Liveblogging The Amazing Meeting 9: Sunday Afternoon Sessions

***If you want instant updates, I suggest reading the #TAM9 Twitter feed***

Thanks to @UAJamie for the great pictures!

We’ll be providing updates on the conference all day while getting interviews with many of the speakers. Stick around and refresh the page for more info!

You can read about the Friday Morning Session here, the Friday Afternoon Session here, the Saturday Morning Session here, the Saturday Afternoon Session here, the Sunday Morning Session here, and the Sunday Afternoon Session here.

Hey everyone, its Jen. Hemant’s on the next panel, so you’re stuck with me again. Speaking of the next panel, it’s Diversity in Skepticism moderated by Desiree Schell, with the panel including Greta Christina, DJ Grothe, Debbie Goddard, Jamila Bey, and of course Hemant.

(Side note: this was the worst possible time spot in the program. It was after a far too short lunch – most people were still in line for food. And it’s at the same time at the US women’s soccer match. Boo)

The panel is going to be talking about gender, race, sexuality, disability, age, and class. The first question is an easy one – is this important? Yes, duh. My favorite line from Greta – “For purely Machiavellian reasons, it makes our movement stronger. It puts butts in seats.”

DJ notes that the skeptic movement is already a diverse community. There’s room to grow, but it’s improved since it once was. Hemant agrees, but he’s concerned with how we’re getting that diversity. Do we make groups for specific types of people, or to just incorporate it into the larger movement.

Jamila asks the audience to look around. If we include more people who are underrepresented, it’ll just improve the movement. Greta adds that we’re getting better, but there’s a huge amount of room to grow. Every time there’s a new diversity related kerfuffle, minorities express that they don’t want to get involved and deal with it. A minority with show up to one or two meetings, but they just don’t feel welcome if it’s all white men. And that’s really self perpetuating, so we have to be proactive, like having more diverse speakers.

DJ makes a point that it is hard work. That you just can’t automatically expect that you’re welcoming. JREF has gone to great lengths to make the speakers more diverse. But he’s gotten emails from white guys who are conservatives who don’t feel welcome, so we need to be welcome to diversity of thought too. What matters is sharing skeptical values.

Greta adds that there’s a difference between feeling unwelcome because people disagree with your opinions, and feeling unwelcome because people are making sexist and racist jokes, or if there’s no child care, or if it’s totally unaffordable to students.

Desiree asks what specifically we can do to improve inclusiveness. Greta notes that the main point is listening to what concerns people have. Debbie adds that broadening the types of topics we discuss is also likely to bring in a diverse group a people.

Jamlia adds that if we care about the state of everyone, we need to be outspoken about police brutality, the drug war, and crime. In less affluent neighborhoods, who’s the first to respond when a poor black child gets shot? “Reverend Blahblahblah” We need to offer some social programs. We love hard facts and evidence, but we also need to understand that the people who need us may not be drawn in just by meeting Neil deGrasse Tyson (as crazy as that sounds to us).

DJ Grothe disagrees, saying the great thing about skepticism is that we don’t have one set of beliefs. Jamila responds that she’s not asking for dogma – we agree that holding a prayer rally to balance the budget is ridiculous. We don’t need one voice, we need a voice in our community.

DJ responds that we need more religious diversity in the skeptics community. …Uhhhh, right DJ. Do we need more diversity in terms of homeopathy and Big Foot too?

Whoops, started editorializing instead of reporting, sorry.

Greta replies, saying that we can totally apply skepticism when asking if things like the war on drugs, abstinence only education, and No Child Left Behind work (Hint: No). We may not 100% agree, but we should still speak up. DJ still disagrees, saying that historically skepticism has been about evidence, not social movements. Uh, who the hell cares about history when we’re trying to make things better?

I CAN’T HELP MYSELF I WANT TO BE ON THIS PANEL *ahem*

Jamila disagrees. This is our issue. Logic says we need more foster parents. Logic says a religious book shouldn’t dictate politics. That’s something we need to talk about. DJ still disagrees, arguing from historical skepticism. “Then you will get the audience that you have” responds Jamila.

Greta: What you’re saying is historically we had issues that were interesting to middle class educated white men, and we should still only talk about those issues. That’s why we’re not attracting diverse people.

