The other day Paul Fidalgo asked permission to quote something I said on our super-secret backchannel (there is no backchannel, no, we do not talk to each other on FtB; it’s all a lie, pretend no one said anything about it), and I got the distinct impression that he was going to pick a fight with me over it. So I said yes, because I enjoy a good argument. Imagine my disappointment, though, because he ends up agreeing with me, mostly.
So now what do I do? I’m disarmed, I’m helpless, I’ve got nothing to lash out against. Now I’m very uncomfortable. What a devious move!
A certain philosopher who will not be named has taken exception to Fidalgo’s post (he’s “very angry”!), calling him a “bully enabler” who has “written a piece justifying bullying” which makes the “situation much worse”.
What? Telling people they should shut up and listen to other people’s arguments, especially when they have more experience in the subject than you do, is now “bullying”? That makes no sense at all. So now if someone yells at me that I’m totally wrong, and I sit back and think about it and listen to their case rather than instantly barking out a rebuttal, I am engaging in bullying?
I don’t get it. I really don’t.
I’m also baffled by what “the situation” might be. I fear the situation might be something as awful as someone sometime listening to that asshole Meyers again.
Dang, that was sneaky of Paul. Now if some segments of the community would listen to Paul (I’m looking at you ‘pitters).
I ask for some help.
As a member of a privileged group myself, I had recently safely arrived at a destination after my similarly privileged pilot and co-pilot skillfully and with much talent piloted the aircraft upon which I had ridden to the gate. The trip was to perform a task to benefit both my employer and my customer. Being on a tight schedule and cognizant of my fiduciary obligations to all concerned parties, I hurried to the rental car counter where I found myself third in line and became frustrated. The reason I became frustrated was that the agent, an Asia-evolved female, was trying to explain the pre-paid gas option to a customer, an African-evolved male. The communications between these two diversely-abled and privileged castes were strained, to say the least, as the African-evolved male appeared to be challenged with the concept of a pre-paid gas option. Perhaps it was his education; perhaps it was her strong dialect; perhaps it was simply Cultural chaos. In any case, I sure Hope that no signs of micro-aggression were displayed on my part. The agent was displaying all kinds of micro-aggressions, bordering on micro-assaults, in my opinion. Shame on her. On behalf of my True feelings, I guess I need to apologize to someone, but am not sure to whom. Perhaps today is a day that I can grow as a person.
Russell Blackford already yelled at him about it on Twitter. I have to say, that rather neatly cemented my opinion of Russell Blackford.
Bob…fuck off
I doubt it.
Bob, this is not your livejournal. No one cares
You could show some personal growth by ridding us of your Seasonally evolved ass, Comradebob
I think that you should just hope that your aggressions were ONLY micro, bobbo. Baby steps, you racist asshat.
Take a random sample of the American population, and then scale them along the axis of privilege. What are the important factors? What most determines future economic / social status, as an anthropologist might put it?
In our current society, the primary factor isn’t actually gender, skin color, sexual orientation, or country-of-origin. Rather, the main factor that determines – at birth – future economic/social status is the wealth of one’s parents.
Why is this so, probability-wise? Largely because parental wealth ensures access to a high-quality education as well as a guaranteed safety net and access to investment capital as well. In the past, of course, women and non-whites were routinely denied access to education for reasons of sexism and racism and social control (i.e. that last one is why it was a crime to teach slaves to read and write in the slavery-era South).
Hence, if you really want a egalitarian society without inherited privileges, you have to ensure 1) access to high-quality education for all, and 2) a social safety net for all. This creates a robust middle class, and will, in the long run, eliminate the whole nasty concept of inherited superiority and inferiority (which is another way of defining ‘privilege’).
See, the social sciences DO have some value, in that they allow such questions to be analyzed!
@5:
What excellent verbal IQ you have :)
(Snark)
Three digits, man!
You mean you took his advice (well, you advice (heehee)) and listened?
Where’s the r? *facepalm*
Dang. Someone has a grudge. Get over it, Blackford!
neutrinosarecool,
And the wealth of one’s parents largely depends on their skin color and country of origin, gender too- just look at poor single mothers.
“I guess I need to apologize to someone, but am not sure to whom”
First off yourself, for turning into a sad whiny internet troll, who wastes his time obsessing over inane commonplace incidents in a desperate attempt to rationalize bigotry.
