ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Other Skeptical Organizations » JREF
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th December 2012, 01:11 PM   #41
blobru
Philosopher
 
blobru's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,840
Just a wild guess (probably wrong; however, wth): I notice this thread, "PETA asks Obama to spare the pardon on turkeys", was started Nov 20th (13 days ago), wherein PETA has come in for some pretty rough criticism and satire, including this pith award finalist:

Originally Posted by Sledge View Post
Originally Posted by mikeyx View Post
if one were to eat a peta member is that considered veganism?
Not sure. I know killing one is referred to as pesticide.
__________________
"Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops

"Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny

Last edited by blobru; 4th December 2012 at 01:15 PM.
blobru is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 02:25 PM   #42
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,739
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I always figured there was some way but never went looking. Thanks, although it eliminates one excuse I had for writing something despite a complete absence of knowledge or evidence on the subject. I don't think this will stop me though, I will just need to find another excuse.
No worries; I sometimes make a post without saying much rather than just subscribing; in some cases that seems the better option, maybe to let people know that you're interested. But it's nice to have the choice.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 02:42 PM   #43
AdMan
Philosopher
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 9,569
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
No worries; I sometimes make a post without saying much rather than just subscribing; in some cases that seems the better option, maybe to let people know that you're interested. But it's nice to have the choice.

Still off-topic, but another reason for making a post rather than just subscribing is if you use the Tapatalk app to read the forum. The app will show "Participated" threads, but AFAIK there is no option (at least on iPhone) to include subscribed threads that you haven't posted to in that view.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
- Carl Sagan
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 12:58 PM   #44
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,769
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Maybe the JREF wasn't nutty enough? Or she caught Randi eating a baloney sandwich.

We've had enough racism, if you don't mind. Or even if you do mind.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 01:24 PM   #45
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
We've had enough racism, if you don't mind. Or even if you do mind.
.

?
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 01:56 PM   #46
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,320
Well she's still listed on the JREF site staff list with her email & phone contact etc
Perhaps they need a Director of Communications so someone can direct a new communication to update the page.
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 02:09 PM   #47
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,992
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
We've had enough racism, if you don't mind. Or even if you do mind.
deleted.

(I posted too fast and took your post more seriously than I should have)
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

Last edited by ravdin; 5th January 2013 at 02:10 PM.
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 04:08 PM   #48
RoseMontague
Published Author
 
RoseMontague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,371
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
Well she's still listed on the JREF site staff list with her email & phone contact etc
Perhaps they need a Director of Communications so someone can direct a new communication to update the page.
The wording in the year end solicitation for funds lacked tact and was pretty insulting, in my opinion.
__________________
"I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".
RoseMontague is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 05:22 PM   #49
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my pants
Posts: 47,317
I would think that whatever Carrie's reason for resigning, it would be private.
__________________
The punters know that the horse named Morality rarely gets past the post, whereas the nag named Self-interest always runs a good race.
- Gough Whitlam (1916 - 2014)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 07:11 PM   #50
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 19,855
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I would think that whatever Carrie's reason for resigning, it would be private.
In which case she should have just said in her twitter "resigned from JREF" and nothing more. A potential employer sees that and they might think she might bad mouth THEM.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 09:22 PM   #51
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my pants
Posts: 47,317
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
In which case she should have just said in her twitter "resigned from JREF" and nothing more. A potential employer sees that and they might think she might bad mouth THEM.
Indeed. Stating publicly that you are taking an action "in protest" causes people to naturally question your reasons. But didn't she delete that tweet?
__________________
The punters know that the horse named Morality rarely gets past the post, whereas the nag named Self-interest always runs a good race.
- Gough Whitlam (1916 - 2014)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 12:41 AM   #52
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 19,855
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Indeed. Stating publicly that you are taking an action "in protest" causes people to naturally question your reasons. But didn't she delete that tweet?
She no longer mentions JREF in the tweet but the words resigned and protest are still there. Or rather here https://twitter.com/CarriePoppyYES/s...02255708250112
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 03:52 PM   #53
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my pants
Posts: 47,317
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
She no longer mentions JREF in the tweet but the words resigned and protest are still there. Or rather here https://twitter.com/CarriePoppyYES/s...02255708250112
So she wants everyone to know that she resigned in protest, but doesn't want to air dirty laundry by going into details. Fair enough.
__________________
The punters know that the horse named Morality rarely gets past the post, whereas the nag named Self-interest always runs a good race.
- Gough Whitlam (1916 - 2014)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 04:47 PM   #54
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 47,755
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
So she wants everyone to know that she resigned in protest, but doesn't want to air dirty laundry by going into details. Fair enough.
If you don't let others know what the reason is, does it do any good to resign in protest? It would be like hanging around in front of Coca-Cola and telling people you're protesting against Coca-Cola, but then not telling them why.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

