Stuck on Repeats

[Replaced_Texan]

I don't really give a shit if the elevator incident was blown out of proportion by the lady who complained about it, but Jesus Christ people are assholes on the internet. http://www.slate.com/articles/double...e_threats.html

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I don't really give a shit if the elevator incident was blown out of proportion by the lady who complained about it, but Jesus Christ people are assholes on the internet. http://www.slate.com/articles/double...e_threats.html

I dunno. I'm a little skeptical.


(Sorry -- too easy to pass up.)

eta: Finished reading it. Yes, people are assholes on the internet (not on this site, of course). And while I found her bit about the elevator to be a little silly, mostly it was blown out of proportion by people who read it and reposted it. And the notion that anyone's response to that would be a rape threat ..... just one of those things that makes you ask "what the fuck is wrong with people?"

I don't understand why she ties any of this to Dawkins. His post, though snarky and sarcastic (what a surprise), shouldn't have been the cause or seen as supportive of any of those threats. It was basically a "geez, first-world problems" comment writ large (and writ obnoxious, but again -- what a surprise).

Anyway -- it was a more interesting read than the shit I'm supposed to be reading, at least.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I dunno. I'm a little skeptical.


(Sorry -- too easy to pass up.)

eta: Finished reading it. Yes, people are assholes on the internet (not on this site, of course). And while I found her bit about the elevator to be a little silly, mostly it was blown out of proportion by people who read it and reposted it. And the notion that anyone's response to that would be a rape threat ..... just one of those things that makes you ask "what the fuck is wrong with people?"

I don't understand why she ties any of this to Dawkins. His post, though snarky and sarcastic (what a surprise), shouldn't have been the cause or seen as supportive of any of those threats. It was basically a "geez, first-world problems" comment writ large (and writ obnoxious, but again -- what a surprise).

Anyway -- it was a more interesting read than the shit I'm supposed to be reading, at least.

I get the impression that Dawkins is a god to a lot of these people, so if he says "this lady is over reacting" they take it to mean "launch the torpedoes." My guess is that if he'd taken her complaint a little less cavalierly (or didn't say anything), then it probably wouldn't have been as bad.

At any rate, the "you got what you deserved" crowd hit the Slate article's comments's section too.

I hate the Westboro Baptist Church with the fire of a thousand angry gods, but I can't really imagine taking the time or energy to making their lives miserable.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I get the impression that Dawkins is a god to a lot of these people, so if he says "this lady is over reacting" they take it to mean "launch the torpedoes." My guess is that if he'd taken her complaint a little less cavalierly (or didn't say anything), then it probably wouldn't have been as bad.

At any rate, the "you got what you deserved" crowd hit the Slate article's comments's section too.

I hate the Westboro Baptist Church with the fire of a thousand angry gods, but I can't really imagine taking the time or energy to making their lives miserable.

(1) She made this Slateworthy by saying it's from members of her "own community." I think she's discovered, as many before her, that you don't have some greater right to dignity and respect within a self-defined community as without. It's wrong to be rude; it's not wronger to be rude to someone "in your community." It's that type of insider/outsider bullshit that leads to privilege, and excuses terrible things like FGM and hazing. There is no higher standard; the standard is the same.

(2) She misread the tweet she quoted. It was an unfunny joke. It's illegal to grope someone in an elevator; anonymity is the only reason the crime even occurs. A person who publicly claims an intention to do so actually drops to the bottom of the list of people likely to do it. To demand additional security from conference organizers is a bizarre response.

(3) I think she's misreading Dawkins. His point was about the relative superiority of life in a Western secular democracy, and he's right about that. Anytime you say "We're lucky to have such problems" you're minimizing the experience of the victim, but that's the entire point. Dawkins wants to destroy theocratic thinking; it's exactly his point that we should all live in a world where women getting asked for sex is the worst problem we face. I have a hard time seeing him as a bad guy in this. [ETA: or, what Sidd said.]

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

(2) She misread the tweet she quoted. It was an unfunny joke. It's illegal to grope someone in an elevator; anonymity is the only reason the crime even occurs. A person who publicly claims an intention to do so actually drops to the bottom of the list of people likely to do it. To demand additional security from conference organizers is a bizarre response.

She misread it, but why should she have to take the chance? Organizers should have barred the guy from the event.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

It seems 9 billion mega-pixel images take a while to load.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

To demand additional security from conference organizers is a bizarre response.

Acidentially deleted my post.