Beatrice, one must distinguish between statistical datasets and individual circumstances, right? Then you have the grouping problem. Let’s say an individual has a European parent and an African parent. What racial group do they belong to? Obviously they are genetically mixed but socially will be defined as ‘black’. However, if this individual has access to a high-quality education, due to one or both branches of their family being fairly well-off, then their eventual social-economic position could be quite high – why, they might even become president of the United States, say? And, in this case, their children would be quite well-off, with excellent future prospects, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. – all based on their parent’s economic position (well, social position too).
This is why social science deals in the statistical or probabilistic analysis of groups, not individuals, and hence it is no guide to interpersonal relationships. Otherwise, we’d all sit around with our privilege-status calculators – perhaps a cell phone app? – into which we could punch in all the relevant factors, and compare with others, and then we’d be able to determine who we could comfortably be rude and dismissive too, and who we should treat with respect.
Of course, one group of people would likely be inclined to treat those with a greater privilege score with respect, while another would be inclined to treat those with the lower score with respect – and then there is a third group would consider this whole business of individual privilege-calculation to be one of the more asinine idiotic things one could ever do with one’s time, period, since people are highly complex and simplistic efforts to group individuals in such a manner is just plain stupid.
Comradebob is clearly out to derail every comment thread here. Comradebob is now confined to Thunderdome only. Posting in any other thread will lead to his banning.
COMRADEBOB: You’re done. Only post in Thunderdome.
It’s notable how many “skeptics” reject the idea that there are topics on which they should listen rather than give their grand, super-logical opinions. The Over Inflated Ego of the Skeptic seems to be very powerful.
I foolishly attempted to argue this point with Thunderfoot fans on youtube, and got told that it was racist to say white people do not know as much about racism as non-white people.
You weren’t foolish to make the argument. Their response showed their foolishness, chauvinistic thinking, and the immaturity I would expect from that group.
neutrinosarecool,
No!?
The thought never crossed my mind. I just thought I would give the example because I once saw a movie and there was a poor black kid in it.
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
For US, from National Poverty Center:
Children Under 18 Living in Poverty, 2010
All children under 18 – 22.0%
White only, non-Hispanic – 12.4%
Black – 38.2%
Hispanic – 35.0%
Asian – 13.6%
The threshold for what constitutes “bullying” seems to have a strong negative correlation with level of privilege. Calling gay people abominable? Just an opinion. Telling those people to stop being so viciously homophobic? Militant gay agenda! Spouting out racial stereotypes and slurs? Somewhat rude. Confronting that person about racism? Incredibly rude! Dismissing sexual harassment and the myriad of ways women are discriminated against? True Skepticism! Yelling at those people for blatant denialism? Radical, hysterical feminism! Saying how atheists are immoral and going to burn in Hell? Public service announcement. Arguing that the previous people are wrong? Strident Religious Persecution!
It is a trend that is remarkably consistent. The first victim is the true victimizer when they dare to confront the first victimizer, because everyone expects the victimizer to victimize such that the good objective bystanders just ignore the first strike. It’s habituation. We expect a constant stream of shit to pour down on the underdog. It is the background noise of our existence. It is the pitter-patter of rain that we are lulled off to sleep with, such a constant presence that we can longer muster the attention to notice it. So what to make of the rare serf that finally cries out about their station in life? The occasional outburst from the underclass that should be composed of nothing but sycophants licking the boots of the ubermensch? There’s nothing to provoke these protesters! Everything is just business as usual. Just the status quo. Just an ordinary day in the neighborhood. So why are they so angry all of a sudden? Why are they suddenly deciding to lash out against their betters, out of the blue, when nothing extreme or unusual has occurred to prompt such an uncouth and uncommon negative reaction? It’s almost as if we are so used to these people dealing with a deluge of abuse that we can’t distinguish action from reaction! It’s almost as if we can’t tell from bullied from bully! It’s almost as if even Super Skeptics have blind spots!
Seriously though: Fuck this bullshit. The only “bully enabler” here is the one calling “stop and listen to the bullied” a form of “bully enabling”.
Russell Blackford’s ANGER (as he capped it on Twitter) is so bizarre and hard to understand. He clearly is extremely angry but I can’t figure out at just what. What is the motivation? Why does an essay like Paul’s send him into such vexation that he loses his critical faculties and claims that a call to shut up and listen is “bullying?”
Blackford is very very cross. Very very cross indeed.
If we were a bunch of hypersensitive manchildren, with the self-awareness of a cat attacking its reflection in a mirror, we’d be adding Fidalgo’s name to a “Witch of the Week” list, right about now.
Russell Blackford draws a Twitter-line in the Twitter-sand.
Mmmm, yes. The “current culture of witch hunting” is the REAL problem.
It always translates into “BAAAAAAW”, doesn’t it?