Last edited by The Central Scrutinizer; 7th January 2013 at 05:18 PM.
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 04:56 PM   #55
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my pants
Posts: 47,317
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
If you don't let others know what the reason is, does it do any good to resign in protest? It would be like hanging around in from of Coca-Cola and telling people you're protesting against Coca-Cola, but then not telling them why.
It is, a little, yes. But speculating about her motives will do more to mislead and little to enlighten. She protested, which means that she was not happy with something. We know that the JREF has some... shall we say "management issues" right now. I'm content with knowing as much as I know now - I don't think we'll learn much more from the source. Anything else is just gossip.
__________________
The punters know that the horse named Morality rarely gets past the post, whereas the nag named Self-interest always runs a good race.
- Gough Whitlam (1916 - 2014)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 05:19 PM   #56
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 47,755
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
But speculating about her motives will do more to mislead and little to enlighten.
That's half the fun!
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2013, 06:57 AM   #57
TsarBomba
One Damn Dirty Ape
 
TsarBomba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 808
Reviewing the twitters this morning, it appears that Ms. Poppy is speaking at an event called "Women In Secularism II" in Washington.

Per a number of Twitter posts, she said something along the lines of (per a tweet from Justin Vacula):

Quote:
I used to work with someone who talked about mission creep. My response was "You're a mission creep."
The Center For Inquiry also put out this tweet this morning:

Quote:
Poppy: if our goal isn't to end suffering, achieve social justice, then what *is* our goal?
Knowing that the JREF has been steadfast in keeping their message narrowly focused on the actual goals of the organization, and knowing that Ms. Poppy recently left the employ of the JREF "in protest", I think that it is reasonable to conclude that it is highly likely that she was talking about someone at the JREF as this person who talked about mission creep.

What conclusion should be drawn from this? In my opinion, it shows that Ms. Poppy was upset that the JREF refused to take up every pet "social justice" issue that she believed to be important. Thus, in Poppy's mind (apparently), secular groups should be part of a larger movement that could be labeled "social justice" or more likely "progressivism." In other words, apparently, if the JREF did not wholeheartedly take up all the talking points of a radical left-wing ideology, they were not an organization that she could be associated with. I think that it is a reasonable supposition that this is why she quit "in protest." There must have been some pet issue or issues that she wanted the JREF to espouse (perhaps booking the head of PETA as a TAM speaker, who knows), and when they quite reasonably said "that's not our mission, our mission is scientific skepticism, and as an organization we need to avoid mission creep," she was out the door.

If so, I say good riddance. And bravo to the JREF for continuing to realize that skepticism does not demand a particular ideology, and that you can actually be a skeptic if you disagree with Carrie Poppy on issues like tax policy, welfare spending, defense policy, and animal welfare. If people like Ms. Poppy had their way (in my opinion), organizations like the JREF would have to submit all members or attendees at conferences with a long checklist of ideological positions, and unless you scored a 100%, meaning complete agreement, you are not welome.

Bravo JREF.
__________________
Signature line? I don't need no stinking signature line!
TsarBomba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2013, 08:05 AM   #58
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Moderator
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 22,198
TB, you're inferring an awful lot from very, very little.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2013, 09:20 AM   #59
TsarBomba
One Damn Dirty Ape
 
TsarBomba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 808
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
TB, you're inferring an awful lot from very, very little.
Do you have a more logical conclusion to reach from the information? I think my logic is sound, although I agree that the amount of information Ms. Poppy provided for her "protest" action in quitting was laughably minuscule.
__________________
Signature line? I don't need no stinking signature line!
TsarBomba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2013, 02:23 PM   #60
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Well, if it's on Freethoughtblogs, consider the source.

