tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post6839529392898292053..comments2024-03-15T23:48:45.869-04:00Comments on Oh, the humanity of it all!: 'Deep Rifts' Or 'The Humanity Of It All'... Part 1SUIRAUQAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17918432443330964561noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-88490257841666065002012-10-29T21:45:57.566-04:002012-10-29T21:45:57.566-04:00In fact, 'Karenina', let me address the bi...In fact, 'Karenina', let me address the bilge you spewed.<br /><br />#1. <i>Until Mr. Elevator Man comes forward and gives his version of what occurred that INFAMOUS NIGHT IN DUBLIN (oh, the irony), nothing about that 'event' can be considered factual. People lie.</i><br />Ah. We have a <a href="http://martinspribble.com/archives/3393" rel="nofollow">hyperskeptic</a> here. Blaming an abuse victim of lies and deceit is one of the oldest, and lowest, tricks in the playbook of misogynists. What you deliberately fail to understand is that your interpretation of Rebecca's experience is irrelevant; in her video appeal, she described a specific set of behavior that she found objectionable, and she asked people not to engage in such behavior. Your continued denial of Rebecca's traumatic experience actually speaks volumes.<br /><br /><i>I don't know Ms. Watson from Adam (or Eve) and thus, I do not trust her.</i><br />What a sad little world you live in. You don't trust Rebecca because you don't know her, but you have no problem in trusting the countless, faceless bullies who have, for all this time, hounded Rebecca and her allies, such as Jen McCreight, Amy Davis Roth, Ophelia Benson, just to name a few.<br /><br /><i>Before I am attacked, let me say that I am not accusing her of lying, I'm merely saying that there's no way to prove she wasn't.</i><br />No. You are not 'merely saying' anything. You are accusing Rebecca of lying; re-read your own first three sentences in point #1 - and this time, for comprehension.<br /><br />#2. <i>Anyone whose sarcasm bone isn't fractured should have seen that Mr. Dawkins' open letter to Muslima was /dripping/ with irony. Ridiculous to consider it as anything else.</i><br />Yes. Yours, and yours alone, must be a <i>special</i> kind of brain that understands 'irony'. No matter whichever way you spin it, Dawkins' letter sought to minimize Rebecca's traumatic experience on the strength of the fact that there are other women in other parts of the world, who are violently subjugated. There are. That fact doesn't diminish the kind of treatment Rebecca was meted out. The letter was pointless, hurtful, and godawfully stupid.<br /><br />#3. <i>You lose a bit of your credibility re: not wanting to be "sexualized" when you are overtly involved in a sexy nude calendar.</i><br />And you, 'Karenina', just lost ALL credibility as a 'skeptic' commenter, because you seem to have absolutely zero clue about what 'consent' and 'context' are. Your kind of pathetic mentality fits very well with the patriarchal misogyny of religious fundamentalists and rape-apologists. If Rebecca has been involved with a nude calendar by choice, it is her choice in that context. It does not confer a license on anyone to declare open season on her body and mind to groped and propositioned at will. You can 'sexualize' her all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not her. Once she says, 'No', it means, 'No'; it means, 'Don't do it.' Only bloody idiots don't understand that.<br /><br />#4. <i>Outing a captive member of your student audience (referencing Ms. McGraw, of course) in order to promote yourself is very /very/ bad form. Is this narcissism? Very likely.</i><br />Now you have taken recourse to bullshitting. Go read the post from the beginning again. And this time, I say again, please read slowly and try to comprehend the meaning of the words written.<br /><br />#5. <i>Skeptically speaking -- this article is more Watson-centric bullying and bias.</i><br />Foolish, meaningless, empty assertion. It would perhaps made some sense about a year and a half ago, but the time passed has witnessed what kind of bullying, harassment, loathsome and reprehensible nastiness Rebecca and her allies have been subjected to. The only silver-lining to that has been the fact that the despicable morons in skeptics' clothing have been revealed in all their putrid stench. For that, saner folks, including Rebecca, are profoundly grateful.SUIRAUQAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17918432443330964561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-60069758032278720632012-10-29T21:44:42.772-04:002012-10-29T21:44:42.772-04:00Over a year and a half have passed since that awfu...Over a year and a half have passed since that awful incident in the elevator that Rebecca Watson had to face. And yet, in all this time, clueless morons remain... clueless morons. Since you chose 'Karenina' as your 'nym, I am assuming you are a woman. One would have expected you to, at the very least, understand how Rebecca had felt, why she spoke out and what she said. But as I have come to learn during this time, one cannot expect any special empathy or ability to reason from morons, even self-proclaimed 'godless' morons.SUIRAUQAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17918432443330964561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-76694388473215435472012-07-17T02:04:51.116-04:002012-07-17T02:04:51.116-04:00John