I don’t share your first criticism. I do think he was busy handling the tech and was rather new to the details of the subject (which is why he had me on in the first place), so he proposed some questions and then relied on his co-hosts for the rest. I didn’t consider any of that unprofessional. That was all fine.

As to the second, only time will tell. It is of course a silly sexist trope to refer to ordinary feminism as extreme feminism, but without details I can’t evaluate that. But I have a lot of experience interacting with people on the sexism spectrum, and the knee-jerk reactions you describe (to try and “correct” me etc.) is a typical cognitive error you can find in anyone, on any subject they feel “confronted” on, so in the interview itself, I didn’t see anything sinister in that, it’s just how cognitive dissonance works. It was how they responded overall that looked more positive to me than Joe’s overall response (the difference you note).

It seemed like he would wait for you to finish speaking, and then rejoin with an “awesome-sauce” to affirm whatever point you were making. It’s possible he was distracted by the technical considerations that go into hosting a show in the format, but the perception I came away with is that he didn’t care what you had to say, which is terribly unprofessional. And his attempt to find common ground on the topic of Jesus’ birthdate furthers this notion, as his seasonal example was several orders of magnitude different than the year discrepancy you were talking about.

I think you’re being charitable upthread by suggesting the co-hosts were more open to being persuaded. The impression I got was they were just waiting for their chance to to spring a “got ya” question on you, if only they could get in a word when Joe took a breath. It looks like one of the co-hosts is in the Youtube comment thread defending the show’s position, and I think might have used the words “extreme feminism” when discussing either you or Rebecca (at work, can’t check). I’d be amused to learn what he thinks feminism is, and then what he thinks make you or Rebecca so extreme

Still, I appreciate your willingness to put yourself out there – especially knowing ahead of time the likelihood of the topic coming up. Good on ya!

Mikael Nilsson (Stockholm U). But don’t trouble him unless you have unique access to documents or family stories connected to the creation and publication of Hitler’s Table Talk. He’s a very busy guy and has enough correspondence to manage as it is. I’ll definitely blog about any research he publishes on this subject.

I’m always impressed by your skill in Q&A. This was another fine example.

I don’t seem to be able to accurately guess the spelling of the name of the Swiss scholar who is following up on your article on Hitler’s Table Talk Could you provide that?

I’d like to keep an eye out for his book.

Thanks!

They also exemplified the have-it-both-ways belief that is so prominent among the enablers that: 1.) the rapey commenters are a trivial portion of the atheist movement and not representative of the group and thus not a substantial problem but 2.) any attempt to condemn their actions, ban them from comments sections or even just acknowledge the negative impact they have on the community is Hitler x Eleventy level Censorship!!1! I’d like, for once, to hear an explanation for what great things the slymers bring to the atheist table that justifies treating them with such kid gloves at the expense of driving away 50% of the population. If they are such a small minority, and everyone agrees that rape threats are bad, why not take measures to make them unwelcome?

[M]en need to be more proactive in encouraging other men to think about and learn these things, and anyone interested in what Rebecca Watson actually said (and how in fact it provides all the information you actually need to know what the right way to approach a woman would have been in her circumstances) should just watch the original video (from minute 2:44 to 6:30, although if you keep listening there’s a funny joke at the end).

Likewise I’d suggest now her very important followup post on her blog (The Privilege Delusion) and her comments (hers, not those of others) on the original video post, which I’ll reproduce here for convenience, with my own emphasis for the key details less considerate readers tend to miss or not understand:

There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment, despite the fact that I had clearly indicated my wish to go to bed (alone) and the fact that the bar had coffee and therefore there was absolutely zero reason to go to anyone’s hotel room to have it. Sure. There’s a chance.

But regardless, the point I was making was that people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger. This person failed to recognize that even though I had been speaking about little else all day long.

…

In [the alternative] situation [i.e., if he had hit on her in the bar at 2:00 AM, two hours before she left for bed, and not suggested going back to his room] it would have been merely pathetic as opposed to threatening. And before a bunch of sad sacks start whining that I’m saying it’s always pathetic when a man hits on a woman: no. It’s pathetic when someone hits on a person (who has been talking nonstop about how much she loathes the sexual advances she’s subjected to at conferences) by saying absolutely nothing to her before inviting her to his hotel room.

I must also add, again contrary to the mythology that I have heard again and again, she never said this was sexual harassment, and this did not come up in any context relating to sexual harassment policies, at all. Nor did she accuse the guy of attempted rape. Or call him a misogynist. Or even disparage him in any way. All she did was say it made her feel uncomfortable, and why, and that men should be more considerate of those facts when approaching women.

So if that is not what you were told happened, you need to re-examine the reliability of your sources of information. Just as I say to Christians duped by apologists. Why did they tell you what wasn’t true? And can you ever trust them to tell you the truth again?