Hemant thinks these are great things individuals can do, but maybe not the movement so we don’t dilute our topics. But Debbie adds that we can just add a couple more issues, it’s not a main organizing principle. DJ says he doesn’t want to be telling people the content that people should believe, that we should just talk about the methods of critical thinking. He doesn’t want reorganization away from science and to politics.

Observation: From looking around, only white dudes were clapping for that. SHOCKING.

Hemant, what have you done letting me blog the diversity panel? I’m going to convert your blog to a feminist cesspool.

Hemant asks if talking about the drug war would bring in new people. Debbie says that one group had one speaker talk about skepticism in women’s makeup, and they got a new audience. DJ asks if those people are going to keep coming back, though. Jamila and Debbie and Greta enthusiastically say yes. They get in from maybe one issue, they meet people they like, they make friends, they have fun, and they build communities.

Time for audience questions. Oh dear.

Q: Don’t we have stuff we can contribute to stuff like cases of police brutality?

Sure. We can talk about gathering evidence and eye witness testimony.

Q: The core of the skeptic movement would have to always be focused on science and then also those topics that are the traditional ones, as opposed to other issues that are fair game to apply science, but it’s not the core of the issue.

Jamila disagrees that science isn’t the core the issue. She’s not saying that that should be the focus of skepticism, but that looking at issues that are important to people, you find a lot of misinformation. If we can get our voice out there, that’s obviously a good thing.

Q: Should atheist groups and skeptical groups handle different issues?

DJ we don’t always have to follow history, but it also shows what we’ve done right. Some organizations deal with skepticism of religion, some deal with skepticism of other topics just for organizational reasons. You can’t build an organization by just including things on the periphery.

Debbie: “We don’t care enough about people about this movement.” We ignore huge parts of the population. Women get interested in skepticism because of stuff like the Hug Me I’ve Vaccinated program exists. Greta adds that these issues aren’t mission drift. We’re just applying our mission to topics that will bring in more diverse people.

Hemant says you get that message out there on a local or individual level, not a huge thing like TAM. This should be the core group, the base.

Q: Can’t we still discuss things we don’t necessarily agree on, but just have the sides discuss the evidence?

DJ says many of us may be allies of feminism, or gay rights, but we shouldn’t become all things to all people. But Greta says that’s not what we’re saying. We can stay focused on our mission of critical thinking and just say “Hey, this applies to issues that we haven’t historically focused on!” Debbie has the impression that we don’t do enough. We sit around and talk about it too much. We will attract new people by doing these new things.

Annnnnd we’re done. Without Elevatorgate coming up at all. Kind of amazed.

Next up is Jennifer Ouellette, with The Universe Through the Looking Glass.

Apparently we’re going to be whizzing through physics and astronomy, which means my reporting will probably be horrible. I apologize ahead of time.

Ptolemy. Something. Oh FSM, I want to go to sleep so badly.

…Sorry Jennifer. I feel a certain kinship since we share a name, but I’m burnt out. I’m going to stare at your pretty photos while Hemant snarfs down his very very late lunch.

We just watched the opening sequence from Contact. My favorite movie, so I’m happy. Yep, still at this level of comprehension.

Sean Faircloth is up next, talking about Attack of the Theocrats — and What We Can Do About It.

Hi! It’s Hemant. I’m back to wrap things up while Sean is talking. My airport shuttle leaves in about 20 minutes so my apologies to Sean for not properly covering his talk. It’s about theocrats. And what we can do about that. (Bet you didn’t see *that* one coming from the talk’s title.)

Great laugh line from Sean: “I have a modest plan… TO TAKE OVER THE UNITED STATES!”

Sean knows how to work a crowd — Yes, Secular Americans have opposed this… but we’ve also DONE THAT! — and he’s getting a lot of applause with his rhythmic, patterned rhetoric. It’s like he’s reading a Greta Christina post.

Because I can’t cover Sean more extensively, here, have an extra picture:



Bye, everyone! Thanks to JREF for this opportunity, and thanks to Jen, Jamie, and Ashley for stepping in when I needed some help!

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • http://casinosonthemoon.blogspot.com/ Kevin

    “…Uhhhh, right DJ. Do we need more diversity in terms of homeopathy and Big Foot too?”

