{"id":3364,"date":"2015-06-04T06:16:00","date_gmt":"2015-06-04T11:16:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/?p=3364"},"modified":"2015-06-04T07:04:03","modified_gmt":"2015-06-04T12:04:03","slug":"throwbackthursday-happy-eg-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/2015\/06\/04\/throwbackthursday-happy-eg-day\/","title":{"rendered":"#ThrowbackThursday &#8211; Happy EG day!"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Anniversaries are as good a time as any to pause, reflect, and take stock of the situation. By my reckoning, it was four years ago today, June 4th of 2011, that the Great Rifts of New Atheism first began to crack open. It was on that fateful day that <a href=\"http:\/\/atheist.ie\/program-for-world-atheist-convention\/\">Atheist Ireland<\/a> placed Rebecca Watson on stage with Aron Ra, Tom Melchiorre, and Richard Dawkins to talk about the process of communicating atheism. Rebecca chose instead to open up a dialog about sexism in the atheist movement.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Communicating Atheism (pt 1) Skepchick\" width=\"500\" height=\"375\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/W014KhaRtik?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Here is how she described her contribution to the panel on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=uKHwduG1Frk\">her vlog<\/a> sometime later:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>And I was on a panel with Aron Ra and Richard Dawkins&#8230;on \u2018communicating atheism.\u2019 They sort of left it open for us to talk about whatever we wanted, really, within that realm. I was going to talk about blogging and podcasting, but, um, a few hours prior to that panel, there was another panel on women atheist activists, and I disagreed with a lot of what happened on that panel, uh, particularly with something that Paula Kirby had said.<\/p>\n<p>Paula Kirby doesn\u2019t have a problem with sexism in the atheism community, and, because of that, she assumes that there is no sexism, um, so I thought that I would, during my panel, discuss what it\u2019s like to communicate atheism as me, um, as a woman, but from a different perspective from Paula. I don\u2019t assume that every woman will have the same experience that I\u2019ve had, but I think it\u2019s worthwhile to publicize the fact that some women will go through this, and, um, that way we can warn women, ahead of time, as to what they might expect, give them the tools they need to fight back, and also give them the support structure they need to, uh, to keep going in the face of blatant misogyny.<\/p>\n<p>So, I was interested in the response to my sort of rambling on that panel, um, which, like this video, was unscripted and rambling, for which I apologize. But the response was really fascinating. The response at the conference itself was wonderful, um, there were a ton of great feminists there, male and female, and also just open-minded people who had maybe never considered the, um, the way that women are treated in this community, but were interested in learning more.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>So far, so good. Communicating feminism to atheists wasn&#8217;t exactly the original purpose of the panel, but it&#8217;s certainly a discussion worth having. The vlog continues:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>So, thank you to everyone who was at that conference who, uh, engaged in those discussions outside of that panel, um, you were all fantastic; I loved talking to you guys\u2014um, all of you except for the one man who, um, didn\u2019t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel? Because, um, at the bar later that night\u2014actually, at four in the morning\u2014um, we were at the hotel bar, 4am, I said, you know, \u201cI\u2019ve had enough, guys, I\u2019m exhausted, going to bed,\u201d uh, so I walked to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me, and said, \u201cDon\u2019t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more; would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Um. Just a word to the wise here, guys: Uhhhh, don\u2019t do that. Um, you know. [laughs] Uh, I don\u2019t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I\u2019ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4 am, in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and\u2014don\u2019t invite me back to your hotel room, right after I\u2019ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This all seems fairly uncontroversial to me. Cold propositions for sex are generally gauche, doubly so when directed at someone known to find sexualization by strangers discomfiting, trebly so at inescapable close quarters. That said, I wouldn&#8217;t have expected anything more to come of this video than the usual nastiness that we&#8217;ve all come to expect from YouTube comments sections.<\/p>\n<p>There are those who will tell you that it was at this point (2011-06-20) that all hell broke loose. They may not be lying, but they are almost certainly mistaken. Hell didn&#8217;t really break loose until July, with the following three posts on Science Blogs:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/erv\/2011\/07\/01\/bad-form-rebecca-watson\/\">Bad form, Rebecca Watson<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/pharyngula\/2011\/07\/02\/always-name-names\/\">Always name names!<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/pharyngula\/2011\/07\/03\/the-decent-human-beings-guide\/\">The Decent Human Beings\u2019 Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences<\/a><\/p>\n<p>(Arguably, the proverbial feces hit the metaphorical fan a couple days earlier over at <a href=\"http:\/\/skepchick.org\/2011\/06\/on-naming-names-at-the-cfi-student-leadership-conference\/\">Skepchick<\/a>, but I&#8217;m not seeing much dissent in that thread.)<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_3395\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3395\" style=\"width: 198px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/files\/2015\/06\/Elevator_icon.