Here's a link to the comment in context. It was a meaningless dig regardless, having zero to do with any discussion of 'mission creep'.
Quote:
Carrie: Have to ally yourself with social justice movements — that’s the goal. Goal is to promote happiness and end suffering. It’s inherent in any movement to trend toward social justice. Not popular opinion, but interfaith work is a great place to ally ourselves. Grew up a believer, and there was a stepping down process involving becoming a liberal religious person. Liberal religious friends were important allies. Wise to ally with the liberal religious. Downsides – very hard to get people to listen to you when you’re proving more than one point at a time. Good to think about what you have in common. As far as mission creep goes, I used to work with someone whose name I won’t say (HAH!) who would often talk about mission creep and my response was “YOU’RE a mission creep!” *uproar*
Given the split, rational thinkers in the JRFE vs this lost-their-way bunch, it's likely the comment does refer to someone in the JREF.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2013, 06:11 PM   #61
Disraeli Ears
You may call me Heather
 
Disraeli Ears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by TsarBomba View Post
Do you have a more logical conclusion to reach from the information? I think my logic is sound, although I agree that the amount of information Ms. Poppy provided for her "protest" action in quitting was laughably minuscule.
I would agree with this. I wish people would be honest about what they are "protesting" if that's the reason they leave somewhere; it's more effective, at any rate.
__________________
Formerly known as DundeeGirl
Disraeli Ears is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 07:08 AM   #62
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 47,755
A source this weekend told me it was because they wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and she balked. Seems odd. Those are pretty standard these days.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 07:16 AM   #63
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,717
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
A source this weekend told me it was because they wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and she balked. Seems odd. Those are pretty standard these days.
For non profit where no tech or patent is involvved ? That would be odd and creepy.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 07:26 AM   #64
Zelenius
Muse
 
Zelenius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 868
It's all part of a vast conspiracy.
Zelenius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 07:44 AM   #65
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
A source this weekend told me it was because they wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and she balked. Seems odd. Those are pretty standard these days.
If she did, why has she not disclosed anything?

-
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 07:52 AM   #66
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 47,755
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
For non profit where no tech or patent is involvved ? That would be odd and creepy.
Not at all. I sign non-disclosure agreements all the time, for clients who don't have patents (government agencies, for example).
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2013, 03:29 PM   #67
Apology
Reader's of the Boden Codex
 
Apology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
For non profit where no tech or patent is involvved ? That would be odd and creepy.
There's a lot of potential donations to be had by copying the donor list of a non-profit group and using it at other non-profits in order to increase their donations. One might even be given a job at another non-profit group based on bringing a large donor list.

Another thought that comes to mind is that it's because James Randi is a celebrity. Granted, he's a minor celebrity, but the people who hate him really, really hate him, and would love to have any ammunition to use against him. Perhaps Poppy was going to be working more closely with Randi had she not resigned.

The third thought that comes to mind (I think this one is unlikely) is that Randi is preparing to do another skeptical stunt, such as the pet psychic expose that he did many years ago. It would really ruin the whole thing if the details of the stunt were leaked to the public prior to the stunt running its course. My reason for thinking that this is unlikely is due to Randi's health.
__________________
"When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me." - Plato, Apology
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Apology is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2013, 04:16 PM   #68
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,442
Hrm. Between the mission creep thing and this last thing, if all of that is accurate, suggests that maybe the issue was she wanted to use her place at JREF to try to solicit JREF donors for other causes. Hence the "mission creep" remark. As in, wandering off target.

#EDIT: This is, of course, pure speculation, founded on very little.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2013, 01:07 PM   #69
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,320
Carrie Poppy "tells all" to PZ

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...ppy-tells-all/
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2013, 02:19 PM   #70
AdMan
Philosopher
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 9,569
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post

It seems she is "telling all" about Karen Stollznow's experiences rather than her own (which for the most part she is rather vague about), which I find curious.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 01:56 PM   #71
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
 
Manopolus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,230
It appears to me that the JREF has been criticized quite a bit for their failure to participate in as much drama as feminists would like to have created.

