Except it’s more like “I heard that businessman punched Timmy in the face”. Timmy has no visible injury but *says *he was punched in the face with brass knuckles. There’s no videotape or any objective proof. Timmy says he met with the businessman on a later occasion after supposedly getting face punched with brass knuckles.
The businessman says he didn’t punch anybody. And other people met with him in private and say they weren’t punched. One says they got slightly slapped. But it wasn’t that bad and they were asking for it. "
People are unreliable witnesses in the best of cases, and you’re talking about 2 parties view of what happened during an emotionally charged, drunken attempt at a hookup in a hotel room usually. And everyone always assumes the worst, that it was exactly like the supposed victim claimed and there were no signals made by the woman that might lead the man into thinking that was what she wanted. Even though these were almost always meetings in intimate settings between adults of age and a man who is a celebrity who probably had successful hookups with 10 other women the same year.
And the reason I mention “brass knuckles” is that if you take these salacious accounts, assume maybe it was a little more tame than described, and you end up with normal behavior.
No. If the accusations are true, we should not continue to listen to him. Others can undoubtedly speak just as well and not harass people. Moreover, by continuing to hire him for events or promote him in interviews, you alienate the people who might agree with atheism and skepticism, but find sexual harassment unacceptable (like myself). You send a message to the women that them being harassed isn’t important to people who set up such events and promote skepticism and so on. You send a message that their comfort or participation isn’t important,. Pretty much that they aren’t as important as the men who harass them.
I thought you said, explicitly, that we were to assume the accusations are all true. It was like your second sentence.
And generally speaking everyone assesses claims based on their own biases. It is, to be frank, really plausible that a man in power exploits that power. Especially when there are several independent claims and the industry they’re in is known for its sexism and power imbalances.
Does this mean that every person guesses correctly when they assess the honesty of their accusers? No. But we’re not talking about a court of law or prison time here. We’re talking about taking business elsewhere. There’s not a high standard of proof for that at the best of times. And in any case, your belief that the accusations are implausible is no more defensible.
Yes the claims of the article are impeached by its viewpoint. Buzzfeed aspires to be a reliable source of news, and shouldn’t have a viewpoint. Yet it demonstrably does.
There is no feminist perspective to skepticism. It has no gender.
No, it isn’t appropriate to pretend that anyone would bring “death and rape threats” into a sensible conversation about policy. Why would anyone give any credence to such nonsense?
I don’t know how to answer the charge of arrogance. Being correct in a gentle way is a quality of politicians, philosophers and healers. Not skeptics. Everybody has their limitations.
nachtmicht, the fact that something makes you feel uncomfortable does not make it untrue. This is a key component of skepticism and rationalism.
As far as I can tell, the statements that you are objecting to are true. There are links to back them up in the article, and they fit with my own observations of the skeptic community. There is indeed a fracturing of the online skeptic community, and it is over a subset that are pushing an anti-social justice, anti-feminist, pro-sexism agenda. I have seen first hand the alt-right atheists coming in and disrupting skeptic communities. It’s a constant struggle for the legitimate skeptics who aren’t pushing this agenda to not allow themselves to be identified with this aspect.
You have heard of the Amazing Atheist, haven’t you? Not only is he an excellent example, with tons of followers who agree with him, but you can also just read about how big an asshole he is. No one can be nice all the time, but that’s not what people mean when they call these people assholes.
Here’s an article from Vice, which is written by an ex-Muslim and his perceptions of the online skeptic community. He even interviews a bunch of other people. And, yes, he’s received threats.
You may want to believe that the skeptic community doesn’t have this problem, but it very much does. Buzzfeed reporting on it shows no more bias than any other news organization which would have mentioned the same thing. Pointing out that Klaus was NOT one of that group makes sense, to show how surprising the allegations are.
To be honest, you seem to be using logical fallacies as an attempt to discredit the article. That’s not very skeptical of you.
I don’t dismiss the article. You were the one who first used the “dismiss” term. I just riffed on that.
I question the journalistic integrity of the article because it did not acknowledge that it was agenda-driven. And it was. No response in this thread has disputed that.
