On Shunning Fellow Atheists and Skeptics

[rug]

November 25, 2012
Ronald A. Lindsay

Shunning and boycotting may be gaining acceptance in the atheist and skeptic communities. In particular, it appears they are being adopted as tactics against fellow atheists and skeptics. This is regrettable.

By shunning I mean deliberately avoiding association with an individual, even when the association is as attenuated as attending an event or conference where the shunned individual is speaking. By boycotting I mean deliberately avoiding association with anyone or any entity (such as an organization that sponsors an event) which does not support one’s shunning.

I am motivated to write about this topic for a couple of reasons. First, Russell Blackford has recently announced via Twitter that he will not attend any conference at which Rebecca Watson or PZ Myers is speaking. Second, in the last few months, a number of individuals have advised me that CFI and its affiliates should never invite certain persons as speakers. This advice has often been accompanied with a statement such as “If X speaks, I will not attend the conference.” There was a flurry of such advice around CSICon, the Nashville conference of our affiliate CSI, presumably because our speaker list reminded people of objections they had to this or that individual. Some of the advice was prompted by an essay by Watson that appeared in Slate around the same time as the conference, which, among other things, contained a mischaracterization of one of my blog posts. This was offered as convincing proof that Watson was beyond the pale and should be considered persona non grata by CFI.

In any event, the list of individuals that CFI has been advised not to have any dealings with is long. In no particular order it includes: Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Ophelia Benson, Harriet Hall, Russell Blackford, Edwina Rogers, Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, and Sharon Hill. I am sure I am forgetting several more.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/show/on_shunning_fellow_atheists_and_skeptics/

[Warren Stupidity]

1. An essay which is about how ludicrous shunning is. nt.

[cbayer]

2. Schisms and those that support them are rarely good for movements.

I hope they are able to resolve this.

[rexcat]

3. There is nothing to resolve...

it seems to be coming from a few people in the organization and the author called them on it.

on edit: nice job of rug cutting and pasting to look like there is an issue at CFI.

[rug]

4. What about posting the first four paragraphs is cutting and pasting?

Sensitive much?

[rexcat]

28. Not sensitive at all...

but if someone were to just read what you posted it would give a false impression. One does not have to post the first four paragraphs. One can select up to four paragraphs that would put the article in its proper prespective. You decided not to do that but that is your prerogative.

When I read the article at the link it would appear that there are a few people causing some issues within the organization and the author smacked them down pretty hard. I am a little skeptical concerning your posts when they refer to atheists. I don't think your intentions when it comes to atheists is out of concern for us but that is just my impression from your posts.

[rug]

65. Do you want posters to selectively cut and paste?

I would hope people read the whole article before chiming in.

[rexcat]

84. I would appreciate a cut and paste...

that was representative of the article. That is all I am saying. Despite another posters opinion that everyone in this group pastes the first four paragraphs of an article I don't think that is productive and can be misleading at times. Of course the poster who I am referring to in this forum ignores most of the atheists in this forum. I was disappointed that she responded to my post with a "personal" attack.

Unfortunately there are people who do not read the articles prior to posting and there are some who do read the article but lack the ability to understand the point being made! Those people post at their own risk. There is enough snark in this group to take that warning seriously.

As far as the article goes it is still my opinion that it is much ado about nothing. In any group there will be friction and it is obvious that CFI has some ongoing issues. It seems to me the president of the organization is trying to get a handle on the situation before everyone gets their underwear in a bind. He had a nice smack down to several referenced in his blog post.

[cbayer]

85. To cut and paste a selected part of an article would be to editorialize it, and

that seems much more biased than giving the intro, then expecting that people will click to read the whole article.

And, FWIW, I actually do interact with almost all of the atheists who post here and have good and civil rapport with pretty much everyone that I do interact with. Second, if you feel you were personally attacked, feel free to alert, as that is against community standards. It was not my intent to attack you, only to counter your accusations of bias against another member.