Meh. Sorry, not interested. I'm quite comfortable with The JREF declining to become a feminist mouthpiece every time some guy decides to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate. I'm all for treating women appropriately, but trying to play power publicity games with these situations is disgusting. The second I get the impression that feminism is one of JREF's purposes for existing, I will no longer be interested in supporting it. The way I see it, most feminists don't want equal treatment for women. They want superior treatment. They are more anti-man than pro-woman nowadays.

Last edited by Manopolus; 10th August 2013 at 02:05 PM.
Manopolus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:06 PM   #72
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 12,824
Originally Posted by Manopolus View Post
It appears to me that the JREF has been criticized quite a bit for their failure to participate in as much drama as feminists would like to have created.

Meh. Sorry, not interested. I'm quite comfortable with The JREF declining to become a feminist mouthpiece every time some guy decides to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate. I'm all for treating women appropriately, but trying to play power publicity games with these situations is disgusting. The second I get the impression that feminism is one of JREF's purposes for existing, I will no longer be interested in supporting it. The way I see it, most feminists don't want equal treatment for women. They want superior treatment. They are more anti-man than pro-woman nowadays.
As this is a skeptical forum for an organization that promotes skepticism, allow me to respond:

1) It is fair and reasonable to be skeptical of the claims being made about inappropriate behavior; but it is also fair and reasonable to be skeptical of claims of innocence. You do not (so far as I'm aware) know any of the actual details of the events in question...yet you are more than ready to conclude that they are just "some guy deciding to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". If it's a case that the guy just hit on her, I might agree; but if it's a case that he was drunkenly groping her, then I'd very much disagree. I don't know what happened. Neither, so far as I can tell, do you. It is rather telling about your own perspective that you simply seem to assume that the actions in question were minor and not worthy of complaint or action.

2) There are lots of guys out there who feel that grabbing a woman's ass, or making blatantly sexual overtures, fall within the range of "some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". So for the sake of rational debate/discussion, could you please actually define where you'd draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior?

3) This should go without saying, but your apparent attempt to lump all feminists together, based on the actions of a few, are rather lacking in skeptical foundation, also. There are quite a few feminists who take issue with and disagree with some of the more 'radical' voices within the feminist movement.

4) Feminism belongs firmly within the purview of the JREF's mission, where feminist issues coincide with skeptical issues. If feminist issues that had nothing to do with skepticism were to become a focus of the JREF, then you might have a point...but considering that I don't see this happening at all, this seems to be a pure straw man argument.

5) There is no doubt whatsoever that the "skeptical movement" in North America is still a predominantly white male's movement. Go to any skeptical conference, or check out the membership of the JREF forums, and you'll find that the ratio of male to female is grossly skewed. And representation of non-whites is even more grossly skewed. It would seem to me to be incumbent upon any organization dedicated to skepticism to take a skeptical look at why these numbers are so disproportional, and to take action to address them.

As such, taking action to make women feel both more included, and more safe, wouldn't implicitly be "feminist". Seeking more balanced representation of different groups should, in fact, be a main focus of an organization like the JREF, and where events take place that make women feel uncomfortable to participate, such concerns should be looked at and addressed very seriously.

And it is in that regard -- based purely on the correspondence revealed with DJ, and acknowledging that I may not have all the necessary info -- that I feel the JREF failed in this case. Not just in this case, but in others as well, there does seem to be a rather dismissive attitude taken towards women. Again, I'm more than ready (and in fact would be very happy) to amend that attitude based on other, more complete information.

But in Carrie's case, I think that she brings a lot of credibility to this debate through merit of the fact that A) when she left the JREF, she did not publicly comment on the reasons for doing so, did not seek to draw attention to herself, and did nothing that I'm aware of to hurt or tarnish the JREF's reputation, B) she made this issue public only after more quiet behind-the-scenes efforts had been made to address it in a reasonable manner, and C) she still shows what I'd consider significant restraint in discussing her own complaints and problems with the JREF, instead bringing someone else's more serious allegations to light.

