Elevatorgate... Rebecca Watson (that Wiki link includes a summary of the elevator incident as well), founder of Skeptchick.com and semi-popular atheist blogger/vlogger, was a guest at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin. She gave a speech that apparently painted a misogynistic view within the atheist community and how women are under represented and the men treat the women who are there lowly. She was in the hotel bar with some friends after and at 4am announced she was going to bed. She got on the elevator and some guy followed her on. She says he cornered her and asked her if she wanted to come to his room for some coffee. She felt very uncomfortable and turned him down. She then made a blog post and video saying that you shouldn't approach a girl alone in an elevator and proposition her, and that was inappropriate behavior. From there elevatorgate blew up. Some accused her of over reacting, that it was just coffee, others pointed out it was "coffee" in his room at 4am. Many big names in the community took sides, and eventually even Richard Dawkins came out against her. It mostly fell across gender lines, many women noted how few women were at these conventions and pointed to the whole thing as an example of why, while many men said it was just coffee and one couldn't infer anything beyond that. There were notable exceptions on both sides, but the whole thing occupied the atheist blogsphere for a while.
If you look up atheist elevator incident on Google, you'll find lots of opinions and parodies of the incident. A large part of the community thought it was an over reaction, while the largest part of the community just got tired of it all. I personally was in the later category, but I do think it was inappropriate to ask her to his room, and she had a right to feel creeped out. Had he asked her to the hotel's restaurant/cafe and she reacted the way she did, then I would see the other point of view, but he asked her to his room. They didn't know each other, so I can see how that would be seen as odd... as a matter of fact I have a hard time seeing how anybody sees it as perfectly normal and okay, but a large part of the community did, or at least felt she over reacted to it (although it didn't appear she overreacted at first, it was after the community started reacting to it that the reactions started getting out of control on both sides).
Anyhow elevatorgate finally settled down, but still remains a hot button issue, hence the joke about elevators being a touchy subject at the end.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^RFlagg:
Loved and agreed with all of it. I also liked the "elevators are a touchy thing right now" at the end... a bit of an insider thing for the atheist community (and for the record I was largely on her side).

Do tell. No--really do.
I'm not familiar with the inside stuff.

Calling her a skank: completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Whether or not she is a skank has nothing to do with the validity of her opinion.

I think she would completely understand her well-deserved abasement. She's a professional a-hole and is probably used to being called out.

Who said she is bigoted towards Christians? I'll have to watch it again, but I believe she accused Bachman of bigotry, not all Christians.

The bukyak said, "Suck it, Jesus," demonstrating her bigotry.

Percentages of Christians and gays: totally irrelevant. Why does this matter in the slightest? It has nothing to do with whether Bachman is right, or even whether Christians or gays are right.

It matters to anyone refusing to accept tyranny from a minority. Notice how people in our "free" society may reject Christianity, but not homosexuality? If being gay is a "choice" then it's the choice of very few people. Homosexuality is likely a matter of genetics; if a "homosexual gene" is discovered, how many prospective parents would switch it "off" in their unborn baby? My guess would be 99.99%.

In sum, your comment is completely worthless. Please refrain from making further comments if they aren't going to have some minimal value.

You're free to upvote or downvote these comments. I understand the shock, lefties aren't used to hearing other points of view. If it's too much, you're free to refrain from internets.

Nail on the head. Hitchens, Harris, Maher, et al are the cranky sub-culture of atheism. I've discussed a myriad of issues with people of many different perspectives - religous or otherwise - and it cannot be argued that there are people in all camps who are the loud, noisy, pushy, somewhat 'out there' advocates for whatever cause or other.

I see a lot of folks trying to say that is OK. Clearly that is a defensive reaction spurred primarily by personal bias. If the shoe was on the other foot, and some "Fundie" preacher was saying the same stuff about Theism, then I very much doubt that guys like Crackers would be so quick to be apologists for it.

Bmacs27 said it well. When having a discussion, it is important to try and be respectful even if you disagree. It's tough to do that when one of the participants is openly hostile, beligerent, and unwilling to listen to other points of view AKA Harris. People who are religious commit this error all the time, and are rightfully called to the carpet on it. If a person really is religious, how can it possibly be said that God would approve of them entering a discussion with that sort of mindset and outlook? Likewise - how can you take an atheist seriously when he carps about the 'bad behavior' of people of faith, and yet behaves like an uncultured boor every time he opens his mouth?

