I’ve sent you a couple of official messages. Acknowledge them, please.
As for your latest uninformed complaint about the Skepchick harassment policy at Convergence, I’ll just make a few criticisms.
-
Yes, the policy says you can’t harass people for their religion. Please note: “harass” and “offend” are not synonyms of one another. I offend Catholics all the time, but one thing I do not do is go stand outside the church on Sunday morning and heckle everyone going in.
Note also that this is a skepticism and science track at a science-fiction convention. There will be Christians, Buddhists, pantheists, and pagans in attendance. It would not be appropriate in this context to deny theists any participation.
-
Your argument that people would use the clause asking that everyone respects requests to stop doing things as opening the door to requiring everyone to respect requests from Islamic fanatics to wear burkas is so ridiculous that it made me giggle. This is Convergence, a science-fiction and fantasy convention. Have you ever been to one?
-
Further misreading: that the policy acknowledges that the Skepchick/FtB group can only monitor what goes on in our party rooms does not mean that there is no larger domain that can have anti-harassment policies enforced. The con administration has been quite clear in how they expect people to behave, and has told us exactly what they will not tolerate…and we’ve been working with the con security. They are taking harassment very seriously, and had taken steps even before we signed on to improve the environment.
You don’t seem to understand that these conventions rely on enthusiastic participation by as wide a slice of the population as they can attract, and consider making it safe for women a high priority.
Also, fear this right down to the trembling hairs on your endangered scrotum: all of the security staff at Convergence that I have met with in the last few months have been women.
-
We cannot throw people out of the conference because we are not the hosting organization. Convergence is. And they have and will continue to throw people out who can’t respect reasonable boundaries.
Also, as a scientist, I would expect you to understand empirical results. These SF/Fantasy cons have been going on for years and have been immensely successful — I often tell atheists/skeptics to go to these things just to see how a large convention (5000+ people) is well-managed and still fun. You can stare at pieces of paper and invent hypothetical reasons why they are objectionable, but the reality is that when they happen, they work.
The religion remark here is just silly. Criticizing does not equal harassment. If I was at a conference and I listened to someone mock the transubstantiation, I’d have no problem.
If said person pursued a Catholic who was minding his own business around and continually accosted and personally insulted, badgered or threatened that person, and called him ‘a stupid dirty fundie’ every five minutes I would expect any decent person to step in and stick up for victim.
Why is this distinction so confusing?
TF has definitely confused me during this. Does/did he honestly think that no other large gathering would have expected standards of behaviour posted for the attendees? While not the sci-fi/fantasy cons so much, I used to go to several anime based conventions a year. And considering the skimpy cosplaying, you better believe there were anti-harassment and “no touch unless you get permission” documents out there. As well as telling people to bathe, brush their teeth, and use deodorant. Con Funk is NOT a pleasant experience. One of the cons I used to attend is Anime Expo which can have 10,000 attendees….. Somehow, people still had fun.
The best part is that he complains this won’t stop harassment at bars after previously complaining that any policy would declare the fun bar atmosphere harassment and be a killjoy with no acknowledgement of the contradiction.
5000 is a medium-sized fandom con. I go to a few cons a year with attendance in five figures.
Why should he acknowledge you?
Talk about a sense of ENTITLEMENT!
Such a hypocrite.
I’ve never been to an atheist/skeptic oriented conference, but I have been to a number of sci-fi/fantasy cons. I even spent a day in a chainmail bikini for a costume contest. Everything was very safe, there were no unwanted touches, and while there was plenty of flirting that did go on there, it was flirting, not aggressive pursuit of the fabled vagina creature.
I’ve also seen the number of women at these things swell immensely and I imagine the comfortable atmosphere helps quite a bit. They’re not perfect (I’m not a fan of women being hired to stand around for objectification, which happens at quite a few of the larger cons), but they’re a good start.
This is his fourth post on the subject (making the only blogger that I’m aware of on FTB who’s spending so much time on this ‘disproportionate’ issue), and now he takes time to look at an actual policy?
Most of the Sci-fi/fantasy cons I go to are fairly small (100-400 people depending) though I’ve been to Worldcons that were in the couple of thousand range. Bigger than that we don’t have the population for really, though the Supernovas do quite well (since they are mainly trade, cosplay and get things signed it hasn’t attracted me).
They’re not entirely harassment free, but they do have policies and I feel pretty darn safe there. There are frequently panels at the cons I do attend dedicated to ways of making them even safer spaces.
I would still respect a “I fucked up and am sorry” at this point. Really. I am starting to get sad rather than angry at the increasingly weird attempts to appear correct despite all evidence.
As I mentioned on one of the threads about con policies, there is a difference between telling a Catholic that as a Catholic they are a baby-raper, or voicing a disagreement with the Catholic Church’s child abuse cover-ups and the believers who give such an organization the weight to do so by accepting its label. The first could reasonably be argued as harassment, and would be a PR nightmare for groups that excused it as acceptable mass behavior. The second tactic conveys the same information without giving the offendee nearly as much excuse to dismiss the point, and is much more appropriate as an official policy.
You work in a lab, you’ve a safety document. You work in a college you certainly have a code of conduct for students and staff. You attend a conference usually the hosting body has some line it referencing the colleges guidelines on behaviour. I walked into my local supermarket and on the front door is both their staff code of conduct and the policies of the store for their customers. This isn’t a new idea and so long as it is one page simply stated and written by somone who understands the actual backgound law it shouldn’t be an issue.
Also it should be reviewed after each conference to see did it work and how to make it better.
Tony Ryan wrote…
Did you not notice the “official” part? You’re probably one of the people who think that Thunderf00t may be booted for disagreeing with Myers so vociferously, so I’ll have to point this out to you – it’s called transparency. If Thunderf00t is ignoring official FTB e-mails, then he’s showing he has no interest in actual dialogue. Which seems to be the case just based on his posts so far. He seems to prefer angry, emotional, strawmanning monologues, with the only viewpoints he listens to being those people who agree with him (polling his regular YouTube viewers who will already have a tendency to agree with him and considering that poll to be viable?).
In other words, you’re a moron.
This is painful to watch. Really. It’s like someone looked a sign that declared the nearest exit to be to the left and started shouting about how it was wrong for people to tell him to take one exit over the other, and what would we do if a fire broke out and people felt like they had to go through that exit instead of a window, even if that exit was blocked by fire.
Does your reading problem cause you problems in the rest of life ?
If you had bothered to read what PZ actually said, you realise it was “I’ve sent you a couple of official messages. Acknowledge them, please” [The emphasis is mine].
PZ is one of the people who runs FtB. So he quite entitled to expected a response to emails sent in that regard.
How odd though that you think it is quite acceptable for Thunderfoot to ignore emails from the the people who host his blog. That, I think, is what really speaks of a sense of entitlement.
Do you have anything to offer in your defence, or will you accept that you are a lying scumbag ?
I thought Tony was being sarcastic until I checked the linked name.
Because TF would not be standing up for the believer in that situation. He would join in the heckling and harassment.
Look, a ‘pit-style gotcha from the twitter guy who didn’t call Rebecca Watson a ‘cunt’.
Look, I was kinda on your side about that at first; I thought you were poorly treated by Watson. As far as I can tell, though, your beef with Myers is that he banned you or blocked you or barricaded you or something? And then you went all OTT with the look-at-me demands.
I’ll explain this one to you. In this case it’s not some wounded tweeting. In this case Myers is one of the 2 guys who run the blog network, the site that hosts TF’s blog. He specified that the emails were “official” ones, so presumably they have to do with the hosting arrangements, and so I guess that’s why he feels ‘entitled’ to acknowledgement. Just so you know and don’t have to further further embarrass yourself.
Was he the one who got all upset because Rebecca Watson thought he called her a cunt rather than a feminazi ? If so, it is a very little brain he has. So small it makes you wonder what keeps his ears apart.
There’s a special non-return valve which keeps the air in his skull at a slight overpressure.
Wait, Tony Ryan was serious? I was laughing at his obvious sarcasm.
Poe’s law strikes again…
There’s a joke about the valve being connected to his backside in there somewhere for anyone who wants to go digging for it.
@21. Thunderf00t’s doing enough digging for himself.
Is Thunderf00t on the way out then? I was thinking that would be ridiculous and prove to the ‘other side’ that the free in FtB is mis-assigned. But now I’m not so sure – been a fast moving ride in opinion.
First post – I did laugh mainly at the outre nature of it and the thought of PZs face when he read it. Also proved the free in FtB is working well.
Second post – ok PZs response was terrible (imo) – poor use of insult and emotive language to de-construct the argument and he fell into a massive trap with the ‘Ask for consent’ bit looking like the killjoy ‘feminazi’ I’m sure some think he is. But starting to think TF is flogging a dead donkey
Third post – so bad it hurt to read especially as I think there is an amount of group-think on FtBs at times… But… A poll of his own YouTube respondents is in anyway free of ‘confirmation bias’! I’m reading Ben Goldacre’s Book – Bad Science at the moment and that was unforgivable.
Fourth and Final(?) post – he used PZs perceived strawmen on his second post to attack but this is so full of it the argument is lost. I wonder if he will respond to Greg Ladens comment pointing out the policy is not even covering the whole event therefore a lot of his ridicule misses the mark completely!
Oh look it’s Troll Ryan from the Coffee Loving Denialists, lol!
I’m guessing magnets, though I can’t say how they work.
Yes, yes he is.
@Tony Ryan – Please read your own post on your blog about working together and re-think the comment at #5.
I’m sure you agree PZ is ‘on the same side’ as you in terms of scepticism/atheism and even feminism (Even if you disagree on the detail). So making bitter comments and calling him a hypocrite comes across poorly to me at least. I’m sure he and RW pissed you off royally but not taking it personally would be a useful skill to hone.
As a Scientist perhaps you should refrain from making truth statements out of your field of study. Please show me the empirical results you are referring to or have have gathered to backup your statements.
Furthermore this is beginning to look like a personal vendetta against Thunderf00t. Perhaps you could also lay of the “harassment” which contrary to your behavior you seem so eager to stop.
I may or may not agree with Thunderf00t, but your reactions to him are way out of line. This is not the way we do things in the science community.
I was too polite to the fucking fuckbrained fuckwit then.
By that logic, elu, people who don’t work in inquiry fields such as science can’t make truth statements about anything. Try again.
No they aren’t. Sexual harassment is a big deal.
@28. It would be a personal vendetta if PZ tried to get him fired and made up some stories and posted them on Dontdatehimgirl.com. Or, if Thunderf00t let this drop and PZ kept bringing it up for years to discredit everything else he ever said. This is Thunderf00t continuing to make bad arguments, so PZ responds to them.
No you just grossly mischaracterize anti-harassment policies, refuse to admit fault after being explained to in detail why what you just said isn’t what the policy states and belittle people who complain about you using their copyrighted material.
Do you really want to be going around claiming the science community is in favour of ignoring sexism and misogyny on the grounds that they are unimportant ?
I can only assume you hark back to the days when women knew they place, and that place was not in the lab.
It’s great that Ed Brayton and PZ organized and set up FTB so that people could throw bombs at them and at their fellow bloggers. Honestly, I can’t imagine how people ever discussed issues like convention harassment policies before. Oh I suppose they could have, like, met for coffee, or called on a phone, or Skyped, or emailed … but what fun is that? Using phrases like “If I understand, you are saying …” or “Well, did you ever think of this …” is all so very GroupThink and not at all FreeThought. It’s much more productive to act all defensive and paranoid, and let everybody think you might actually be Elevator Guy.
Anyway, when Thunderf00t starts his own blog network, I’m sure he and his minions can demonstrate how women can participate comfortably without any discussion about boundaries or attempts to state principles or any of that boring old PC stuff – or, more likely, how totally rad it is when women and have no fucking idea what they are walking into on a blog or at an event! WooT!
“Harass and offend are not synoyms ”
Seriously????????????????? …. Seriously?????
Harassment has many forms verbal being one of them… What constitutes verbal harassment if not offensive comments?
It’s even in the actual policy: “Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to ”
Now for some reason the first line of things that will be safe and harassment free actually mentions religion (an obviously disingenuous statement for any sceptical event). It is also mentioned that no harassment of any form (I would assume this any means ANY and MUST includes verbal) will be tolerated… and later on when we are once more presented with what harassment includes religion is oddly no longer present(weird).
Here is a simple improvement/suggestion. Get rid of religion in the policy all together. How can the incoherence of the policy in that respect be missed? How hard must one try not to see it? Maybe at this point the fact that thunderfoot wrote about it means that it just has to be wrong since this is no more about basic reality and English but some sort of alpha male pissing contest?
He plainly stated why he thinks TF is wrong. ??? How is that out of line?