I agree with you that the author of this piece is trying to get a handle on this by shining light on it and support his doing that. Denying it or wishing it would go away is not working well at all, so his taking this frontal approach is laudable.

[rexcat]

86. I appreciate your last paragraph...

As far as the "personal" attack that was hyperbole on my part hence the quotation marks.

As far as always posting the first four paragraphs of an article, that can be misleading, especially in this case, and I have seen many OPs that select paragraphs to represent what the article is trying to convey, just not the first four paragraphs. I don't see that as editorializing but that is just how I see it. Just being more honest about what the author is trying to convey. When I first came across the OP it looked to me that rug was baiting. At this point I don't think he was but no one here in this forum is innocent in that respect! The title of the blog post did not help the situation so I can blame the blogger for that but I also understand where he was coming from given the current events at CFI.

Somewhat off topic the election went well and I am much relieved.

[cbayer]

87. There is clearly a lot of baiting in this group and I have a lot of respect

for the approach you have taken here.

Also tremendously relieved by the election. I think Obama is going to have a great 4 years.

[cbayer]

9. It may be a few people, but they are people in leadership positions.

The person who wrote this is the President and CEO of CFI, so I don't think anyone else can be held responsible for what he is saying. The first four paragraphs and exact title were used, as generally happens in this group.

But, nice job trying to make it look like a member here distorted it.

[cleanhippie]

6. Thats the beauty of non-belief, there can be no schisms with that.

[rug]

8. Nice try but this article is talking about organizations for nonbelievers.

Where there are organizations there can be schisms.

When are you going to realize there is nothing unique about nonbelief?

[cleanhippie]

11. But that is what I am talking about.

The only thing unique about non-belief of a deity is the fact that one doesn't get indoctrinated. It's the default position.

[rug]

13. That's true but nonbelievers can - and do - organize around that.

[cleanhippie]

15. But only in opposition to belief that extends beyond the personal.

That is something that I think most believers fail to realize, the fact that atheism only exists in response to theistic activities.

[rug]

17. That's not true.

For one thing, you're saying atheism is homogeneous. You know that's false. As for those that do make a point of challenging beliefs it is hardly defensive "opposition". It is vitriolic antagonism to the very notion of belief. And within that subset, there's another that rejects any belief without an application of the scientific method. This disingenous notion of what you call atheism, a thing that only opposes a belief when it fails to remain inside the skull of a believer, is palpable nonsense unsupported by, dare I say, the evidence all around. Iti s also exceedingly arrogant to claim as your mission opposition to any person who fails to remain silent about his or her belief. And arrogant is a kind word.

I will say you've inadvertently brushed up what I've said for a long time. Atheism only exists in response to theistic beliefs. You used the wrong word there.

[cleanhippie]

41. It most certainly is true.

In my view atheism is homogeneous, its the lack of belief in a god. Period. Attributing anything more to atheism, is well, to borrow a new term, atheism PLUS something else. The various reason WHY people reject belief in a god is irrelevant, the only thing we share, or need, to be an atheist, is a lack of belief in a god. Period.

But unlike most other religions, I accept anyone who lacks a belief in a god. If in addition to that non-belief, they turn out to be a misogynist, a racist, a homophobe, or anything else that I do not consider to be a Progressive value, I will deal with them on that issue. Their lack of belief has nothing to do with any of that. That's the beauty of atheism; no one does anything in the name of lack of belief (yes, humblebum, I know, stalin, mao, blah, blah, blah. Save it. I don't care what you think.) At best, a non-believer acts in response to an action by a believer that reaches beyond a personal belief and infringes on the rights of the non-believer. We can argue the degree to which something does or does not infringe, but it is that action that cause the response.

[rug]

64. No it isn't.

Atheists react in all sorts of different ways to religious belief. Unless there is a ccatechism describing behavior that I somehow missed.