Physicians - heal thyselves.

Too often, I've found that atheists have this smug superior attitude towards people who are religious and im kinda fed up with it. It's no different from the smug superior people who think they're going to heaven and I'm not. I've known too many people who are religious who are decent good people who aren't fundie whackos who take a hard religious line. The vast majority of religious people are decent people just trying to make a living and do NOT suspend logic when confronted with a reasonable argument and/or proof.

Amen. That's where the 'cranky atheist subculture' really just goes off the tracks. Like most folks with a biased axe to grind, they cherry-pick isolated, unrepresentative examples out of large populations and portray them as the norm. It is the same bull that MSNBC and FOX infotainers routinely pollute discourse with.

>> ^EMPIRE:

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general;
It doesn't say "lacking knowledge by choice". An ignorant is still an ignorant, doesn't matter if forced to it or by choice. Uganda has a high illiteracy rate, which I'm sure says a lot about this.
Lack of education is at the root of all problems.

>> ^robbersdog49:
>> ^EMPIRE:
Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"

No. Another country on the list of countries run by closed circles of people. We live in coutries with free press, where we get to hear the other point of view. Just think of how much of your world view is formed by what you see in the press. You now have a good idea of how things are in Uganda, but I'm betting you've never been there and seen it with your own eyes. Your view is from what you see/hear in your free press.
Now imagine you live in a country without a free press. How do you know it's not free? You're being told it is. Your world view is being shaped every step of the way. You're being told what to think, but here's the worst bit: You probably don't realise you're being told what to think.
The people in power are constantly shaping the way a nation thinks. It isn't fair to say the people are ignorant. They aren't given the chance to ignore anything. You make your comment because you don't like the way a group of people are being so obviously discriminated against. And yet your comment is discriminating against Ugandans who you've never met and who's views you don't know.
Discrimination like this is a bad thing, let's all stay away from it.
To be clear, I'm not saying this guy is right in any way at all. I'm just saying that all we know is that these are his views. You don't know what is going on in Uganda, so don't tar all Ugandans with the same brush.



Ok, I mistook the feeling behind your original post. You should know though that in general use, ignorant is not a neutral term, it's derogative. It usually implies a negative feeling toward the person being described as ignorant. You are entirely correct that the dictionary definition you've found is right, but you must understand the context. Maybe you should explain yourself better in the future when using terms that could be misleading or give people the wrong idea.

Please don't claim you don't understand that the word ignorant is usually used as an insult, we're all cleverer than that here.

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general;

It doesn't say "lacking knowledge by choice". An ignorant is still an ignorant, doesn't matter if forced to it or by choice. Uganda has a high illiteracy rate, which I'm sure says a lot about this.

Lack of education is at the root of all problems.


>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^EMPIRE:
Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"

No. Another country on the list of countries run by closed circles of people. We live in coutries with free press, where we get to hear the other point of view. Just think of how much of your world view is formed by what you see in the press. You now have a good idea of how things are in Uganda, but I'm betting you've never been there and seen it with your own eyes. Your view is from what you see/hear in your free press.
Now imagine you live in a country without a free press. How do you know it's not free? You're being told it is. Your world view is being shaped every step of the way. You're being told what to think, but here's the worst bit: You probably don't realise you're being told what to think.
The people in power are constantly shaping the way a nation thinks. It isn't fair to say the people are ignorant. They aren't given the chance to ignore anything. You make your comment because you don't like the way a group of people are being so obviously discriminated against. And yet your comment is discriminating against Ugandans who you've never met and who's views you don't know.
Discrimination like this is a bad thing, let's all stay away from it.
To be clear, I'm not saying this guy is right in any way at all. I'm just saying that all we know is that these are his views. You don't know what is going on in Uganda, so don't tar all Ugandans with the same brush.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"


No. Another country on the list of countries run by closed circles of people. We live in coutries with free press, where we get to hear the other point of view. Just think of how much of your world view is formed by what you see in the press. You now have a good idea of how things are in Uganda, but I'm betting you've never been there and seen it with your own eyes. Your view is from what you see/hear in your free press.