She has the right response. For every dumb joker, there is a sicko capable of doing something. Security should focus on people who have been the subject of threats, especially this kind of sexually oriented harassment. This is not a bizarre response at all - it ought to be basic security.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Acidentially deleted my post.

She has the right response. For every dumb joker, there is a sicko capable of doing something. Security should focus on people who have been the subject of threats, especially this kind of sexually oriented harassment. This is not a bizarre response at all - it ought to be basic security.

Does this "basic security" rule you're proposing also extend to public property? Just curious. I think the situation is more complicating than you're considering.

ETA Not sure if you're agreeing with Adder that he should/could be barred from the event.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Does this "basic security" rule you're proposing also extend to public property? Just curious. I think the situation is more complicating than you're considering.

ETA Not sure if you're agreeing with Adder that he should/could be barred from the event.

Surely you're not suggesting protecting public property deserves the same priority as protecting against sexual assault? I'm not sure what you're worried about here, but the woman has been threatened with sexual assault by multiple people. Yeah, security ought to be aware of and focus on that. What is the threat against public property you want to compare to that?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It's wrong to be rude; it's not wronger to be rude to someone "in your community."

Thank god, or the PB would never have lasted this long.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

(1) She made this Slateworthy by saying it's from members of her "own community." I think she's discovered, as many before her, that you don't have some greater right to dignity and respect within a self-defined community as without. It's wrong to be rude; it's not wronger to be rude to someone "in your community." It's that type of insider/outsider bullshit that leads to privilege, and excuses terrible things like FGM and hazing. There is no higher standard; the standard is the same.

Doesn't it depend on the community? Part of her point was that she found a community of thinkers who seemed to be logical and understanding. To her surprise, there were a bunch of people in that community who were completely off their rockers. I think your point goes a little too far. It's not like she defined a community as Brooklyn moms or something ridiculous like that.

TM

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Doesn't it depend on the community? Part of her point was that she found a community of thinkers who seemed to be logical and understanding. To her surprise, there were a bunch of people in that community who were completely off their rockers. I think your point goes a little too far. It's not like she defined a community as Brooklyn moms or something ridiculous like that.

The "skeptic community" is something she defined primarily out of interest in leading it. But she seems not to have a grasp of who's in it. Notice the equivalency between Richard Dawkins and an anti-circumcision activist? I think the definition of her community was primarily to get it past whatever spambot at Slate decides which articles to publish. Otherwise it's just "Internet community is horrible," and that's dog-bites-man.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

The "skeptic community" is something she defined primarily out of interest in leading it. But she seems not to have a grasp of who's in it. Notice the equivalency between Richard Dawkins and an anti-circumcision activist? I think the definition of her community was primarily to get it past whatever spambot at Slate decides which articles to publish. Otherwise it's just "Internet community is horrible," and that's dog-bites-man.

I tend to agree with a fair amount of what you've been saying -- the Twitter comment of "totally cop a feel" was an obvious (and awful) joke and not a statement of intent to assault, the attempt to blame or demonize Dawkins over this is ridiculous, and a few other things.

But the last part? No. That a significant number of people, particularly people who are at an intellectual level sufficiently advanced to follow a blog like hers (I doubt she's attracting a lot of junior-high students or high school dropouts, for example), would respond to the original (and also, in my view, silly and seriously overblown) story about the elevator invite with rape threats and so forth is really pretty grisly. That she refers to those people as part of a "community" isn't really relevant.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

(1) She made this Slateworthy by saying it's from members of her "own community." I think she's discovered, as many before her, that you don't have some greater right to dignity and respect within a self-defined community as without. It's wrong to be rude; it's not wronger to be rude to someone "in your community." It's that type of insider/outsider bullshit that leads to privilege, and excuses terrible things like FGM and hazing. There is no higher standard; the standard is the same.

dissent. We have a community here and we have had insane rude people from time to time post horribly racist and sexist crap (not Me anyone?). We sort of banded together as a community and ran them off in a way that we wouldn't have had it occurred on "I love the SF Giants" or some other more general chat board, didn't we? I think she is naive not to realize the internet is just full of sick fucks willing to hit post on vile rants, but that it grew out of people she felt a kinship with is worthy of some additional, what, angst?

On the other hand, if I recall the story, she was bothered that someone in her "community" offered to have sex with her, so maybe she is far from in touch with her community.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

dissent. We have a community here and we have had insane rude people from time to time post horribly racist and sexist crap (not Me anyone?).

I clearly missed some excitement as I do not know what this person did.