Steven, if you thought that my argument was in any way intended to promote INsensitivity to women (like Surly Amy), then you completely misunderstood what I was arguing for. It was exactly the opposite: I want MORE sensitivity, beyond these battles in the atheist community. It would be a false dilemma to think that arguing for neutral language in an ethical charter WOULDN’T allow for fighting against harassment. I think Richard understands this too. The middle is where we ALWAYS anchor when it comes to rights. ALWAYS. That means fighting for bringing it to the middle. The activism doesn’t go away, it’s just more firmly grounded- the MOST firmly grounded anti-sexism POSSIBLE. There’s no fighting against it. I’ve spent months reading comments where all the tribes completely fail to recognize their vitriol. You can’t convince anyone that their ‘camp’ is producing hateful language, but I’ve seen so many FUCK YOU!!s from everyone, I’m just sick of it. I’m convinced that deliberately neutral sexual polemics will help provide people with a better anchor, but you have to be really deliberate about it and stick to it. That’s all I’m saying. This is NOT moot, it’s completely relevant to the future of how people behave in ANY community.

Am I the “unreasonable opposition” now? The argument for less polemical language is “moot”? Don’t confuse a contextual battle with the ideal Steven. There’s nothing unreasonable about the phrase “gender equality” and there are more than two sides that are relevant here.

I am saddened to see the very first comment in reply sets out to start another war and others jumping in to fan the flames. Dr Carrier has published a retraction and acknowledged a misunderstanding. Good on that man. I have been following Dr Carrier across various fora for a number of years. I have seen all your “handles” in those same fora. You may or may not have legitimate arguments to make but as I understand what I read here, they are secondary to your actual intent, merely something to legitimate pushing Dr Carrier’s buttons and picking a fight so you can look smug. Stop it. It just makes you look stupid.

Dr Carrier, I reverse myself: having tracked this back through your links here and the links on the posts you linked to, I find the argument of andrewviceroy and my support for it at “Atheism+ : The Name for What’s Happening.” moot. Your anger and the stance you have taken is more than justified. The best is here clearly the enemy of the good enough, I am playing into the hands of the unreasoning and unreasonable opposition, and such will have to wait for quieter and less inflamed times.

An aside: I have just received “Proving History”, the Preface is excellent and alone covers the cost of the book. I will be looking forward to “On the Historicity of Jesus Christ”. Many thanks.

Steven C Watson

Patrick:

My interactions with you in other forums do not lead me to regard you as an honest interlocutor.

That’s ok. My interactions with you do not lead me to regard you as a good judge of who is being honest!

coelsblog:

My interactions with you in other forums do not lead me to regard you as an honest interlocutor.

That said, for the record: I am not accusing Dr. Carrier of being ungracious, or erroneously assigning blame. As my original post should indicate, I merely object to some wording choices. Please don’t attempt to use my semantic objection to cast aspersions on anyone else. It is not appreciated, and I’m only responding to you here because I do not care for any possible imputation that I agree with your position here.

I don’t intend to respond to you further, as, again, I’ve engaged in dialogue with you before and found you to be dishonest and manipulative.

I don’t know what you are referring to. Who are the people that my passionate stand for compassion drove away? Not Dr. Hall. She clearly agrees with what I said about that, and is happy to have made that clear, noting which is the point of this post. So if not her, then who do you have in mind?

Huh? You seem to be out of touch with the context of all this. You also seem from this remark to be an asshole who likes to use insults instead of arguments, operates on imaginary conspiracy theories, and quite fails to grasp the actual point made here, that we should behave like better people (reasonable, honest, and empathic)–but instead, going out of your way not to act like one. Ironically, you just displayed the very behavior you claim here to be denouncing: you don’t even start with being reasonable in your discourse, or with trying to understand the perspective of others, but launch immediately, with your very first comment here, with complete, uncompromising, extremist dismissal, ending in childish insults. Isn’t that the very behavior you think you are against?

I think the contrast between my behavior and yours here stands as a sufficient example of how people should, and should not, behave.

For those who actually care about facts and reasonable discourse: the Novella post has nothing to do with the point I am making here (so this fellow’s trying to suggest I didn’t bring it up for some sort of imaginary nefarious reason is something we call “derailing”). And the remarks of mine he quoted were directed at a whole field of people (as my very post here said; but as should also be clear from the context there), not just one person, much less Hall, and those remarks remain wholly correct for them (and indeed saying things that are correct is not childish), but no longer correct with respect to Hall, who realized how she inadvertently gave the wrong impression–and even explains why, among the reasons she gave even being reference to her lack of skill in detecting the emotional impact of her behavior on others, and her reversal was based on her commitment to the value of compassion, which was precisely the point I was making in the context of the remarks of mine that this fellow just quoted.

Thus, the facts completely affirm my point: we ought to act with compassion and a commitment to the Golden Rule, which includes correcting ourselves when we’re proved wrong. All of which I have done. And Harriet has done. But which many other people still refuse to do. And them I sternly denounce. So should you all.

RE the tech issue: That option is supposed to be there. I’m still trying to figure out why all the functions on my comment form are missing.

I have no doubt that you’re smarter and more educated than I, but there seems to be this over protective bubble around these parts tends to drive away the very people who would normally support your causes.