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-3395 size-medium\" src=\"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/files\/2015\/06\/Elevator_icon-198x300.png\" alt=\"Elevator_icon\" width=\"198\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/files\/2015\/06\/Elevator_icon-198x300.png 198w, https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/files\/2015\/06\/Elevator_icon.png 411w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 198px) 100vw, 198px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-3395\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Via Wikimedia Commons<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>It is difficult to describe what happened next, because so many various topics were rapidly sucked up into the maelstrom. Some people wanted to argue about the ethics of calling out a student attendee from a conference podium, thereby punching down from a position of power. Others wanted to justify or condemn the actions of the (still unnamed) fellow in the elevator. Still others wanted to demonstrate how feminist ideas such as &#8220;Schrodinger&#8217;s Rapist&#8221; and &#8220;checking your privilege&#8221; would prove clarifying to the discussion.<\/p>\n<p>If you want a comprehensive schooling on how the clusterfuffle unfolded itself as people took sides and umbrage, here are the relevant wiki entries (from left to right):<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/geekfeminism.wikia.com\/wiki\/Incident_at_World_Atheist_Convention\" target=\"_blank\">Geek Feminism<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/rationalwiki.org\/wiki\/Elevatorgate\" target=\"_blank\">Rational Wiki<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/tvtropes.org\/pmwiki\/pmwiki.php\/Main\/UncomfortableElevatorMoment\" target=\"_blank\">TV Tropes<\/a> (see\u00a0&#8220;Real Life&#8221;)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rebecca_Watson#Elevator_incident\" target=\"_blank\">Wikipedia<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.conservapedia.com\/Elevatorgate\" target=\"_blank\">Conservapedia<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(I&#8217;d put \u00e6 on the list, but fear they may be full-on chaotic evil.)<\/p>\n<p>My own explanation of what happened next is that the online community became polarized between the sort of people who refer to their ideological opponents (sarcastically) as <i>social justice warriors<\/i> and the sort of people who refer to those other people (unironically) as misogynist <em>trolls<\/em> and <em>harassers<\/em>. Broadly speaking, the pro-social justice folks pushed for incorporating more feminist ideas, values, and taboos into the atheist movement, while the other group pushed back. Many who felt caught in the middle fled to higher ground, refusing to engage with known hot-button issues. Others fled the field altogether, choosing to refocus on less controversial activities such as video gaming or reading comics.<\/p>\n<p>There are relatively\u00a0few\u00a0useful lessons to be drawn from studiously rubbernecking the four-year-long online\u00a0atheist train-wreck, and nothing new, of course. We already knew from the <a href=\"http:\/\/lesswrong.com\/lw\/lt\/the_robbers_cave_experiment\/\" target=\"_blank\">Robber&#8217;s Cave experiment<\/a>\u00a0(which took place about three hours\u00a0east of OKC) that it is terribly easy to spark an intergroup conflict, basically all you need is some way to distinguish the\u00a0two groups and finite resources to squabble about. We already knew from <a href=\"http:\/\/lesswrong.com\/lw\/lr\/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs\/\" target=\"_blank\">various disparate observations<\/a>\u00a0that an ideologically cohesive group may\u00a0become ever more emotionally intense and dogmatically unyielding as moderates and contrarians drift away from the core in-group in the wake of a shock to the system. We should have been able to predict the formation of mutually anathematizing\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/wiki.lesswrong.com\/wiki\/Cultishness_attractor#Echo_chamber\" target=\"_blank\">echo chambers<\/a>\u00a0as a result of all the usual in-group biases reinforced by\u00a0a sort of siege mentality on both sides.<\/p>\n<p>We&#8217;ve reached the point today when some people on both sides of the ongoing\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/ohthehumanityofitall.blogspot.com\/2012\/07\/deep-rifts-or-humanity-of-it-all-part-1.html\" target=\"_blank\">deep rifts<\/a>\u00a0actively avoid engaging in\u00a0dialogue\u00a0with\u00a0people who are perceived\u00a0as being on the other side, to the point where even thoughtful attempts at structured discourse are <a href=\"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/notung\/2013\/04\/04\/the-atheist-skeptic-dialogue-will-fail\/\" target=\"_blank\">foredoomed to fail<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>There may be a note of hope in the outcome of the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Realistic_conflict_theory#Robbers_cave_study\" target=\"_blank\">Robber&#8217;s Cave study<\/a>, though. Sherif and his colleagues found that harmonious\u00a0intergroup relations may be restored &#8220;in the presence of superordinate goals that promotes united, cooperative action&#8221; to solve a problem facing both groups. We skeptics, secularists, and freethinkers should have no shortage of those to work on, together,\u00a0if only we choose to do so.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Anniversaries are as good a time as any to pause, reflect, and take stock of the situation. By my reckoning,&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":3071,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,21,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism","category-atheism-plus","category-slymepit"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3364\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3071"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}