The Racial Divide

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I don't know. It's a good question: how broad and sweeping the gulf? So long as we have drastic differences in such measures as income and incarceration rates, I suppose the chasm would have to remain fairly wide, even if you do have a more racially diverse mix at the top of the social order.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This is exactly the problem with "perception = reality" thinking and why I object to such arguments and their relationship to emotional thinking. The problem with treating such anecdote as data - especially when it comes to a lot of this atheism stuff - is that it creates a situation where people believe things are a bigger issue than they actually are. Not so much unlike this (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/3799801.html).

Should we dictate policy based on how people feel the chasm is, or based on what the chasm actually is? It seems like a no-brainer to me, at least.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

or based on what the chasm actually is?

Do you believe there is an objective answer? Personally, I don't think we are completely lost in subjectivism, since we all generally share the same values and interests, such that, again, income and incarceration rates, for instance, really do mean something, in that we should be able to agree that big differences in these meaningfully suggest a wider chasm.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In many cases, yes, there is a objective answer. Take dexeron's example above - if there's complaints about harassment, and a significant number of people begin asking for a response, but the actual "problem" is a handful of isolated incidents, is it a call for significant action? Logically, we should say no. That's not how "social justice" works, though.

In the cases we cannot come to an objective answer, however, I'm not sure there's ever an appropriate response. Unfortunately, the cries of "do something" are always going to be louder, and no one wants to come across as [insert label here]-ist, so...

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Is there some benchmark, some minimum value that things like harrassment must rise above before something is done about it? Do we simply ignore it when it exists below that level?

Keep in mind, all that was being asked for by those complaining was a more clearly defined set of rules, an anti-harassment policy similar to those in place in almost every other type of convention. The response of those in charge, which eerily mirrors yours, was for a long time: "Ehhh, it's just some isolated incidents, you're overreacting." Then it was: "Well, here's one person who hasn't experienced it, hence none of you have." Then, finally, they were forced to acknowledge that it actually was a widespread problem, beyond just some "isolated incidents."

But why not just adopt an easy to understand, comprehensive policy from the beginning? Why the digging in of heels and refusal to address something that was going on if the only rationale is "it's not going on ENOUGH for us to really care?"

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Is there some benchmark, some minimum value that things like harrassment must rise above before something is done about it? Do we simply ignore it when it exists below that level?

Should we have the same response whether a situation is isolated or systemic? That's what it comes down to for me - when you start treating isolated issues as systemic ones, you're exchanging one allegedly hostile environment for the creation of a new one that ends up being unwelcoming for everyone who isn't aligned with whatever social flavor of the week is in.

Keep in mind, all that was being asked for by those complaining was a more clearly defined set of rules, an anti-harassment policy similar to those in place in almost every other type of convention.

That was the message, yes. By no means was there anything to believe that it would end there, or that the proper protections would be in place for the accused. We don't need more Adria Richards-types.

But why not just adopt an easy to understand, comprehensive policy from the beginning? Why the digging in of heels and refusal to address something that was going on if the only rationale is "it's not going on ENOUGH for us to really care?"

Policy for the sake of policy is never a good thing. If it's an isolated situation, there's no need to overreact. If it's systemic, then you do something about it.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Combining post replies into one thread:


Re: Rebecca Watson. Dude. Lol. Elevatorgate? Maybe look up what Rebecca Watson ACTUALLY said with regards to the incident (and then the response from the thousand agreived dudebros who read way too much into that response) and then reconsider what your sources are with regards to your perceptions on the harassment going on at skeptic conventions.

Here's a hint: she said, in effect: "Hey, it was kind of creepy. Guys, don't do that." That's it.

-

Re: your post just above this one

This is just rationalization of the refusal to address bad behavior, couched in fancy sounding faux-thoughtfulness. "We mustn't overreact! We must be careful in our responses!" Which is about as useful as "I'll pray for you!" and translates to "We're not actually going to do anything. Status-quo ahoy!" In other words, a way to say something (because saying nothing equates to implicit approval) without actually having to go to any effort to address the problem.

It's also the rhetorical equivalent of spitting in the face of every woman who has been harrassed at these conventions. "Oh, you're just overreacting, honey." "Maybe you're only seeing such negative feedback because you're being so negative yourself!" "Maybe you were leading those guys on?" "Are you sure you're remembering what happened correctly?" "Are you just making this up?"

