, please stop lying and retract the lies you’ve already told. That takes character; given your defamation of Mr. Shermer and avoidance of what you’ve done when it’s been pointed to you by Shermer and at least me, I have little confidence you’re capable of such integrity. Please prove me wrong, we need less liars in this world – especially by those who seek to influence others as you and I both do.
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning)
January 21, 2013 at 9:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Look, shit-for-brains, OPHELIA DID NOT LIE.
She did not “distort” Shermer’s words.
She quoted his exact words, and pointed out that it was a sexist thing to say.
The lies and distortions are a figment of your delusional little imagination.
Now shut the fuck up and stop smearing a good woman who has more integrity in her little finger than you will ever see in your disgusting little integrity-free life.
Steersman
January 21, 2013 at 9:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
WMDKitty said (#284):
If you want to give some evidence that your handle – “always growing and learning” – isn’t a total delusion on your part – there being more evidence for “shrinking and getting more and more stupid” – you might want to try putting brain in gear before putting mouth in motion – and reading Ophelia’s article first.
If you had done so to begin with you might have noticed that she FIRST mis-quoted Shermer as saying “it’s a guy thing” and THEN she said “Shermer said exactly that” – where there is no possible way of inferring that her “that” was referring to anything other than “it’s a guy thing” if not other more problematic statements – and THEN she FINALLY said that Shermer said “it’s more of a guy thing”. Do note the progression: lie if not libel THEN “said exactly that” THEN “it’s more of a guy thing”.
It’s that misquote followed by the “said exactly that” that constitutes the lie and, apparently, the libel. That she subsequently quoted him accurately does not let her off the hook for having lied to begin with nor with having to accept the consequences for having done so.
Aaron Logan
January 21, 2013 at 9:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think (again more charitably, Mr Heath) that Ophelia was addressing sexist stereotypes and not alleging that Shermer is sexist. I don’t see an actual allegation from Ophelia that Shermer is sexist only that this one thing, in isolation, was sexist (inadvertent, unconsciously sexist likely). The sexism of “it’s more of a guy thing” is made more stark because of Shermer’s actual attitudes towards women and is a mild example of Ophelia’s restatement of Fine to describe systemic attitudes, for example, that “women don’t do thinky.” Several of you disagree but haven’t justified a less than charitable reading of Ophelia.
Steersman
January 21, 2013 at 10:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aaron Logan said (#286):
Christ in a sidecar. Did no one here actually read Ophelia’s article? Here’s what she said, the money-shot:
That looks to me to be a pretty pointed allegation – based on an egregious and odious lie – that Shermer is sexist. The “charitable reading” is in assuming that Ophelia’s “that” refers only to the part in quotes – “that’s a guy thing” – and not the even more apparently libelous accusation that Shermer actually said – “exactly” – that “Unbelieving in God is thinky work ….”
Aaron Logan
January 21, 2013 at 10:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman, “money-shot” in this context is egregiously sexist and, charitably, unthinkingly sexist. With an own goal like that, you should retire from the field.
Michael Heath
January 21, 2013 at 10:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ildi to me @ 256:
I did see it and chose not to use it @ 232. That’s because the Benson quote I bolded in response to your post @ 226 was sufficient in pointing out even a generous reading of Benson, as you asked me to do @ 226, still has her defaming Shermer by misconstruing Shermer’s thoughts.
I now regret the decision because I can see now how that is confusing I didn’t confront both your challenges. I. e., you wanting me to dig into the Fine statement and Benson’s false projection of that onto Shermer; that was something I didn’t address, choosing only to address your request I not consider Benson in an “unfavorable light” but something more generous. Which I did in my response to your 226 , and she still comes out incredibly dishonest.
I obviously saw Benson’s reference to Fine that you raised @ 226, no denialism here. In fact even before you brought it up I quoted Benson’s false projection of Fine onto Shermer in my original objection @ 71.
Your falsely attributing this to my not being capable of “seeing it” is the exact defect which got Benson in trouble, imagining what someone else thinks and using that as material to describe another person’s thoughts rather than using what people actually state.
So I’ll do a do-over, which is more devastating than what I previously used.
ildi @ 226:
ildi, Benson now has you quote-mining Shermer as well where your conclusion is as invalid as Benson’s.
It’s clear Shermer didn’t think or state women, “don’t do thinky” merely by considering the statement Shermer made which Benson quote-mined out of what she quoted by him. A quote-mine you fail to re-insert in your post @ 226, in spite of others pointing out Benson’s taking that relevant statement out and how that makes for a better case (though still obviously dishonest). The statement of course being, I think it [female participation in general*] probably really is fifty-fifty.
Here’s Benson, again:
Well again, Shermer didn’t say that nor even raised the point about “thinky”, plus he refuted the hosts claim there was no female participation. By quote-mining out the “fifty-fifty” statement, inadvertent or purposeful, it effectively makes it easier for Benson to distort what Shermer stated to Benson’s false strawman. Ms. Benson’s now demonstrated she’s not merely a liar, but a repeated one at that given her responses in this very thread, e.g., she wrote with more her claim she did an “exact quote” of Shermer in spite of her acknowledging she’s been accused of quote-mined which I validated she actually did @ 217 (though I don’t assert whether it was inadvertent or purposeful).
