I’ll confine myself to addressing just two points in his rebuttal.
He accuses me of strawmanning his argument by claiming that he’s taking a black and white view of anti-harassment policies — that they should be either do-nothing or full-weight-of-the-law. He now explains that that’s not the case, he endorses using all kinds of intermediate levels of enforcement.
Then I’m left wondering exactly what the point of his outrage was? That makes it sound as if he’s agreeing totally with what many of us are saying: we want these policies in place because they offer women recourse and support. Richard Carrier has very carefully laid out the intent and function of these policies. Perhaps Thunderf00t can read that and clarify whether he disagrees or not? Because his current posts try to have it both ways.
Speaking of strawmanning an argument, here’s a beautiful example.
IT WAS IN A BAR. I enjoyed it, she enjoyed it (she left a comment specifically saying so, just to remove all doubt (see MyLegMYCHOICE!)), AND I NEVER HAD TO CONSULT HER, NOR APPLY FOR PERMISSION FROM THE CONFERENCE, IN ORDERS SIGNED IN TRIPLICATE SENT IN, SENT BACK AND BURIED IN SOFT PEAT FOR THREE MONTHS AND RECYCLED AS FIRELIGHTERS etc etc. Indeed had I had to fill in the paperwork along with ‘permission to bite your leg in a horseplay photo’ form under conference interpersonal contact rule 144 b) 2, it would have probably kinda killed the moment, and neither I nor she would have got our mild thrills for the night. It’s boys n girls have fun in bars!
I said precisely the opposite. These are situations where I agree — nobody is saying you have to fill out forms to play, and it would be ridiculous to do so. However, it’s also problematic. He doesn’t feel he ever had to consult her? What?
I have heard this complaint many times. A woman goes to a bar at a meeting because she wants a drink, she wants to join in the conversation (because that’s where a lot of the informal talk goes on), and discovers that there are guys there with this attitude that groping is now permitted because the only reason that “girls” are there is to “have fun in bars”. Some women are there to flirt and enjoy a little horseplay…many are not.
This really is the problem. You need to interact with people first to discover if they’re fellow companions out in the spirit of a little physical fun (you don’t need to formally ask; I presume in this case there were cues to say it was OK), and you cannot assume that every person there is willing to have you fondle them. Especially at a skeptics/atheist conference, where people sign up to learn about a philosophical/social position.
Surprise. There are a lot of women who go to these meetings to be taken seriously and discuss serious topics, and have zero interest in having their legs grabbed. Not even in the bar.
Molly Rene has some choice words for people who confuse bars with brothels.