Greg, i did not suggest that Dawkins would or...John Greg, i did not suggest that Dawkins would or should respond. I asked whether he did, for the purpose of historical completeness. You may infer from that what you like, but it serves you no better than to presume, incorrectly, that the letters ignored Dawkins' comment. They were, in fact, tailored to address his outstanding request: "I will gladly apologise if somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word fuck in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-75272857543300672282012-07-16T12:28:00.864-04:002012-07-16T12:28:00.864-04:00Sorry John Greg, but that is complete bullshit. Da...Sorry John Greg, but that is complete bullshit. Dawkins asked why he got the flack he did. They explain quite plainly why. That is what Dawkins asked, quite literally, and that is what they responded too. <br /><br />And yes, the points that they brought up warrant an apology from Dawkins. For exactly the reasons mentioned in their letters.beakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069484893936722365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-3737453894240669752012-07-15T16:51:27.528-04:002012-07-15T16:51:27.528-04:00corneloid said:
"... has he ever responded t...corneloid said:<br /><br />"... has he ever responded to the several-author open letter?"<br /><br />Why would he? Every one of those letters was, in effect, a strawman argument. Every one of those letters contained non-sequitors posing as the central focus of the elevator incident. Every one of those letters completely ignored Dawkins's actual comment in favour of a political revision; they ignored what he actually said, and framed it in an imaginary and false ambiguity. Lastly, anyone who has any familiarity with the Skepchick / FfTB universe knows full well that the only thing the writers of those letters are interested in is a full and abject apology from Dawkins stating that he was, is, and shall always be wrong about Watson and the elevator incident. They are not for a moment interested in discussion, or debate, or communication, or fact finding.John Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17911886170229363285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-77685555598279629512012-07-15T16:40:28.014-04:002012-07-15T16:40:28.014-04:00Giliell said:
"there have been two people on...Giliell said:<br /><br />"there have been two people on our side to use those terms, who have been largely opposed for those terms by our own side, and that makes those terms exemplary of the general treatment you get from our side."<br /><br />To put it into the simple terms you seem to favour, it would be more accurate to say:<br /><br />'there have been a few people on our side to use those terms, and the terms, not the originators or other users of the terms, have been largely opposed in an illusory attempt to appear hostile to the concepts suggested by those terms. However, the originators and other users of those terms remain favoured commenters in the FfTB universe because they support the general FfTB ideology which, while not using terms such as "gender traitor" or "sister punisher", still holds firmly to the concept that any woman who does not fully support and proselytize our view of the world as being nothing more than a chthonic pit of misogyny, sexism, harrassment, rape enableist MRAs will be treated as a gender traitor and sister punisher, despite our using other terms to vilify, alienate, and dismiss them.'<br /><br />"Oh, and yes, us feminist supremacists actually acknowledge that women can be assholes. Like your BFF Abbie."<br /><br />Your definition of "asshole women" is political, it is not substantive. And Abbie is not my BFF, Abbie is someone whose science I respect, but more importantly, she is someone whose ethical approach to actual free thought and freedom of speech I admire very much. Unlike your heroes of the FfTB / Skepchick universe, who think room 101 is where truth is born and who wouldn't recognize real free thought if it crawled up their bifurcated fundament like one of their favoured perished porcupines.John Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17911886170229363285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-25248398423085151282012-07-15T10:58:19.081-04:002012-07-15T10:58:19.081-04:00So, there have been two people on our side to use ...So, there have been two people on our side to use those terms, who have been largely opposed for those terms by our own side, and that makes those terms exemplary of the general treatment you get from our side.<br />Yes, that makes total sense, at least on your planet.<br />Oh, and yes, us feminist supremacists actually acknowledge that women can be assholes. Like your BFF Abbie.Giliellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863240646094904253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-14139828001573511402012-07-14T19:12:46.422-04:002012-07-14T19:12:46.422-04:00beaker said:
"Do you agree with me that the ...beaker said:<br /><br />"Do you agree with me that the level of abuse that people like Rebecca Watson receive when writing on these topics is large, if not excessive?"<br /><br />I think that is a fair question, but I am not sure it can be answered except on specific instance-by-instance fashion for a number of reasons. For example, the harsh criticism she got about the Tony name-calling incident was, in my opinion, fully deserved. She lied, did not honestly, or in actual fact, recant and withdraw the lie, and the exacerbated the situation by accepting PeeZus's completely dishonest reshaping of Tony's anger to be about being unfollowed, or whatever you call it, from Twitter.<br /><br />The criticism she received for the elevatorgate incident was excessive from certain specific groups of anti-feminist, anti-Watson youngsters who follow PeeZus's method of raging online communications. But, I think the criticism she received from the more adult people was generally warranted, and she herself is largely responsible for its acceleration because she is utterly incapable of admitting error and in many people's opinion is not an honest person. And there is no better way to draw people's ire than to present yourself as inerrant and superior to any and all people around you, which is something she does on a regular basis.John Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17911886170229363285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-46199446474920168812012-07-14T17:58:28.523-04:002012-07-14T17:58:28.523-04:00Do you agree with me that the level of abuse that ...Do you agree with me that the level of abuse that people like Rebecca Watson receive when writing on these topics is large, if not excessive?<br /><br />What do you, for example, think of John Greg's last response (last one before yours)?beakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069484893936722365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-89090124500947255402012-07-14T17:56:50.251-04:002012-07-14T17:56:50.251-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.beakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069484893936722365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-29043595434034276102012-07-14T17:16:35.865-04:002012-07-14T17:16:35.865-04:00beaker: I'm not saying everyone on my side thi...beaker: I'm not saying everyone on my side thinks that. Many clearly don't. But many do - that's my point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-19636026181380018512012-07-14T17:10:50.111-04:002012-07-14T17:10:50.111-04:00I'm sorry, but I must disagree in that Watson&...I'm sorry, but I must disagree in that Watson's statement was neither universal, nor self-specific. It was intentionally somewhat passive and non-specific, which is one of Watson's (and for that matter, Myers's) intentionl forms of rhetorical trickery, along with all her completely false "um" "er" "uh" interjections.<br /><br />The intent is to leave it ambiguous and to provide herself with a form of plausible deniability, and to help foment this kind of discussion, wherein people who are not overly fluent in language or rhetorical trickery will go on arguing about unimportant elements and bypass the more important underlying implications of what these mendacious people are saying.John Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17911886170229363285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-15739773748357509842012-07-14T17:09:04.254-04:002012-07-14T17:09:04.254-04:00"I still think the details of the elevator in..."I still think the details of the elevator incident are relatively unimportant to many people who are on 'my side'. What's important to us is how the discussion is being conducted, and whether such discussion is allowed freely. I think the comment by asieno is a good example of what I would rather be seeing from 'your side' - it sticks to the arguments, no invective and tries to play fair. Disagreement is not a problem - I'd say disagreement is healthy."<br />I still find this at the least a bit hard to believe (okay, that's an understatement). Or at least I think it is selective to an astonishing degree. The level of abuse received by the people on Watson's side by the people on "your side" kind of puts the lie on that, methinks.beakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069484893936722365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-13546274464114136432012-07-14T14:31:18.747-04:002012-07-14T14:31:18.747-04:00Seventh Quaver: It was both context dependent and ...Seventh Quaver: It was both context dependent and universal. The universality was the presumed quantification over all people in that particular context. Well, perhaps you disagree, so I will give my answer in the form of a conditional. If she was just talking about herself, for future reference, then can see nothing wrong with it. If she meant that nobody should talk to a girl in that way and in that context, then I do think there are problematic aspects to it.<br /><br />asieno: Well if she wasn't making a moral claim then that's fine - I take issue then with those that did use her example to make that universal moral claim (and many did). I don't care who is making the claim - I care about the claim.<br /><br />Regarding RW saying 'yes', that's fine. I'm just asking these questions to shed some more light on what people are actually claiming.