    Even with the editorializing, it’s an incredibly valid point. It seems like a case of special pleading to me.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    And it’s at the same time at the US women’s soccer match. Boo

    What a coincidence, it was at the same as Japan’s women’s soccer match. And they deserved every bit of their victory.

  • Rebecca Sparks

    I really enjoyed your commentary on this panel in particular :D

  • http://www.facebook.com/hotvernors Chrissy Depowski

    I would really have preferred this without the editorializing.

  • Anonymous

    When it comes to police brutality, I think we have a lot more to offer than just criticisms of eye witness testimony. What about implicit bias against racial minorities?  People more readily identify tools as weapons if held by minorities. They are also quicker to shoot minorities than whites in experimental simulations. The skeptical community can do much more than just provide more ways to dismiss minorities’ allegations of police brutality.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    “Annnnnd we’re done. Without Elevatorgate coming up at all. Kind of amazed.”
    I sure hope that was a joke… Why do we need to keep kicking that dead horse?

  • Anonymous

    I agree with the editorialization though, he should know at the problem with diversity of religion is that with very few and narrow exceptions, religion isn’t about evidence, proof or logic.  Even people that believe in a religion would say that it’s a matter of faith.  At best, we get people that compartmentalize that away, and we get special pleading that it’s not up for that kind of discussion or any questioning is an attack.

  • Frank

    This conference was in the USA, right? I highly doubt anyone missed this for womens’ soccer.

    Furthermore, all of the blogs have been feminist cesspools for weeks now. What’s one more day going to matter?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-A-Drescher/1307296112 Barbara A. Drescher

      It looks like Tim Farley’s comment is displayed out of order, but he noted that there were many TAM-goers watching the game in other parts of the hotel, tweeting scores using the TAM9 hash tag. 

  • Nicole Smith

    I just want to say that I really appreciate the liveblog, so thank you Hemant, Jen, et al! I attended TAM last year, but wasn’t able to make it this time, so it’s great to still feel like I’m a tiny part of it by following along here. Thanks! :)

  • http://notungblog.wordpress.com/ Notung

    “Observation: From looking around, only white dudes were clapping for that. SHOCKING.”
    Thanks for this – I’ll try this line in my next critical philosophy paper. It’ll save me the trouble of spending time finding that pesky reasoning and elusive evidence we’ve typically needed to provide up until now.

  • Greg

    “DJ says he doesn’t want to be telling people the content that people should believe, that we should just talk about the methods of critical thinking. He doesn’t want reorganization away from science and to politics.Observation: From looking around, only white dudes were clapping for that. SHOCKING.”Erm… Yeah… how dare these white dudes be more interested in science than politics. How dare they want to be unconfrontational. Absolutely disgraceful. Seriously – what was the point of that? The ‘group’ of ‘white males’ do not have to dogmatically agree with what you think the sceptic priorities should be. They are quite entitled to have their own priorities.This really shouldn’t have to be said, but if this actually is a big thing for ‘white males’, and you try to usurp the sceptic movement into doing something else, all these ‘white males’ will just bugger off, and create a new organisation that remains based upon the science above other things like proselytising and politics.

    • Greg

      Erm… for some reason the comment section gobbled all my carriage returns. Let’s try again:

      “DJ says he doesn’t want to be telling people the content that people should believe, that we should just talk about the methods of critical thinking. He doesn’t want reorganization away from science and to politics.

      Observation: From looking around, only white dudes were clapping for that. SHOCKING.”

      Erm… Yeah… how dare these white dudes be more interested in science than politics. How dare they want to be unconfrontational. Absolutely disgraceful. 

      Seriously – what was the point of that? The ‘group’ of ‘white males’ do not have to dogmatically agree with what you think the sceptic priorities should be. They are quite entitled to have their own priorities.

      This really shouldn’t have to be said, but if this actually is a big thing for ‘white males’, and you try to usurp the sceptic movement into doing something else, all these ‘white males’ will just bugger off, and create a new organisation that remains based upon the science above other things like proselytising and politics.