Yea, sorry, no, and here's the line

---

beyond which I can no longer engage in rational discussion, because I'm sorry, but that kind of bullshit pretend-thoughtfulness attempting to mask privilege-blinded self-serving status-quo championing is too shitty for me to just sit and keep politely saying: "Well, I respect your opinion, but..."

Nope.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And yet this is a firm demonstration of exactly the problem being posed. There cannot be a dialogue, because a dialogue isn't desired. Instead, we go with the feelings of a group that claims to be aggrieved, and then paint the other side with whatever handy brush exists to avoid actually engaging with the issue.

I mean, to your credit, you note that you can't engage in a rational discussion on it. Many others actually believe the "feels are reals" style of justice is actually rational. But let's not pretend this is trying to find a solution to a problem. What it is, and what we're doing, is dismissing the questions in favor of the already-conceived answer, whether the facts and reality support it or not.

It's no wonder so many people have a problem with me when this is the fight that's being waged. I, for one, don't think "give up and go home" is a good answer.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

But let's not pretend this is trying to find a solution to a problem

Are you going to admit there is a problem?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

for some things, the cost-benefit analysis just doesn't matter.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

With regards to the atheist thing, the problem is that those in a position to dictate policy are more willing to listen to folks who say: "Well, -I've- never experienced that kind of harrassment" over those who report it, when all that is proved is that "this one person didn't experience it." To then make blanket policy decisions that ignore evidence to the contrary is foolish, at best.

Likewise, I think some are not willing to listen to folks who claim a wider "racial chasm" (or whatever we're calling it) because it's more convenient to listen to folks who haven't experienced that, and pretend that this completely disproves the existance of all other experiences.

Does this mean that there aren't folks who find it politically convenient to over-emphasize the width of the chasm? Of course not, but even so, the fact that we're even having this discussion is good evidence that the chasm at the very least exists, and as such, is something worth addressing.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Of course not, but even so, the fact that we're even having this discussion is good evidence that the chasm at the very least exists, and as such, is something worth addressing.

Or, conversely, that the voices have become loud enough, and they have enough activist support, that they can actually influence people into believing the chasm exists, regardless of whether it does or not.

The atheist thing really hit me (beyond the fact that I'm active in atheist communities) because it fed into already-existing complexes. Atheists have a persecution thing (and largely for good reason), tend to be left wing, and tend to have other minority-viewpoint ideas about social justice. It was absolutely no surprise that some were very loud about alleged harassment, and were able to push their viewpoints on the matter, regardless of the true extent of the problem, into something more significant and look like yet another example of whatever privilege argument is in season.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

And many folks who tend to be very careful about falling victim to such complexes reported the same problems, and were pointing out the issue. On what are you basing your belief that the "true extent" of the harrassment problem wasn't worth addressing, and how does your belief override the numerous and ongoing complaints from women on the receiving end of such harrassment? Were they all imagning it? Were they making it up? Please clarify, because I think you're seriously misinformed here.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm disputing that there was a systemic harassment problem to begin with. That the highest-profile one was Rebecca Watson a few years ago who felt "harassed" because she was asked for coffee in an elevator should tell us something about the extent of the "problem."

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

That the highest-profile one was Rebecca Watson a few years ago who felt "harassed" because she was asked for coffee in an elevator should tell us something about the extent of the "problem."

Actually, not so much. First, some clarification on your simplistic description. Everyone present knew that she was recently married, so why the invite? Also, the dude was drunk and respecting her personal boundary space about as well as drunk dudes tend to. "Nearly groped with no exit available" is more apt a description.

That said, it was what happened after the incident that matters more. Initially, she simply named the guy who did it and said—quite reasonably, I think—"Guys, don't do this. It's creepy and won't get you any dates." It would not have been a problem had it gone that far.

What followed her speech defined the depth of the problem, not the incident and her response. She was deluged by dismissals and outright hostility, everything from "Oh, come on, don't be so sensitive, baby," to "I doubt this is worth pursuing at all," to "Bitch doesn't know how to take a compliment," to "how dare the C name that guy!" We're not talking about dweebs in the peanut gallery, either; the president of the JREF and Richard Dawkins joined the chorus of "Shut the fuck up, bitch" (in so many words). It continues to this day over at the SGU fora.