Now imagine you live in a country without a free press. How do you know it's not free? You're being told it is. Your world view is being shaped every step of the way. You're being told what to think, but here's the worst bit: You probably don't realise you're being told what to think.

The people in power are constantly shaping the way a nation thinks. It isn't fair to say the people are ignorant. They aren't given the chance to ignore anything. You make your comment because you don't like the way a group of people are being so obviously discriminated against. And yet your comment is discriminating against Ugandans who you've never met and who's views you don't know.

Discrimination like this is a bad thing, let's all stay away from it.

To be clear, I'm not saying this guy is right in any way at all. I'm just saying that all we know is that these are his views. You don't know what is going on in Uganda, so don't tar all Ugandans with the same brush.

Hah,
QM, my friend, I am NOT a lefty. I am a libertarian. I think both Bush and Obama have major flaws. Unfortunately, our bicameral government requires us to choose one of these polarizing extremes. Both parties are worthless in my book, but thank you for judging me so quickly.

I don't disagree with you because of your party alignment; I disagree with you because of your heavily skewed opinion. Your claim so far is that if it is from your party, it must be good/right and if it is not, it's bad. That's a life of a simpleton, regardless of affiliation.

With all due respect,

- MS

>> ^quantumushroom:

QM,
If we put a NOT chip in your keyboard, your statements will be absolutely right all the time.
Like any good lefty, you're shocked to discover there are other points of view. NOT your fault.
Perfesser Stalin Q. Marx never told you there were any.

QM,
If we put a NOT chip in your keyboard, your statements will be absolutely right all the time.

Like any good lefty, you're shocked to discover there are other points of view. NOT your fault.

Perfesser Stalin Q. Marx never told you there were any.

1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. The Constitution isn't being overridden, there's nothing in it about marriage either way. No one political party has the patent on hypocrisy. The legitimate State exists to preserve rights and protect private property, and since marriage is a legal contract it IS the State's business, and still would be even under the flawed 'marriage privatization' libertarian model.

2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Is one of the two major political movements more concerned with actual consequences than the other? Yes. The Right defends traditional values, for better or for worse. Why? To be mean? Or is it because 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail?

Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.

The left has no real idea what the ultimate effects of legalizing gay marriage will be. We're talking 30 years of sketchy, activist-driven data versus 5000 years of history, during which no lasting society or moral thinker--religious or otherwise--condoned gay "marriage". It could be harmless, or it could turn the legal system and society on its ear. What personally ticks me off is if gay 'marriage' proves harmful to society, the left will deny it and try to hide the evidence.

3. Marriage is not about children. A rather large part of it is. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? No, but if the left cannot admit that two loving parents are better than one, then once again we are mired in intellectual dishonesty and the disavowal of common sense.

Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

Society has a right to define what relationships it values the most. If society decides one man/one woman legally bound works the best, then it has the the right to place that union on a pedestal. Gays like to make this all about them and how they're being persecuted over a "right" that IS new, but there is a line out the door and circling the block twice of relationship configurations society will also not place on "the pedestal".

Like a great number of Americans--though obviously not a majority--I couldn't care less about what gays do in their personal lives, but nor will I pretend there are no consequences for legitimizing 3% of the populations' will over the other 97%.

Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.

I don't expect agreement here, just acknowledgment that there are other points of view, thoughtful and well-intentioned.














>> ^MaxWilder:

QM,
1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. I love how Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything. Except the bedroom. And a woman's womb. And the science lab. And where certain buildings are placed. And... well the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. The simple fact is the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. It is between the individuals involved, and no one else.
2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.
3. Marriage is not about children. You can have children without getting married. You can get married without ever having children. You can raise a child alone, or with a vast extended family in the house. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

I would say the point that you are missing is the point which you already made in your quote below: religion does not turn people into mindless slaves; they are quite capable of thinking for themselves. People can choose to be mindless slaves if they so wish--to anything: a political ideal, nationalism, capitalism, etc.--not just religion. You seem to blame religion for people's tendencies to want simple answers and to blindly follow authority, but I blame human nature for that.