  • http://www.bynkii.com/ John C. Welch

    “Apparently we’re going to be whizzing through physics and astronomy, which means my reporting will probably be horrible. I apologize ahead of time.Ptolemy. Something. Oh FSM, I want to go to sleep so badly.
    …Sorry Jennifer. I feel a certain kinship since we share a name, but I’m burnt out. I’m going to stare at your pretty photos while Hemant snarfs down his very very late lunch.”
    Translation: “you’re talking about boring stuff that I can’t editorialize on, so i shall ignore you, for if you aren’t talking about what *I* care about, then pfft, you should be ignored.”

    lame.

    • http://www.blaghag.com/ Jen

      Yes, that’s why I did the same thing with every other non-diversity talk I helped Hemant liveblog…oh wait, no, I didn’t.

      Jennifer’s talk made little sense. She showed clips from Trip to the Moon, Dr. Who, and Contact. Both Hemant and I had no idea what she was talking about. There was nothing to report.

      • cbc

        The only aspect of this passage that raised my eyebrows was that you seemed to commit the “sin” for which you’ve called out Hemant in the past: reducing a woman to her appearance. I follow your blog religiously and enjoyed your guest-posting here. Just wanted to point that out.

        • http://www.blaghag.com/ Jen

          …I had no idea what you were talking about and had to go reread what I wrote. Then I got what you thought I meant. When I said “pretty photos,” I meant the pretty photos of the universe in her slides. The photo of Jennifer was added by Hemant after I wrote that.

          • cbc

            Thanks for clearing that up! Keep up the great work.

      • http://www.bynkii.com/ John C. Welch

        But that’s not what you said. For people who, you know, *weren’t there*, they are kind of stuck with the words you chose to type. You didn’t say “I’d say more about jennifer’s talk, but it didn’t make a lot of sense to me, she seemed to be bouncing around a lot, so I’ve little to blog about other than trying to type everything she says as she says it.”

        What you meant in your head, and what you wrote on bits are, evidently, two *very* different things. Given your commentary during the previous session, exactly what is someone who only has your words to go by expected to think? 

        • http://www.blaghag.com/ Jen

          Uh, those two things aren’t very different. I said I was burnt out and not comprehending things very well, aka not knowing what she was talking about. Stop trying to find controversy where there is none. When you watch the videos when they’re released, you’ll find my summaries are as accurate as possible for someone frantically typing away. Any editorial marks are obviously marked as editorial. Sheesh.

          • Silent Bob

            Heh. This made me laugh:

            “Stop trying to find controversy where there is none.”

            A near-perfect one-line paraphrase of Dawkins’ comments on Pharyngula.

      • badrescher

        That says more about you than her talk.

        • http://www.blaghag.com/ Jen

          I didn’t realize there was a law that I must enjoy every single talk given. Did I miss that in the proceeding somewhere?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-A-Drescher/1307296112 Barbara A. Drescher

            Did I say that you broke some law?

  • Josh

    I don’t think it would be a good idea to get “the movement” (If such a thing even exists) into politics. If we want to build a community the last thing we need is more stuff to disagree about. The only political action we should be involved in is defending the constitution.

    Actually, it just occured to me non-americans could give a shit about our legal documents, but I stand by the spirit of the statement.

  • Anonymous

    I really don’t think we can separate science from politics. Especially when it comes to things worth having a “movement” over.

    Evolution vs. ID is political.
    NASA funding is political.
    Vaccination is political.
    AIDS denialism is political.
    Climate change is political.
    Prohibitions on stem cell research are political.
    The anti-abortion disinformation campaign is political.
    Ex-gay therapy is political.

    It seems silly to me to cultivate critical thinking, and then disregard its fruits.

  • Bryan

    “DJ says he doesn’t want to be telling people the content that people
    should believe, that we should just talk about the methods of critical
    thinking…Observation: From looking around, only white dudes were clapping for that. SHOCKING.”

    So…wait.  According to you, white dudes don’t like to tell people what they should believe.  This is a sign of the patriarchy?

    • Anonymous

      No, white dudes don’t want to acknowledge race and gender issues. That’s the sign of a racist patriarchy.

      • http://notungblog.wordpress.com/ Notung

        Interesting. What is the opinion of black women? Latino hermaphrodites? I love this pigeon-holing; it makes life so much simpler.

        • Anonymous

          I wasn’t trying to tell Bryan what all white men think. I was trying to show him what was wrong about his characterization of the situation as presented, which I think is apparent if one reads Bryan’s comment. Do you have any criticisms that are relevant to my remark when context is taken into account?

