I have absolutely no fear of moderator action in that thread.
Well, I'm not sure that's a justified confidence.
quote:You carry an awful lot of snark and hostility towards people with whom you largely agree
quote:Seriously crash, it's like you read a single phrase of what I quoted and just ignored all of the rest. You noted a single reasonable set of observations and then disregarded all of the outlandish dialogue that was the entire reason for the post. It's like you're a poster child for confirmation bias here.
quote: In any case, I see no point in continuing the discussion with you here - you seem to not even be able to acknowledge that some feminists have extreme views regardless of what I or anyone else says, and it's not really on-topic here anyway, just a small tangent at least in my case.
quote:"Debating" with him ceases to be anything meaningful and diverges wholly into his equivocation and semantic games.
quote:Crash, you are a textbook case of selective vision.
"Selective vision" being a form of intellectual dishonesty; Rahvin is literally calling me a liar here.
For my own part, I apologize that Rahvin's repeated provocations caused me to post a single, intemperate response in a post addressed to someone else.
I was just wondering if, as you'd promised, you'd had a chance to take a look through that thread at how my positions were being misrepresented. As you can see, by now Straggler, Oni, and most especially Hooah have done so at least once each. Hooah has done so on several occasions.
I mean, I'm assuming you said
quote:Tell ya what, and this is diabolical, you'll love it: just clearly state your position again and let me watch everyone lie about you. It's the perfect plan. I'll catch everyone in the act, everyone will get suspended, you'll be happy, I'll be happy, and peace will prevail again at EvC.
in a wry but sincere good faith, and not just as a way to blow me off. Right?
I was trying to get you to lighten up while still making the point that I think you're being paranoid.
Well, ok, but you're wrong. I'm not being paranoid, misrepresentations of my position are actually happening in that thread. Is this the thread where you'd like me to detail each instance?
You in particular I am finding very difficult to understand.
Can you explain the trouble you're having? I explicitly listed the positions I was defending in that thread, in Message 373:
quote:For the record, then, these are the positions I'm defending in this thread, in approximate chronological order:
1) "Elevator Gate" was a far bigger deal to Watson's detractors, who have largely criticized her for things she didn't actually say, than it was to Watson. The controversy surrounding "Elevator Gate" should be properly understood as an issue where movement atheism had an incredibly sexist response to an incredibly mild criticism of a culture that largely pays little heed to the contributions and safety of women at atheist conferences - not as a woman being "perpetually offended" at the mere idea that she might be found sexually attractive.
2) The worst excesses supposedly attributed to feminism - "all sex is rape", etc - are largely either the invention of detractors or legitimate discourse taken completely out of context.
3) Privilege is crucial to understanding forms of bigotry such as racism, sexism, classism, and other "isms"; where one does not have privilege over another, one cannot discriminate against another. That's how we're able to correctly recognize "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a fundamentally racist text and "Stuff White People Like" as fundamentally not racist in any way, the "n-word" as fundamentally racist when white people use it but not when black people do, the word "cracker" as an epithet against white people as not racist in any way, etc. Those that insist that privilege is not central to discrimination and therefore racism are obligated to explain under their model why it's not racist to refer to a white person as a "cracker" or to invoke white stereotypes like "can't dance", "love cheese", etc.
Those are my positions. If you see someone in this thread impart to me a position other than these, without quoting where I've defended that position, that's a pretty good place to start to see if I'm being misrepresented.
So, just starting from the most recent messages and working backward, is
[quote]merely having a certain skin color... in all scenarios, grant[s] universal privilege[/quote]
a position listed in that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 402. Is
quote: the much-discussed elevator incident [is] an act of sexism that isn't misogynistic
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 376. Is
quote:sexism [is] something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 369 and again in Message 376. Is
quote:you think it's a-ok to be racist as long as you aren't white.
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 316 and again in Message 321. Is
quote:You think it's only racism or sexism if someone is offended.
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 312. Is
quote:racism is only racism when white discriminates against black, but not when black discriminates against white?