There's a whole bunch of information missing here. We don't know the exact nature of the allegations involved; we don't know exactly what discussions took place behind closed doors, or the reasons for the various decisions made. We're in no position whatsoever to be rendering conclusions either for or against the JREF, DJ, or any of the other people involved.

But nor is it fair, or in the nature of a proper skeptical approach, to use straw man arguments and sweeping inaccurate generalizations to simply dismiss everything.

Should we support the JREF? If it were to become a militant feminist organization, perhaps not (but as I mentioned above, I don't see that happening at all). If it were to ignore, justify, or cover up sexually aggressive behavior towards women in their organization, or at their events, also perhaps not.

There isn't enough info yet to make any decision; but there's more than enough info to raise legitimate questions, and put pressure on the JREF and any other related ,to be accountable to their membership, and provide full, detailed answers as to what has actually happened.

However, posts like yours above will have little or nothing to do with such a discussion.


ETA: I wan to clarify that I do not intend to state that I think DJ or the JREF has done anything wrong; only that the evidence we currently have, if true, would indicate a potentially serious problem. I hope that more detailed information will be forthcoming, from all parties, so that a more informed conclusion can be reached.
__________________
The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

Last edited by Wolfman; 10th August 2013 at 08:37 PM.
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:36 PM   #73
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
I, for one, am waiting for Grothe and/or someone else in an official JREF capacity to respond to Poppy's additional information and some of the other charges that Grothe was less than respectful with casual remarks to certain community members.

I hope the response is sooner rather than later.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 09:50 PM   #74
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
 
Manopolus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,230
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
As this is a skeptical forum for an organization that promotes skepticism, allow me to respond:

1) It is fair and reasonable to be skeptical of the claims being made about inappropriate behavior; but it is also fair and reasonable to be skeptical of claims of innocence. You do not (so far as I'm aware) know any of the actual details of the events in question...yet you are more than ready to conclude that they are just "some guy deciding to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". If it's a case that the guy just hit on her, I might agree; but if it's a case that he was drunkenly groping her, then I'd very much disagree. I don't know what happened. Neither, so far as I can tell, do you. It is rather telling about your own perspective that you simply seem to assume that the actions in question were minor and not worthy of complaint or action.
(...)
As you said, I don't know what actually happened. Only those who were actually there at the time know what actually happened. I am not downplaying the situation... I am mostly regarding the nitpicking and back and forth on the subject an example of meaningless drama quite intentionally aimed at making some sort of feminist point.

From what I read, they were not merely asking the JREF to refrain from inviting this gentleman to future events. They were asking the JREF to make a public statement saying that he would not be welcome at future events. There is a distinct difference here, and the organization is being asked to take sides on an issue where there is likely some disagreement on what actually happened. I do not suspect that the participants were unaware of the ramifications involved here. Such a public statement could be regarded as a passive-aggressive form of character assassination, and cannot be justified without significant proof of wrongdoing, which I suspect may be lacking.

Quote:
2) There are lots of guys out there who feel that grabbing a woman's ass, or making blatantly sexual overtures, fall within the range of "some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". So for the sake of rational debate/discussion, could you please actually define where you'd draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior?
As with most human behavior, this depends entirely upon the ways in which the participants are interacting. There actually are situations where "grabbing a woman's ass" or "making blatantly sexual overtures" are completely appropriate. In most situations, they are not. Sometimes people misjudge these situations... and other times they blatantly disregard normal guidelines of behavior to the extreme. I decline to judge any specific behavior out of the context in which it was displayed, and without knowing about any former contact between the participants that may or may not have occurred.

I regard the complete abolishment of sexual behavior in the human male to be as much of an extreme, untenable position as being permissive towards random groping by strangers out of context. There are all sorts of positions in between, and I suppose the best policy for anyone is to start subtle and be attentive to any reaction. Some men are comfortable with more risk than others... and some women appreciate that sort of risk taking more than others.

The only specific instance where I can say that it is absolutely wrong in all cases is when a guy has been asked to cease certain behaviors and has failed to do so. The rest depends upon context, and is quite often a matter of debate.

