Oh, by the way, "Called it!" July 12, 2011, clearest description, though I had solid inklings on July 8, 2011 in the other thread. I'm sure there are others who can beat that, just wanted to toot my own horn a bit. Anyone got their own 'first called it' links?:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/201 ... ment-97993
Wonderist
July 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I repeat:
I only draw your attention to this because this is actually the whole problem with this entire kerfuffle: Repeated instances of people ‘mind reading’ other people, not treating the other with respect to first clarify one’s assumptions, and then spreading misrepresentations all the fuck over the place as if they were stone cold facts.
Are people still confused as to what this shitstorm is all about? This is it. This is the whole thing. The entire bloody mess boils down to this: Assuming the other guy “doesn’t get it†for nefarious reasons.
That is it.
There is no mystery to this situation. It is the equivalent of high-school drama.
1. Two feminists have a personal disagreement of opinion on a particular ‘hot’ topic.
2. One of them, instead of dealing with it as a difference of opinion to debate, assumes the other one “doesn’t get it†for nefarious reasons (secretly anti-woman and a parrot of misogynist thought). Says as much in a public talk as a snipe.
3. The snipee and her friends rightfully get upset. Minor kerfuffle ensues.
4. The sniper assumes all the people she pissed off are “not getting it†for nefarious reasons. Decides to escalate by posting more snipes at the snipee and another bystander who “doesn’t get itâ€.
5. PZ thinks all this kerfuffle is over the ‘hot’ topic, when it’s really not. But, unaware, he makes a big deal of the ‘hot’ topic. Enormous shitstorm ensues.
6. Random atheists, unaware of how the disagreement of opinion between two feminists has been escalated into a major shitstorm by the sniper feminist, think this is all about the ‘hot’ topic.
7. On the one side are people like Richard Dawkins, who “doesn’t get†why there’s such a huge shitstorm over the ‘hot’ topic, when it seems obvious to him that no harm was done and this shitstorm appears to be an enormous distraction from real issues of feminism.
8. On the other side are people like PZ, who “doesn’t get†why so many people don’t care about the ‘hot’ topic they way they do, when it appears obvious to them that harm was done and this shitstorm is worthy of attention.
9. Both sides “don’t get†why the other side “doesn’t get itâ€. Many of them assume that the other side “doesn’t get it†because they are nefarious evil ne’er do-wells, and they let that be known, adding more shit to the storm.
So, a minor difference of opinion, which should have been discussed rationally by the original two feminists, has been turned into an enormous shitstorm because of so many people’s willingness to react irrationally to disagreement, and assume incorrectly that “They don’t get it, cuz they’re assholes who should be cut down to size, instead of taking them seriously enough to have a rational discussion of the subject.â€
That is all this is.
Had Rebecca Watson respected Stef McGraw enough to discuss the incident with her rationally (note I do not say ‘civilly’), almost nobody would have bothered to get involved, and Richard Dawkins would not be mischaracterized as a misogynist by random media outlets who only care to throw more shit on the storm.
See original for more em
phasis in the
formatt
ing. Didn't copy over.