          • http://notungblog.wordpress.com/ Notung

            Well if Jen agrees with your clarification then my questions might be posed to her instead.

            To agree with Bryan: If a group of skeptics decide that certain political issues are outside the jurisdiction of that group, it does not follow that they view those issues as unimportant.

            Anyway, judging by the Twitter feed, Jen seemed to be the only one that believed that “only white men were applauding”.

            • http://www.blaghag.com/ Jen

              And judging from your comment, you didn’t read the twitter feed, which had multiple people agreeing with me.

              I didn’t say all the white men applauded, or that white men didn’t applaud the other side. Just when DJ got applause, it was only from white men.

              • http://notungblog.wordpress.com/ Notung

                Of course I read the feed. It’s possible I might have missed those in agreement with you, but I certainly noticed some disagreeing with you.

                I wonder whether “only white men applauding” was causally related to Grothe’s position, or whether it just that those who agreed just happened to be white and male. The former might be “shocking”, but the latter just seems contingent. I can’t see any reason why necessarily, Grothe’s seemingly very reasonable view (that skeptic communities be primarily about skepticism as a method of inquiry as opposed to a set of doctrines and political movements) should be accepted by a particular race or gender.

                Furthermore, I simply reject the notion that a position loses any validity based on the racial or gender characteristics of those who hold it.

              • badrescher

                As I tweeted, from my vantage point, much of the applause DJ received was from women. Including me and the group I sat with, which was 2/3rds women. Maybe if you sat far enough from the stage that you could actually see a reasonable sized sample, you’d have seen a more diverse group in general.

                • http://www.blaghag.com/ Jen

                  Thanks for your input. Though it’s clear I was just reporting what I was seeing, which was still hundreds of people.

                  Regardless of who clapped, what matters is what DJ actually said, which was hardly worth the applause. He derailed the whole panel to be a discussion on how awesome the JREF is and was oblivious to the points Greta and Jamila were making. But I don’t want to hijack Hemant’s thread, I’ll talk more about it in my TAM posts.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-A-Drescher/1307296112 Barbara A. Drescher

                  He derailed nothing. He made extremely important and relevant points. Up to this point, the entire panel (DJ included) was all over the place. 

                  You may not have thought that his comments were worthy of applause, but apparently a  good portion of the audience – men and women – did.

                  I heard a lot of applause during the weekend for things that I felt were unworthy, too. THIS is what is meant by “diversity”. 

                • http://www.blaghag.com/ Jen

                  This is *not* what is meant by “diversity” – at least not on this panel. Desiree explicitly said they were going to be talking about gender, race, sexuality, disabilities, and age. Those things are totally different from diversity of ideas or opinions, which is a totally different topic. His points may have been insightful for another panel, but they were derailing on this one.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-A-Drescher/1307296112 Barbara A. Drescher

                  Straw man, Jen, and a  red herring diversion from the original point, which was that your observation about who applauded was a matter of seeing (or at least reporting) what conveniently fit with your views about the content of what was applauded. 

                • Lujz

                  I just want to test the nesting of of these replies.

                • Lujz

                  The nesting works. 

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-A-Drescher/1307296112 Barbara A. Drescher

                  He derailed nothing. He made extremely important and relevant points. Up to this point, the entire panel (DJ included) was all over the place. 

                  You may not have thought that his comments were worthy of applause, but apparently a  good portion of the audience – men and women – did.

                  I heard a lot of applause during the weekend for things that I felt were unworthy, too. THIS is what is meant by “diversity”. 

          • Bryan

            Notung: “If a group of skeptics decide that certain political issues are outside
            the jurisdiction of that group, it does not follow that they view those
            issues as unimportant.”

            Exactly my point.  I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t be concerned with race and gender issues.  Obviously, these are important issues and they should be addressed.  However, creating a unified “party line” on a given political issue for a group again, WHOSE ONLY UNITING CHARACTERISTIC is skepticism, seems like an incredibly challenging, excluding process.  Not every subject can be divided into black or white, right or wrong distinctions, even when critical thinking and logic is brought to the table, so to say that we can use skepticism to find definite stances on complex issues like the drug war and feminism (not every feminist agrees on the same feminist principles, for example)  is maybe a bit arrogant.