Quote:
3) This should go without saying, but your apparent attempt to lump all feminists together, based on the actions of a few, are rather lacking in skeptical foundation, also. There are quite a few feminists who take issue with and disagree with some of the more 'radical' voices within the feminist movement.

4) Feminism belongs firmly within the purview of the JREF's mission, where feminist issues coincide with skeptical issues. If feminist issues that had nothing to do with skepticism were to become a focus of the JREF, then you might have a point...but considering that I don't see this happening at all, this seems to be a pure straw man argument.
I'll freely admit that I have not had much reason to study or follow feminist groups. It is not a particular interest of mine. Much of what I do take note of tends to make me care less about it, not more. I suppose I may have painted with an overly broad brush, as it were. All human conversations possess some degree of generalization. I've only got my experience to go by.

Quote:
5) There is no doubt whatsoever that the "skeptical movement" in North America is still a predominantly white male's movement. Go to any skeptical conference, or check out the membership of the JREF forums, and you'll find that the ratio of male to female is grossly skewed. And representation of non-whites is even more grossly skewed. It would seem to me to be incumbent upon any organization dedicated to skepticism to take a skeptical look at why these numbers are so disproportional, and to take action to address them.
I don't see much mystery here at all. Call it a stereotype if you want, but women are more concerned with how they feel about things than the question of whether something is actually true or not... as compared to men, anyway. The question of whether this is a cultural role brought about by tradition or an actual gender difference is irrelevant. The situation exists, and it stands to reason that women will be underrepresented in a skeptical group as a result (due to lack of interest). I do not assume that every female I meet has this trait... I only acknowledge the general trend.

Last edited by Manopolus; 11th August 2013 at 11:16 PM.
Manopolus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 01:11 PM   #75
SimplyAghast
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post

3) This should go without saying, but your apparent attempt to lump all feminists together, based on the actions of a few, are rather lacking in skeptical foundation, also. There are quite a few feminists who take issue with and disagree with some of the more 'radical' voices within the feminist movement.
Here's the primary problem when it comes to the schism. "Feminist" is as subjective a term as "God" and no two people define these concepts the same way. Are the vast majority of us "feminist" in the sense that they believe qualified women should be allowed to be accountants? Sure! Those on the other side of the schism are not using this definition of "feminism" and equality is not their goal. They are adhering to dogma. The entire point of skepticism is that we ignore dogmas and instead allow EVIDENCE to guide our decisionmaking.

Do you honestly think that those on the other side of the schism are benefiting the community? Instead of bashing pseudoscience, we're all debating feminist dogma.
SimplyAghast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 06:06 AM   #76
iknownothing
Graduate Poster
 
iknownothing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,265
Originally Posted by Manopolus View Post
Call it a stereotype if you want, but women are more concerned with how they feel about things than the question of whether something is actually true or not... as compared to men, anyway.


Can you show that that is true? Or is it good enough for you that it feels true?
iknownothing is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 09:46 AM   #77
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
 
Manopolus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,230
Originally Posted by iknownothing View Post


Can you show that that is true? Or is it good enough for you that it feels true?
It's quite readily observable in the media they tend to consume.

If you want a study I'm quite sure that there's a few out there (and this notion probably came from an actual source at some point), but you can probably google it a bit easier than I can. I'm also pretty sure that the verbal vs spacial difference in the sexes has been publicized often enough to be common knowledge. It is only a small jump from there.

But yeah... the statement seemed obvious to me, and I haven't actually done any actual research on the matter, if that's what you're asking. Feel free to actively and honestly disagree with it, rather than role playing your "I'm an in-group personality on a skeptical forum" song and dance. Perhaps then we could actually have an honest conversation (No offense, but sometimes overused behaviors get a bit tedious on this forum).

I can also state my opinion (theory) that a random sampling of women who are NOT involved in skeptical groups will NOT tend to select "I fear being groped" or some such as a reason why they are not involved in such things. I feel no need to do this experiment in order to prove the theory, since I'm quite sure of my conclusion without it, and feel no need to prove it to anyone absurd enough to disagree. Any cries for evidence will tend to fall on deaf ears, as I am merely stating an opinion that I suspect a majority of people will agree with.