It’s so outrageous for him and others (mostly men) to claim the mantle of witches being hunted. Remember when people got a little bit mad about being constantly described as “militant” atheists? Gee, thanks Blackford et al.
Also, talk about passive aggressiveness!
Jesus, Blackford. For someone who is ostensibly interested in the truth, you sure are asking quite loudly to be lied to.
Because, let me tell you, if you’re demanding a life in which your ability to behave callously is more important than the effect of that callousness, you’re asking women and non-White persons to lie to you at their own expense.
You shouldn’t be surprised if they won’t. You, fella, no matter what you may have been told, are not that special.
Whew. It’s OK, then. I stopped following Blackford long ago.
neutrinosarecool @ 7 —
That’s the thing about privilege, though — it isn’t a single axis, it’s a whole n-space. Race privilege, class privilege, gender privilege, etc. are all different axes. And privilege-space is non-Euclidean; positions along the various axes add up and overlap in different, sometimes unexpected ways.
Even when comparing only two people, it would be reductionist to label one “more privileged” and the other “less privileged” and leave it at that. It’s quite possible that with respect to certain axes of privilege person A might be in a position of privilege, while with respect to other axes person B is. The “shut up and listen” principle could be taken by either person A or person B here, depending on which axis of privilege is at issue.
I can follow Blackford if I want. It’s MAH FREEZE PEACH.
What. Is Paul’s post the new “guys, don’t do that”?
Being a Rebecca Watson hater is so last year.
@2 comradebob
…is pretty much what I read in your post.
I dunno, I’d probably rank pretty high on having a lot of privilege. White, male, heterosexual, no (known) mental illnesses, not abjectly poor (but not rich either, so I could have yet more privilege!)… the only place I can immediately think of where I’m not at the top end of privilege is being an atheist and being a teenager. I always have to shut up and listen (not complaining! just stating a fact)!
This reminds me of a very similar point raised by…Southpark characters…. in the Episode where Stan’s father used the N-word live on nationwide television.
At the beginning of the episode:
Stan tries to explain Token that his father is not a racist.
Token: “You don’t get it, Stan!!” (and leaves Stan)
At the end of the episode:
Stan: “I get it! I finally get it Token!”
Token: ” What?”
Stan: “I finally get, that I don’t get it!!”
Token: ” You don’t get what?”
Stan: “I will never get what the N-word means to a black person because I am not black! You see? I totally don’t get it !!”
Token: ” Now you get it”
That Pharyngula thread on rape linked to in the comments is like a punch in the gut. I think Metafilter was having a “lets be objective about seixsm” week, so I decided to not double down on Pharyngula, but man… reading just a few screens left me feeling battered.
Thank you to Sally, and Caine, and the others I can’t name for speaking up in the face of that. You have my utmost respect. Sometimes I just want to crawl under the bed and die in the face of rape culture.
According to a commenter on that thread, I’m probably a bigot! That’s a first.
Apparently because I’m differentiating between religious privilege and visible inborn or non-choice privileges such as skin colour, race, gender and neurotypicality.
Yes, you can choose to have religious privilege. You can choose to go to church, sing some hymns, mingle with the believers and utter the stock phrases. You’ll probably be accepted, regardless of what you actually believe. In fact, a lot of people do that anyway. Most so-called believers probably do just that, not even -understanding- what they supposedly believe in.
It’s a horrible way to live, but so is living in the closet if you’re gay or transgender. It’s possible, it’s painful and potentially life-destroying, but it’s an option.
Yep. Probably a bigot! :|
neutrinosarecool #7
This happened in the US, Britain, Canada and Australia after World War II. Free or very cheap education was made available and more or less good safety nets existed. As a result, a large middle class was established in those countries. However during the past thirty years the ever increasing cost of education and the weakening of the safety net has caused the middle classes in those countries to shrink.
I love it when Russell Blackford takes a nice, thick, mealy crap right into Pharyngula’s smug cornflakes.
[OT + meta]
funnybot, your scatophilia is noted, but you should be aware that a crayon-drawing of something is not that something.
PZ wrote:
Likewise. He went off the deep end a long time ago and doesn’t look like he’s going to change that anytime soon. Making individual snipes was bad, but signing up with the mildew mob’s hack site has revealed he’s far more married to assholery than I first thought.
If only you’d asked him to join FtB, PZ…
Well, I’d prefer it if he were to try to have a nice, thick, mealy discussion right into Pharyngula’s arguably smug blog.
But, hey, you work with the tools you have, right?
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I guess if all you are is an asshole, everywhere looks like a place to shit.
On the bus.
A woman walks on, but all the seats are taken.