Criticizing things that are wrong is fine. No, it is not okay for people to hate homosexuals or deny them equal rights to other people--and it is particularly wrong to do so on the basis of one's religious beliefs. The people that do so claim their religion forbids this, but when you look at the issue closely you find that really this view is at odds with what, for instance, the religion actually preaches. The original message has been twisted to suit the needs of those who want some sort of justification for their hate.

For instance, I'm not a Biblical scholar myself, but I do know that the passages the right-wing Christians quote when they denounce homosexuality are vague at best, and certainly any interpretation that calls for violence against homosexuals flies in the face of the dominant message of the Bible which is summed up by the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you (which I've been fascinated to find exists in one form or another in every single one of the major world religions--including the Far Eastern ones).

But even going beyond the actual messages of the major religions, I think you are unintentionally ignoring the great benefits that religious belief provides to society (and the individual worshipers themselves)--the community building, the volunteer work, the social work, and the spiritual fortitude provided in times of challenge. Religion changes people, and in my experience that change is almost always for the better--a change away from being self-centered to thinking about others. A change away from separating oneself from society to participating in making it better. And most importantly, a change towards happiness. I am not claiming religion is the sole method of bringing about these changes--only that I haven't seen you acknowledge them in any of your posts about religion.

You are free to believe what you like--in no way am I saying you must subscribe to a particular religion. However, I think it is always better to keep an open mind. Several of your posts have come across as degrading to religious people--as if you are somehow smarter than they are or more enlightened or figured out some secret that they haven't yet. I just want to point out that it is probably just as annoying for you when some (misguided) religious person looks at you in pity because you don't subscribe to their particular religion. Such attitudes I think foster only more misunderstandings and division. Approaching things with an open mind and engaging in respectful dialogue, I believe, is the way to bring about peace between the many divisions we see in the world around us. That means acknowledging, and not belittling, others points of view.

So, when I said "I think you're missing out," I meant several things. I think if you talked sincerely with some moderately religious people, you'd find they're not all insane zealots who blindly follow what their religious teacher or text tells them--that religion is indeed a living, breathing, social construct. I think you'd see a lot more of the positive things that religion can bring to both individuals and society. And if you're studying the world's major religions and philosophies and thinking about how you can use the messages they contain to make the world a better place, then in my opinion you are practicing religion. The dominant message I see in the world's major religious traditions is that we should continue to improve ourselves and the world around us (through, for one example, forgiveness). If believing in something supernatural helps people take that message to heart, I'm not convinced it is such a bad thing.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:


I'm guessing they decide the exact same way I decide. By thinking for themselves.

that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.

I am not one who is threatened by hearing other points of view. Have no fears concerning my mental status. I recommend that you yourself also do not have any need to feel threatened when I point out that some of what you call 'historical context' is - in fact - personal opinion and interpretation.

a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection

No argument. That's government's only real role in this matter.

when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.

I will argue again that the real issue here is not 'corporations buying legislators'. The problem is corrupt legislators. Companies can't 'buy' what isn't 'for sale'. Again - your argument when you strip away the rhetoric is not against companies. Your argument is one that calls for greater limits on government.

you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations

Specifically, I have claimed that no company controls my life. And they don't.

if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie

To accurately (though informally) describe persons of a specific political philosophy.

it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.

Please supply your sourcing for this claim. If 80% of lending was 'fraudulent' as you claim, there would be massive prosecutions going on. There are no such prosecutions, because the lending agencies were (in fact) operating within the law. In harsh reality, many of the so-called 'predatory' lending tactics were encouraged by the federal government for the express purpose of increasing the number of people with homes (see repeal of Glass-Steagal).

when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice

Yes - by changing the political system so that politicians are held accountable for their actions. By not allowing politicians to pass laws without full disclosure, 75% full congressional majority votes, and tons of other restrictions that would prevent them from being able to influence the system. The problem is not companies. The problem is politicians who are never held accountable.