Ms. Benson needs to apologize to Mr. Shermer and issue a retraction.
*The Shermer and Benson articles at humanist.org are not currently available. So my description of Shermer’s “it” to mean “general female participation” is from memory. Of course if females are fifty-fifty in their particpation than they are doing “thinky” given the whole freethinking/atheist/skeptic enterprise is nearly all about thinking.
dan4
January 21, 2013 at 10:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@287: The “charitable reading” is in assuming that Ophelia’s “that” refers only to the part in quotes–”that’s a guy thing”-and not the even more apparently libelous accusation that Shermer actually said-”exactly”-that “Unbelieving in God is thinky work…”
That’s a pretty darn safe assumption, considering that “that’s a guy thing” is surrounded by quotations and “Unbelieving in God is thinky work…” isn’t.
Michael Heath
January 21, 2013 at 10:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Stacy @ 264 writes:
This has to be deepest denial of what Ms. Benson actually did that’s been published in this thread; and that’s saying something given all the denialism observed so far.
See my post above where I quote Benson doing exactly that, i.e., excoriating Shermer for supposedly stating that women, are “too stupid”, and “don’t do thinky”; both are demonstrably false, both are misogynistic things to assert, both are assertions Shermer didn’t make, especially when we read back-in what Benson left-out that Shermer stated, and both are comments Shermer notes he doesn’t think. Nor is there a record challenging his response on this to Benson’s defamation of him.
Steersman
January 21, 2013 at 10:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aaron Logan said (#288):
Really? I had no idea …. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say on the topic:
But I suppose that was another red-herring from you lot – anything so you don’t actually have to address your interlocutor’s arguments.
Michael Heath
January 21, 2013 at 10:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
WMDKitty writes:
Asking someone to shut up is typical behavior of someone who can’t defend their position but don’t want to change it, people; don’t like cognitive dissonance where some lack the character to adapt when facts, and that’s what we have here, falsifytheir position. That’s why YECS don’t study evolution.
No, Ms. Benson didn’t quote exactly what Shermer stated. Ms. Benson did what David Barton does, which was to selectively quote him where what she left out a statement which falsifies her lie that he claimed women don’t participate. I.e., she left out his statement, ,i.I think it [female participation in general*] probably really is fifty-fifty.
In addition Ms. Benson lied in her article where I quote her tying the following to Shermer:
She lied even further on this matter by asserting and I quote her again:
Well when we read what he stated, he never claimed women are too stupid to do nontheism. He never claimed they can’t , “do thinky”, and he didn’t claim women don’t participate in general, claiming instead their participation is fifty-fifty.
Michael Heath
January 21, 2013 at 10:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning) to me:
If I was dishonestly smearing Ms. Benson, you could hold up what I assert to what she wrote and that would reveal my falsehoods. The fact you can’t but wish I’d shut up anyway illustrates how cognitive dissonance can cause all sorts of bad behavior as you demonstrate here. Facts are pesky things to some people.
Aaron Logan
January 21, 2013 at 11:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman, read the rest of the wikipedia article. Is what you meant rather than “money-shot” in the porn movie sense? Why should I give you the benefit of a more charitable reading, especially since your preferred dictionary money shot agrees with me? You’re the one weaseling out of the implications of your sexist statement by changing dictionaries when it’s convenient to you.
Steersman
January 21, 2013 at 11:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dan4 said (#290):
Maybe. But the fact that Benson made the misquote of Shermer part of a larger sentence – and the proximate and supposed cause of another more problematic “moral failing” on the part of Shermer, i.e., the assertion that “women don’t do thinky” BECAUSE “that’s a guy thing” – lends some credibilty to the argument that her “exactly that” was meant to cause people to infer that Shermer had said, directly or indirectly, what was implied in the whole sentence. And relative to the question of implication you might want to note what Wikipedia says about defamation:
However, in any case, are you then conceding that Benson lied when she said that Shermer said “exactly that” where “that” is, at the very least, referring to “that’s a guy thing”?
Steersman
January 21, 2013 at 11:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aaron Logan said (#295):
I did. And yes, particularly since the “porn movie sense” is a decided stretch. Although, considering what appears to be Benson’s efforts to screw if not rape Shermer – figuratively speaking – one might argue that the cases are at least somewhat analogous.
So, you’re telling me that you know more about what my intent was than I do?
But, in any case, the Wikipedia article gives some justification for concluding that the use of the term in general cinematography predates its use in reference to pornography. And that some dictionaries only have the one definition hardly means that everyone has to accept that one – particularly when other dictionaries have both.
tomh
January 21, 2013 at 11:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath @ #280
So apparently you would agree with the iignorant Steersman that Benson could be convicted of libel. After all, that was the claim I was answering. In other words, she knowingly made false statements, and the statements caused actual harm to Shermer. Not only that, but since he’s a public figure, (author, columnist, etc.), her statements were made with provable malice and a reckless disregard of the truth. That’s the minimum that would be required to show libel. Sound like a strong case to you?
And in spite of your rather tortured interpretations of Benson’s subsequent commentary, any libel case would turn on her actual quote of Shermer’s. Everything else is opinion.
Aaron Logan
January 21, 2013 at 11:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman@297. I’m arguing that your intent was not sexist merely that your statement was, just like Ophelia is arguing that Shermer’s statement was sexist and that his intent was not.