Stands next to me, holding the overhead rail.
I see an opportunity to oppress, and I begin to rise.
Her eyes go wide at the imminent display of male chauvinism.
The men around me begin to snicker at patriarchy in action.
I gesture chauvinistically to the empty seat.
The woman sits, eyes downcast.
Now fully oppressed, she softly says “Thank you”.
My patriarchal chest puffed out, I say,
“It was my privilege.”
[meta]
funnybot, your fantasies are even less interesting than your scatophilia.
funnybot:
Get down off of the cross, we need the wood to build battered women’s shelters.
Apparently “funny” in one’s nym is about as indicative of actual humor as “rational” “skeptic” or “logical” in one’s nym is of actual critical thinking.
SallyStrange wrote:
I was thinking the same thing. If you need to tell people you possess a quality in the hope they’ll believe you possess that quality – as opposed to demonstrating it in your comments – maybe you aren’t all that good at it.
It’s funny, I’ve stood up for men and women on the bus, do it all the time. And both have stood up for me. Kinda depends who’s older, who’s carrying more stuff, whether somebody is disabled, or sometimes who just looks more exhausted.
The standers don’t look noticeably chest-puffy about it either.
I’ve opened loads of doors for people (sometimes accidentally), and given up plenty of seats for the same reasons Stacy mentions. I certainly have never patted myself on the back quite so voraciously for simply doing something nice for another person. But then I’m not trying to make a bullshit point about how I think women are totes not oppressed because giving them a seat is nice.
@Anri, is this original?
Because I’m going to start quoting it everywhere, and, if it’s yours, I will give you the credit.
But opening doors for women and giving them seats on the subway totally makes up for the fact that they make less than men in most professions, and are pressured not to study certain subjects. That’s how this is supposed to work, right?
So much for changing my ‘nym to Brilliant Orator with a Doctorate.
caveatimperator:
I for one am oh so grateful that I have men to do that hard stuff for me so I don’t have to worry my pretty little head about it. Because fluffy pink Ladybrainz. And the draft. Or something.
Waiting in line at the supermarket.
A woman pulls up at the end, looking harried.
I feel my patriarchal instincts tingling.
I step out of line and look toward the woman.
She gasps, realizing my chauvinistic intentions.
The men around me begin to cackle, infused with patriarchal power.
The women blanch at the increase of oppression in the air.
I gesture to her, my smile exuding male chauvinism.
As she passes, bowed in humiliation, I say,
“It was my privilege.”
caveatimperator – and the cat-calls as women walk past, groping in crowded areas and threats of violence if they complain are just payment for the being nice on buses. Perfectly fine. Perfectly normal.
Nope, still not clever.
Okay, I waited three comments.
@ funnybot: Fuck off, troll.
Yeah, we get it. “It was my privilege.” You’re proud of the line. You think it’s clever.
You’re just filled to the brim with warm self-regard, aren’t ya, funnybot?
[OT]
Well, at least Walter Mitty had more interesting and realistic fantasies than you.
(IRL, when you step out of line, the next person moves up)
Wait, you thought the way to make an unfunny joke magically funny was to tell it again with a minor variation? Why not make a joke about punching women in the face? We all know you’re dying to.
Better trolls, please.
It’s not like this asshole even invented the non-clever bs he’s foisting upon us. I’ve seen it before.
Unoriginal parrot troll is an unoriginal parrot.
Anti-feminist pop quiz time!
Feminists object to “chivalry” on the grounds that it is as much or more about affirming male strength and female weakness as actually doing something nice for someone. Choose the correct implication of this view:
A) Every instance ever of a man doing something nice for a woman is oppressive.
B) Feminists really, really hate men.
C) Women are wilting flowers who will be traumatized at the slightest upset from a man.
D) Feminists are actually the chivalrous ones because arglebarglebargle.
E) All of the above.
Turn your computer monitor upside down to see the correct answer.
˙ʇı ʇnoqɐ ʇǝsdn ʎllɐǝɹ ‘ʎllɐǝɹ sı ʇnq ʇnoqɐ uo ǝɹɐ sʇsıuıɯǝɟ lıʌǝ ǝsoɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ʍouʞ ʇ,usǝop oɥʍ ǝouɐɔǝɥɔnop snodɯod ɐ sı ʇoqʎuunɟ :sı ɹǝʍsuɐ ʇɔǝɹɹoɔ ǝɥʇ
Russell must be so proud to have individuals such as funnybot defending him. … Or whatever it is he’s doing. Splurting, mostly.