If it makes you feel any better, just look at the way it was intended: I posited a likely alternative to the notion that more men than women are active in the organization due to rampant sexism. I may have not have expressed it in quite that way (I tend to overstate things), but that was the intent. And yeah, I know there's a bit of a straw man in this bit. Just don't go thinkin' I'm ignorant just because I enjoy a little exaggeration now and then. Such practices make my life more interesting, and my words more colorful. The exaggeration isn't meant to be a sly, hidden thing used to "win" the argument unfairly, but a silly absurdity hanging out for everyone to see. Right or wrong, I think it adds character.


Last edited by Manopolus; 14th August 2013 at 11:28 AM.
Manopolus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:09 AM   #78
iknownothing
Graduate Poster
 
iknownothing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,265
Originally Posted by Manopolus View Post
It's quite readily observable in the media they tend to consume.

If you want a study I'm quite sure that there's a few out there (and this notion probably came from an actual source at some point), but you can probably google it a bit easier than I can. I'm also pretty sure that the verbal vs spacial difference in the sexes has been publicized often enough to be common knowledge. It is only a small jump from there.

But yeah... the statement seemed obvious to me
None of that seems solid enough to say that women are more likely than men to be concerned with feelings over facts.

Originally Posted by Manopolus View Post
Feel free to actively and honestly disagree with it, rather than role playing your "I'm an in-group personality on a skeptical forum" song and dance. Perhaps then we could actually have an honest conversation.
Yeah...I don't think I'm in any in groups around JREF. Just a single person pointing out (honestly, BTW) a comment that I thought you might want to think about a little bit more. Questioning our assumptions is a good thing, right?
iknownothing is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:48 AM   #79
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
 
Manopolus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,230
Originally Posted by iknownothing View Post
None of that seems solid enough to say that women are more likely than men to be concerned with feelings over facts.
Not definitively, no. I'm not even sure if that's the correct way to say it. Perhaps a better assessment would be that they are more interested in questions of unquantifiable social relationships (does he really love you? Take our survey and find out!) than they are of observable facts and material challenges (Is it possible to kill an elephant with a firecracker?). Again, relatively speaking, and without applying general trends to individuals.

I suspect that few readers will have difficulty identifying which sex will be more likely to be interested in each example given.


Originally Posted by iknownothing View Post
Yeah...I don't think I'm in any in groups around JREF. Just a single person pointing out (honestly, BTW) a comment that I thought you might want to think about a little bit more. Questioning our assumptions is a good thing, right?
To the final question: absolutely! I do it all the time. However, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Freud)

(OK, one more point and I'll stop editing...)

I would tend to suggest that if JREF wants to attract more female attention, they should take a close look at market research and find ways to improve their appeal to the demographic (overvaluing female speakers alone doesn't really do it to any great degree... that's actually more effective in attracting single men, particularly if the speakers are comely). I suppose some amount of drama played out with these feminist types COULD attract more female attention, but I doubt it is good attention, and I suspect that it is unintentional. I don't think that being a minority in the organization is a major factor, either, but I will take into consideration any arguments to this effect, if I see a well supported one (which I have yet to see).

Last edited by Manopolus; 14th August 2013 at 12:57 PM.
Manopolus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 03:45 PM   #80
colander
Graduate Poster
 
colander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,352
Originally Posted by Manopolus View Post
Not definitively, no. I'm not even sure if that's the correct way to say it. Perhaps a better assessment would be that they are more interested in questions of unquantifiable social relationships (does he really love you? Take our survey and find out!) than they are of observable facts and material challenges (Is it possible to kill an elephant with a firecracker?). Again, relatively speaking, and without applying general trends to individuals.

I suspect that few readers will have difficulty identifying which sex will be more likely to be interested in each example given.
It doesn't seem like you've done anything here besides reiterating your initial assertion. I recommend instead that you provide readers with a link to empirical research that supports your claim.

Quote:
To the final question: absolutely! I do it all the time. However, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Freud)
Just as an aside, it is my understanding that there exists no historical documentation that supports the attribution of this quote to Freud.

Last edited by colander; 22nd August 2013 at 03:46 PM.
colander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Other Skeptical Organizations » JREF

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.