That’s not how I see the disagreement – the way I understand it, some folks want to actively prevent any social justice issues from being a part of atheist organizations and advocacy, and others advocate that they be included. I’m with the second group – I think it’s reasonable and good for atheist/skeptic/non-religious groups to also advocate for good things for society (i.e. social justice). I don’t think it’s about identity, but about these various groups, that the “two sides” disagree on.
I’m not so sure the “bad thoughts” are sexual thoughts per se, but predatory thoughts. The problem isn’t men thinking of women as sexually desirable but thinking of them as prey.
Also in the case of misbehavior towards women among the atheist/skeptic “sausage fest” crowd, they may falling into the fallacy of convincing themselves that* “mine being a rational, scientific mind, my desires and behavior are of course rationally and scientifically justifiable”*. Basically a failure to check privilege.
Or maybe it is about a different sort of identity…
Ideally, an atheist/skeptic/rationalist grouping would be able to *equally *encompass social progressives **and **social conservatives **and **social indifferentists/apathetics alike. But a challenge to open up to social questions and to outsiders may create apprehension among those who fancy themselves a “skeptic community” that they will be forced to pick sides to continue identifying so.
And while out in the believer community, there are hardass conservative-reactionary hellfire&brimstone strict-doctrine fundamentalists, AND fuzzywuzzy progressive-inclusive peace-and-love do-your-own-thing liberal denominations, and everything in between, all calling themselves believers, many skeptic/atheists both inside and outside the establishment would be unsatisfied with an outcome that does not support one position as the rational conclusion.
I happens to women as well. I had an intern who worked for me who had me thinking impure thoughts on a regular basis. But I really hope I never let that on to him, or treated him differently.
And here is a big difference between me at nearly 50 and 22 year old intern and my former 50 year old boss and me as a 22 year old administrative assistant. I NEVER considered his body there for my pleasure, viewing or otherwise. I never thought I was entitled to touch him, or make comments to him (or about him - although I did have to field a few comments about him from other women) about his sexual appeal. I never considered for a single second perhaps implying that his job was at risk if he didn’t put up with my caressing of his biceps. I never engineered an excuse to have him crawl under my desk so I could look at his ass. I never had him work late and then spent the time “showing him” some numbers while looking over his shoulder and breathing in his ear with no one in the office.
Fortunately, I’ve seen all his stuff, and it seems that in the last few years, he’s not had anything original, just repeats of pretty much the same lectures. I used to be a big fan, but not so much anymore. Not because I didn’t like his lectures, just because they weren’t really ever anything new or different than the last.
I do wonder what will become of the Origin’s project. He is certainly very central to that, but it also has a bit of a life of its own.
…how does the fact that “the accusers all are strong believers in social justice” change the facts in the article? Does the fact that I’m a strong believer in social justice mean that I can’t be trusted on certain issues?
I dispute that. What agenda do you think the article had, other than “Lawrence Krauss is a well-known problem”?
And I’m still curious as to what you believe my political views are?
I really hate bumping this thread, but I owe BigT an apology. When I made the comment I was too tired to really address the post and briefly thought that others would understand that I was just acknowledging the points made and punting. I realized pretty quick that no one else would see it that way, but not quick enough to retract my response.
For the record BigT, I think you post a lot of worthwhile content and I don’t dislike you at all.
Laurence Krauss has responded, (warning pdf) in full (very full) to the “article”. Having read both I have put the “article” in quotes because it comes across as a lazy hatchet-job by someone with an agenda rather than anything resembling investigative reporting.
Krauss’s response puts the buzzfeed article to shame in terms of completeness and verifiable facts and the glaring omissions in the Buzzfeed article put it in a bad light. If what he says can be readily confirmed then Buzzfeed are either incompetent or malicious.
In the response Krauss comes across, as he normally does, as an extrovert, garrulous character, liable to strong opinions and occasional arseholishness and I have no doubt he annoys and upsets some people and though I’m a fan of his work I’m sure I’d quickly find him tiresome in person.
So I’m left with no worse opinion of him than when I started and a big mental red flag against Buzzfeed for the future (I hadn’t really come across them much before)