<br /><br />--<br /><br />I still think the details of the elevator incident are relatively unimportant to many people who are on 'my side'. What's important to us is how the discussion is being conducted, and whether such discussion is allowed freely. I think the comment by asieno is a good example of what I would rather be seeing from 'your side' - it sticks to the arguments, no invective and tries to play fair. Disagreement is not a problem - I'd say disagreement is healthy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-3828100030851504622012-07-14T00:21:23.112-04:002012-07-14T00:21:23.112-04:00notungblog: "The universal claim was the fact...notungblog: "The universal claim was the fact that no 'guy' should 'do that'"<br /><br />You are quotemining, not necessarily on purpose (it was over a year ago now and I doubt most people go back to the source to check their claims) but you are nonetheless quotemining.<br /><br />What Rebecca said, <b>after explaining the context</b>, was (at 5:04 in the original EG video):<br /><br />"Just a <b>word to the wise</b> here... guys... hmm don't do that"<br /><br />It is thus not a universal claim as you said but rather an advice to those who want to act wisely. You may of course disagree that wise people would not do that but saying that Rebecca's advice to a self selecting part of the population* in a particular situation** is a universal claim is patently false.<br /><br />Look, I support the free speech right of EG to do the stupid thing he did as I don't think it went as far as harassment (though I am willing to hear an argument why it might be if someone disagrees with me on that) but I also support RW's free speech right to call him foolish (by saying that wise guys shouldn't do that).<br /><br />Hell, I even support the right of misogynistic assholes to call her a cunt or a slut or other gendered slurs but then I support other people's right (including mine just now) to call those aforementioned people misogynistic assholes.<br /><br />I'm not sure whether I support those saying that OB should be kicked in the cunt as it sounds a lot like a threat (regardless of whether they intend to carry it out or not) and free speech does not extend to threats.<br /><br />notungblog: "What if she said 'yes'? Would it still be wrong?"<br /><br />Given the way Rebecca originally phrased it I think it would better be formulated "What if she said 'yes'? Would it still be <i>foolish</i>?"<br /><br />And the answer is an unmitigated <b>YES</b>. He might have gotten lucky and we might never have even heard about it, but it still would have been foolish, just like trying to motorbike through a ring of fire without fire protecting gear, over 20 buses with a moped, and into a shark tank with starved sharks would be foolish even if you actually managed to pull it off without catching fire, crashing into a bus or being bitten by a shark.<br /><br />Would I think EG creepy then? Probably not because I don't know that he is creepy now as I do not have enough information, I just know that he acted creepily on that one occasion but whether he is himself creepy or not would also depend on whether he takes the criticisms of the past year seriously (like realising how creepy his disregard of RW's expressed wish not to be objectified in such a way was) and tried to avoid doing the same creepy things in the future. <br />If he did hook up with RW I probably would think that he got lucky to get laid and not maced****** given his stupidity on that particular occasion.<br /><br />* Those that want to act wisely.<br /><br />** Cold propositioning*** where the person might feel particularly vulnerable due to a combination of alcohol, being in a foreign country, in the middle of the night and especially alone in with him <i>in an enclosed space with at most only one exit</i>****.<br /><br />*** Even if EG did not mean it as a come on he knew that it could be taken "the wrong way" and how many other wrong ways are people likely to take it as beside the obvious sexual angle?<br /><br />**** Doesn't anybody in the skeptical comunity know that animals***** that feel cornered are dangerous? Even if you didn't mean to corner them and only wanted to pet them it is still something only stupid people do.<br /><br />***** And yes, humans are animals, animals that can control their instincts (probably why EG wasn't tasered or kneed) but still with the same response to feeling cornered.<br /><br />****** As he might have if the propositioned woman had been previously raped and didn't want to take the risk of being raped again.<br /><br />Sorry for all the * but the p tag is not allowed and it reads better with footnotes than long parentheses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-22690189461591942232012-07-14T00:03:12.243-04:002012-07-14T00:03:12.243-04:00@notungblog