You’re right, but it works both ways. TF must prove his claims with solid and conclusive evidence. OOOPS. didn’t happen. So, take your concern where it belongs, to TF. Teach him how scientists behave, including how to put up the right evidence, or to shut the fuck up…
Silly person! Because PZ is standing up for wiminz!
someone is already blogging that the official messages are intended to kick thunderf00t off of FTB. they left a link in the thread at FT’s place. too funny.
I used to take Thunderf00t seriously. I have attended and volunteered at CONvergence regularly since it started, so I now that he is talking out of his ass when he makes these wild assertions about what the policy means, and how it will be implemented.
Whilst I would have no objection if that was the case, the simple fact is that we have no idea what the messages were about. I guess making shit up is nothing new for them.
@RObert B: That is an over simplification. PZ is referring to empirical results as a scientist. If he makes statements based on results he should provide them.
@Logi: I never said it wasn’t. I’m referring specifically to the way PZ is reacting.
@Julian: I did nothing of the sort. Perhaps you should read it again without making things up afterwards when you comment.
@Matt penfold: I am referring to the way people are reacting, I am not talking about the subject matter of misogyny or sexism.
jacklewis
Many Christians would find my statement that their god doesn’t exist and that the system of religion has enabled child abuse, to be offensive.
Me chasing them up the street haranguing them, claiming that they’re child abusers, would be harassment.
This really isn’t difficult.
@jacklewis
I just re read the policy and this is what it has to say regarding religion
That’s it. Where are you seeing “you can’t criticize religion” or “you can’t offend religion?”
It literally is not there. Religion, like race, ethnicity, sex, gender and sexual orientation is not grounds to discriminate or harass someone. Which is why the policy specifically lists it under the categories of groups you can’t engage in
“deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.”
(What the policy outlines as harassing behavior.) Even where the policy specifically talks about offensive verbal comments religion is not mentioned but every other category is.
So I have to ask again, where are you seeing “you cannot offend religions.”
No.
You cannot harass someone because of their religion. That’s discrimination and not something any con should tolerate.
I mean, I really don’t think that a convention that has a WHOLE FLOOR OF A HOTEL devoted to parties that accomidate the fetish communities has to worry about a policy saying “If someone is harrassing you, this is who you talk to, and this is how we will handle it” impinging on people’s right to have a very unconventional good time, and all the quantity and variety of sex they choose to have.
Oh lord…
Thunderf000t is doing that. Which is why Prof. Myers is being so terse with him.
@elu1
Thunderfoot is saying that. And it’s a ridiculous position to take. PZ is ridiculing as appropriate. Do you have anything useful to contribute, or are you just tone trolling?
(That’s rhetorical. I know what your answer will be, and I also know what the answer really is.)
Well how should they react to continues sexism and misogyny ?
However, to claim you are not talking about sexism or misogyny ain’t true. Why the lie about it ?
Maybe it’s time someone made a “Why Do People Laugh at Thunderf00t’s Harassment Policy Arguments?” series.
@julian
It’s not in the CONvergence policy. But Skepchick has a separate policy for their party. It’s in Skepchick’s policy.
@ elu:
What? No. PZ alluded to easily checkable public information. His PhD does not excuse you from the responsibility of doing your own googling.
[long time lurker, first time commenter]
I’ve been reading the latest Thunderf00t output, and I can practically see him twirling the proverbial villanous moustache at the thought that some very reasonable people are trying to create a safe environment with the help of a policy.
Even if he was right [and he most definitely isn’t], there are numerous situations in which you don’t want to feel vindicated. You don’t stand next to someone dying of cancer and sneer “See, I told you the treatment wouldn’t work” just like you don’t analyze an anti-harrassment policy to demonstrate that – wonders of wonders – it is fallible and can’t cover all situations.
If you are genuinely trying to help [but Thunderf00t has long extinguished that possibility with his increasingly hateful posts] you provide feedback and suggest improvements, you most certainly do not announce to the world that ” Hey, your policy doesn’t cover bars, so I can totally be a privileged biscuit there!”
And to those who think that kicking out Thunderf00t from FTB is sign of a dictatorship, and “not the way we do science” -see elu1’s comment, I think they are intentionally missing the point and/or trying to muddy the waters. If a person makes repeated hateful comments, whether they are racist, sexist, homophobic or of any other offensive nature, they should be kicked out of a community that makes it a point not to tolerate such things.It’s enough we have to put up with such attitudes in our daily lives and many times are powerless to stop them. Why shouldn’t we take measures where we can?
Why should Thunderf00t be allowed to continue when he jeers in the face of reasonable discussions? And he insists that his right to feel free at conventions – although harrasment policies do not restrict anyone’s freedom – is vastly more important than everyone else’s right to feel safe.
No, you are referring how PZ and the horde is reacting. I see no criticism of how TF is reacting. Either show total and utter non-partisanship, or shut the fuck up…
Why aren’t your at TF criticizing TF? Or, are you just another porcupine receptacle of a tone troll?
I give Ed and PZ mad props for putting up with this nonsense. This is why I don’t run a blog network – if I provided somebody a soapbox and they used it to mock and defame me and my friends, it would last exactly one post. And imam totally speculating here, of course, because TF will likely never get to run a blog like FTB, but I would wager he would not be as tolerant of perceived asshattery were the hat on the other ass.
I hope even the pro-TF cohort can appreciate and acknowledge that, whatever you think of PZ’s response to this bizarre episode, at least there has been a dialog.
First rule of holes, Thunderfoot.
Possibly silly suggestion : PZ why not leave a comment with link here even? on TF’s blog?
Is it me (could welll be, I find it hard to catch up esp. with such a lot of long threads) or has neither TF or PZ commented on the others blogs (as commenters not using their own blogs to criticise each others.)
Or is my tiredness making me overlook something really basic?
@ researchtobedone says:
Hmmm … maybe we could set up an intertoob poll of everybody that we’re friends with and see if they like that idea?
TF seems to leave a maximum of one comment on his own blog. I haven’t seen him on anyone else’s.
lol
This is not “the science community”, Kemosabe.
it’s the blogosphere.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls: I can be as partisan as I want to be. And you are right the PZ horde are extremely over sensitive and take everything out of proportion. This whole agree with me or you are a misogynist and sexist asshole approach that some people take is laughable.
Yep, nobody here gives a shit about your bigoted opinion, and you are under advisement to go elsewhere from PZ. Why haven’t you?
Tony Ryan, you goddamn slimy ass, get the fuck out.
Your kind is not welcome here. Your kind is not welcome anywhere that decent honest human beings like to hang out.
Go back to where you belong.
Just like those damn gays crying “homophobia” every time someone disagrees with their right to get married. The nerve!
Then you can’t complain about our response to fuckwittery. PZ runs a rewd, lewd, and crewd blog. Since your name isn’t on the masthead, shut the fuck up about tone. Due to hypocrisy, I only listen on how I should do things from truly neutral sources. If you are partisan, you can fuck off with a rotting porcupine.
So, basically the Brain Eater got Thunderf00t?
That is so sad. I was looking forward to add his blog to my daily reading, but all we’re getting is a really bad go at pwning PZ. Is he really so insecure that he feels the need to splatter urine around FTB so everyone knows this is his turf now?
Seriously, WTF?
Thunderf00t was one of the first internet skeptics/atheists I have met. It was through him I found AronRa, Zomgitchris, DonExodus and yes, even Pharyngula.
But it pains me immensely to even try and read his blithering on his ftb blog. I mean, seriously, as a scientist he has to know about sampling bias? About cognitive dissonance? About Dunning-Kruger effect? Yet he has been shining example of all three phenomena in last days.
He goes on a rant about an issue where he draws general conclusion from anecdotal experience, he tries to confirm his own bias by appealing to his predominantly male and biased youtube subscribers, and now he indirectly admits he had no effing clue about the issue from the start yet somehow he still manages to convince himself, he is in the right.
What a disappointment, really. I was hoping for some serious science blogging with some creationist bashing for fun. I never interpreted his videos in any malicious way, even those about islam (and I still do not interpret them about promoting hate and violence, although I think they are poorly researched and communicated).
If he gets the boot out of ftb, not a single tear will be shed from this reader. There is plenty of good reading here as it is.
Two supporting points…
SF cons having been around for years… The first WorldCon was held in New York in 1939.
On disparate groups getting along better than you’d otherwise expect… At BayCon (a San Francisco Bay Area SF con), every year on Sunday morning, a Methodist minister and a Catholic priest (both SF fans that attend and participate actively) get together to hold a service for those wishing one. They cooperate and negotiate on who will do what and what piece of liturgy from whose set will be used at various points.
If the various christian sects got along together half as well elsewhere, the rest of the year, one might at least be able to have *some* respect for them.
–W. H. Heydt
Thanks for confirming you regard women as second class citizens. It saves having to take anything you say seriously.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls: Seems you have a problem then since nobody is truly neutral. I never said I was partisan, but I reserve the right to be as partisan as I want to be.
@skeptifem:
Great way to prove my point. Take a quote and spin it out of proportion. Seems like a tactic a religious person would use.
@elu1 #60-
So I’m just being extremely oversensitive and blowing things out of proportion by being female and NOT wanting to have random men physically touch me or ask me for sex at a convention?
Why is it so difficult to understand, elu1, that if you espouse certain opinions and agree with some statements, you are sexist and misogynistic? This has nothing to do with horde mentality, but it’s entirely dependent on your attitude. You say hateful things about people, we will call you out on it.
Ever wondered why you are not in agreement with us? If we are telling you that certain statements are sexist, and you disagree, what does that make you?
Besides, considering the world we live in, you could totally come out and acknowledge that yes, you are a misogynist, and nothing would happen…unfortunately.
People who self identify as feminists and pro-choice and atheist are more likely to have to put up with potentially negative attitudes IRL.
@28. elu1 :
Not as I see it. Personal vendetta where TF is doing most of the fighting and carrying on against what seems pretty reasonable criticism when he’s just been invited here?
TF turned up, what, a week ago? After his intro post has made only a series of (five? six? seven?) anti-sexual harrassment policy, anti-feminist rants attacking his hosts – esp. PZ personally – & including an appeal to popularity based on a youtube poll.
So, then, you conclude PZ is conducting a vendetta against TF? Huh?
This FTB blogplex thingummy isn’t the science community exactly, elu1. It is public web-space that anyone can enter and has. It is about science but also about politics and much more too. Or such is my experience and understanding of it anyhow.
Are you, elu1, a scientist yourself? What field of science may I ask and does your workplace not have similar policies in regard to harrassment a swell as Occ.Health & Safety?
How do you suggest the science community would best settle this?
@Matt Penfold: What the fuck is wrong with you. I never said anything like that. I believe in equality for all.
Where “oversensitive” means “apt to call out idiocy” and “out of proportion” means “as if it’s supposed to be well-thought out.”
And we reserve the right to tell misogynist fuckwits like you and TF to fuck off, and your tone trolling “inordinate response” is only for partisanship ala the rethuglicans, who can give but not take. TF’s responses have been idiotic, making his defenders idiotic in the precess. Get some intelligence.
Charly:
Yeah, this pains me as well. This is how seemingly intelligent people get pulled into conspiracy theories and woo. We are all capable of falling prey to cognitive errors and fallacies. Skepticism is about being aware of that and not just being vigilant for these fallacies in the outside world, but examining our own minds for them at every turn.
That a scientist could fail so spectacularly at recognizing his own biases and failings is sad.
@rowanvt
Yes. When men touch us without our permission, we should be flattered. When men aggressively try to solicit sex from us, we should spend endless time gently refusing. When men follow us to our room without asking, we should just expect this kind of thing at conferences. If we get upset at something a man has done to us, we’re being too emotional to be listened to. If we don’t get upset at something a man does to us, this proves that his actions were valid. And if we really are such fragile little flowers that we can’t handle the way we are being treated at conventions, we should GTOA; well, except we shouldn’t GTOA, because if we do that, we’re just showing that women are irrational.
No, religious people really are going around claiming it is unfair to label them as homophobic or bigoted just because they think gays are second class citizens.
You have admitted you regard women as second class citizens, so you are no better than those homophobic and bigoted Christians. The terminology has changed of course, you are a misogynist not a homophobe (all I would not be at all surprised if you were also a homophobe).
So please, quit complaining about being called something that is an accurate description on you. It is not very scientific to do so is it ?
Disclaimer:
I promised myself I would stay out of this, and most importantly Thunder got himself into this mess so he should be the one to extricate himself from it. I am not intending to extricate him by saying this that would be impossible. Before anyone starts dog-piling on me please remember how easy it is to do that.