But now your rhetoric is so over the top, “rape Shermer – figuratively speaking” that any further dialog is useless.
Steersman
January 22, 2013 at 12:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jenniferphillips said (#278):
Ipse dixit; the High Priestess jenniferphillips in her Cloak of Papal Infallibility has spoken. It wasn’t the word “forfeit” that alarmed me; it was the arrogance and a rather cavalier attitude towards reasoned debate. This isn’t a game of Scrabble where you get to dictate where and when which books are allowed to be used, but a question of addressing serious issues. In the former case the game, apart from providing some entertainment, is to determine who has command of which words without recourse to a dictionary; in the latter case “the game” is to get some handle on the truth for which books – notably dictionaries – and other sources of information are of paramount importance. That you would seek to curtail that access points to a rather authoritarian if not fascist frame of mind – feminazis, indeed.
Steersman
January 22, 2013 at 1:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aaron Logan said (#299):
The thing is that whether a word is sexist or not depends on context and interpretation for which recourse to a dictionary is frequently mandatory. In the case of my statement, there are a number possible interpretations other than the pornographic one you are insisting on – with diddly-squat in the way evidence to support it – and one of which – “perceived as essential to the overall importance or revenue-generating potential of the work” – is far more plausible given the context. In addition, Ophelia saying that a statement is sexist hardly makes it so when there is absolutely no evidence – no consistency between the word’s definition and the facts of the case – to justify the contention.
You too might want to pick up a dictionary and spend some time perusing it. Some words in particular you might want to look up:
dan4
January 22, 2013 at 2:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@300: “That you would seek to curtail that access….”
Once again, with the idiotic literalist readings of the “law” and “forfeit” portion of Mrs. Phillips’s initial comment. She doesn’t want to friggin’ CRIMINALIZE (“curtail that access”) the usage of dictionaries. It’s (unintentionally) hilarious that you think she was proposing an ACTUAL law with the aforementioned. comment. Either you refuse to acknowledge or you are not even aware of the fact that the word “law” has definitions beyond a strictly legal sense. If it’s the former, you are extremely stubborn. If it’s the latter, you are extremely stupid.
(I’m sure that Mrs. Phillips can defend herself against Steersman’s idiocy, but I wanted to comment, just in case she doesn’t return to this thread…not an unlikely possibility, given it’s several days old by now).
tomh
January 22, 2013 at 2:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Steersman wrote:
Just as your denying that it is sexist hardly makes it so. A word like sexist is a value judgment that everyone will make for themselves – in other words, it is an opinion and everyone will have their own opinion on the matter. This is true of many value judgments. For instance, it might be my opinion that you are an ignoramus, but of course, that is open to interpretation. Some might argue that you are a borderline ignoramus, while others might argue, even more fiercely, that you are a full-blown, raving ignoramus. It’s all a matter of opinion.
Steersman
January 22, 2013 at 3:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dan4 said (#302):
Where the fuck do you get the idea from that I have said or am saying anything about “criminalizing the usage of dictionaries”? Jennifer Phillips said:
And forfeit means:
So, whether she wants to criminalize it – now or in the future – or not is immaterial – for the nonce – beside the fact that she apparently wants to impose or create some rule whereby having recourse to dictionaries during arguments on various Internet forums means that those doing so have forfeited the argument – have surrendered their right to have a fair hearing of their arguments. What type of civil discourse do you think is possible if people aren’t allowed to refer to dictionaries and other source documents? Methinks she and all who support that idea need to have their fucking heads examined.
Steersman
January 22, 2013 at 3:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tomh said (#303):
But the thing is, you – and Ophelia and Ed and PZ and the rest of the braying pack of hounds; a witch-hunting mob with pitchforks in your hands and murder in your hearts – are the ones who have made the charge. So therefore you are the ones obliged to provide the evidence and proof, and all you’ve shown so far is simply diddly-squat. Where’s the proof that Shermer’s statement is discriminatory or is promoting a stereotype? And, as mentioned, simply noting some gender disparities in some grouping simply does not qualify as “promoting”.
At least I’ve provided a definition for the term and asked questions as to how it applies and demonstrated a reasonable argument buttressed by various facts as to why it doesn’t.
So, what do you do? Pay the words extra and allow them to mean whatever the fuck you want them to mean? And yell “Off with their heads!” whenever anyone disputes the meanings? You’re right that value judgements are part of the process, but the definitions mean that a set of criteria have to be met before you can reasonably assert that the term applies: you simply can’t call a submarine yellow unless it happens to reflect light of a particular wavelength – insisting otherwise tends to put you into the class of the delusional like young-earth creationists. Nice crowd you travel with there, Ed.
And that’s why you gals and guys don’t want to allow the use of dictionaries. Simply because it proves you are all – or almost all – simply blowing smoke out of your asses if not raving lunatics.
sawells
January 22, 2013 at 7:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’d think, if Steersman’s entire beef is that A MEAN THING WAS SAID OMG!, he would avoid describing people as ” a witch-hunting mob with pitchforks in your hands and murder in your hearts”. How sweet he is.
Still, it’s nice of him to provide such a clear demonstration that his side of the argument is the one based on ludicrous hyperbole and massively bad reading comprehension. It’s always fun when all you have to do to refute your opponent is let them keep talking. I wonder how long he’ll keep posting before he realises?