All political offices should have a single term limit, and then the candidate is banned for life from all political activity except voting in congresional & presidential elections. Politicians should not be elected. They shoudl be randomly drawn up for service akin to jury duty. All laws should require a 75% majority vote of the entire congress before passing. Only one law should be allowed per bill - no 'omnibus' bills. If some 'bad event' happens that is tied to the passage of a specific law, then all the politicians who voted for that law should be the ones held responsible. And on and on...

I've literally got a BILLION great ideas along these lines of "How to stop corporations from influencing the political system by imposing limits on politicians."

Also, WP, you've just illustrated that you haven't the foggiest what Keynes' economic ideas actually were. So yeah, I guess it would be too much to ask to learn to spell the name of Keynesian school of economics (which Obama's administration isn't about, anyway).

Any fool can say "yeah - you don't know what you're talking about". That isn't an argument. That's a cop out, and I dismiss such pithless verbosity as the vapid denial of a person who doesn't like the fact that their ideas have been accurately described. Please elicudate exactly how I misapplied the term by applying it to Obama. I can literally write pages and pages describing exactly how Obama is Keynesian. What reasoning do you have that he isn't? You're going to have a tough row to hoe because you are simply mistaken. From wiki...

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector... Keynesian economics has provided the theoretical underpinning for the plans of President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other global leaders to rescue the world economy.

Furthermore, your "you either support our big @$$ government solution or you are an evil bastard" mentality that neolibs put forward is such a bold-faced hypocritical lie and distortion of current events and 8-year-old history that I'm left wondering whether you're a relative to the Cheney family.

See - you follow the same school of debate that typical neolibs do. "You disagree with me so you must be a relative of Cheney..." The entire Obama and Democrat position to date has been one where they ignore other points of view, belittle opposing positions, and demonize opponents. Standard Saul Alinsky stuff. I phrased the neolib position bluntly, but accurately. This video is a shining example of the tactic. They ignore the many other things Republicans do to address issues, and instead insult them as cruel, evil summbiches for not supporting the neolib big government solutions of massive federal spending programs.

I think you're mad not because I'm inaccurate. I think you're mad because I'm adacious enough to tell the truth accurately.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'vegetarians, meat, extinction, other point of view, mitchell, webb' to 'vegetarians, meat, extinction, other point of view, mitchell, webb, mushroom risotto' - edited by ponceleon

QM How do you get that tiny font when you leave comments? Mine is always too large for my tastes.

Who knows? The small-minded are afraid of big words?

For the record, I don't support intelligent design, but that wasn't my point, was it? When the government controls what your children learn, you and your values are effectively out of the loop and ignored. Those bureaucrats can make up whatever shit they like about any subject and there's nothing you can do about it. You should try getting a hold of your local schools' curriculum. I bet you won't be allowed access to it.

I think Stephen Colbert put it best: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Colbert is a moron paid to read others' words. You do know he's not a real newscaster? (Then again, neither are most newsliberals).

If reality has a liberal bias, then why does an equality of outcomes (not opportunity) and political correctness have to be pushed so hard by government indoctrination centers, kollijes, the mainstream media and Hollywood? Why do those many, many OTHER points of view have to be mocked and silenced by groupthink liberals?

Perhaps liberalism can't compete in the marketplace of ideas. Like hard communism, modern liberalism's Communism Lite is a glurge of wonderful theories spoiled by reality.

Ok, for fun, I decided to go through this rambling to find actual examples of such behavior. Care to fill this in Winstonfield_Pennypacker?

1.apalling lack of grace
2.insults other points of view
This is from when he joked and insulted Nancy Reagans childish superstitions?

3.Opposing agendas labeled with propogandistic slurs
Hmm, I believe thats called being rhetorical, or did you have a specific example in mind?

4.gets angry with media when they ask him 'real' questions.
Is this when he said, "Look, I just came down to say hi" to the press corp in the white house, and then held the actual press conference later?

5.wails doom and gloom and uses scare tactics.
Was this when he assured everyone that there were WMD's in Iraq, and connections to al-qaeda? Wait.. wasnt that some other guy?

6.Breaks a promise.
Wait, you got one here, the lobbyist he hired. Right. I'm busted I guess, a politician who breaks a promise. What has the world come to?

7.He hides substantive errors in judgement with glib dismissals.
Again, I think you mixed him up with that white, older guy from Texas.