That being said what I see is the disagreement can only escalate beyond what it should. I am not saying stop picking on poor Thunder because he can make enemies effortlessly it seems. He makes in my opinion bad judgment calls at times and others he can articulate what he thinks strikingly lucidly (ex Why Do People Laugh at Creationists Series).
He is trying to communicate disagreement with the way harassment is handled at conferences. He botches that in some of his language like saying it is not a problem at conventions. At most that is what he is guilty of. From what I know of him he is not defending his privilege to harass women as some have said. He would be mortified if something he did upset a woman.
It is not just the rift with him that bugs me, it seems that this is a very polarizing issue in this community. A big part of that is without body language and facial expressions writing can come off colder than it is intended. It escalates from there. And too, Thunder is in Hungary so he is on a different schedule.
I know from my own perspective this is the only community I have where I can be myself. I am not saying you should have peace at any cost. I am just adding my observations to help improve understanding in this limited communication format. I would live to see a dialogue between Thunder and PZ on Google+.
This constant silencing by banhammer, that we hear of, of all disagreement; that must be why this thread is so lacking in disagreement, yes?
</snark>
Not if you are defending TF. Prima facie evidence you don’t…
@58. skeptifem :
Thanks skeptifem. I haven’t seen him commenting outside of his own blog threads either.
elu1 #60
And we can point out your partisanship. Funny how that works.
Have you noticed that the only people who whine about the Horde wanting women treated as people are misogynists?
Misogyny is not laughable.
I read what you wrote. For example:
You are lying when you say you did say that. Since the horde are in favour of treating women as people it follows you regard doing so as being sensitive and taking things out of proportion.
Why the fucking pretence, you fucking lying arsehole ? You know what you said, so stop the fucking lies.
Speaking personally, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, where there might be a possibility of mistaken intent. Sometimes too much, but that’s how I roll.
I see no way of reading TF’s posts as anything but ill-informed, opinionated, privileged claptrap.
He would not be mortified he offended a women. Had already has offended women, and he has shown no remorse at all. In fact he has compounded the offence.
Why the dishonesty ?
@lilandra
Then why doesn’t he actually criticize the damned policy and suggest ways to make it better? He only appeared to do this in his fourth post, after spending the first three defending his privilege to be a sexist biscuit, and after being rude to PZ and Greta and anyone else who tried to point out what a poor job he was doing trying to communicate his ideas.
Nope, since he hadn’t read the policies until recently. He was ridiculing the whole of idea. Nevermind every major organization and company has such policies in place and enforce them. If he wants a dialogue, that requires him to consider the possibility he could be wrong. Do you see that?
Then he must be terminally mortified.
It shouldn’t be a polarizing issue, as the community should be like the rest of the world and have and enforce anti-sexual harassment policies at meeting. But, some immature people can’t stand the idea of being told how to behave, and throw temper tantrums as a result. We here are responding to temper tantrums being thrown by liberturds, MRAs, PUAs, and other scum and villainy.
This hasn’t been remarked on yet, but the other totally amazing thing about Thunderfoot’s actions on FtB is the total disregard for basic rules of interaction with people who are hosting you. (No, there is no space in the physical or online world where human beings totally put aside all etiquette conventions and deal only with abstract issues, so don’t propose that that’s possible.)
He has done the equivalent of showing up at a dinner party and loudly mocking the host’s choice of menu and smirking while he tells other guests how laughably bad the host’s cooking skills are. Why, he can’t even prepare bad food well.
Not because TF “disagrees” or “dissents,” so shut your gob right now if you’re about to say that. Because he’s questioning the fundamental ethical values of the blog network he’s hosted on. It’s so unbelievably boorish (really: any of you would be insulted regardless of your views if someone treated you similarly in your house) it’s as if he has no idea how to behave at all. As if he’d never been taken to a restaurant and instructed by his parents not to throw dishes on the floor.
And the slimepitters think Ed and PZ should put up with this? That if they chose to boot his ass they’re being censorious demagogues? Un fucking believable.
No, it just goes to show that you understand the use of the term “homophobe” based on someones position but not “misogynist”.
Over on the “Our terrible secret exposed” post, I said this:
And after reading (most of, so sue me) the linked post, I realize that I was wrong to assume that Thunderf00t or any of his slavish followers have ever read an anti-harassment policy or seen one in action. How one can live in 21st century America and not be aware that policies like these are all over the place is beyond me, but then again, I’m not really surprised at the astounding privileged ignorance.
Matt Penfold-To clarify he would be mortified if a woman felt he sexually harassed her. The preceding sentence was about me saying he isn’t trying to defend his privilege to harass someone.
My first assumption isn’t that someone is dishonest if I disagree with what they said.
The thing that really gets me about this is that if you are decently behave human being anti-harassment polices won’t affect you. You should be aware they exist, and what they say, of course, but your behaviour is not going to become subject to action under them.
Which leads me to the assumption that those opposed to them are not well behaved decent people. Why oppose them otherwise ?
Well said! It’s like he didn’t realize he was part of a community that tends to respect all people, regardless of gender, ethnicity sexual orientation and other factors.
Besides, he also displays a remarkable lack of awareness and desire to fit in. Even if I may eat sloppily when I’m alone at home, I tend to clean up my act and behave properly in society. Also, even if you are a sexist privileged biscuit, surely you at least attempt to disguise it if you find yourself part of a network such as FTB?
If he had done nothing but his creationist critiques, we may have never discovered what sort of a person he really is.
Fluffy- I agreed with you he is communicating his disagreement poorly.
He damn strong on being being left to write his own definition of ‘harass’ though, and be damned to anyone who wants to let the potential harassee define what conduct they feel comfortable with.
Yet he is deaning the right to be able to sexually harass women. Why ?
My assumption is that someone with a track record for lying, as you have, is lying.
It seems your reputation for being a liar has caught you out. Does that not make you feel bad in the slightest ?
Dishonesty only comes into play when it is shown folks haven’t read the policies they were ridiculing, or ignore the evidence in context. TF was dishonest. Folks defending him are defending dishonesty. Take it up with TF first. Then come and apologize to us.
I trust you have told him this, on his own blog.
TF might be very wrong in his argumentations but I believe he does try to convey a legitimate message. To some people saying “we need to have rules against harassing at an atheist conference” is just a bit weird.
You know when you are in a blog context where you can get called a misogynist for simply saying anything negative about a woman you can interpret that like it says that we need to have haras policies to protect women from scary atheists and skeptics. Its just bad information and a strong bias.
I have been to many conferences, bars, parties, festivals and I have actually never experienced harassement. I don’t specifically go to bars with jersey shore type of folks but that is not what we are talking about here.
I have never seen an atheist that was really a misogynist. The word gets thrown around way to easily out here, when I say misogynist I mean someone who hates women, not someone who dislikes A woman or says something stupid about women.
Its therefor hard to imagine there being a problem with harassment. And in the context of a site where there are some commentators who will acuse you of the worst kind of sexism for writing a word wrong (as a figure of speech) some might see that as a weak attempt to “Protect the defenseless pure women from the knuckledragging, hormone driven, serial rapist AKA men”.
I mean when you have just read a comment about how opening a door for a woman is sexist oppression you might experience a bit of a biased view when you read how we must do more against harassment against women at conferences.
TF was not right in his arguments, especially his fantastic youtube poll (wtf?) but I do understand his emotion behind this.
@Matt Penfold:
You are over sensitive, look at your comment and the way you are enraged to the extreme.
“Why the fucking pretense, you fucking lying arsehole ? You know what you said, so stop the fucking lies.”
I do believe in equality for all. It should not matter if someone is a women, a man, straight, gay or belongs to a certain race. This is normal in Amsterdam where I come from
I did to some peoples dismay refer to the tone. Never in any statement did I say the things some people here claim I have said, including you.
Furthermore I never said that I agree with Thunderf00t or that I disagree. You are so quick to jump to conclusions.
No, lilandra, it’s not just that he’s communicating poorly (though he is). The actual substance is fucking problematic too. Look, it’s clear that you’re personal friends with him and I can understand wanting to pull his fat out of the fire. But you should really consider that your friend may, in fact, have some really genuinely troubling blindspots. Not just communication problems.
You may think you have privileged access to the “real” Thunderfoot, but the “real” Thunderfoot exists everywhere he interacts with people.
No. You don’t get to say shit like that. Stop LYING.
@ lilandra
But why is he disagreeing in the first place? First, he didn’t want an anti-harassment policy because it would prevent people having fun – well, his definition of fun – , then he started criticizing the anti-harassment policy as being less than perfect.
I wonder, if this policy had simply been called Rules of conduct or Convention Etiquette, would he have objected so much?
At the end of the day, what exactly does he want, lilandra? The anti-harassment policies will be enforced, and conventions will be better because of that. So what does he want?
Most men would, and (I would wager) a majority of men who sexually harass women feel the same way. It seems to me like most men don’t think their actions count as harassment, even when they clearly do, hence the use of policies. (not saying TF serially harasses anyone, just talking about this issue generally)
Anyway-
It must really stink to see your friend acting foolishly, I know I’ve been in that boat before and the urge to go fix it or defend them to others is strong. It does not usually work out so well though, because it is difficult for a 3rd party to fix a problem that they had no part in causing. This is his problem to deal with. I am sure he could use your support, but I don’t know if pharyngula is the best venue for expressing it.
Then you’ve gouged your own eyes out. Listen dipshit—being “really” a misogynist doesn’t require you to have a deep-seated, conscious thoroughgoing hate for women. It just requires you to act in misogynist ways. Same thing with racism and homophobia.
You dumb fuck—you haven’t even done basic reading about this stuff, have you?
Oh look. A no true atheist comment!
Seriously if this topic is polarizing then IMO let the schism come. Let it rend this false house in two
Yet it is quite clear we do, since it happens. So what is the legitimate message we can take from the claim they are not needed ? The only message I get from his saying they are not needed is that he does not given a fuck a women.
So what ? Only your experience matters ? How fucking arrogant.
Hard for you maybe. Not very hard for those women who have been subjected to harassment at atheist conferences. But I forgetting, you do not give a fuck about them do you.
Get a fucking clue!
Matt-You can throw at all the speculative nonsense about me being a liar all you want. I don’t have to respond to it. It seems you have poor communication skills and that is your problem not mine. You have no interest in understanding what I am saying. You are more interested in destroying someone else with your words for your own vanity. You can keep your unjustified anger towards me in your own head. I’m not giving it a space in mine.
capartypoopah
what, The Amazing Atheist isn’t atheist enough for you? Or is his heckling of rape victims as whiners who were secretely enjoying being raped not misogynist enough for you?
Thunderf00t is on the way out of this network. I have sent several official messages to him, privately, to discuss how to handle it, how he wants the contents of his blog managed, during the time he has posted a couple of his ridiculous articles. He has ignored them, which is why I felt it necessary to put up a reminder to check his email.
Cue the fucksplodery.
I absolutely detest individuals that attempt to apply gross extrapolations to documents that are principally intended to convey spirit and ensure minimum procedures or requirements. Every document is subject to interpretation and there is absolutely no reason that the interpreters would reach such wildly impractical conclusions and apply a literalistic limit to moral jurisdiction, it’s intended as a useful framework. Those acting as judges would inevitably use their training, empathy, and reason to ascertain extent of application or an appropriate ‘sentence,’ if any at all is needed, when a report is filed. Flowing from that, the supposed fears are pathetic. Whilst claims of harassment aren’t exceptional given overall norms, claims of grossly inappropriate disciplinary measures are exceptional because there’d be a lot more evidence of policy failures overall. Does it exist but I’ve simply missed it? If so, I pre-emptively apologise.
Of course, this could be mistaken on my part as I regard the policies as more analogous to treaties than statutes. As a result, I find Thunderf00t’s scrutiny deeply amusing. At first, he hyperbolically portrays policies as excessively prescriptive fun-killing documents that have innumerable sub-clauses and costly bureaucracy yet now he’s criticising the lack of arduous definitions, exemptions, schedules, and interpretation sections.
Is he silly enough to treat formal codification and informal conventions as dichotomous rather than ends of spectrum? Is it either ‘don’t be a jerk,’ which is so nebulous as to apply to criticism of religious people too if we’re being obtuse, or the Harassment Act? Are there even any comprehensive statutory definitions or existing policies in other domains that wouldn’t be vulnerable to his hyper-speculation and attempts to justify complacency? Is he under the impression that liability for harm only arises if that liability was explicitly acknowledged? Is he unaware that a lawyer did contribute to the American Atheist policy (I believe)?
It may be cynical but the sheer level of stupidity makes me wonder if this is an attempt to goad exactly this kind of response from PZ so he can declare that ‘don’t be a jerk’ is sufficient because both rely on interpretation. Of course, it’s a false equivalence because it ignores things like degree and consistency but shhhh.