Raging Bee
January 22, 2013 at 10:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Braying pack of hounds; a witch-hunting mob with pitchforks in our hands and murder in our hearts?” Good lord, boy, you’ve been down to this ridiculous childish name-calling for enarly a week now. Isn’t it about time you admitted it’s not getting you (or your BFF Shermer) anywhere?
And why are you making such a disgraceful ass of yourself trying to defend Shermer’s piss-poor choice of words? Your downright unhinged, drooling sycophantic loyalty is noted. Now go back to bed. Or, better yet, get help, so you can conduct yourself with a bit of dignity, without having to be such a pathetic suck-up.
Raging Bee
January 22, 2013 at 10:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
At least I’ve provided a definition for the term and asked questions…
Yeah, that’s the standard whining refrain of nearly every loony, liar, and con-artist when they’re called out on their BS: “I was only asking questions [that were based on false premises, and ignoring every answer i got, and asking the same questions over and over again...]”
How old is this idiot, fourteen? Just asking questions, mind you…
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
January 22, 2013 at 11:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Let’s just strip away the vanity and tinsel from this garbage. What you’re actually saying is that, no matter what Benson says, you’re going to ignore it and continue on this BITCHES SHUT UP crusade. You can’t be honest about what she said, despite having actual quotes presented to you. You keep insisting SHE’s the liar, SHE’s the problem, SHE needs to shut up. All while outright denying evidence, ignoring reality and desperately sucking up to a whiny, entitled crybaby who can’t handle being mildly disagreed with.
You can go away now. Safe and secure in the knowledge that you did your part to drive women away.
Raging Bee
January 22, 2013 at 1:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If people had a honest, well-framed, coherent defense of Ms. Benson, we’d see it.
WE do indeed see it. You might see it too, if you’d get your head out of your ass.
Raging Bee
January 22, 2013 at 1:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…or Shermer’s ass, as the case may be…
ildi
January 22, 2013 at 2:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MH:
Really? You think he was referring to “female participation in general” being split 50/50 when in the very next sentence he says that standing up and talking about it is more of a guy thing?
I went to the source, the video. (Look for “atheist Q&A the point” on youtube).
Santa Maria reads a quote from a question she got on facebook (which shows up on the screen at 11:38):
Shermer does talk about Randy’s last meeting/conference that had more women than men for the first time, but then feels it’s important to make the point that that was about skepticism, so it incorporates a lot of different things, not just atheism.
Also, very interesting: At 13:58:
So, yeah, women are more emotional, men are more intellectual, women just happen to be right about the emotionalism for once.
Ophelia Benson
January 22, 2013 at 4:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I did not lie. I did not defame Shermer. My article is not demagoguery.
Michael Heath
January 22, 2013 at 7:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tomh to me:
No, and why do you imagine the worst of people regarding items they never addressed?
This is supposed to be reality-friendly venue, but the defense of Ophelia Benson’s defamation of Shermer, coupled to her demagoguing the issue, has some posters behaving just like conservative wingnuts. Here we observe the projection of assertions of one person onto somebody else, similar to how Benson took what Fine said and falsely attributed it to Shermer.
A. Noyd
January 22, 2013 at 7:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath (#314)
“Worst”? It could hardly be more ridiculous than everything else you’ve said here.
It may not share a compartment with convicting Ophelia for libel, but your unhinged ranting about defamation and demagoguery is definitely somewhere aboard the Crazytown Express.
tomh
January 22, 2013 at 7:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath wrote:
Why did I think you agreed with Steersman? Since you quoted my comment, with apparent disapprobation, regarding Steersman’s certainty that Benson was guilty of libel, it certainly appeared that you agreed with him. And your fondness for the word defamation regarding Benson’s comments only adds to that appearance.
Michael Heath
January 22, 2013 at 8:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Me @ 208
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle @ 309 responds:
Nuclear grade projection there. I never argued anyone should shut up. But guess what, others who can’t provide a defense of Benson’s defamation of Shermer certainly have demand that of me, I assume to end their cognitive dissonance. Specifically:
More from Illuminata @ 309:
This is incoherent, which is expected in such defenses. I’ve plainly revealed by putting Shermer’s offensive quote and Benson’s dishonest response next to each other in many comment posts here; the last @ 289. Ms. Benson has clearly misrepresented Mr. Shermer. Mr. Shermer never claimed women, “are too stupid for nontheism”, contra Ms. Benson’s false claim he did, “exactly that”.
Mr. Shermer never claimed, “unbelieving in God is thinky work and women don’t do thinky”, contra Ms. Benson’s false claim he did, “exactly that”. Mr. Shermer never claimed that, “women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up”, contra Ms. Benson’s claim he did, “exactly that”, where she also quote-mined Shermer’s quote which made it clearer his fuck-up never extended to the lies Benson puts into Shermer’s mouth.
I agree Shermer’s behavior is ridiculous, but you lie here when you claim his absurd response is merely because somebody, “mildly disagreed” with him. Defaming someone is not “mild disagreement”. His article also clearly reveals that his absurd response was motivated by Ms. Benson lying about him, where I quote him, again:
Michael Heath
January 22, 2013 at 8:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Me earlier:
Raging Bee responds:
What post numbers directly confront what Shermer said, compares it to what Benson wrote in her article, validating that Shermer really did bring up and assert that, “unbelieving in God is thinky work and women don’t do thinky”, and that “women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up”, and that Shermer never stated in a recorded video that I think it [female participation] probably really is fifty-fifty. in order to validate Ms. Benson did quote him, “exactly”.
