The whole truth
Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012
|
Quote (Badger3k @ June 04 2012,11:58) | Quote (Cubist @ June 04 2012,12:11) | Quote (The whole truth @ June 04 2012,05:44) | WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion? |
Answer: It's not the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out. |
Well, whether she meant it that way or not, apparently people felt that she was demanding that people obey her, which ruffled feathers of men and women. While there were some assholes originally (there always will be, so why anybody was surprised I have no idea), even the people who were saying that she didn't speak for them (the women responding to her) were tarred and feathered with the MRA/mysoginist/gender-traitor/etc labels, told to shove porcupines up tender places, edited, censored, banned, and more. Debate was impossible because RW could do no wrong and spoke for everyone. Quote | Quote | Even IF it did occur... |
Yes, yes, "bitches lie." |
No, merely that the tale kept getting bigger and bigger, and more intricate, just like all other tales we see in history. They just grow into things a bit hard to swallow. The original story sounds entirely plausible, but when all the rest were added in - Rebecca's problem that seemed to develop and disappear fast - the one where she can't remember/ID faces so she knew this guy was at the talk and bar how? - it sounds suspiciously like a political move. Altering the tale to counter arguments or make it worse than it was.
Quote | Quote | And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen? |
Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink". |
This I have to agree with...to a point. The original point was trivial and not a stink, but when it blew up...virtually everything was a public stink over the further arguments, and the original points (both hers and her lack of professionalism when speaking) went to the curb.
Quote | Quote | ... there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities. |
Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure. |
Quote (cubist <!--QuoteBegin--The whole truth @ June 04 2012+05:44) | WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion? |
Answer: It's [i--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cubist Quote (The whole truth @ June 04 2012 @ 05:44) | WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion? |
Answer: It's [i)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->not[/i] the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out. |
Well, whether she meant it that way or not, apparently people felt that she was demanding that people obey her, which ruffled feathers of men and women. While there were some assholes originally (there always will be, so why anybody was surprised I have no idea), even the people who were saying that she didn't speak for them (the women responding to her) were tarred and feathered with the MRA/mysoginist/gender-traitor/etc labels, told to shove porcupines up tender places, edited, censored, banned, and more. Debate was impossible because RW could do no wrong and spoke for everyone. Quote | Quote | Even IF it did occur... |
Yes, yes, "bitches lie." |
No, merely that the tale kept getting bigger and bigger, and more intricate, just like all other tales we see in history. They just grow into things a bit hard to swallow. The original story sounds entirely plausible, but when all the rest were added in - Rebecca's problem that seemed to develop and disappear fast - the one where she can't remember/ID faces so she knew this guy was at the talk and bar how? - it sounds suspiciously like a political move. Altering the tale to counter arguments or make it worse than it was.
Quote | Quote | And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen? |
Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink". |
This I have to agree with...to a point. The original point was trivial and not a stink, but when it blew up...virtually everything was a public stink over the further arguments, and the original points (both hers and her lack of professionalism when speaking) went to the curb.
Quote | Quote | ... there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities. |
Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure. |
If internet trolls are considered the standard for people in society, then I think we have far bigger fish than people think. If people saying mean things on the internet is the worst problem you have, then you're lucky. I think that's the point TWT is trying to make (I may be wrong, correct me if I am). There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world).
I do wonder if anyone knows of any study that can show a relationship between online interactions and real world? Do the trolls on YouTube act that way in real life, or only do it from the safety of their computer? Do they say those things because they mean it or because they want to cause a flamewar? Just curious.
ETA: I tried to quote parts, but really blew it and am not sure why, so my apologies for a messed up post.[/quote] "If internet trolls are considered the standard for people in society, then I think we have far bigger fish than people think. If people saying mean things on the internet is the worst problem you have, then you're lucky. I think that's the point TWT is trying to make (I may be wrong, correct me if I am). There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world)."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking more of face to face situations (e.g. being in an elevator with someone) than internet conversations or confrontations but I suppose it could apply to them too. If anything though, it's often easier to deal with face to face situations than ones on the internet. Written words can often be misinterpreted and it can sometimes be very difficult to explain what was meant in the first place, especially after the other party has made up their mind in an incorrect way about what was written.
I was also thinking of how the alleged elevator incident has been described and how easily RW could have dealt with it, and I was thinking of how RW makes it sound like a gigantic problem. I think it was Ogre who suggested that she could have just said no, and that if the guy wouldn't take no for an answer the police could then be called if necessary.
Am I the only one who finds it interesting (and revealing) that she is not only complaining about an alleged guy in an elevator, but also about the lack of "women on stage" and in the audience, and about the way that she and/or other women are allegedly mistreated or not taken seriously enough by male conference organizers and/or male attendees? Talk about a 'lumper'.
She makes it sound like women are being regularly harrassed, accosted, raped, flogged, and keel hauled and/or banned at those conferences. 'Drama queen' comes to mind. If it's as bad as she says maybe she and her fellow female 'victims' should organize their own all female conferences. Maybe PZ could sneak in in a dress. He might have to shave off that weird beard though. :)
It should be remembered that there has been no claim (that I'm aware of) that the alleged guy in the elevator ever touched her or that he was actually mean to her. There isn't a shred of verifiable evidence that she was ever even in an elevator with some guy or that some guy asked her if she'd like to come to his room for coffee. No one made her get into an elevator with any guy and no one, including some guy, made her do anything. Going by her own claims, all the alleged guy did was ask her a question that she didn't like.
Apparently her fragile sensibilities were offended by the alleged question and she had the vapors over it, and when she recovered she just had to bring it up in a video on the world wide web and tell guys not to do that. The more I think about it the more ridiculous the whole thing sounds.
When it comes to thicker skins, I'd say it's RW who needs one, along with anyone else who is so easily offended by something so trivial and harmless.
It's more understandable to me that people can be legitimately offended (to a point) by what others say on the internet if what is said is obviously meant to offend. I know that it's just written words but emotions can kick in when someone says something that is clearly meant to attack or offend. If the alleged face to face elevator incident had been one where a man or a woman had said something to another man or woman (or child) that was clearly meant to be an attack or offensive, even if they were just words, I would be more inclined to be pissed at the offensive person and supportive of the offended person. From what I've seen of this story that was not the case in this alleged situation. Asking a question, even if not the smartest question to ask, is not a big deal or a crime.
I'll admit that I've asked many not too smart questions of women and others, and I'll probably do it again in the future. I'd like to think though that a person I ask a harmless dumb question of in a face to face situation won't complain about it on the internet.
When it comes to sexism, in my opinion women are every bit as sexist (in a bad way) as men, if not more so. Of course there are exceptions, in both genders. So-called 'sexism', like most other things, is something that has huge variables depending on who is asked. What pisses off one person may barely bother another person or even please them. The world is full of highly variable opinions and feelings about all kinds of things, and that's fine except when someone gets unreasonably upset or offended over a harmless question, or some other trivial thing (like drawing a picture of Mohammed).
As Badger said, if people "want to live in the real world", they need to grow (reasonably) thicker skins.
By the way, I wonder what RW would think of joe g? Now that's a face to face meeting that I'd like to see. LMAO
Edited to add: I don't know what happened with the formatting so the easiest thing I could think of is to add the dashed line. My current response is everything below that line.
Edited by The whole truth on June 05 2012,06:56
-------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|