I hope I’m wrong but he seems like yet another disingenuous Daily Mail-esque writer railing against the politically correct culture of Sharia Law, the EU mandating straight bananas, ‘block board’ being replaced with ‘chalk board,’ and Baa Baa Black Sheep being portrayed as racist! Anyone that uses ‘politically correct’ is fully aware of the term’s warped nature or doesn’t care about it so is fucking repellent.
@61.Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls :
PZ Myers has not actually said what it seems that you think he’s said.
PZ Myers has NOT asked me to leave his blog.
There was one argument on one topic on one thread which I was told not to comment on in one particular way. I’m not commenting on that nor have I attacked you personally in any way. I did decide myself that I needed a night off this blog which I’ve taken and that I’d try to be comment here less and without getting as wound up by certain “hot button” issues as I have in some past threads here.
I’m no bigot at all in fact I hate and oppose bigotry and find your insulting abuse dealt out because we disagree on one or two topics ridiculous as well as utterly fallacious.
Yeah, mea culpa I’m a fallible human being and I’ll get drunk and say the odd stupid thing at times. Don’t we all?
(Most of us at least? Take it you have never ever said anything you later regretted, Nerd of Redhead?)
I have already apologised to Ing for upsetting her.
(On the previous Endless thread a day or two ago if xe or you missed it.)
Not sure why you are so mad at me.
I’m actually think that we probably agree on more things than disagree.
Can we agree to disagree on some issues and maybe move on please?
Also, I’m personal friends with Thunderf00t — I think he’s a good guy in real life. But he’s come in with a chip on his shoulder and has decided to dedicate his blog to opposing every other blog on the network that argues for greater equality within the atheism community. It’s bizarre and unsupportable. It sets him up as someone outside and opposing the FtB community, and it means we can’t keep supporting him here.
dapartypoopah
Swap ‘atheist’ for ‘Scotsman’…
Because rape-threats aren’t harassment. Threats of other kinds of violence aren’t harassment. Inappropriate touching isn’t harassment. Inappropriate pornographic visiting cards aren’t harassment.
Your imagination need a reboot.
Please link this comment.
Furthermore, whether the comment exists or not and means what you claim it means or not, one incident of possibly OTT behaviour by one feminist doth not a feminazi™ conspiracy make.
Actually, by criticizing our response, you jumped in the TF side of the argument whether you intended to or not, including the misogyny it represents. Otherwise, you would have agreed with us. Take your concern about overreaction to TF, where it belongs. He’s the one who needs help, like you do. And those who defend the misogyny he spews.
From his responses, I get the feeling his actual response would be to say that it wasn’t sexual harassment, she was just overreacting. Then he’d take a survey of his viewers to “prove” it.
I suppose nobody wants to take a bet with me that, as soon as he he is out of the network, Thunderf00t will tell everyone who will listen how he was victimized and bullied, and how his freedom of speech was affected … and it was all done in the name of the evil femistasis and their hordes…
CENSORSHIPS!
Fluffy I’m sure he’s writing that post already. It doesn’t matter—the screechers gonna screech. There’s utterly no point in trying to innoculate against it because it’s not possible. Just cut them off and keep going.
Yes you are. You are shown to be one by your own words wishing death on people. If you lie about that, what else will you lie about? EVERYTHING, which is why nobody will listen to you. You need to move on. Why can’t you?
@Elu-
Thanks for ignoring my comment! :D
@Poo, #100
Wait, what? No. You don’t get called a misogynist for saying something negative about a woman. You get called one, and ARE one, if you say something negative about a woman… *because* she is a woman.
Here, I’ll show you the difference:
“This woman is being irrational.”
“Women are irrational.”
See what I did there? See how one is specifically about an individual and the other is “because woman therefore”?
Also, the anime cons I attended had codes of conduct… does that mean that it was telling me that anime fans are super scary rapists? Wow. I never knew that. Must be them fluffy pink lady brainz I have.
No, if you say something stupid about women, meaning all women, then you’re being sexist which has its roots in misogyny. So if the shoe fits.
I… there are no words for the level of stupid.
It has clearly been shown that being an atheist it doesn’t automatically make one a better person. If I, as a woman, experience sexism and low level harassment quite frequently in the world at large, I know it’s going to happen at atheist meetings too. Thus, having an anti-harassment policy makes me feel like I’m in a safer place. But apparently that’s a *bad* thing.
I don’t find it that unusual to not know what a harassment policy is, or to never have read one. Many sexual harassment *victims* don’t know that policies exist or what sort of recourse they have; which is another reason to publicize the current effort. If a critical mass of folks in the skeptic community had been familiar with harassment policies, this discussion would’ve happened during Elevatorgate a year ago if not earlier; but I don’t remember a single such comment making the suggestion during 3d4k or any of the blogs following. As a con volunteer, I’m ashamed *I* didn’t think of it.
However, that’s no excuse for slamming a suggestion (and its supporters) without doing even the most basic due diligence for familiarity with the subject. AT THIS POINT in the discussion, nothing BUT privileged ignorance could explain it.
@Josh
Oh, I have no doubt about that. So yeah, the only thing to do is to keep going, and hope next time some changes are made to reduce the prevalence of sexism and other hateful stances in the community, the backlash will not be as strong.
Rights are won [and lost unfortunately] inch by inch.
We’ll still need to decon the section of the network he was inhabiting. I believe we have several metric tonnes of slime-away around here somewhere.
I suppose nobody wants to take a bet with me that, as soon as he he is out of the network, Thunderf00t will tell everyone who will listen how he was victimized and bullied, and how his freedom of speech was affected … and it was all done in the name of the evil femistasis and their hordes…
Would you take a bet that he will actually do this before he’s off the network?
Thank you. letting him stay could be mistaken as an endorsement of his ideas, and as other have pointed out FTB is one of the only atheist/skeptic spaces online that frowns upon bigotry in general. It will be nice to get the sense of safety back.
whoops, blockquote fail
Fluffy and Skeptifem- I am not necessarily defending him. I am more trying to provide firsthand information to make the discussion less 2 dimensional and speculative for people who like to understand things and would like more information to process.
I do hear what you are saying about how distorted the criticism has become of FTB’s stand on this. A lot of the stuff is way out of line. Frankly, Thunder is a bit out of line with the way he is communicating this.
Your question about Thunder why is he doing this. He can be a bit hard to read, so what I say may miss the mark. He can be the life of the party, so that is where the killjoy stuff comes in. He like a lot of nonbelievers are sick of religious people moralizing about other people’s behavior. So, that may be where he is coming from. He may be a bit oversensitive about being told what to do.
@ Ace of Sevens
Well, I think that some of the official emails that went to Thunderf00t’s inbox probably contained the suggestion that maybe he should stop posting and therefore deepen the hole he has already dug himself in.
But yeah, based on the ample supplies of douchebaggery that he has proven to have…he may write that last post too…as a slimy parting gift .
I don’t think TF needs the boot. He hasn’t gotten to the point where he’s wishing to kick other bloggers in their genitals or anything as overtly hostile or threatening. He’s just being incredibly thick headed and stupid. Which can be fixed.
But I just comment here so my opinion probably doesn’t amount t much.
If management puts up a sign in the break room saying “Please Do Not Piss In The Coffee Pot,” and one guy rails loudly against the policy as being all PC, and defends certain scenarios pf acceptable coffee-pot-pissing, everybody is going to think he’s the one pissing in the coffee pot. This is not proof that he is a coffee-pot-pisser, but “doth protest too much” is pretty much a natural conclusion humans come to.
Hopefully this is a learning moment for TF and his ilk: listen, consider, respect, and contribute. And don’t be a big baby that everyone doesn’t think your every spouting is genius. Oh,and also, don’t piss in the coffee pot.
Yes he’s oversensative about being told what to do. Ie he’s a fucking 12 year old throwing a tantrum
does “anything negative about a woman” include statements such as:
1. wow she is too ugly to fuck
2. she needs to be kicked in the cunt
3. i would fuck her
4. she needs to lose weight
5. her voice is so shrill
6. she is totally hysterical
7. she just needs a good fucking
8. i bet shes a dyke
9. shes a bitch/cunt/slut/whore/bimbo
10. science says women are bad at math
because those are hateful towards all women, and all things I have seen online since posting here. Those statements were rightly called out as misogynist. If it were really about saying anything negative about a woman I would have been called a misogynist by now, but I haven’t. I have had critical things to say about skepchick, erv, and more recently greta christina. No one called me a misogynist because i didn’t say anything misogynist about the women. jesus.
Skeptifem: Yes to getting a sense of safety back. People deserve that. Yes, it is asking FtB to be better than the world in general. Yes, it is advocating having a space where the disenfranchised don’t have to “tough it out” every minute.
And that’s fine. It’s not only fine, it’s a morally good thing. And if the slimepitters don’t like it they can suck it.
The sense of what?
If he can’t fucking take a harrassment policy, he can stay way the fuck away from this non-believer. Religious people wear clothes and eat food, you gonna start going apeshit on the concept of clothes and eating?
If you can’t handle being told “Respect people’s boundaries”, you need to just stay way the hell away from people in general.
Seriously? You think those are his reasons? So, in other words, he’s a privileged biscuit, and he would like to retain that privilege, thank you very much.
What do you mean, he doesn’t like being told what to do? Is there a person on the planet who doesn’t have to put up with rules and restrictions for everyone’s benefit? So, if I tell you to get off my foot, because you’re stepping on it, you are not going to acknowledge that, because you don’t like being told what to do?
You know, his reasons are all about him. His needs, his comfort, his enjoyment. Your friend would surely benefit from a crash course in empathy.
Ah, so just your typical privileged asshole who throws temper tantrums at the mere thought that someone, somewhere may ask them not to do something.
Glad you could clear that up.
Sad it had to come to this, instead of Tfool just getting a clue-by-four after his first bizarre post. But thank Juno, at least evicting the slime can get started now.
Sorry, PZ, sorry you have to shoulder the burden of telling off one of your friends. Never fun when that happens.
Atheists don’t want people to tell them they’re being immoral or told what to do. Its a nasty sterotype but apparently accurate.
@Matt:
I am still waiting on a response Matt. When you call me a lying arse hole at least have the courtesy to respond afterwards when I reply.
So it’s just You’re Not the Boss of Me! for Thunderfoot. And he doesn’t have the ability to discriminate between unjust and illiberal moralizing and upstanding defense of the rights of people to live unmolested.
What a charmer, lilandra! No wonder he’s the life of the party.
Barf.
@julian #132
Perhaps Thunderf00t himself hasn’t reached the point where he’s saying such overtly hateful things, but he’s providing an environment in which it’s acceptable to do so, or at least a haven for those who have said such things in the past. That in itself is troubling, and I don’t think that FtB needs to let TF himself start to make personal, sexist attacks before asking him to leave the network. What purpose would that serve?
The slimepit has begun to react the the potential defrocking. Nothing interesting yet.
Yeah, sorry, but TF’s facilitation of the crazy hostile slimepitters is enough to boot him. Enough. Is. Enough.
yep, Just Another Internet Narcissist.
You know, we could also look on the bright side. I’m too lazy to look for the thread, but I do remember PZ saying the admission process to FTB was going to be more rigorous from now on.
Live and learn, and all that…
safety. to talk about things.
I can talk openly there about my experiences as a woman here and be fairly confident that if some dudebro does decide to say something really sexist about it the community here will back me up. its nice. Like josh said having your “gaurd” up all the time, worrying about giving someone an opening to say something bigoted, is really tiring. If nothing else it isolates people who would otherwise have a lot to talk about. Just having the people here is a pretty good deterrant most of the time actually.
I look at conversations about rape (for instance) at other places online and cringe. I know I could never say anything without being told rape is the fault of the woman or its a compliment or some other horrible thing. Its a question of expectations from others.
That would constitute being tired of ethics. It’s not an okay position for a member of a society to take. I understand being a bit bruised from the endless conflict with religious authoritarians, but if you’re correct, Thunderf00t needs to take a deep breath and a long walk in the woods, and come back when he’s again ready to be a human being.
Bullshit. He’s British, like me; he’s not from some fucking Bible-belt town where you can’t avoid it. I can go months IRL without hearing a religious person moralising unless I actively look for it.
That’s not the same, of course, as being completely free of the effects of religion on public life, but it’s hardly a matter that would make a person as over-sensitive to religious moralising as you seem to be claiming.
And that even if it was sexual harassment, it was not a problem and that the woman should shut the fuck up.
And when he leaves, maybe he could move in with John Loftus.
Ing –
I added five words to make your statement more applicable. Hope you don’t mind.
Sorry, mr. Loftus needs a lot of room for his ego, and Thunderfoot needs a lot of room for his aggressive privilege, so no room mates for them!