Russel “how do we know there was an elevator?” Blackford declared his willful idiocy long ago. Why anyone would pay attention to him, I don’t know. His thinking is at the same level as a certain pit.
nytzchy I don’t know how you did that but it was worth it reading it back words and upside down
thanks I’m now grinning
funnyboy my advice is leave the comedy to the professionals.
maybe try saying what you mean simply and directly if that is too hard than just go away.
uncle frogy
Boy, I bet that was really sad for Paul, having Russell VERY ANGRY at him. I bet he knew he’d screwed up when he saw THAT, huh?
Hmm. Funnybot…not funny. Kinda dumb, actually.
Bye, slime.
*blush*
Yep, it’s a bit o’ snark from me.
Feel free to quote at will!
I don’t pick fights. I sift conflict from the very air we breathe. I don’t even have to try!
Anri, well, I think it’s good and should be A Thing.
Can’t make any promises. :)
Sara Mayhew’s attempt to stir shit up on Paul’s comment thread is extremely lulzy. Why does it ALWAYS have to be go back to Rebecca? These people are fucking obsessed!
la tricoteuse (#45)
I don’t even open doors for people to be nice. I do it to maximize the collective efficiency of the local foot traffic. Which is why I really hate it when “chivalrous” guys make a point of opening doors for me in ways that reduce that efficiency. (In addition to the sexism, of course.)
A. Noyd, that’s true.
I hate it when they do it out of a sense of obligation and you have to hurry because you don’t want to leave them standing there holding the door. When maybe you’re having a lazy smell-the-roses day and you really didn’t want to have to hurry and would just as soon take your time and let others go first.
Funnybot:
I see what you did there.
EpixLulz. yup. someone suggests people stop and think, slow down and listen, and some tickturd needs to insult such a simple, easy suggestion.
A. Noyd and Stacy,
Yes to both of those.
The other thing that annoys me, which is unrelated to gender stuff, but is related to doors, is when I open a door for myself and someone coming the opposite way (or someone behind me) just plows right through it as if I opened it for them. Not a glance, not a thank you, just “oh look this door appears to have miraculously open for me with no effort from me! Magical! I shall walk through it!”
When I’m feeling obnoxious, I say “you’re welcome!” in a slightly raised voice. :D
@Toby #8
“Verbal IQ” is not a thing… I think the word you’re looking for is “Vocabulary”.
@Funnybot
1- Your ‘nym is a lie.
2- How have you managed to translate “Don’t treat women like delicate little flowers, it’s fucking insulting” into “Don’t do anything nice for a woman, ever, or the feminists will eat your brains”?
Because it better serves his “women want things both ways” narrative to interpret it thusly. If he interpreted it more honestly, it wouldn’t add fuel to his misogyny fire.
Re: Holding Doors
If you want to look like and be a complete asshole, walk around Toronto, especially in the Path (the underground city), and don’t hold the door for the person after you.
Efficiency? You just fucked up the pace of upwards of several dozen people. You may have even hurt the person behind you. It’s a matter of public welfare to hold doors.
It’s also just the nice thing to do. It’s de rigueur.
_____
Russel Blackford is still around and making noise? I had thought he now suffered from the fallen tree paradox. I hear it’s awful!
_____
What useful pedantry, ignoring common usage and all.
“
No, because vocabulary is but one part of a person’s verbal ability.
PZ Myers
For Blackford you are THE ARCH #FTBully. The FTBully That Rules Them All. So as Fidalgo agreed with you on some core issues (to say nothing of the fact that he’s blogging on FTB, a sin in itself, I presume) he is a “bully enabler”, is “justifying bullying”, etc. It is not about what Fidalgo actualy wrote, it’s not about the substance of the matter.
Let’s see if he writes something more substantial in his own blog. Something he have carefully avoided so far, preffering Twits, Facebook comments on other peoples profiles/pages, or comments on other peoples blogs, instead. At least that was the state of affairs last year when I stop following him.
Thomathy (#76)
I said the collective efficiency, not just my own. So I hold doors for the people behind me quite frequently. But if it would take longer for me to hold the door than it would for the person/people behind me to get to it and open it themselves, then I just keep going. Or, for a different instance of efficiency, if I get to a door just before multiple people get to it coming the other way, I’ll hold the door for them to go through first because they’re taking up more room on the other side and will all have to stop and then get out of my way if I try to go through ahead of them. (Sometimes the direction the door opens factors into it, too, of course.) I just don’t do it for the sake of kindness, is all.
@Tomathy #76
I wasn’t aware there was a common useage, I’ve never heard the phrase before and assumed it was made up because he couldn’t think of the correct term. If it actually a thing then I guess I owe Toby an apology.