Good luck with that.
Ophelia Benson
January 22, 2013 at 8:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s not what I claimed, Michael Heath. To turn your trick back on you – you’re lying. You’re lying you’re lying you’re lying.
Lies lies lies and the lying liars who lie them. Also defamation and demagoguery, and also you burned the toast.
I did not claim that Shermer claimed “unbelieving in God is thinky work and women don’t do thinky.” Don’t lie.
But seriously. You seem not to know how to read. You’re doing it wrong. You’re ignoring the conventions of writing in order to pretend that I lied when I didn’t.
I did not lie. I did not defame Shermer. My article is not demagoguery.
Raging Bee
January 22, 2013 at 8:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…others who can’t provide a defense of Benson’s defamation of Shermer…
There’s no “defamation” to “defend.” At the very worst, Benson slightly exaggerated Shermer’s insulting sexism in her description of what his words meant. That’s not “defamation” by any reasonable definition of the word, and it’s really not that much of an exaggeration — as we see each time Shermer’s and her statements are compared side by side.
I really don’t see why you’re so eager to bash Benson for “defamation,” when you know damn well nearly all of us here engage in similar rephrasing of others’ idiotic and dishonest words every damn day, and laugh whenever said others try to protest our interpretation of their words. Dude, we all know you’re smarter than this, and more honest — so why are you continuing with this nonsensical dishonest hairsplitting?
Michael Heath
January 22, 2013 at 8:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson writes @ 313:
Sure you lied; and now you lie here by claiming you didn’t lie. The lies are piling up Ms. Benson.
I think you know you lied but don’t how to extract yourself out of your lies. I think this because you haven’t even attempted to falsify my claims, which I realize you can’t do because my claims are objectively true.
The only way out with any integrity is to fess up, publish a retraction, and apologize to Mr. Shermer. Yes, you have an argument from popularity going for you – congrats. And yes, Mr. Shermer obviously did wrong and also owes you an apology for his pathetic response, where yours isn’t pathetic but instead outright vile. And pointing to the bad behavior of one person (Shermer’s) to excuse one’s own bad behavior is something we should have moved beyond in grade school; not that you even reached the point you concede your lies and have done this, but others here have argued this for you (the falsely described hyperbole defense). That’s the quality of support you’ve achieved here – which is typical of those who defend demagoguery.
If you didn’t lie and I’m instead mistaken or lying, you could demonstrate how your assertions are true. Instead all we’ve got from you is mere assertions you didn’t lie where I’m the poster here repeatedly pointing to what Shermer stated next to your obviously false misrepresentation of what he stated, coupled to your quote-mining* him which buttresses your misrepresentation.
If you could defend yourself you’d validate that Mr. Shermer actually did assert that, “unbelieving in God is thinky work and women don’t do thinky” (he not only didn’t raise the first topic, he also pointed out females were participating* where you don’t include that assertion in your quote of what he stated). Instead we get your false claim that Shermer stated, “exactly that”. You’d validate he asserted, “women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up”, where again, you don’t include that assertion* in your quote of what he stated which helps reveal your mischaracterization of what he stated.
And yet we’re still stuck with your repeated false claim you did, “an exact quote” of Shermer when in fact you quote-mined him. You left out a key statement, I think it [female participation] probably really is fifty-fifty.; a Shermer asseertion that reveals his framing was narrow on female participation and not the projection you falsely laid on him.
And as I’ve repeatedly noted, I don’t know if your quote-mine of Shermer was dishonest or not, in spite of leaving your leaving that out helping to make your defamation resonate. However your repeated claim you did an “exact quote” clearly misinforms people, i.e., you are lying as Shermer notes in his response and is clear to anyone can read a sentence is in one place and see it’s both not in your quote of Shermer and how that helps make your false case against Shermer. Some here obviously can’t, which illustrates the success of your demagoguery.
*The Shermer statement which Benson didn’t include which helps reveal to readers the falsity of her characterization of what Shermer stated: I think it [female participation] probably really is fifty-fifty.. However, even if Ms. Benson included that statement, it would still be obvious Ms. Benson lied about Mr. Shermer with her false claim he asserted that, “unbelieving in God is thinky work and women don’t do thinky”; where she falsely claim he said (meant), “exactly that”.
Michael Heath
January 22, 2013 at 9:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson @ 319:
Shermer stated:
Ophelia Benson writes in response to Shermer’s statement:
Sarah Palin’s admirers defended her false characterizations when she did similar. Obviously some progressives in the base are similarly inflicted – which is not a surprise, science reveals similar behavior in both types of partisans.
Perhaps you’re not lying and are instead so delusional you can’t consider the very words you wrote.
Suido
January 22, 2013 at 9:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bolding fixed. How is ‘intellectually active’ not equivalent to ‘thinky work’? Michael Heath, you’re argument isn’t holding up.
/parachute comment.
Suido
January 22, 2013 at 9:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Urg.
*Your.