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 288. Is
quote:elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts"
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 282. And so on.
These are real posts, Percy, I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not being paranoid that I was asked to defend these indefensible positions, I really was. They were put to me as though they were my positions and I was supposed to defend them from challenge. That really, actually happened. It's not paranoid delusion, those posts exist. How can you say that they don't, or that I'm making up what's happening here? In light of this evidence, isn't it just far more likely that you've arrived at your dismissive conclusions without actually having taken a look at what's going on in the thread?
I was looking for clarity about your position, for example, a clear answer to this inquiry from Hooah in Message 379...But I never found it.
How can that possible, when all you had to do was click the little link at the bottom that said "Replies to this message: Message 389 by crashfrog posted 11-23-2012 6:25 PM"? My clear answer is in that reply: Hooah is misrepresenting the context.
I mean, obviously. Think it through. Why would it be the case that I would tell you that I was defending the proposition that racism was when discrimination occurs on the basis of privilege that accrues according to race in Message 294, suddenly defend the absurd proposition that racism was any time discrimination occurs for any reason supposedly in Message 298, and then suddenly switch back to defending the proposition that racism is discrimination on the basis of privilege that accrues according to race in Message 302?
That makes no sense. Clearly, message 298 was in the context of speaking specifically about racism and discrimination on the basis of privilege according to race. Obviously I've never held, nor intended to communicate, the absurd idea that racism is when discrimination happens for any reason at all. I admit that, for sake of brevity, I didn't reference the appropriate context at all times in that thread, and that allowed Hooah an opportunity to completely misrepresent me. But no reasonable person can read that exchange of posts and believe that I hold the view that "racism" is what it's called when discrimination happens for any reason at all.
Not understanding your position, in fact finding it pretty convoluted and for that reason incomprehensible
My position is that "racism" is discrimination on the basis of privilege that accrues according to race, a definition that I've provided in that thread, substantiated by reference to authorities in sociology and critical race theory, and repeated perhaps half a dozen times in that exact language. What's "convoluted" about it? What's "incomprehensible" about it?
Isn't it possible, Percy, that the reason my completely straightforward position seems convoluted to you - like I'm defending a dozen different contradictory positions at once - is that you're trusting my interlocutors to be responding to my posts in good faith without misrepresentation, and they're actually not? Like in the seven examples I have above?
To everyone in that thread: please tone it down a bit or I'll close it for a bit so people can cool down.
As always, as in this post, I'm happy to explain my position and detail precisely how I've been misrepresented in the calmest possible terms. But for some reason, you're only prepared to treat the possibility that I might be right as some kind of joke. Is it possible to have another moderator take a look at this message?
Ah, I see, you're not paranoid because everyone *is* out to misrepresent you.
I don't think everyone is out to get me; it's not my intention to cast a wider net than the specific individuals who, above, I've detailed instances of misrepresentation.
I wish I could help, I really do, but facts and arguments count for little against what people sincerely believe.
Yes, I'm starting to get that sense. For instance, what do you do when someone ignores more than half a dozen examples of precisely the behavior they deny anyone is engaged in?
For example, I have no idea what the qualification about "on the basis of privilege according to race" means in this quote
I mean "discrimination on the basis of privilege according to race" as opposed to "discrimination on the basis of anything at all", the position attributed to me by Hooah in Message 371 when he asked me to address his example:
quote:I'll ask again: is it racism to deny someone a job based on a disability?
Now, it's certainly discrimination to deny someone a job based on their disability, but it's not discrimination on the basis of privilege that accrues according to race. Obviously. It's discrimination on the basis of someone having a disability; when that happens, it's sometimes known as "able-ism."
So when I specify "privilege that accrues according to race", I'm trying to be as specific as possible about what kind of discrimination on the basis of privilege is racism, and what kind is not. When the privilege underlying the discrimination accrues on the basis of race, that's racism. When it accrues on the basis of sex or gender, that's sexism. When it accrues on the basis of socioeconomic status, that's classism. I'm just trying to be as clear as possible because otherwise, Hooah seizes on the ambiguity to misrepresent my position with quotes taken out of context where I appear to be defending absurdly overgeneralized ideas, like any time that discrimination of any kind happens, it's racism.