Like all misunderstood geniuses, they are doomed to solitary contemplation.
/sarcasm.
I still don’t really understand the thought process that facilitated someone as racist as him showing up.
@Skeptifem: Apologies, I understood what you meant, I just don’t really feel it on FTB. Too many drivebys and morons.
If his past form is anything to go by i’m expecting a highly entertaining video in which his opponents are called mentally-ill-islamo-sympathising-feminazis supported by a single clip of something slightly suspect that a prominent one has ever said or done. They were evil, and taken to its logical conclusion their ideas could spell disaster for humanity.
The clip repeats several times. Thunderf00t smugly drones on. He dashes in the ‘put simply’ here and there so his audience will remember they’re dumb by comparison. He’s their saviour, a warrior for free-speech and justice, and definitely not a total shit-head.
@Dazzzblablablabla
This really isn’t difficult.
It seems to be … at least for you. Are you willfully trying to miss the obvious?
“Me chasing them up the street haranguing them, claiming that they’re child abusers, would be harassment.”
It’s nice that you can make up your own definition of harassment and completely ignore the gazillions of definitions already in existence where simply making an offending comment in a specific location (example the workplace) will constiture harassment (and no you don’t have to be chasing anybody). I didn’t make up these definitions I just know how to read and not disregard evidence that doesn’t help my case… unlike some.
Why is it that this explanation is even needed?
Mentionning religion as a safe thing at a skeptic meet is just silly, I still haven’t heard a good reason why it should stay in the policy. Care to provide one?
@Julian
“>>That’s it. Where are you seeing “you can’t criticize religion” or “you can’t offend religion?”
Read the following once, twice maybe a third time if needed: Offensive comments on a subject ARE VERBAL HARRASSMENT ON THAT SUBJECT BY DEFINITION. I’m reduced to using caps lock… how depressing.
1) One form of harrassment is the verbal form:
2) Offensive verbal statements can constitute harassment (of the verbal form… duh!)
1 + 2 = How is this complicated???
As for you answer to why religion should not be removed from the policy, you go with:
“You cannot harass someone because of their religion. ”
That’s the ROFLMAO moment, you gotta be kidding.
>> That’s discrimination and not something any con should tolerate.
Exactly the mind has the power to discrimnate good ideas from really bad ones like religion and obviously it is extremely tolerated at all skeptic conventions.
This is getting embarassing….
Loftus is backing Thunderf00t on this. Also, the Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar sends a mixed message and he’s concerned. Keep in mind John Loftus wasn’t kicked out. IIRC, he rage quit because he thought the Courtier’s Reply (or at least his conception of it) was a bad idea and because he picked a fight with Natalie Reed and no one took his side.
I don’t get why there’s this huge rush to pretend the skeptic or atheist movement is particularly better than normal at this shit. It’s majority cis, able, straight, NT, white dudes. What did anyone at all expect, really?
PZ has already explained on a different thread. They knew about his anti-creationist videos on Youtube and thought they were good, and did not do more digging to find his violent rhetoric against muslims.
Besides, he’s being booted out of FTB for his sexism and rudeness towards people on the network, not to mention his disregard of the ethics of this space….funny how you only mentioned the racist part.
@156, reasonable fellow, if he didn’t have it written already, you have just written his treatment. The “highly entertaining” part, however, will reside only in his own assessment of the end-product.
“Perhaps Thunderf00t himself hasn’t reached the point where he’s saying such overtly hateful things, but he’s providing an environment in which it’s acceptable to do so”
Whoa! The thought police called and it wants it’s bullshit back.
Fluffy: Rutee has a good and reasonable point. She’s also not an unknown quantity here; you can assume good faith on her part.
Sweet FSM, Thunderf00t! After all of your great videos and all your debates that I have watched and enjoyed, you come onto FtB and do this? And then quadruple down? Where did that enormous blindfold come from, especially in someone so rational and thoughtful otherwise. Damn, it hurts when you learn that someone you admire not only enjoys shitting on your rug, but does it repeatedly. This atheist woman is pissed off and disappointed in you Thunderf00t. Shame on you.
It’s come up repeatedly in the past, and I’m pretty sure folks mentioned it in his “Yay he’s coming to FTB!” post here.
Because it was glaringly obvious from only his youtube videos. I didn’t need him going full blown ZOMGWHATTABOUTME on FTB to know about it. Is massive racism supposed to be insufficient or something?
Not i’ll find it highly entertaining too but for different reasons.
This is not difficult. If someone opens a restaurant and turns a blind eye to the fact that it’s become a hang out for racists or street toughs who harass the patrons of businesses on the same block it’s perfectly reasonable to hold that restaurant owner accountable.
This is not thoughtcrime unless you believe misogyny is not a real thing.
The key words are skeptic and atheist. If you can’t use intelligence and evidence to reason your way out of that cocoon of whiteness, maleness and straightness, maybe you are not yet a very good skeptic? (yes, I know, the No true Scotsman fallacy…still, it gets my point across)
Besides, what would we have us do? Not hold people to higher standards because they are skeptics and not indoctrinated by religious crap? Doing something is always better than doing nothing.
jacklewis
Please read for comprehension:
Attacking the person for being guilty of bad things ascribed to the religion with no evidence that that particular person is guilty of doing those bad things—that’s harassment.
Attacking the religion for the bad things ascribed to it, whether or not the attack causes offence to a religious person—that’s merely offence.
(Although I would say that constantly berating that person on the subject, unless they’ve shown willingness to engage in conversation on the it, could/should also be classed as harassment.)
As I said, it really isn’t difficult.
‘thought police’? The dude outright said that a blogger here should be kicked in the cunt. I don’t need no stinking psychic police to know he’s a jackass.
But it’s clear you’re a titanic asshole as well, from what you’ve said so far in this thread.
@PZ
“Also, I’m personal friends with Thunderf00t — I think he’s a good guy in real life. But he’s come in with a chip on his shoulder and has decided to dedicate his blog to opposing every other blog on the network that argues for greater equality within the atheism community. It’s bizarre and unsupportable. It sets him up as someone outside and opposing the FtB community, and it means we can’t keep supporting him here.”
If he is a personal friend, you should say this to him in private, not in your blog comment section for everyone to see.
“Thunderf00t is on the way out of this network. I have sent several official messages to him, privately, to discuss how to handle it, how he wants the contents of his blog managed, during the time he has posted a couple of his ridiculous articles. He has ignored them, which is why I felt it necessary to put up a reminder to check his email.”
Also if you are really getting rid of him, perhaps you should tell him first before announcing it here. It is common courtesy and could have allowed him to leave with some dignity.
@ ruteekatreya
Sorry, I misread your comment. You were wondering why he was allowed here in the first place, in spite of his racist crap, and I was thinking you said he is only guilty of racism so far (and not sexism).
Like I said, my bad.
@rutee
I agree and pointed out previously that its a metric people could stand to be less blind to.
Yep, that’s your unreasonable OPINION.
You must be the lack-of-thought police to make such a statement. Clues are found behind the third door on the left…
Yep, you need to shut the fuck up and quit embarassing yourself…
Did you not read the fucking title of the post? Or are you just lying?
Surprising no one, skeptics are still people and still subject to numerous biases that people fall victim to.
Putting aside that the evidence best indicates that they are indeed indoctrinated in normal cultural crap for a moment- wait why am I putting that aside? It’s not necessarily the higher standards I find perplexing, it’s the continual shock when they aren’t met. A bunch of straight cis able NT white dudes are assholes to anyone outside that group? Quelle Shock.
I just don’t understand the surprise, not the part where objections are voiced.
elu1
Erm, he did:
Look! He says so in the very comment you quoted, arsehole.
Well, maybe if TF wasn’t ignoring the messages PZ was sending him, that could have happened!
Keep in mind that some of the worst offenders (including the sleeping giant one, which is inflammatory and demonstrates his propensity for quote-mining and victim posturing) are now deleted. Also, a lot of this is only obvious if you watch a lot of his videos and discern patterns and make inferences from how he says things that sound like racist arguments repeatedly and never digresses to disown that interpretation or makes anti-racist arguments.
Basically, it’s only obvious if you’re seen a whole lot of his videos. It would be pretty easy for a casual viewer to miss, especially if they avoided things like his interview with DLandonCole.
@elu1
Lol maybe he should check his email
Well, this is sad state of affairs, where are all the trolls going to hang out in FtB when Thunderf00l is gone? I guess it’s back to the slimepit for them, lol.
@jacklewis
“Whoa! The thought police called and it wants it’s bullshit back.”
Nah…we just want people to give reasonable account for their claims. I didn’t know asking this became a thought crime in of itself. /sigh
@171, elu1, to “leave with some dignity” means that he would have had to have had some to begin with.
Which part of PZ saying he sent him several official messages to which Thundef00t hasn’t responded don’t you understand?
Do you think PZ is posting this “check your email” stuff for shits and giggles or because Thunderf00t hasn’t acknowledged his emails?
Besides, the biggest enemy to Thunderf00t’s dignity is himself.What about the dignity of all the people whose rights to have their personal boundaries respected he was so willing to throw under the bus in the name of his fun?
@Daz:
“I have sent several official messages to him, privately, to discuss how to handle it, how he wants the contents of his blog managed, during the time he has posted a couple of his ridiculous articles. He has ignored them”
Point in this quote where he says TF will get booted.
@Josh, Official SpokesGay:
Read the quote. Who is lying here………….
Ah, I see, so he only comes off as normal-racist. That’s actually fair enough.
@elu1
What do you think that “it” refers to in this quote? Do you think PZ is asking him how he wants to handle leaving without telling him that he’s leaving?
Also, most rapist don’t see themselves as rapists
Intent isn’t fucking magic. And in this the intent is pretty questionable.
(I tried to ask him why he wanted to fight strawmen when he was losing against them, I don’t think he ever answered.)
Elu1, where the fuck is your smoking gun? Or, are you just insipidly trolling like like a fuckwitted MRA would? They lie and bullshit, so I presume the same from you given your lack of taking to TF…
No bet, I’m afraid. Oh well … ::shrugs::. None so blind?
elu1
And the sentence before that is “Thunderf00t is on the way out of this network.” That is what the messages ask to discuss that handling of.
Also, before I commented here, Thunderf00t finally replied and his status was thoroughly explained to him. So no, he didn’t get the news from a blog comment.
Jeezis, elu is just tooooo stupid. Not worth the bother.
Casual racism…everyone has it.
You know, it would be kind of funny if it wasn’t so sad and frustrating. At least most of us are -hopefully – doing something to keep our racism to a minimum..maybe even 0,1. (I don’t think, given the society we were brought up in, that 0 is possible)
>>Also, I’m personal friends with Thunderf00t — I think he’s a good guy in real life. But he’s come in with a chip on his shoulder and has decided to dedicate his blog to opposing every other blog on the network that argues for greater equality within the atheism community. It’s bizarre and unsupportable. It sets him up as someone outside and opposing the FtB community, and it means we can’t keep supporting him here.<<
*We* (???) are the one the collective, resistance is futile. Disagreements will not be tolerated.
Ok so a dissenting voice can not be supported and is bizarre… I guess the "freethoughts" part in the domain name is ironic? At least he's a personal friend, I would hate to see how someone from the outside would get treated… for posting calm eloquent articles and getting the "shoot the messenger" treatment as a result.
TF is complaining that rules meant to make it possible for everyone to have fun at a convention will ruin any possible fun for him.
Do I understand this correctly?
If so, I have two replies for him:
1: That seems almost sociopathic.
2: Then don’t go, asshole.
#71 FluffyTheTerrible writes:
This does not, apparently, include things such as:
“In other words, you’re a moron.” (#12)
“…you are a lying scumbag ?” (#14)
” …the fucking fuckbrained fuckwit then.” (#29)
“… you goddamn slimy ass, get the fuck out.” (#62)
“…misogynist fuckwits like you” (#75)
And so on.
The comments here are also rank with straw-manning and shameless misrepresentation, also. To give just one possible example of many:
I trust I do not need to actually spell out why that is an example of shameless misrepresentation.
It is the blinkered hypocrisy that goes on here that many of us find embarrassing and a stain on the “community”, insofar as such a thing even exists. It is also why I rarely comment, and never hang around to witness the responses to comments I occasionally make regarding the dismal behaviour of commenters at this blog. Yes, I know no one gives the slightest damn about that: people such as myself are irrelevant, don’t get it and probably misogynistic priviliged entitled morons too, right? Right. But I can still wish some of you people could look squarely and honestly at yourselves sometimes, not to mention the damage you are doing. Okay, that’s me done; carry on condemning.
See how the “it” in “how to handle it” refers to TF’s leaving (“on the way out”) the network?
You’re welcome.