Michael Heath
January 22, 2013 at 9:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee writes:
Please point to the statement Shermer made which Benson supposedly exaggerates into:
Here is Shermer’s response to the defamation by Benson:
Michael Heath
January 22, 2013 at 9:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Suido,
Please read Shermer’s response, as ridiculous as much of it is, prior to claiming my argument, “doesn’t hold up”. It’s obvious from that article, and Benson’s quote-mine of his “fifty-fifty” statement, what framework Shermer was using when it came to his intellectual quip that you bold.
In addition, where does Shermer make the misogynistic claim which Benson has him asserting, “Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because “that’s a guy thing.”
Good luck with that.
dan4
January 22, 2013 at 10:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@304: I got the idea from the “curtail that access…” characterization in @300, from the “suppression of books” characterization in @115, and from your “looks exactly like censorship!” hysteria (also from @115). All three things clearly ascribe a “criminality” implication to Mrs. Phillips’ “internet law” rule.
tomh
January 22, 2013 at 10:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath wrote:
No, your claims are not objectively true, they are your interpretation of what was written, which makes them your opinion. You have convinced Steersman, at least, of the validity of you interpretation, but it seems that many others do not share your opinion. You cannot just proclaim your interpretation and declare that it is “objectively true” without expecting some pushback from others with a different interpretation. And, when you continually lace your opinions with words like, defamation, liar, vile, demagoguery, and the like, you can naturally expect others to respond in kind.
I realize that you think your opinion is unassailable and beyond reproach, but to claim it is “objectively true” is just being pretentious beyond all reason.
Suido
January 22, 2013 at 11:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
QFT.
ildi
January 23, 2013 at 1:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, in summary, Shermer participates on a panel discussion where he postulates that men are more active participants in the atheist movement even if it’s about 50/50 because speaking out and being intellectually active is more of a guy thing. He goes on further to suppose that men stay religious for intellectual reasons and women for emotional reasons. The first of his statements is used as an example of the type of sexist stereotyping that is still endemic. Shermer notices, and says he unequivocally believes women are more than capable of thinking, writing, speaking, and debating about God and theism. (Which, btw, wasn’t the point; not whether he thinks women are capable, but of why Shermer thought that actually doing so is more of a guy thing.) Oh, and witch hunt, first they came for the other libertarians, yadda, yadda, yadda.
In our happy thread, MIchael Heath thinks that Shermer saying “who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing” is just a quip, so why does everybody have their panties in a bunch? Funny Shermer!
Michael Heath also has a meltdown about the way Ophelia Benson uses Shermer’s sexist statement as an example (all in the name of objective truth, donchaknow), even going so far as to engage in a little psychoanalysis and defaming Benson’s character in the process. Bizarre Heath!
Steersman
January 23, 2013 at 6:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ophelia Benson said (#319):
So then, Ms. Benson, would you care to take the stand in your defense or would you prefer to take the Fifth? And – assuming the former as I’m sure most here realize that your standards are impeccable and that you would wish to clarify any misunderstandings that might have arisen, as you would, no doubt, allow others to do should you be writing about them where such misunderstandings might occur – I will start by asking whether you wrote the following:
And, assuming your answer is “yes” then I would ask that you specify precisely what you meant by “exactly that”, i.e., what your “that” was actually referring to, taking due cognizance of the fact that several relevant definitions of the word that are these:
By which token, most reasonable people – such as these fine upstanding ladies and gentlemen of the jury – are likely to conclude that your “that” – nay, your “exactly that” – was referring to that which was “just mentioned”, i.e., your immediately preceding statement, “Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because that’s a guy thing.”
So then the question is, was your supposed quote “that’s a guy thing” in the latter half of that sentence “exactly” what you were referring to when you said that “Shermer said exactly that”? Since, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Shermer did, in fact, say something similar, i.e., “… it’s more of a guy thing”. Or was it, perchance, the entire sentence in which “that’s a guy thing” is offered as the supposed reason that your readers should infer that Shermer said something only close to the first part of the sentence, i.e., “Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky”?
And, in the former case, since there are some fairly profound and far reaching differences between what Shermer actually said (“… it’s more of a guy thing”), and what you supposedly insist that he said (“that’s a guy thing”), the jury might well have more than enough justification for concluding that your “said exactly that” is a lie and that you are a liar.
In addition, in the latter case – the whole “previously expressed” sentence being the referent of “exactly that” – then the evidence is even more conclusive that Shermer said absolutely nothing of the kind. And since the inference you laid out in front of your readers and the conclusion you apparently argued that they should accept based on the “reason” you presented – the lie that you peddled – are equally fallacious, the jury might well have additional justification for concluding that you are not only a liar but guilty of innuendo, yellow journalism, and libel: “the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image”.
sawells
January 23, 2013 at 6:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m beginning to suspect that Steersman was bitten by a lawyer and now thinks he’s turning into one at full moon. “Take the stand” forsooth. Get over yourself.
I’ve spotted another creationism parallel. You know that quotemining thing they do where they quote Darwin’s introductory paragraph – about how the evolution of the eye looks unlikely at first – and then don’t mention the entire subsequent chapter explaining how eyes can evolve? Well, here we have Steersman quoting the first couple of sentences from Ophelia, and then obsessively demanding that we analyse only those sentences (and we have to use his dictionary too!) while ignoring the subsequent paragraphs of careful explanation about stereotypes and stereotype threat.