Don't explain it here, my interest right now is discussion problems, not racism.
Well, ok. The discussion problem we're having right now in that thread is that my opponents are misrepresenting my positions freely, but you refuse to even consider that they might be. I don't require that you immediately come around to my view on this - I appreciate that I'm not in a position to be fully objective, since I'm one of the participants - all I'm asking is that you look at the evidence I presented, see if the positions attributed to me where anything I ever myself asserted, and if not, make a determination about whether the other participants are making an effort to "avoid any form of misrepresentation" as stipulated in the forum guidelines.
I think the best approach would be for you to return to the thread and try once again to make your position clear.
As of Message 416 I feel that I've been as clear as I can possibly be without having a better understanding of the issue you're having. Is it possible that, in that thread and possibly as a reply to that post, you could reply either as Admin or as Percy and let me know how I'm not yet being clear? A list of questions, perhaps, or you could try to restate my position in your own words as you understand it so I could see how I'm being interpreted (or misinterpreted, as the case may be.) My only goal is to communicate clearly, and in my professional life I usually develop a reputation as someone who is able to explain complex concepts clearly, so I'm surprised to learn I'm having such trouble in this instance.
Pretty soon you'll have a whole thread full of brief essays expressing your point of view and making clear what a bunch of lunkheads the other participants must be to not understand such clarity of prose.
Well, but again the issue is not that I'm being misunderstood, but that I'm being misrepresented. Is it possible that your confusion about my position has arisen not because I'm suddenly a tongue-tied communicator - me, with a background in English literature, scientific journalism, and technical communication - but because my positions as I state them, and my positions as reflected in the replies of my opponents, are so different that it looks like I'm defending a confusing mishmash of contradictory views?
Isn't that at least a possibility? And if it was, what kind of evidence would you accept for it?
Well as one of the lunkheads can I just say that I am genuinely not trying to misrepresent Crash and that I do in fact quite enjoy his uncompromising style of debate.
I'd just like to say, Straggler, that I also enjoy debate with people who are prepared to level a full-throated defense of their position, and you're very much one such.
But intentionally or unintentionally, I would ask that I not be expected to defend positions that aren't the ones I hold. I'm prepared to accept that your misrepresentations are unintentional, and for your reference, when I ask you to show me where I said something, that's my signal to you that I believe you're ascribing to me a position I don't hold. If the answer is "oh, I misunderstood, I thought that's what you meant in this post", then by all means say so and I'll take whatever pains are required to express myself more clearly. When genuine misunderstanding occurs, it's my responsibility to address it.
But if others are determined to ascribe to me positions that aren't mine, it's not a matter of expressing myself more clearly. It's a matter of other people being determined to violate the forum guidelines.
You're reading intent where there is none that I can see.
I'm reading intent where it's happening too frequently, and too frequently in the direction where a less defensible position is inaccurately described to me rather than a more defensible position, to be accident.
But, regardless, how much unintentional misrepresentation are you prepared to accept in that thread? Maybe you could offer a guideline.
In other words, you're using your well known propensity for intensely pissing people off as evidence of a conspiratorial vendetta.
Well, hold on. I never said anything about a conspiracy. I don't think people are collaborating against me, I don't think that there is "behind the scenes" plotting going on on or anything like that.
I'm just saying that there's something about my posts - even my completely legitimate, rational, dispassionate ones! - that trigger a disproportionate emotional response in people. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Like, let's use the example of the hackers I seem to have pissed off; as it happens, I know exactly what I said that pissed them off. All I said was that I don't think women should be raped. The guy who showed up and hacked your website wasn't even the guy I was saying it to.
I can't help it if my words have a magic power to drive people to emotional distraction. All I ask is that I not be the only one in the conversation who is subject to the Forum Guidelines.
What I do see is that you are taking up my time with, however significant and important they seem to you, frivolous issues.