The only ironic part is you define “freethought” as agreeing with you, or being annoying skeptical. It is also about looking at the evidence, which you and all misogynists ignore, as it gets in the way of your immature behavior and concepts.
After having spent so long trying to address creationist arguments it pains me to see Tf00t making the same blundering errors. It’s especially galling as he provided me with many of my standard responses.
The sad thing is that the sexism doesn’t surprise me as much as his use of a youtube poll to prove his point. He is a published scientist. He must know about how much of a paper is dedicated to showing that bias has been minimised/errors eliminated. Yet here he is crowing about how he represents the atheist community.
He has multiple videos dedicated to pointing out that being in the majority doesn’t mean being in the right and yet here he is trying to claim moral superiority through moral majority.
Two years ago I would never having thought it possible that the atheist movement would ever have been divided on an issue like this. It seemed so clear cut; we were better than that dammit.
Ah, and jackrawlinson who went absolutely mental over the original elevator incident. Hi bubby!
Actually, it depends which post you read.That was his position. Now it seems to be that policies don’t prevent harassment (or presumably, prevent fun), but only open the convention up to liability. I get the impression he gets his legal knowledge from TV.
Pteryxx:
You know, I’m looking this as a manager— I’ve had to be very aware of harassment policies at different jobs that I’ve had. So maybe that’s the difference.
That being said, most employers (from working in fast food up to corporate management) require that their employees complete anti-harassment training (certainly not out of the kindness and goodness of their hearts; they don’t want to be sued) and most colleges/universities have codes of conduct (however shoddily enforced). Is it really that huge a leap to assume that large gatherings would, too?
If that’s the case, then we definitely need to publicize the shit out of the anti-harassment policies. If the cons aren’t making them known, we probably can’t expect them to bother to enforce them, either.
*sigh*
jackrawlinson! Come back! Are you EG or not?
Your tone trolling is dismal behavior as PZ expects a rewd, crewd, and lewd blog. Until your name is on the masthead, you have nothing cogent to say about our tone. Everything you say in that post is nonsense if it contains idiocy like tone trolling.
Thunderfoot is nothing but a fuckstick but not only for his misogyny. how dare he come here and presume to say anything about what subjects FtB bloggers blog about. The very fact that his introduction to FtB was those anti-feminist screeds instead of refuting creationism, which is what he is known for, makes me think he has had a shit-stirring agenda all along.
I’d bet my life that his thoughts on this are “look at me, I’ll show those feminazis what’s what!” and when he’s booted (rightly so) from FtB, he’s going to be (in his and the slimepitters minds) a martyr for the skeptical cause.
Like I said, he’s a fuckstick and he should be booted just for giving the slimepitters a place to call home. If I want my atheism with a side of misogyny I’ll go to the slimepit or to r/atheism.
If I were to call you a moronic, lying, scumbag, fucking fuckbrained fuckwit slimy ass, misogynist fuckwit, and you hadn’t shown yourself to be a moronic, lying, scumbag, fucking fuckbrained fuckwit slimy ass, misogynist fuckwit, then yes, I would be called on that.
Actually, I will. You’re a moronic, lying, scumbag, fucking fuckbrained fuckwit slimy ass, misogynist fuckwit.
*waits*
your attempt at this sad sad False Equivalence has been noted and appropriately laughed at.
a “personal vendetta”? he’s the only blogger here still trying to beat the dead horse of “nooooo no harassment policies, they’ll ruin my fun!!11!!”
so of course he’s the one being responded to. And since he’s not bothered to provide any other kind of content on his blog, it looks like his blog has been pretty worthless so far, with no signs of improvement.
criticizing people, pointing out that their evidence is massively flawed, and firing them if they don’t produce anything of value to the institution?
That sounds exactly like what the science community does, seeing at Tf doesn’t have whateverthefuck the equivalent of “tenure” would be around here.
besides, as Chas mentioned, this is the blogosphere, not a research facility.
well no, he isn’t. he’s trying to communicate how he imagines harassment might be handled at conferences. he’s not actually discussing evidence from conferences and observed mishandling of harassment.
I am so very sick of people assuming real-time, audio-communication is always a better way to argue than a medium where people are allowed to take their time and think their arguments through, without interruption and without having to think on their feet.
pretty much only to people who haven’t been paying attention for the last year or two.
and a homophobe is someone who’s afraid of gays?
no, dude. a misogynist is someone with very strong biases against women, his emotions toward them regardless. And I’ve seen plenty of severely biased atheists.
well see, that’s the thing. we don’t have to imagine. we’ve been having women telling us about being harassed at conferences for 2 years now. the recent conversation about harassment policies even got started because, due to a lack of such policies, female speakers felt they had to form an informal network that would warn newer female speakers which male speakers were likely to put them in uncomfortable situations, some of which would count as harassment.
this is, of course, bullshit. you will be told that when you use bigoted slurs that you’ve done something bigoted, but “worst kind of” sexism? bullshit hyperbole.
secondhand, unless you are thunderf00t.
wait, so are you going to tell me that there are people who are atheists so they don’t have to have ethical standards?
because that’s what having ethical standarts means: “moralizing” bout behaviors, and curtailing those that lead to harm.
such knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism is familiar to me, but really belongs into the category of teenage-rebellion, and people who want to actually try to function as members of a society generally try to not act on such knee-jerk reactions. Or, if they can’t, and the sentiment is too strong, they withdraw rather than becoming hypocrites and telling other people how to manage their own affair. just sayin’
@ChasCPeterson:
Touche, look English is not my native language so I missed it. I was under the impression before you pointed it out, that ‘it’ meant how to handle the current situation.
It still does not negate the point I made, thunderf00t did not reply yet.
@jacklewis
You seem to think there should be no consequences for people spewing hateful crap on the grounds that it’s free thought. Well, guess what: we have finally reached a point as a society where we no longer tolerate racist, sexist and all other negative -ist crap. That’s not censorship, that’s protecting people’s rights.
And if you’re someone’s friend, and you don’t call him/her out on their questionable behaviour, it means you probably agree with the crap they’re pulling. So if you come here to defend them, you’re also defending your right to be a hateful person, which means you’ll get the aggressive reception because you’re just like your friend, not because you’re the messenger.
you’ve just demonstrated that you think slurs against people for what they are and comments about a person based on what they have said are equivalent. They aren’t. Go learn about the difference and how it shapes the world marginalized people live in.
If you say something mind-numbingly stupid and no one tells you so, have they done you a favor somehow?
My #207 was @jacklewis.
A JAIN?
*snort*
@Josh, Official SpokesGay
But you’re in the restaurant right now.
“Nah…we just want people to give reasonable account for their claims. I didn’t know asking this became a thought crime in of itself. /sigh”
Nice edit job, I quoted the part about him apparently not saying anything particularly awful but instead creating an environment where awful things would foster… and this being sufficient to kick him out… kind of what this place right here is exactly. Feel free to pretend that you still don’t understand what I’m talking about.
You know something? I hate “skepticism”. I hate the term, I hate what it means, I don’t think it’s accurate (or maybe it is and that’s why I don’t like it).
I hate the idea that someone can reject evidence that exists for something and say, well I’m just being skeptical! I hate that. That’s why we see so much irrationality come from these strictly skeptic circles.
I consider myself an atheist and a rationalist. I believe there are more correct and less wrong answers to questions. I believe that one of the real meanings of life is to work towards discovering the correct answers. It’s not about being skeptical. It’s about being correct.
These questions? Of harassment? These questions are EASY. If you can’t get these questions right there’s simply no hope for you.
@jacklewis
Creationists are also dissenting voices. Does that mean with your logic, we have to support them as well? The problem is not the dissent itself, which I suspect most here likely support, it’s what the person is dissenting about. And it has nothing to do with style either, since PZ has been as abrasive as Thunderf00t at times, but he’s still blogging here for example. I presume you would of understood all this already. I guess not.
Well – comments were closed ON the TF blog WHILE I was making this comment. I hope you don’t mind me dumping it here.
***
OKAY –
I gave up on ignoring this – I’m weak.
I skimmed the post a bit; and TF (if you ignore all the name-calling and B.S.) does actually MAKE POINTS. Not all of them are *good* points, but at least he is making them.
I agree with one of the points, that using “offensive” within the definition of “harassment” is problematic.
(Even though inexplicably he is making that point by making up the “word” harass/offend and not noticing that “religion” was taking out of that list due to discussions about the topic on other blogs that were actually getting to the meat of the issue.)
As I said before, I find the term “offensive” problematic because of the broadness of the term. Dawkins using the phrase “African Ape” might be offensive to some people. http://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/351/ However, doing so does not rise to the level of “harassment”.
I think that wording should be clarified, to avoid the misconception that anyone has the right not to be offended.
Suggestions:
1) Use “abusive” instead of “offensive”.
2) Add “targeted” – as in “…targeted offensive…” to specify that the speech is only harassment if it is actually directed at a person or people.
I can see the current wording setting the bar for “harassment” too low. The idea is to encourage civility and attempt to ensure that those attending the conference feels safe.
To disallow “offense” may silence the very ideas that need the most airing – so that those ideas can be critically examined. If they never see the light of day, they cannot be addressed.
And no – I don’t think TF should be given the boot. How long has it been? – a couple weeks? Give him a chance.
I also agree with Thunderf00t and Melby: these policies should not make the impossible demand that nobody offend anyone else.
Oh good, we need your cross for the bonfire on which we’re burning penis effigies.
how ’bout you slow down a bit and read before responding?
He pulled a bizarre hypothetical out of his bum because his ego wouldn’t allow him to concede on other points.
…
…
…
Ok, jacklewis, let me try to explain this to you again. The Con policy specifically addresses offensive speech and the categories that offensive speech cannot be addressed at. Religion is not among them.
It also outlines what it considers harassment. Criticizing ideas, ideals and beliefs isn’t listed. I already gave you what it does consider harassment. Read it again.
If you don’t feel that sort of behavior is permissible when directed at believers you don’t have any actual gripe with the Con policy. What you think it says and what it actually says are two different things.
Are comments closed at TF’s? I wrote just a long fucking post and I can’t submit it! *sniffle*
Funny how tone trolls like Melby address us instead of those writing the proposed rules. I frankly don’t care what they use, as long as everybody acknowledges they received a copy and it is enforced consistently. Which can be done using standard definitions of offense that allow for ideas to challenged, but not sexual pick-up lines/overt threatening behavior.
M.A. Melby, the fact that you could dash off a couple of genuine criticisms that could be discussed by rational people, without including sneering condescension in your comment, just goes to show how fucking easy it could be for Thunderfoot to refrain from being a privilege-blinkered asshole.
He has no excuse.
I find it quite … odd that TF should pick such an atypical con-within-a-con, so to speak, with all the limitations that implies, as his example.
Or maybe I’m overly cynical?
@FluffyTheTerrible
1) “You seem to think there should be no consequences for people spewing hateful crap on the grounds that it’s free thought.”
Cue in
2) “If I were to call you a moronic, lying, scumbag, fucking fuckbrained fuckwit slimy ass, misogynist fuckwit, and you hadn’t shown yourself to be a moronic, lying, scumbag, fucking fuckbrained fuckwit slimy ass, misogynist fuckwit, then yes, I would be called on that.
Actually, I will. You’re a moronic, lying, scumbag, fucking fuckbrained fuckwit slimy ass, misogynist fuckwit.:”
(Still love the fact that due to this flat (are we in 2012?) comment space and the guy is too shit for brain to even address his retarded adhominems, others thought he was addressing them… as if he could address anyone in the first place.
3) Add minimal processing power: Get it yet?
4) Cue in more confirmation bias + childish profanities?
…what the fuck? A few weeks is insufficient time to write something that isn’t horrid? What low standards we place.
Because you can point to events happening, or because you’re pretending this is the world’s first harrassment policy at a conference?
Seriously now, I said it before, and I’ll say it again: Since I reached adolescence, at least, Nerds have managed to put up sexual harrassment policies at their conference. The main complaint is insufficient enforcement. Nerds are better at treating people like people than skeptics, apparently, and at least in the case of gamer nerds their reputation sucks for good reason.
@jacklewis
tone it down with the ableist slurs, OK?
hey jack, you never answered my question.
if you say something mind numbingly stupid, and no one tells you, have they somehow done you a favor?
Gee, I see no evidence from JL, just JAQing off. If you have evidence for your inane and insipid positions, show it without attitude. Or, shut the fuck up, as if all you have to say is attitude, you have nothing to say to us that will convince us of anything. Evidence, separates those who persuade here from those who don’t.
@ruteekatreya
“Because you can point to events happening, or because you’re pretending this is the world’s first harrassment policy at a conference?”
No, for the reasons I stated.