The good thing is that anyone who actually reads Ophelia’s article, as opposed to just the quotemines and misrepresentations, can see how far off base these rabid Shermerians have gone.
Raging Bee
January 23, 2013 at 8:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Heath, how many times are you going to mindlessly repeat the same assertions that have already been refuted earlier on this very thread? You’re starting to sound like Larry Fafarman, mindlessly demanding that we show you what’s already either self-evident or already shown, and repeatedly insisting that you don’t see what the rest of us see, therefore it can’t posibly exist. You’re embarrassing yourself, and you’re embarrassing me, and others like me who have previously had great respect for the caliber of your normal discourse here. It’s perfectly obvious you’re either drunk (not likely given how long you’ve been at it now), going through some personal crisis, or letting your loyalty to Shermer degrade your reasoning ability. If it’s the first, sleep it off. If it’s the second, get off here and deal with it, we’re perfectly happy to wait. If it’s the third, just admit you’re biased already — and see comment #21 above for a more plausible defense of Shermer. Trust me, we respect bias here, as long as you’re honest about it.
Benson does not deserve to be called a liar, as you’ve done, any more than she deserves to be equated with Nazi genocide, as your buddy Shermer has done. You and Shermer are both acting like assholes, and there’s absolutely zero need or excuse for any of it — both you and Shermer could be doing better things with your time, if only both of you had simply admitted that Shermer said something that came out wrong. It’s not like that’s a mistake only the dumbest of us ever make. You know I’ve made that mistake, and you also know I’ve gone back and said something like “Oops, sorry, I typed that in haste, lemme rephrase/clarify/explain what I really meant to say…”
pHred
January 23, 2013 at 9:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
QFT2
Seriously, just because people are refusing to agree with the way you have chosen to interpret Ophelia’s article does not make them delusional. Nor is she under any obligation for apologizing due to your opinion of what her article “really means.” This is seriously unhinged.
Raging Bee
January 23, 2013 at 9:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m beginning to suspect that Steersman was bitten by a lawyer…
You’re being way too charitable. The impression I get is of a fourteen-year-old boy who’s just discovered the joys of quoting a dictionary and sneering at other people’s “improper” use of words — a tactic he now uses all the time, because it’s all he has, without yet grasping any of the adult common sense that would allow him to understand the greater issues that aren’t covered in his brand new dictionary. I knew some really bright kids in high school who acted like that, happily quoting bits of knowledge they weren’t yet wise enough to integrate in to a larger coherent adult worldview, and then smiling smugly when others just got tired of arguing with their incoherent nonsense.
Raging Bee
January 23, 2013 at 9:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So then, Ms. Benson, would you care to take the stand in your defense or would you prefer to take the Fifth?
Oh look, you got a woman to lose her temper and say something not totally correct, after being relentlessly yammered at and hounded by three nitwits for, what, a week now? Now you can go back to AVfM or Stormfront or wherever you go for validation and brag about what a strong sensible man you are in the face of those emotional ninny females.
This is another standard tactic of the MRAs: relentlessly harass, hound and lie about their female targets until one of them says something intemperate, then go on to hound said woman over the less-than-perfectly-rational thing she said. Even a privileged white guy like me can see what you’re doing, Steersman, so there’s no way you can be fooling anyone else.
Yes, Ophelia did indeed say that Shermer had claimed women didn’t do thinky. She spoke correctly originally, that really was pretty much what Shermer had said, whether or not he had meant to say it. If she recently tried to deny it, after losing her temper in the face of relentless stupid childish yammering by people like you and Heath, that’s a perfectly understandable mistake, and I, for one, don’t blame her for it at all. You should be grateful she gave you so much more time, effort and attention than you and your ignorant immature antics deserve.
Raging Bee
January 23, 2013 at 10:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, and if you’re trying to call Ophelia a liar, while defending a guy who has equated her mere criticism with genocidal Nazi persecution, then be prepared to be laughed at for a long time. Your weak mind is like a microscope: it magnifies tiny things and can’t handle big ones.
Ophelia Benson
January 23, 2013 at 12:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, I didn’t claim that Shermer had claimed women don’t do thinky. (That was how Michael Heath put it – I claimed that Shermer claimed.)
I included exactly what Shermer did say, in quotation marks. That’s the bit where I document what he said. It is OBVIOUS – to people who are familiar with reading, and with how writing works – that only the longer quotation is what he said. The rest of it is commentary. I didn’t lose my temper; I corrected Heath’s gross mistake about what I said (or, in his pejorative, “claimed”).
Ophelia Benson
January 23, 2013 at 12:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To clarify (and beat a dead horse to a bloody pulp) yet again, here’s the relevant bit yet again. I talk about stereotypes that could be part of the reason atheism hasn’t been totally welcoming to women. Then:
It is OBVIOUS, to people accustomed to reading, that it is only in the middle para that I am directly quoting Shermer. In the first I’m summarizing the stereotype, and in the third I’m referring back to it. I am not directly quoting Shermer in either paragraph. That is OBVIOUS. The exact quotation is right there for anyone to see, so it’s ludicrous to say that I misrepresented what he said.
And that is why I’m not lying, and why Michael Heath is a slanderous thug to keep shouting that I am.