Why did this happen? I honestly don't know; but I suspect that a gathering of scientifically-minded and careered men, already insecure because of the public's perception of nerd dweebs and the date-ability thereof, combined with the agnostic/atheism they share that has been the target of so much wrath itself has created a perfect storm of male insecurity, one that denies any mention that a man's advances toward any woman can be seen as "creepy."

Throw in a crowd that on top of that shares faaaaaar too little public contact and interaction (too much lab time; couch geeks) and the very idea that the self-perception they hold dear might resemble the comics they read and not the social reject they are must trigger no end of denial, much of it angry.

I see no reason why this cannot happen in race discussions, except with more deadly results.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Everyone present knew that she was recently married, so why the invite?

I think it was assumed as such. I certainly had no idea when the situation blew up, and that doesn't necessarily mean anything anyway these days.

Also, the dude was drunk and respecting her personal boundary space about as well as drunk dudes tend to. "Nearly groped with no exit available" is more apt a description.

Weird presentation of the situation as described, no?

Why did this happen? I honestly don't know; but I suspect that a gathering of scientifically-minded and careered men, already insecure because of the public's perception of nerd dweebs and the date-ability thereof, combined with the agnostic/atheism they share that has been the target of so much wrath itself has created a perfect storm of male insecurity, one that denies any mention that a man's advances toward any woman can be seen as "creepy."

Or, conversely, understandible anger at blowing a situation up that didn't even need to be mentioned, let alone highlighted to become a thing. Because the story was certainly told with a specific motivation in mind, with knowledge of her audience.

I see no reason why this cannot happen in race discussions, except with more deadly results.

Much like the worst way to talk about race is to call those who disagree racists, so too is it automatically hostile to label otherwise innocent, albeit arguably inappropriate, situations as "creepy" with that sort of audience.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

who felt "harassed" because she was asked for coffee in an elevator

Hey Jeff, don't take this the wrong way, but I find you intriguing. Let's goto a hotel room at 4am "for coffee" next time you're travelling alone, okay?

Nothing creepy about that...I mean, if someone creeped on my wife, asked her to his room at 4am in a elevator when she was travelling alone, my first response wouldn't be to chastise her for feeling uncomfortable about it for christsake.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

An honest person might admit there's a difference between simply "felt harassed because she was asked for coffee in an elevator" and acknowledging that a drunky person in a confined space asking her to come have coffee in his hotel room might be construed as creepy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, but my first response wouldn't be to call him creepy, either. Nor, for that matter, would it be my instinct to say that discomfort was warranted.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

It's important to remember historical context in terms of society. There's a big difference between asking a friend to pick up a cuppa from the starbucks, for example, and asking a woman you don't know to come to your hotel room when you're both the only people in an elevator. Intimidation -- it's a thing.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

That's why the response was all the more shocking. With that context in mind, Watson's only real reaction was a semi-joking: "Don't be that guy" sort of tagline.

Watson: "Don't be that guy. It's creepy."

Dudebros: "OMG YOU THINK EVERY GUY IS A RAPIST WHY DO YOU HATE MEN."

Watson (and others): "What? Wow, you guys are seriously overreacting, and maybe you might want to look into that."

Dudebros: "OMG WHY ARE YOU OVERREACTING STOP PERSECUTING US YOU FEMINAZIS!"

(and for Dawkins to weigh in with his condesending "stop complaining because Muslim women have it worse" nonsense betrays not only just bad logic, but again, someone weighing in who only bothered to listen to one side, the side that painted Watson as some kind of shrill harridan screaming about all men and making false rape accusations.)

In that context, with that environment, to then be told "we need to be careful that we don't overreact, after all some of these women may be falsely accusing people of harrassment!" or "they may be LOOKING to be offended!", means that this narrative, based entirely in some mythical reactionary dudebro universe, is pretty pervasive, clouding out facts and even logic. It's pretty sad when that kind of defensive knee-jerking at the percieved loss of entitlement can actually make people argue against something as common-sense and simple as the kind of comprehensive (and fair) anti-harrassment policies that have been at place, and worked extremely well, at every other major convention in the country. You'd have to be extremely ignorant of, or willing to intentionally ignore, the context and history behind these issues to even be able to make such an argument with a straight face.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

which is why misogyny is a thing, and "misandry" ain't.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Don't forget the JREF pres weighing in against her, something that prompted PZ to boycott TAM. Not good.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

AT 4AM!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

We are blind (often willfully) to the chasm itself:

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Exactly.