At this point, I think the major takeaway from the situation with NECSS and Richard Dawkins is “Don’t invite someone as relentlessly divisive as Dawkins to speak from your stage unless you want to be left with no good options when he does it again.” There are organizations that will refuse to learn this, and there are organizations that will learn this quietly, which is probably wise. There are a handful of organizations that will talk about it as appropriate, which is decidedly brave.
In the meantime, however, let’s look at who takes the hits in all this back and forth, shall we?
If there are problems with the Storify embedding, you can read it here.
Stephanie Zvan is one of the hosts for the Minnesota Atheists' radio show and podcast, Atheists Talk. She serves on the board of Secular Woman. She speaks on science and skepticism in a number of venues, including science fiction and fantasy conventions.
Stephanie has been called a science blogger and a sex blogger, but if it means she has to choose just one thing to be or blog about, she's decided she's never going to grow up. In addition to science and sex and the science of sex, you'll find quite a bit of politics here, some economics, a regular short fiction feature, and the occasional bit of concentrated weird.
Oh, and arguments. She sometimes indulges in those as well. But I'm sure everything will be just fine. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.
{advertisement}
7 thoughts on “NECSS, Fallout, and Where the Fallout Falls”
So is Sanderson just using “FTBullies” as a general insult against anyone these days? That has to be confusing to people who have no connection to this site at all.
Coherence has never been his strong suit. This is the guy who accuses me of having harassed him by reporting his abuse to Twitter and having Twitter agree with me.
It’s rare to see an organization shoot one foot, then shoot the other clean off and threaten to saw their leg off. They’re getting the defenders they deserve, at this moment.
“Don’t invite someone as relentlessly divisive as Dawkins to speak from your stage unless you want to be left with no good options when he does it again.”
I admire your optimism. I think the lesson is more like, “If you or your organization rebukes Richard Dawkins in any way, no matter how offensive and vile his behavior, you will be pressured into issuing a prompt and gracious apology. Also, the targets of Dawkins’ harassment will never receive an apology, gracious or otherwise, and his blacklisting of his critics will continue indefinitely.” I don’t know what pressures NECSS faced which forced them to capitulate to Dawkins’ anti-feminist supporters. They had to be intense, and more than just financial. I fear that NECSS’ proposed panel of “a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here” will likely be an enthusiastic defense of the revered Dawkins and a further demonizing of the no-good, very bad, evil feminists who unfairly and viciously attacked him, causing him to have a stroke.
It will be impossible to disentangle those organisations who in future don’t ask Dawkins to speak because they don’t want to get involved in a clusterfsck like this, and those who don’t simply because he’s 74 and he’s had a stroke. Either way it’s a reasonable assumption his invite list will become somewhat sparser in the immediate future. That said, the practical upshot is likely to be merely that he turns down fewer invitations.
So is Sanderson just using “FTBullies” as a general insult against anyone these days? That has to be confusing to people who have no connection to this site at all.
Coherence has never been his strong suit. This is the guy who accuses me of having harassed him by reporting his abuse to Twitter and having Twitter agree with me.
It’s rare to see an organization shoot one foot, then shoot the other clean off and threaten to saw their leg off. They’re getting the defenders they deserve, at this moment.
They actually re-invited him?
Wow. Just… wow.
Incidentally, I have so much respect for Melanie E. Brewster. She is absolutely awesome.
I was lucky enough to hear her at Skepticon in 2014. I’d highly recommend finding the video online if you can.
Also, she has a book out, which people might want to consider buying.
I admire your optimism. I think the lesson is more like, “If you or your organization rebukes Richard Dawkins in any way, no matter how offensive and vile his behavior, you will be pressured into issuing a prompt and gracious apology. Also, the targets of Dawkins’ harassment will never receive an apology, gracious or otherwise, and his blacklisting of his critics will continue indefinitely.” I don’t know what pressures NECSS faced which forced them to capitulate to Dawkins’ anti-feminist supporters. They had to be intense, and more than just financial. I fear that NECSS’ proposed panel of “a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here” will likely be an enthusiastic defense of the revered Dawkins and a further demonizing of the no-good, very bad, evil feminists who unfairly and viciously attacked him, causing him to have a stroke.
It will be impossible to disentangle those organisations who in future don’t ask Dawkins to speak because they don’t want to get involved in a clusterfsck like this, and those who don’t simply because he’s 74 and he’s had a stroke. Either way it’s a reasonable assumption his invite list will become somewhat sparser in the immediate future. That said, the practical upshot is likely to be merely that he turns down fewer invitations.