While I completely agree that Thunderf00t’s ego got the better of him on FTB and what he wrote here is pure bullshit which deserves to be purged and deleted, I do not actualy think that he is racist and that his racism is somehow evident from his videos.
I might be mistaken and he might be racist and I am merely being favorable towards him. But I never interpreted his anti islam videos as call for violence nor as denigrating of a race. Poorly researched? Yes. Poorly worded, open for abuse by racists? Sure, since they were interpteted as such by others. To me it seemed clear he is objecting aganist and critical of the religion, the ideology and its current and historical (and I dare say evident) negative impacts on society wherever it takes hold.
Please point to the other people who thought I was addressing them.
Ooh, deary me. I forgot to add your name at the top, then corrected my mistake in a follow-up comment. You never make mistakes, Jack?
You do realise that my “childish profanities” were all taken from the list you supplied in your comment, yes? Maybe twas childish of me, but I felt like it.
The point being though, that ungrounded accusations of -isms and other fuckwhittery would be called out by the commentariat here, even whilst they continued to argue against things you had said, that were wrong. That’s what detractors of the atmosphere here tend to ignore—no one is unchallenged; not even the regulars, though they may be given a little more slack for possible misapprehension.
@ ruteekatreya:
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t really have a problem with Melby’s comment. It seemed to me that Melby in general agreed with the policy, but he just thought that the wording could be improved. He offered suggestions on how this could be done.
That’s the sort of dialogue I’m willing to have regarding harassment policies. I think that we can be open to legitimate constructive criticism from people who want to improve harassment policies.
If Melby were saying that the sexual harassment policy should be scrapped entirely because he thought it could have been worded better in a couple of places, then yeah, I’d agree with your criticism of his comment. But that wasn’t what Melby was saying.
sooo racists got a virtual high five from the dude, he did nothing to correct it, but we are supposed to assume he is not racist because…?
Oh and jacklewis. Just wondering on what you based your assignment of gender, when speaking of me. I am male as it happens; lucky guess on your part, eh?
Here at Pharyngula, you are judged based on what you post, not who you are. I am constantly surprised (foolish Emrys, you are) that so many, many people cannot tell the difference between the two.
Anybody who hasn’t yet read M.A. Melby’s thorough, professional critique of TF’s Groupthought post should:
[link to .docx file]
Meanwhile, there is a scary bunch of commenters gathering over at Loftus’s hideout.
And yeah, commenting off at TF.
This is the claim that astonishes me the most in all of this.
I had no idea.
Not that I’m surprised the published scientists can be right arses.
(What’s his subject? Pleases don’t let it be something I associate with.=
The reasons you stated basically rely on me pretending this is the first harrassment policy at a con. The evidence does not support the problems you claim ‘may’ happen.
Seeing as he’s human, he is. Hence use of ‘massive racism’ as opposed to ‘normal racism’. THe question is whether he’s particularly moreso than normal…
but I never interpreted his anti islam videos as call for violence nor as denigrating of a race. Poorly researched? Yes. Poorly worded, open for abuse by racists?
…and the answer is yes. Even you concede that his videos are poorly researched… and that is because he is talking about brown people, and as usual he just went with normal racist bullshit about brown people from the middle eastern regions. Who needs to research? Everyone knows what the problems are.
As to ‘poorly worded, open to abuse by racists’, I have no reason to think someone saying racist shit that will provide cover for racists isn’t racist, because, get this, he is helping racists. He may not mean to, but I do not care; he is strengthening narratives that make living as a marginalized race harder. Of course, I have no reason to think he doesn’t ‘mean’ to, because I have no reason to believe he is somehow totally not racist; unicorns aren’t real either.
Yes, that’s why it’s in vogue for racists to pretend their only problem is Islam, and pretend Islam is somehow worse than the majority white religion for some reason. It lets them pretend to only have a problem with an idea, as if it doesn’t extend to perceived practitioners of that idea. And that perception, at least in this case, is invariably racially-based.
Pretending Islam is uniquely bad is more or less what I’m talking about; it’s brown-coded, so everything it does that is wrong is magnified, while we conveniently ignore what white-coded religions do that matches it. Even atheists do this shit pretty regularly, and it’s racist to pretend the brown-coded religion is uniquely bad when it’s matched, pound-for-pound, by the white-coded religion.
One of them made an excellent point though.
Thunderf00t previously managed to get a creationist youtuber to stop posting videos on the site under threat of legal action. haha its poetic.
@Sili
Chemistry I think.
Saying that his privilege trumps over people’s rights – what Thunderf00t was doing – is the hateful crap I was referring to…and he rightfully got called on it.
Getting called a series of names on a blog known for its verbal permissiveness when it comes to rude language – not the same thing.
Also, ad hominem does not mean insulting people.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, JL. Could you be clearer?
Thunderf00t, aka Philip E. Mason, is a biochemist/molecular biologist employed as a Research Associate in the Dept. of Food Science at Cornell.
jacklewis, take your use of the word retarded and insert it along with this porcupine.
Also, some of thunderfoot’s worst shit was deleted without explanation, apparently, so fair enough if you came in after that, but…
The part where he was pretending his wording issue was born out by reality, I suspect, is where I’d start.
He does not need to go that far to ignore reality.
And it’s not as though he isn’t covering for Thunderfoot, weakly. Really, now, it’s right there.
I made the mistake to read the post at Loftus’ blog. I had no idea that he also espouses misogynist ideas, and I used to read his blog, occasionally, although his insistence to debate Christians on their own ground – which was basically adults quoting fairy tales at each other – was somewhat tiresome.
But since he writes this there:
I can no longer consider that blog a safe space. Thank the Fluffy monster for the blogs here at FTB.
Oh, and is it me, or Loftus is actually engaging in victim blaming and telling women to police – again!- their behaviour because poor confused menz?
Loftus: “You women have the right to bodily autonomy. But you have the responsibility for the internal thoughts of others (presumably also autonomous individuals?).”
Does. Not. Compute.
Actually, he did two videos to correct it, as far as I remember. That is because.
I agree with this. Alas I cannot provide evidence from my blog, since you probably would not be able to understand it since it is written in czech, but I do not think Islam is uniquely bad as a religion and I got bashed because of saying that christianity is in principle just as bad as Islam and any other religion.
But the islam has currently theocratic hold in some countries, while christianity does not (well, US might be on the werge there). And it is hard to ignore.
“The reasons you stated basically rely on me pretending this is the first harrassment policy at a con.”
I really don’t understand how. Could you explain that. I think I know where you are going with that, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
***
And for the record, I am not a fan of Thunderf00t at all, on here or on YouTube. I’ve been making a habit of criticizing him (perhaps even TOO much of a habit) since he started posting here.
The only reason I suggested waiting for a while before booting him, was simply that he was invited in the first place. I, personally would not have invited him for many of the reasons you bring up. I just see the initial invitation as a commitment to *try* and make it work. However, I’m not going to go on any sort of crusade one way or the other.
only to those “young men” who’ve not yet been told that another person doing something that gets them all tingly in their pants is not consent to do anything to or with that other person.
it’s not surprising to me either, given the sexism in society.
no it actually doesn’t. nudity and cleavage are not consent to anything sexual. FFS, havs loftus (or those “young men”) never been to a nude beach/sauna/event?
not by whether they post “quickies”, or have posed in a nude calendar, or have participated in boobquake; definitely not by cold propositioning them; they should learn how to make conversation, and thus learn who might be interested in a hookup with them by interacting with the women long enough to figure out whether such interest might be present.
How is it a mixed message, that if a woman wants to display her body or parts of it, that’s up to her, but that doesn’t give men tacit permission to ask for such displays or touch her in any way without permission?
Calling that a mixed message is no different, except in degree, from “She was wearing a miniskirt, so she was asking for it.”
But this sends a mixed message to some ignorant young men now doesn’t it? It’s not surprising to me that some of them may think some secular women are “available.” It can create an environment at Freethought conventions where some men may look to hook up. Thunderf00t is asking what’s wrong with that in the bars afterward? Hooking up is what some people want to do (men and women). Knowing which ones want to do so is another question. How are some of these men supposed to know?
..and this is why i don’t think women can do sexual performance “for themselves” (burlesque, porn, stripping, etc). In a patriarchy your intent doesn’t matter. All men see is another fuck toilet, more proof of what women are for. Anyone want to tell me how “transgressiv”e nude calendars are now?
@elu1 in #101:
No, it shouldn’t matter, and yet, often it seems it does. Also in Amsterdam. If you haven’t noticed it, it simply means you haven’t been paying attention.
fuck I messed up and forgot to blockquote the skeevy “how are these men supposed to know?” paragraph.
All of this tempest in a teapot that TF created aside, he simply can’t write very well. It was only in his most recent post that he demonstrated any ability to write coherent prose. The previous ones looked like they came off a YouTube comment thread.
when they actually transgress against a social imperative laid upon women (as in the case of the original Egyptian blogger, for example) then they’re by definition transgressive. when they merely conform to another social imperative, then by definition they’re conformist rather than transgressive.
As always, it’s all about context.
I’m really starting to wonder how it can be so difficult for people to understand that a woman’s body is always her own. It does not matter what she does with it, she can pull a Lady Godiva, it does not suddenly mean that everyone who saw her body can now do what they want with her.
Seriously, have these people not gotten past the age of 2, when if you see it, you want it, you take it?
It is beyond frustrating to read these sorts of things from people who not only claim to be adults, but also claim to be ‘skeptical’ and ‘critical thinkers’.
Argh.
@Charly at #233:
The problem is not his objections to the religion and the ideology, which are shared by most everyone here. The problem is the way he is ascribing this ideology to anyone who calls himself a Muslim, and the way he overestimates the dangers these groups pose, especially in Western Europe and the US.
@M. A. Melby
Thats a pretty good point actually. I’d have waited, but it was bound to end up like this eventually. I can’t help but generalise.. but thunderf00t has actively relied upon the lack of real curiosity in his audience for a long time now. He showed no sign of changing that when he joined free thought blogs, just the opposite, he doubled down.
missed this. and incidentally, it’s not actually true. The Netherlands, or Amsterdam specifically, are not sexism/racism/etc. free zones. all etu1 is doing is engaging in that liberal derangement called “colorblindness”, which refuses to acknowledge that different people are shaped by different experiences because of the workings of the kyriarchy
I’m going to assume you’ve just totally forgotten what, for instance, Catholic support for an idea (Such as no contraceptives, or gays are bad) does in a lot of countries, off the top of my head. Also, Utah.
It’s kind of amusing when people unintentionally undermine their own points, I guess.
Well, not when it isn’t middle easterners.
I am perfectly willing to accept that you’re still better than normal on the matter, though.
Harrassment policies exist. Read about what actually ends up qualifying as offenses to them before inserting vague hypotheticals.
@Jadehawk #262
Absolutely. Having read a number of the comments across multiple posts, I cringe now every time someone claims that ‘this doesn’t happen in [insert European country here]. I cringe and then a swear at the screen…
same here. and then I feel the obligation, as another European, to correct these statements. it’s tedious.
I really don’t know where this idea comes from that the bad aspects of western culture exist solely in the US/Canada
If it helps you, it helps you. It doesn’t matter how some sexist fuckweasel sees it. He isn’t going to stop seeing you as the sex class just because you’re not performing; hence the various sexified versions of women working (Like nurses, office assistants, librarians…)
Emrysmyrddin, European (sorry Louis), same here.
On the YouTube racism: It wasn’t just that he said things that could be exploited by racists. A group of other YouTubers made videos criticizing him for repeating and feeding right-wing propaganda and he made a video where he didn’t even acknowledge what they were criticizing him for and called them drama-whores. Also, in his interview with DLandonCole, he said he was OK with white supremacists latching on to Draw Mohammed Day and using it to promote their anti-immigrant cause.
@ruteekatreya. M.A. Melby has been a very vocal critic of Thunderf00t. You’re jumping to an conclusion here based on some assumptions and no context.
For the good of the cause, comrade.
http://youtu.be/R5lui9Nq-y8
It’s about 5 hours long, but lots and lots of bad arguments on display here. Thsi is apparent within the first few minutes where Thunderf00t asks if the world would be better off with less religion and DLandonCole says that it would be in theory, but in practice, it depends how you get there and Thunderf00t goes around and around saying that he’s dodging the question.
Nope, I did not forget it. That was the reason for my caveat with US. Actually the idea of american christian fundamentalists taking hold of largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world sends chillies down my spine.
But I am not aware of christian state still holding official death penalty for apostates, witches and gays. I know of states where christians are trying to establish such backwards standards, but I really do not know any christian theocracy, which would currently still hold such laws.