Raging Bee
January 23, 2013 at 1:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I owe you an apology, Ophelia. Maybe I’m the one who lost his temper dealing with these yammering dipshits.
This is what Ophelia said that Steersman called a lie:
I did not claim that Shermer claimed “unbelieving in God is thinky work and women don’t do thinky.” Don’t lie.
Note the quotation marks (which I did not account for earlier): Ophelia is here saying she did not claim that Shermer said those particular words. And that’s the truth: she really never claimed Shermer used those particular words. She merely claimed — correctly, as any literate and honest person can see — that Shermer had said something so close to that meaning that those words were a correct interpretation or paraphrase of them.
Thre, I’ve done what I can to clear this up. Not that that will stop Steersman from having another long, sweaty night freaking out over his fantasy of Ophelia in Nazi jackboots…
Ophelia Benson
January 23, 2013 at 1:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No problem RB!
I realize I did give the lunatics one toehold, by saying of the overall stereotype, “Don’t laugh: Michael Shermer said exactly that…” Sane people of course realize that I meant Shermer invoked exactly that stereotype – but I forgot that lunatics would be reading it, and reading it with a magnifying glass specially adapted for searching out MISANDRIST EXAGGERATION.
Raging Bee
January 23, 2013 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And, in the former case, since there are some fairly profound and far reaching differences between what Shermer actually said (“… it’s more of a guy thing”), and what you supposedly insist that he said (“that’s a guy thing”)…
Yeah, just like there’s such a profound and far-reaching difference between saying someone is “a n*gg*r,” and saying he/she is “more of a n*gg*r.” Makes all the difference in the world, amirite?
Okay, it makes all the difference in Steersman’s tiny excuse for a world. Bit of a difference between that and “the world,” I guess…
Stacy
January 23, 2013 at 2:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.
Was the article about Shermer? No it was not.
Did the article excoriate Shermer? If you think pointing out that he said being “intellectually active about [atheism] is a guy thing” is excoriation, then fine.
Was Ophelia’s point “Shermer thinks this! BAAAD SHERMER!?” or was it “Look at the stupid stereotype Shermer invoked”?
You try answering those questions for yourself, Heath. Honestly. Think real hard.
Stacy
January 23, 2013 at 2:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And after that, you try addressing my point that sexist thinking is a cognitive failing, not a moral one.
(That wasn’t at all the point of the article, of course. Sorry if I implied that in my last comment. The article was about the stereotypes. Shermer’s remark was just an example.)
Michael Heath
January 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tomh writes:
It is objectively true that Shermer never even raised the topic that, “Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because “that’s a guy thing.” No interpretation is necessary because only one person raised this topic, and that was Ms. Benson. Shermer never did. Benson’s false position was also refuted by Shermer in his response to her defamatory article.
It is objectively true that Ms. Benson quote-mined Shermer’s statement by removing his, “fifty-fifty” comment, which made it easier to manufacture a position which Shermer never asserted.
If Benson was Sarah Palin making up these lies this forum would be on it like flies on horseshit. It’s not, I think because she’s one of our tribe and many liberals succumb to the same tribalistic thinking that conservatives do.
Steersman
January 23, 2013 at 7:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
sawells said (#332):
Where did you get the idea that I think that I’m turning into one? It was a figure of speech, simply the theme around which I built my case – so to speak. And one which I note that you didn’t actually address – what’s the matter? No evidence to justify your counter-arguments?
Even assuming for the moment that there are some points of tangency, that is pretty thin evidence to justify your innuendo that I’m little more than a creationist. You might want to try wrapping your, apparently, rather pointed head around the fact that just because there are some points that are analogous in two scenarios that hardly justifies concluding that all aspects and points of those scenarios are likewise analogous. Which is why I tended to accept that there was some justification for Benson’s analogy between Nazi Germany and TAM without feeling obliged, as many seemed to feel, to consider that she meant to suggest that all aspects or attributes of the former were applicable to the latter. As Paula Kirby put it in her Sisterhood of the Oppressed, calling someone a grammar-nazi hardly justifies concluding that they are likely to embark on genocide and the invasion of Poland.
Considering that those “first couple of sentences” entail an outright and egregious lie on which most of her subsequent argument, and her efforts to use Shermer’s statements as an egregious example of sexism, is based, one might reasonably insist that the truth and implications of her assertions be analyzed in some detail. Sort of like before charging someone with murder it is considered wise as well as manifesting some honesty to determine first whether a murder has taken place.
Steersman
January 23, 2013 at 7:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dan4 said (#327):
Hardly “hysteria” when all I did was point out the definition for censorship – “to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable” – and note that it suited to a tee what Phillips was suggesting. And while censorship – the “criminalization” of certain types of publications in certain venues – may well have some justifications – for example, the restrictions on pornography in movies for “General Audiences”, the situation described by Phillips – the use of dictionaries in Internet discussions – was so over-the-top in being applicable to entirely innocuous cases that it entirely justified suggesting a rather egregious bias and anti-intellectualism more typical of Nazi book-burners than sane and rational members of a democratic society. Hence the hyperbolic analogy.
But none of that justifies concluding that I was expecting her to be petitioning her representatives to create some actual laws to “CRIMINALIZE the usage of dictionaries”.
Steersman
January 23, 2