Hence, my request that you not quotem...@notungblog<br /><br />Hence, my request that you not quotemine. Here's the original video transcript:<br /><br /><i>Um. Just a word to the wise here, guys: Uhhhh, don't do that. Um, you know. [laughs] Uh, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes <b>me</b> incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that <b>I</b> was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, <b>at 4am, in a hotel elevator with you, just you</b>, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room, <b>right after I've finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.</b></i><br /><br />Notice how, when you read the entire paragraph, the claim is clearly context-dependent, not universal: first, that it makes HER SPECIFICALLY uncomfortable, second, that it required being a single woman, alone, in a foreign country AND just finishing a speech on how this sort of stuff creeps her out.<br /><br />UTTERLY CONTEXT DEPENDENT. Not universal. So stfu about how the universality disturbs you when the video was extremely personal and context-dependent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-60202573333978156592012-07-13T20:29:55.820-04:002012-07-13T20:29:55.820-04:00It's hard to check this without access to the ...It's hard to check this without access to the JREF forum, but was "Scrut" ever actually banned? From your post it's hard to tell if Watson did abuse her temporary position, or if she's just joking about it.<br /><br />I can't say I understand the dynamics of Facebook, but I gather your screendumps are from some sorta club. It sounds like a humorous reäction to the similar club formed by this "Scrut" character. Have you documented that for comparison. It can be hard to judge snark on the Internet without direct knowledge of the situation being referenced.Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-60127713759847214922012-07-13T20:05:15.121-04:002012-07-13T20:05:15.121-04:00"
The Weirder Stalker: A blog named 'Elev..."<br />The Weirder Stalker: A blog named 'Elevatorgate', which has "Rebecca Watson Must Be Sacked from SGU" as a byline, is not only fixated upon RW, but tries to vilify anyone who's even remotely associated with RW or appreciative of her work, including OB, young blogger Rhys Morgan (not sparing Rhys' family), PZ and others, using sexist language and attitude that others have long left in the kindergarten.<br />"<br /><br />That *is* a weird double standard.<br /><br />Somehow anyone who associates with Watson is of the Devil, but the Novellistas are poor, innocent babies who must be protected from the ebol, ebol devilwoman?<br /><br />Remind me to start a blog called "Jay Novella Must Be Sacked from SGU". Or is it Even Bernstein? I can't remember who the useless one is. But I guess I should target the Novella lest I get accused of antisemitism.Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-24814612415573454522012-07-13T19:33:43.361-04:002012-07-13T19:33:43.361-04:00Zvan's was the second of the eight posted here...Zvan's was the second of <a href="http://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins/" rel="nofollow">the eight posted here</a>. In case you haven't read it, <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2011/10/06/elevatorgate/" rel="nofollow">her explanation is here</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-15358708501559402752012-07-13T18:47:01.314-04:002012-07-13T18:47:01.314-04:00Was that the one that began "Dear Dick"?...Was that the one that began "Dear Dick"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-19746039638344116282012-07-13T18:44:00.884-04:002012-07-13T18:44:00.884-04:00notungblog linked to the somewhat selective Freeth...notungblog linked to the somewhat selective Freethought Kampala timeline, so i thought i'd mention that their criticism of Watson took up a <a href="http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/elevatorgate-part-2-the-failure-of-skepticism/" rel="nofollow">sequel post</a> of similar length. I was interested in taking it apart and eventually writing up something like this timeline, so thanks for going to the effort.<br /><br />Regarding the question in the convo above of Dawkins' genuineness in asking for a calm explanation, has he ever responded to the several-author open letter?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-28339001708892963632012-07-13T17:38:38.144-04:002012-07-13T17:38:38.144-04:00Giliell said:
"I love it how we're still...Giliell said:<br /><br />"I love it how we're still getting bombarded with the "Gender traitor" and "real women" accusations when that's actually something the other side is more prone of. [sic]"<br /><br />Yes, technically, you are quite right. skeptifem is the misandrist Dworkinite freak who invented and uses the term "gender traitor".<br /><br />On a side note, I do not know who, when, or where the term "sister punisher" came from, but I think it might have been that sociopathic monster Amanda Marcotte, she of the Let's remove habeus corpus from the menz, supporter of democracy, freedom of speech, and the rule of law. Ha!<br /><br />However, it might be worth your time, though I am sure you will think otherwise, to ponder that we are now, to a large degree, using the term more as exemplary of the general treatment that you FfTB zealots, and the Skepchick.org zealots, give to any woman with whom you disagree, in particular those who do not see the world, especially North America and the UK, as the so-called rape cultures, and deep dark chthonic dens of never-ending pandemic misogyny, sexism, harrassment, and rape-enableist sin.<br /><br />Also, to a small degree, many of us are reclaiming the term as a sort of left-handed badge of honour for the women that the FfTB and Skepchick universe continue to harrass, bully, harangue, and dismiss.John Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17911886170229363285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-49656904723435249872012-07-13T17:19:08.913-04:002012-07-13T17:19:08.913-04:001) Well, we're at an impasse on that one.