[cleanhippie]

69. Again, that is irrelevant. It is only the lack of belief that is relevant.

How one acts is their decision and has nothing to do with non-belief. Sure, we would like for all non-believers to be stand-up, progressive, tolerant people, but here in reality, people act in all sorts of manner.

I find it interesting at the lengths that some will go to disparage non-belief when all it would take for the whole mess to stop in its tracks would be for believers to stop trying to pass laws and rules that promote their beliefs at the expense of others.

[rug]

71. It becomes relevent when individuals organize in its name and take public action.

Then it's fair game.

Wouldn't you agree that an organization that states its opinion publicly is fair game for comment?

[cleanhippie]

73. I see the organizing being caused by the reaction to overreaching belief.

Which is why many "atheist" organizations have believers that belong to them, some even have christian pastors as the leader. they are opposing the theocratic push by believers, because it is that action that created the response.

[rug]

75. And those organizations are subject to schism.

The circle is now closed.

[cleanhippie]

78. The groups are, but the non-belief remains the same. The non-belief is binary and not subject

to schism.

The schism comes from disagreements on how to deal with the overreaching theocrats, not from a disagreement on non-belief.

[rug]

79. You speech is becoming robotic.

Furthermore, there is a diverse basis for nonbelief.

[cleanhippie]

80. And yours obtuse.

Again, we have been over this already. If wish to review it, kindly scroll up.

[rug]

82. #75.

[longship]

5. This is about misogyny, not shunning.

There may be some shunning going on, but let's make this clear. This whole deal began when Rebecca Watson blogged that she didn't like being hit on at skeptical conferences and she felt it was inappropriate. When the JREF, the hosts of TAM, the annual big skeptic conference refused to make assurances against such harassment at last summer's meeting, Rebecca blogged that she would not attend.

The skeptic blogosphere and Twitter universe exploded. Many posts -- far, far too many -- were explicitly misogynistic and way over the top. Things like advocating rape, violence, etc. were not uncommon.

It was sad to see. I specifically fault DJ Grothe, president of the JREF for letting this thing get out of hand. He had the power to nip it in the bud, but turned his back on Rebecca, and the women who contacted him regarding these issues.

I am ashamed of a group of people who I have called my own for years. I stand with Rebecca and the rest of the Skepchicks and with PZ Myers who has also been vocal on this issue.

Skeptics should take a lesson from DU where we police our own. The system isn't perfect but it works pretty damned well, which is why I am proud of being a member here, but am ashamed of the skeptics.

[cleanhippie]

7. I'm not sure anyone could have done anything to prevent someone getting hit on in an elevator.

[longship]

10. That was just the start of it.

And Rebecca was very cool about it. She just basically blogged (paraphrasing) that she felt ill at ease and simply stated, guys, don't do it.

But being hit on in the cramped space of an elevator is precisely what should be stopped. That has got to be a very threatening position to be in for any woman, which was why Rebecca blogged about it in the first place.

No woman should ever have to feel threatened merely because she goes to a public venue. Not ever.

[cleanhippie]

12. Like I said, I'm unsure how anyone can prevent that.

Perhaps having people ride the lifts like guardian angels or something?

[longship]

14. Or just state rules for behavior for the conference.

Which JREF apparently as much as dismissed.

Pity. None of this would have happened so big if JREF had simply stepped up and did the right thing in the first place.

[cleanhippie]

16. Would you publish a list of rules for adults that said

- No hitting on people in the elevators.


Come on, these are adults from all walks of life. People are gonna try to pick each other up. It's the first rule of conventions.

[rug]

18. "People are gonna try to pick each other up."

This sounds like a HopeHoops post.

Is that what you call what happened?

"It's the first rule of conventions."

Is that your standard?

[cleanhippie]

20. Is attraction between the sexes not a basic human instinct?

Yes? Then no matter what, when, or where, people are gonna pick each other up. (Were this a HopeHoops post, specific genders would have been identified, most likely accompanied with a colorful adjective, metaphor, or euphemism)

And my personal, anecdotal experience tells me that a convention, be it insurance, bibles, or porn, people will give it all they have to have a "hook up."