            Simply because I’m a white male who thinks the idea of a unified skeptic ideology is ill-founded, Jen discounts my opinion: “Of COURSE those white men want to avoid the tough issues!”

            • Anonymous

              I don’t think drug policy, sexism, or state-sanctioned violence against minorities are too complex for skepticism to tackle. In fact, I think these extremely emotionally-volatile issues are the most in need of disciplined, critical thinking.

              I don’t think we all need to agree on something for it to be an important skeptical issue. We disagree on plenty of things, and close examination of ANY issue reveals complexity far beyond simple right and wrong. But, if we’re all honestly looking for the truth using the scientific method, our opinions should converge over time.

              Skepticism offers something valuable for every person and every issue. Awareness of cognitive/emotional/cultural bias, and vigilance against the comfort of intellectual laziness are always beneficial. I think that if we back off from this basic idea, we’re guaranteeing our own irrelevance.

              • Bryan

                Cortex_Returns: “But, if we’re all honestly looking for the truth using the scientific method, our opinions should converge over time.”

                I totally agree.  And I wasn’t at the talk, nor do I read the Twitter feeds, so all I know about what was actually said was what was written on this blog.

                I just didn’t appreciate the implication that this was an issue of the white man trying to stop social progress with his narrow-focused vision of skepticism.  Saying “white dudes don’t want to acknowledge race and gender issues” is the same as saying “women just wanna pop out babies”.

      • Bryan

        I’m certainly not denying that there IS a patriarchy and a real problem of inequality in the world, I just think this editorialization was a bit much.  There are certainly going to be differences of opinion, perspective, and political ideology in a group whose only unifying factor is disbelief (on the atheist front) and/or critical thinking (on the skeptic front), so I think a discussion of whether or not said group should champion certain issues in politics is a very relevant, very necessary one. 

        Jen saying essentially (and I’m paraphrasing, of course) “White men don’t care about minorities or social justice because one group of them wants to focus on skepticism rather than politics” is a pretty huge, incendiary leap to make.  A small bit in an otherwise interesting post, but in my opinion misguided and unnecessary.

        • Anonymous

          I would disagree that she’s generalizing about white men. I do think she’s justifiably making a general statement about the issue, though. That is, not all white men agree with the idea, but those who do agree are almost exclusively white men. 

          While this isn’t necessarily home-run proof of pervasive prejudice, it is a compelling piece of evidence for a significant level of racial and gender bias. I think it’s a fair observation to report.

    • badrescher

      Even if it was, there was no evidence of that here. The idea that applause for DJ had a different distribution than the others is ludicrous.

  • http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com miller

    Wow, now that panel I would like to see further discussed on blogs!

    My initial reaction is that I have sympathy for both sides.  It is important to discuss topics that are relevant to under-represented groups, and our focus can both reflect and perpetuate our current lack of diversity.  On the other hand, I worry when libertarians politicize skepticism, and to be fair I must also worry when liberals do it.

  • badrescher

    “Uh, who the hell cares about history when we’re trying to make things better?”

    I care, and you should. DJ may not have communicated this point well, but until you figure out that we learn from the past and from what others have experienced before us, you will never know why.

    Ever hear the adage about standing on the shoulders of giants? Science itself works this way: good science starts with good theory. Good theory comes from current knowledge. Current knowledge isn’t what makes sense to you, it’s what evidence (i.e., someone else’s knowledge/work) shows. PROGRESS (making things better…) is the result of hard, goal-directed work which is built on current knowledge.

    Then again, perhaps you are thinking of the atheist movement rather than the topic of the panel, which was diversity in the skeptic movement. Easily confused given the panel’s make-up.

  • http://twitter.com/krelnik Tim Farley

    Actually, Frank, elsewhere in the same hotel there were quite a number of people watching the women’s soccer game, and there were score updates on the #TAM9 Twitter hashtag all afternoon. Perhaps the USA as a whole doesn’t pay attention, but TAM attendees definitely were.

  • Bee

    I’m a female, and the “white males” barb seemed unnecessary. After Elevatorgate, I am of the opinion that science, progression as a species, rational discourse, and equality for EVERYONE, even white guys, should be our main focus. And if that makes me a gender traitor, so be it.

  • http://evolutionguide.blogspot.com/ William

    Is this the last day?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      Yes


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X