2) ...1) Well, we're at an impasse on that one.<br /><br />2) Oh, I wasn't using it that way myself. I was saying that perhaps sometimes <i>other</i> people do that.<br /><br />3) Well, we know now. Perhaps I should have been clearer to draw attention to the fact that discussions and 'elevator ethics' aren't the same thing.<br /><br />4) That's fine - that answers one of my questions then. So if RW said "I met this great guy - he asked me for coffee at 4am in an elevator and I'm so glad he did that!" you would say "how <i>creepy</i> of him!"? Perhaps you would - that's not a rhetorical question.<br /><br />5) Well, I don't think the best response to Dawkins was to boycott him. Watson should have explained calmly and rationally why she believed he was wrong on this point. If she had done that (even if I still didn't agree with her), I'd be on her 'side'. I see people getting banned and deleted for mere disagreement. That's happening on certain FTBs. I disavow name-calling both on FTB and elsewhere, whether it's on my 'side' or the other 'side'. There's only hypocrisy if I'm doing the same thing, which I'm not, and even then it <i>still</i> wouldn't invalidate my arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-87004977050852979162012-07-13T16:56:36.624-04:002012-07-13T16:56:36.624-04:001) He only finished with that after a whole three ...1) He only finished with that after a whole three paragraph comment expressing his disdain for Watson. That's where he went wrong. Again. If you want to actually indicate to people that you're willing to listen, you don't start by showing no respect at all for their position and then saying that you obviously don't get it. Yes, you obviously don't, but you didn't actually give any indication anywhere that you wanted to get it either.<br /><br />2) But if it indeed used that way, your point becomes extremely problematic and should cause you to self-reflect.<br /><br />3) You did not actually give the impression in your post as treating it as two different issues. That is one of the problems in this discussion. <br /><br />4) No, the outcome is not going to determine whether your proposition out of the blue is creepy or not. You don't know whether the woman you are going to propose to out of the blue in the elevator is going to be pleased or going to feel uncomfortable or threatened. Bad or creepy behavior isn't suddenly made good because the outcome is nice or funny. If that helps you understand this point, take some more extreme actions and see whether it still works. <br /><br />5) "I can say more than that, but my point isn't really about the elevator incident, but rather to show that the reason some people are on 'this side' is due to the way the discussion is being stifled by personal attacks, boycotts and banning."<br />And by doing so they are purely focusing on the reactions on one side, and completely ignoring the behavior on the other side which is causing these reactions. The bannings, boycotts and attacks are not the reaction to the other side sitting in their comfy chair, lighting their pipe, putting their glasses on and stating their objections in o so reasonable terms. The bannings, personal attacks and 'boycotts' are the result of a barrage of insults, invective, harrassment and dismissiveness already shown even before the whole elevatorgate and only increased since then. In my opinion, ignoring that is hypocritical.beakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069484893936722365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222122824332668034.post-34386719330741399322012-07-13T16:31:55.661-04:002012-07-13T16:31:55.661-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.beakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069484893936722365noreply@blogger.com