And no, it's not my standard, it just seems to be "the way it is." I'm not saying that that is right or wrong, I'm just making an observation.

[rug]

22. "attraction between the sexes" is not a euphemism for sexual harassment.

Nor is it a defense.

[cleanhippie]

23. Never said it was.

No need to play coy with the point I'm making. It's ok to agree with me, you know. You won't lose your street cred, I promise.

[rug]

24. I'm not.

There was a very specific case of sexual harassment in a confined space. It escalated into people in the atheist community taking sides on this.

You say: sexual attraction is normal and hitting on people is the first rule of conventions. Nothing more.

If you'e not defending it, you're explaining it away.

To be clear and not coy, I disagree.

[cleanhippie]

51. Are you really gonna make me go back an reread Watson's blog post on that elevator ride?

Please, please, please, don't make me do it. I'd rather trade more posts with humblebum or starboard tack first.

Refresh my memory, what took place on that elevator ride?

[rug]

63. It would edify you.

[cleanhippie]

66. So you won't summarize her blog post on the incident in question?

How can I know that you are remembering the facts correctly?

[rug]

68. Are you fingers broken? Go click google.

[cleanhippie]

70. How can I know that you are remembering the facts correctly?

If I don't know what you think happened, how can I know you are remembering it correctly?


Will you please summarize your take on the incident for comparison?

[rug]

72. #68.

[cleanhippie]

74. Google has your take on the events? Really?

I already summarized my view of what happened up thread. What is your view of what happened?

[rug]

76. #68.

Unless you'd rather talk about the rules of conventions.

[cleanhippie]

77. I can only infer from your reluctance to state your view of the incident as agreeing with mine.

So what is it we are talking about then?

[rug]

81. I can only infer from your reluctance to look it up that you won't because it does not support you.

In Evidence, that is called an adverse inference.

We were talking about your dissenbling over this sexual harassment.

[cleanhippie]

83. Do you mean dissembling?

It would seem that it is you who are protecting their true motive, as I have been quite upfront.

Feel free to give your view of the incident where it differs from mine, if at all. I'm happy to discuss where I may have gotten it wrong.

[DonCoquixote]

29. Shades of grey

Yes, people will try to hit on each other. However, once the person gives you a hint they are not interested, you want to avoid two things:

One :You want to avoid pursuing the issue.

Two: You want to avoid downplaying the person's concerns.

You do not want to badmouth the person afterword.

Now, this is NOT an atheist issue, it is a male issue, but when someone like Dawkins gets very snippy about the concerns as shown here:

Warning, some of them are a little salty and graphic.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

Then you do not need to be a genius to see that this can reflect badly. Dawkins showed Behavior that would be rebuked on DU (especially with that graphic "muslima" comment)

SO does this mean athiests are sexist...Hell no. Does this even imply that the group named here represents all atheists, again, hell no. But does it mean that those who themselves claim to represent Atheism, who go to conventions and sell books, should remember that if they do stupid things, it might cause damage, yes.

[cleanhippie]

42. I'm going by my (very bad) memory here...

Did Ms. Watson not describe her elevator experience just as you said it should happen? Two people got in an elevator, man hits on woman, woman says no thanks, they share an uncomfortable ride to the next stop, doors open, she exits, he moves on?


Yes, I can empathize with the fear she may have felt while confined to that elevator. But I see no way to avoid that scenario from happening in the future. What is the alternative? Gender segregated lifts?

[Warren Stupidity]

56. We can't even get a consensus that hitting on a stranger at 4am in an elevator is inappropriate.

Can we start from there, and then discuss how to limit such behavior?

[cleanhippie]

60. Sure we can.

I've already said it was inappropriate. We share that opinion. Others do not, which is why people try to pick each other up in elevators at all times of the day.

Now that we agree, how would you propose to stop that from happening?