I do occasionally sense an us verses them vibe in feminist writing but nothing like the vitriol espoused…

Indeed, and one even has to remember that those vibes only exist in conversations at the end of years of taking shit, and thus represent perfectly valid accumulated exasperation and outrage. So getting all upset about it is much like the privilege blindness exhibited by JT Eberhard when he made the same mistake trying to tone troll black reactions to racism, which I parodied him for. If you walk into a conversation among feminists completely oblivious to what those feminists have been dealing with for the last ten plus years, you are not qualified to tone troll them. You should instead endeavor to get up to speed and understand what lies behind that tone: all the years of exasperation and outrage that has accumulated, often enough for perfectly legitimate reasons.

(And I’m just saying this of mainstream feminism. There are genuinely radical feminists who are actually and openly misandrist and who say and advocate awful things. But they are as rare as flat earthers, and no more representative of feminism, or any prominent atheist woman, than Stalin is of atheism today, or indeed ever.)

What’s the big deal?

Paranoia.

Note that Joe betrayed some tells in his fevered paranoid hyperbole near the end. I addressed what pertained to the moment. But in between those points were some important reveals, like his fear that we don’t want anyone to ever hit on women ever, or that he will get criticized for telling sexist jokes. This is much like Christians who think telling them they are awful people for wanting to discriminate against gays is “persecuting” them, and making rules that prevent them from treating gays unfairly in public is taking away their “freedom.” And notice how those Christians then invent wildly bizarre and paranoid beliefs about what the government is actually doing or will do (like force their churches to marry gays; as irrational a belief as thinking we want to prevent all hitting on women whatever).

It’s the same mindset at work here: not wanting to admit to oneself that your beliefs and attitudes are to some genuine degree reprehensible or bigoted, and thus attacking anyone who even suggests you be criticized for it–or worse!–that people might no longer want to associate themselves with you or allow themselves to be represented by you, because of your repellant beliefs and attitudes. Until they actually realize that their beliefs and attitudes are wrong (and why), they will never understand why they are criticized for them or why people don’t want to associate themselves with them or allow themselves to be represented by them, and so they interpret those responses to them as divisive persecution, rather than what it actually is: the voicing of legitimate grievances, and a perfectly sensible disassociation from people who maintain anti-humanist attitudes and beliefs.

They then create a mythology in their head to rationalize their false narrative of what is happening, just like those homophobic Christians do. And that mythology replaces reality. And then drives everything they think, say, and do. Thus, they don’t hear what Rebecca Watson actually said. They hear some mythical woman saying mythical things that verifies their narrative, and that becomes reality to them. Yet it bears no relation to reality at all.

This is why people like Joe cannot understand why we ask questions like, “If you aren’t even willing to listen to women, how can you consider yourself a humanist?” They see that as an unjustified and divisive attack, rather than an entirely valid question.

Thank you. I appreciate the observation.

But I would have gone on anyway (and would again, if we specifically talk about those issues), because they were respectful enough to let me speak, and interacted with me without using dirty tactics (like lying or namecalling), and most of them seemed willing at least to listen and consider what I was saying.

As I remark in the last paragraph of my reply downthread, I had some advance warning that this might come up, which is why I’m glad it did. I prefer to engage with people hostile to my values only if they are willing to talk about that specifically (rather than skirt around it), and will do so in a productive and evidence-and-logic-respecting way, and for the most part that’s what happened (Joe’s brief flashes of hyperbole and paranoia aside).

Is it possible that the few references they supposedly made to Jesus as an earthly human were later redactions, after Christianity morphed into believing in an earthly Jesus?

Possible, but not inherently probable. The base rate of interpolation in NT texts is between 1 in 200 and 1 in 1000 per reference. Which does mean there are over twenty interpolations in the NT that we can’t identify (because the manuscript evidence begins too late). But it doesn’t follow that those are the very interpolations your theory happens to require. Thus we need specific evidence for interpolation in any given case (or else we need to accept the reduction in probability; although sometimes the evidence can be more than enough to survive that, as I explain in chapter 12 of On the Historicity of Jesus, due I hope before Summer).

Case in point, the evidence confirming the reference in 1 Thess. 2 to be a later interpolation is sufficiently strong (see Pauline interpolations, which I include in Hitler Homer). But this is not the case for the “brothers of the Lord” passages or 1 Cor. 15:3-4 etc. Whereas Romans 1:3 is a middle case: scholars are actually divided on its authenticity; but I side in favor of its authenticity.

And on the Atheism Plus thing, thank you for saying. I had a slight heads up on that (and I’m glad it came up), but I was actually quite surprised at how shrilly douchebro the host got (Joe, aka LiveLife8072; his compatriots TJ and Paul I think were more willing to listen). But note that though he was very hostile, paranoid, and bigoted about certain ideas, he was respectful toward me. I do appreciate that. He didn’t try to Thunderf00t me.