Well, look, Percy. I didn't ask you to insert yourself into that thread. I didn't ask you to say that you'd take a look as posts came in to see if I would be misrepresented. I didn't ask you to say that saying that you were going to do so was actually a joke. I didn't ask you to say a "moderator was now on duty" and then decide that actually moderating an issue in progress would be a waste of your time.
I've not asked you to do anything you've done in this thread or the other. Everything I've done has been at your request, so how on Earth are you getting the idea that I'm taking up your time? Honestly, all you had to do was say "misrepresentation in this thread is not something that the moderators are concerned about" and that'd be it. I can't take any more of your time than you're prepared to give me. Say your piece, I'll say mine, and we'll be done. We'd have been done, except that you decided to attribute to me a position I don't actually hold. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'll try to be clearer in the future, consider yourself fully informed about my actual position, now.
quote:Hi Crash, Just a quick off-topic note to tell you to be careful out there. You evidently pissed off some hackers in a discussion about rape, and last week they successfully hacked into EvC Forum for your password. Hopefully you're not using the same password at wherever this discussion was.
quote:The hackers were able to break in because dBoard software had no security features whatsoever. Making the software secure was on my list of things to do before taking the software commercial, but I hadn't gotten to it yet.
So the hackers broke in and gave me a crash course on site security. Thanks to the hackers (and I mean that sincerely - they found security holes I never would have thought to plug), this site's software is now very secure, but unfortunately Politicus Maximus was a casualty. The site still exists, but I disabled it because it has the same insecure version of the software that caused so many security problems here at EvC Forum.
One could reasonably argue that the odds that hackers are going to take any interest in Politicus Maximus is miniscule, but the same was true of EvC Forum. The only reason they came here was because Crashfrog had pissed them off debating abortion at some other site, and so they poked around the web for other websites Crash was using, found this one, broke in, stole his password, discovered he was using a different password at the other site, and so they decided to have some fun here.
All of this was the result of a single post I had made - not one in a series, just a single one-off comment on a thread at one of the Gawker websites, Jezebel I think - saying that women shouldn't get raped.
That was it. I just don't understand how it can be denied that even my reasonable, non-controversial posts cause some kind of dissociation rage in a certain small percentage of susceptible readers.
Well, Crash at the very least you made the argument that it was somehow significant to the idea of Jesus not existing. And that IS batshit crazy.
This is the wrong thread to re-litigate (unfortunately there's no open historical Jesus thread to move this to) but this would seem to be your admission that you were wrong. As your quotes show:
quote:Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.
Right, and that was the argument that I was making - when you assert, as the source of a series of stories about a mythological figure a historical figure who bears no significant similarity to the mythological one, it's insufficient to simply say that the historical figure is the source of the mythological one.
You have to explain why we should believe that the one is the source of the other, when the one doesn't seem to be the source of any of the meaningful characteristics of the other. As I said repeatedly in that thread, and as you repeatedly ignored, asserting that a figure
quote: who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later
is the source of a myth about a figure named Jesus Christ who did miracles, was a carpenter, gave the Sermon on the Mount, magnified the fishes and loaves, was executed by the Romans, and rose from his grave three days later is absolutely every bit as absurd as saying that the historical basis for Santa Claus is a guy named Lou who lives in Brooklyn, doesn't know anything about making toys, and isn't especially fond of children.
It would have been a much more interesting discussion if you had actually ever addressed that argument, which I made a dozen times, rather than forcing me to rebut time after time your inaccurate insistence that I was making an argument that the historical Jesus couldn't have been the historical Jesus unless his name was Jesus.
Please, PaulK, let's not drive this any further off-topic. If you have a reply to this post, please open a "historical Jesus" thread to do so.
Because listing a similarity as a lack of similarity makes no sense whatever.
I don't understand, I guess. Could you start another thread and expand this sentence? It doesn't make any sense to me because I didn't "list a similarity as a lack of similarity" What does that even mean? I'd like you to have the chance to explain but it shouldn't be in this thread.