[longship]

19. I feel strongly that hitting on a woman in an elevator is in very bad form.

I don't know what to say to somebody who thinks that's an okay thing to do.

Sorry, my friend.

[cleanhippie]

21. As do I, but that is beside the point.

My point is, that adults at conventions will act how adults at conventions act. Is the convention sponsor supposed to monitor all of the elevators at the hotel? Is reasonable?

What would you have done were you JREF, knowing only what JREF new at the time?

[longship]

25. I will stick by what I wrote.

And your response shines a light on what I was trying to say, albeit not so well. Yes, adults should act like adults, not like testosterone laden 13 year old guys who think women exist on this planet merely to be hit on.

Again, I must respectfully disagree with you.

[cleanhippie]

35. You are not in disagreement with me, as I agree with you.

We agree on how adults should act, but how they actually act is something very, very different. I'm speaking to the way things are, not the way they should be.

[DonCoquixote]

32. I cannot speak for all conventions

but the gaming and sci fi ones I know do tend to give "the speech" a lot, reminding people that while they can have fun, if they act STUPID, they can be thrown out.

here is an example:

I use this one not because it is a beacon of feminism (though Germaine, the character, makes fun of men and sex fantasies all the time), but because it handles the sort of convention that can easily get wild quick (we are talking teens to 40 somethings dressing in costumes which include weapons and/or bondage gear. ) Yet, they laid out some clear "thou shalt nots" and made it clear that people could be busted if they decided to be assholes.

[cleanhippie]

37. And that is a responsible action to take by the convention holders.

But I get the feeling that had the JREF done just that, given "the speech" as you described it, Ms. Watson and her supporters would have found it to be wildly insufficient.

[DonCoquixote]

43. Maybe so

But you know the hold saying about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure..if nothing else, it helps you to say "hey, we did give the bloody speech."

[cleanhippie]

45. I agree.

[DonCoquixote]

46. Thanks

As someone whose convention got kicked out of the county because people did stupid things, I know full well that while people SHOULD be adults...they are not at a con. It never hurts come lawsuit time to say "hey, you knew the rules." It is sad that grown ups should need it, but then again, I have seen things that frankly earned darwin awards.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. Well we don't know, because JREF couldn't be bothered.

So your hypothesis is untested and mere speculation. Apparently gamers are more empathetic than skeptics. Sheesh.

[cleanhippie]

61. Apparently.

Sheesh.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

31. No woman should ever have to feel threatened merely because she goes to a public venue. Not ever.

Women will continue to be victimized by this sort of behavior until they learn how to over come their fears and stand up to the jerks.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the jerk who hit on her, nor the organization that didn't stand up for her. But she would have been better served had she been able to turn to the culprit and say "Keep it up at your own risk" Sooner or later women are going to have to learn that they are on their own in this world...and that it will remain a man's world until such a time when women can stand their ground.

[longship]

39. I assure you that Rebecca Watson knows how to handle herself!

She just didn't like the guy cornering her, alone, in an elevator. When she spoke out about it -- at first, in a let's get along about this, guys -- she was reviled by many, including Richard Dawkins, for daring to call out behavior which made her feel trapped in an uncomfortable situation.

The onslaught against her and the Skepchicks, and their supporters, continues to this very day. PZ Myers posted more about it this very day.

I hate to admit it, but Houston, we have a problem in the skeptical community. It has a name, and its name is misogyny.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

47. Sorry, but

the facts remain the same. She was uncomfortable because she was alone in an elevator with a jerk who had too much to drink or is just a full time jerk. Then she was shocked to discover that the "men's club" didn't back her. Will women ever learn?

I know nothing of these organizations but as a soon-to-be 65 year old woman, I know much of men. You either take control of them, or they will do all possible to take control of you. In the perverse world that is manhood, had she laid him out cold in the elevator the men, including Dawkins, would have given her a round of applause.

Yes, misogyny exists...I think it is fear based and will only become worse as women continue to expand their own rights. Look at the latest round of anti-women legislation.

[longship]

53. I don't know whether I would argue that the solution is...

women controlling men anymore than men controlling women. Both seem to me to be counter to a real solution, one based on cultural change instead of a methodology which seems to be intent on perpetuating a continuing gender war.

But one thing is for sure, women need to be strong, and vocal, and run for office and get other women (and men) to vote for them.

Sorry. I would not support women controlling men any more than I would support the vice-versa.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

58. I don't mean control in the sense

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

of 24/7 control of any man's life. But in the sense of women being able to take control when men overstep their bounds. I should have stated that more clearly. I absolutely agree that when one person controls another it is abuse.

[longship]

59. Okay, I wasn't sure where you were going there.

That's the problem with communicating like this. It's happened to me many times here at DU as well.

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

62. It happens to me even in face-to-face

conversations. I just assume people can follow my thought process...which I should realize is no easy task.

[left coaster]

48. Yes, you are right, that's all it was. Nice minimizing attempt there. Good lord. nt

[cleanhippie]

50. Really? Did something more happen during that elevator ride that I missed?

Or maybe you are thinking about the hullabaloo that took place in the aftermath of Ms. Watson's blog post?

[Warren Stupidity]

27. We have DU'ers here who explicitly sided with the anti-Watson camp.

There was a long discussion of this episode in the mens group, where the majority opinion was, sadly and pathetically enough, essentially "boys will be boys". The lack of any comprehension at all regarding why sexual advances to strangers are inappropriate except where explicitly appropriate (e.g. a singles bar vs an elevator at 4am) was evidenced, as it was in the broader discussion on the internets. For me it was frustrating, these issues had been thrashed out 40 years ago on the left, in the late 60s and early 70s as women in "the movement" organized around feminists issues to raise our awareness. Apparently what we learned and the changes we made didn't stick and weren't robust enough to be passed on and take root.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

34. The issues may have been thrashed out among the women,

they were never adopted by the males. It will remain a man's world until women take control.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. I'm sorry, but where you there? I was, and you are simply wrong about that.

Gender equality and feminist awareness were widely adopted across the left, starting in the late 60's through the early 80s. And those changes spread out into the culture in general.

"Political Correctness" - the first shots of the rightwing culture war that started in the early 80s were aimed at rolling back what we had done. They have been rather successful.

[DonCoquixote]

55. some truth, but

Yes the left adopted the talk, and many did try, but the fact is, this is still a man's world. I remember yelling at some of my fellow Obama supporters in 2008 (on this forum even) when i asked them WTF they were thinking with the nutcracker BS. Power, once had, is not relinquished easily, especially if you do not realize you have it.

[longship]

54. Warren is not stupid.

I agree with your assessment.

Thanks.

[left coaster]

49. Absolutely this was about MISOGYNY. Anyone who thinks otherwise, needs to research the backstory..

...then come back here and discuss the real issue, at this 'progressive' forum. Yeah. FFS

[longship]

52. Thanks for your support. nt

[cbayer]

67. Agree. They need to address this problem and move on.

The denial and lack of attention to it has had consequences that are not surprising, but can still be addressed.

It's growing pains, imo.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

26. Wow...shunning was a coercive technique

used in South Africa in the dirty days of apartheid. Strange how atheism has become as petty and intolerant as any other religion.

[rexcat]

30. Did you go to the link...

and read the article? From your post it appears you didn't!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

33. Yes, in fact I did...

shunning is shunning and from the article it appears that some people from the atheist and skeptics communities are engaging in the practice...What exactly did I miss?

[Warren Stupidity]

38. The part where the author made it clear that nothing of the sort happened.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

40. No that is not whta the author said....this is:

***Shunning and boycotting may be gaining acceptance in the atheist and skeptic communities. In particular, it appears they are being adopted as tactics against fellow atheists and skeptics. This is regrettable.***

All he said is that he would not bow down to the calls to ostracize others.