They have that unfortunate habit of trying to import sharia law in EU and setting an occasional bomb attack here or in US (luckily nor so much in recent years, but I was in US during 9/11 and still believe the official version of it over conspiracies). So it really is hard to ignore even here. Although some countermeasures (like banning burka etc.) are in the light of evidence misguided and ineffective and some (like rising popularity of racistic and nationalistic parties) identically idiotic and dangerous. People who try propagate islam in EU are actually effectively providing fascists with quasi-rational agenda people listen to, and I hate that.
Well, that is just fucked up and I admit I did miss that. If Tf said that, shame on him and he indeed is an ashole. I would not side with white supremacists even if they were collecting money for cancer research.
Unfortunately I cannot watch his debate with DLandonCole purely for time reasons, but I take your word for it for now.
Therefore I change my mind about Thundef00t in this regard.
julian
GAHHHHHH!!
Why is it always the chemists? Do we inhale too much gunk or summat?
Tf00t lost my watching when he stopped making beautiful science videos and went into bile-spewing Rush Limbaugh mode. Not surprised he’s still a bit loopy.
“Harrassment policies exist. Read about what actually ends up qualifying as offenses to them before inserting vague hypotheticals.”
I know harassment policies exist. However, part of the utility of a harassment policy is not just how they are implemented, but how they are perceived by the people who read them and are being expected to follow them.
I think that the current wording could be misperceived. I am not suggesting that having the wording stated has caused problems in the past for conventions that have adopted it; because I don’t know.
I do know however, that in the academic setting, skirting the line between not being “offensive” and being honest is not as straight forward as it might seem; and the public’s general concept of “offensive” is broad and vague.
I’m really not sure how my hypothetical was vague.
Dawkin uses the phrase “African Ape” to describe human beings. That is extremely offensive to many people and it might be perceived as racial charged (even if it isn’t). As written, could the policy be perceived to disallow him from using the phrase?
I am not accusing anyone of thinking that him using that phrase rises to the level of harassment. I concede that the people enforcing the policy would probably not interpret it that way.
I simply think a clearer policy is better than a not-as-clear policy. Considering that skeptics, atheists, and freethinkers often say things that other people really don’t like and may consider “offensive” (by their definition), clarity might be a good idea.
@Sili
Before he doxxed himself I had always thought that he was a physicist based on the topics he talked about. Apparently that was my own bias talking. Now I’m shamefully glad that he isn’t. I unsubbed from him around that time as it became increasingly apparent that his problem in that whole debate was with Muslims not terrorists.
@ ruteekatreya &skeptifem
This is an impossible dilemma. Do I restrict my behaviour because some douchebags might get the wrong idea and harass me or do I do what I want to do because I like it, damn the douchebags?
Of course, this also goes back to the fact that you don’t make decisions in a vacuum. If women didn’t live in a patriarchy, would they want to perform burlesque just for themselves? It reminds me of the whole “I wear make up because I like it, not because I get rewarded for conforming to patriarchal standards”, which, of course, is both true and false.
I guess the solution is to negotiate everything on a case to case basis, and wait for the world we live in to improve when it comes to such situations.
I’m not familiar with Thunderf00t’s anti-Muslim videos specifically, but it is frustrating when some atheist activists (Sam Harris and Pat Condell, for example) spout anti-Muslim rhetoric which is virtually indistinguishable from that of the far right. There are many people out there for whom vilification of Islam is a convenient pretext to push an anti-immigrant agenda. It’s very dangerous to ally oneself with those people.
And I think it’s for the best that Thunderf00t will be leaving FtB. This isn’t just a case of disagreement with the consensus view. (Disagreement in itself is a good thing; there have been some interesting debates between bloggers here, like the debate between Taslima Nasreen and Greta Christina on the morality of sex work.) It’s the fact that he’s been such an asshole about it. He’s been nastily dismissive of women’s experiences, he’s pretending that the problem of harassment at conferences doesn’t exist rather than offering constructive solutions, and he’s been very aggressive towards bloggers and commenters who have criticized his position. And he isn’t a particularly good writer; it’s often hard to discern what point he’s trying to make.
BTW:
I heart DLandonCole
I wish people would stop saying “disagreement” while attacking FtB without specifying EXACTLY what the disagreement is about, because it is blatantly fucking dishonest. All disagreements are not equal, and as far as I know no one on the FtB side is doing or saying anything out of bounds about people “just for disagreeing” in some sort of abstract and trivial way like it could be about what toppings should go on pizzas or who should win on American Idol.
1) Offending and harassing would actually mean something different if the policies would not explicitly define it to be the same.
2) I’m aware that it does not matter that much what the policies say. But if people on the one hand write emails because the policy forgot to mention “gender identity” and than on the other hand claim that the policy does not really mean what it says I really can’t fail to notice the religious traits that whole thing has acquired. If religious people argue that way they get routinely called out on it. But as soon as something has to do with feminism any consistency goes overboard.
3) It is ironic that the ones that screamed the loudest (skepchick) have in reality weakest policy when it comes to consequences.
and he’s been very aggressive towards bloggers and commenters who have criticized his position. And he isn’t a particularly good writer; it’s often hard to discern what point he’s trying to make.
Being aggressive, rude and hostile towards others is an important part of being a FTBlogger.
Wait, I missed something.
What did Greg Laden do to get the boot? I mean, I’ve never been fond of his non-Congo writings and he’s far from my favourite person personally, but I’ve obviously missed something significant.
Gen, it was apparently the result of behind the scenes drama with Justin. https://proxy.freethought.online/rockbeyondbelief/2012/07/01/the-pits/
Greg weighed in a few comments down too.
Gen, I think the answer you’re looking for is in this post.
dysomniak, darwinian socialist
Uhm, wow. K, that was… unexpected? Thanks for the link.
Thanks to you too, Walton, for the effort.
Someone mentioned the legal aspect of these policies earlier and I think that’s an important point in this conversation, as the legal (or non-legal) purpose of these codes of conduct and policies are kind of important to understanding why they exist, or why someone might choose to create one.
DISCLAIMER: I am not currently practicing law, and have inactivated my license, meaning that my statement is not as a lawyer, but as a layperson with a legal education and several years of practice experience. Also, my specialty was areas of law that particularly affect the elderly and disabled (public benefits, estate planning, conservatorships/guardianships) so this is not my area of expertise.
That said, it is important to understand that these policies do not really have to do with criminal or civil laws regarding harassment. They fall under contract law. What they are is a contract between the organization holding the event and the attendees and/or speakers. By attending the event, people agree to behave by the listed rules and if they are violate that contract by breaking the rules, the organization has the right to eject them from the event without returning any fees paid to the organization. It also spells out their liability (although note that a court could find that they have liability even in an area they try to limit, if civil law supports that finding). Making them specific, rather than general (“We reserve the right to kick you out for any reason”) makes them much less open to challenge. If you limit your policy to what’s in my parenthetical, you are leaving yourself open to challenge as you can’t always kick someone out for ANY reason (for example, because of their race) and are still subject to civil liability if someone can make a case for it.
In that sense, the Skepchick policy really doesn’t have any legal purpose, it is true. Since they are not the event organizers and have no real power to eject people from the event, nor did they receive any payment directly from the attendees (that I’m aware of, unless they have a “pay at the door” type of event, in which case the policy DOES serve the purpose described above).
So the Skepchick policy is in a sense, unnecessary, at least from a legal standpoint. But even so, that does not mean it is inadvisable. Since most likely it does not serve a legal purpose, I would say it falls into the category of public communications. It is VERY common for organizations to release public communications that are not legally necessary for the sake of customer service and goodwill.
For example. the company I work for prides itself on its customer service, and this is one of its major selling points. One of the things we do is keep track of the main categories of customer service communications and add features and policies that address those areas. We don’t HAVE to tell people when we’ve addressed their complaints. But we’ve found it’s really good for business when we do tell them. We pretty regularly communicate with our customers and tell them “Hey you told us you wish we would do [X] and now we have! Next time you make a purchase, click this button to do [X]!”
This tells our customers that we are listening to them and improving their experience. I would put Skepchick’s policy under that same category. They are telling their prospective attendees that they’ve listened to their concerns and that they intend to foster an atmosphere that people have stated they want. They’re making clear that they are willing to help out and mediate if people have problems that fall within the policy, and also laying out the limits of their power. Seems a fairly good idea to me. The fact that this is not a concern to certain people in the community is irrelevant. Skepchick feels it is a concern for the people they wish to serve, therefore it’s good practice to address it.
Finally, since this is already essay-length, I have seen a lot of arguments to the effect that we should have evidence that harassment is an actual and serious problem before implementing any policies. I will tell you that the very first thing I learned as a lawyer is that this is the exact wrong way to approach a potential problem. We had so many clients who felt the same way – “Oh but I know my family, they would never do this.” The answer to that is that they are very probably right, but every so often, it happens anyway and no one can predict when it will happen. Sometimes people do the wrong thing for what they think are good reasons. Whatever the case it is always FAR more costly to clean up messes after they happen, than to prepare for them before they happen. It is also important to understand that preparing for eventualities in this way is NOT a statement that you believe it will happen, or an indictment of anyone’s character.
Sorry, I know this is a bit off topic at this point and I accept that criticism that I should send my advice off to the relevant people, but for the sake of completeness:
However, besides using other, clearer, language for “offensive”, it may be a good idea to include an “including but is not limited to” phrase in there somewhere.
The written policy is there is make more clear what types of behavior is not acceptable, not to limit the judgment of the people actually running the con to eject those who are causing real problems.
I know that sounds like “too much power” but it’s there for the “rules lawyers” – oh yeah, and the real ones.
Otherwise I think it’s great. :)
@Nerd of whatever
“The only ironic part is you define “freethought” as agreeing with you”
I guess it might be ironic if had ever done that. As it stands your comment is just plain moronic…
“,or being annoying skeptical.”
Is that even supposed to mean something?
“It is also about looking at the evidence, which you and all misogynists ignore”
The problem is that calling someone a misogynist doesn’t make it so. Where is the evidence you pretend to care for? Oh yeah you were just pretending to care about evidence all this time.
“Your tone trolling is dismal behavior as PZ expects a rewd, crewd, and lewd blog. ”
So PZ says jump and you ask how high? Did he also ask for a group think knee jerk lot too?
@The SpokesGay
“Ah, and jackrawlinson who went absolutely mental over the original elevator incident. Hi bubby!”
Nice way to show your complete inability to read the actual comment and deal with it. Bravo! Your comments are always so enlightening.
@Utakata
“Creationists are also dissenting voices. Does that mean with your logic, we have to support them as well? ”
Ok let’s not stick to the subject… Hmm if your best line of defense against creationists would be to throw names at them and not bother showing where they are wrong, not much would be achived beyond basic ego gratification (for those who need it that badly).
To be honest there is nothing in what TF has posted in the last week or so that deserves the sort of treatment it got. He simply doesn’t think the problem of sexual harrasment in conferences is as bad as it is being made to be. He doesn’t think assholes become less “asshole”like magically through the writing of some words like “don’t be assholes” on a policy paper (I guess most here do?). He could be right or wrong about some or all of these things, still there is no way to know since nobody has actually engaged in that discussion without loosing all objectivity and are reduced (or is it just all there was) to throwing insults at each other.
charly
Unfortunately, some christian bigots are exporting their hate to places like Uganda.
I can also attest that it is not uncommon to hear a USAian cite Leviticus as proof that their bigotry is moral.
Thanks for evaluating the TF issue rationally. It is always appreciated when people act like mature adults and admit when they are wrong. TF and the slimepitters should take note of how it’s done.
That would be dandy except that I was responding to the charge that it is transgressive/empowering/activism, not that it is fun for some people.
The FLDS, if given enough time/space, will get there. They are notoriously violent and have whole cities full of people, not to mention ideas that are eerily similar to fundamentalist muslim ideas.
Oh they very often do that. I am pretty confident that 99.99% of them have never actually read Leviticus since I have never heard of such a Christian refuse to eat shellfish on religious grounds, or wear clothes made of mixed fibres.
Welp, I don’t know how TF’s posts will be managed once he’s gone. And comments were closed minutes before I could post. I’ll submit it here instead.
Sorry for cluttering up the place.
@thunderf00t:
How generous of your majesty. What’s the occasion?
Something you should have done in regards to the other (proposed) policies. You know, before you lost your shit over their mere existence.
Get to the fucking point already.
Dyed hair, clothing and various bodily modifications are not instrinsic either. What’s your point?
Nowehere in the policy is it stated that being seen as offensive is not allowed.
You just quoted the relevent paragraph yourself, FFS! It goes on to say: “We do not tolerate harassment of anyone, in any form, by anyone in attendance of an event we have organized.”
Because relentlessly asserting your (ableist) fucking opinion, after having been asked to fuck off repeatedly, is not the same as critizising or arguing a point or just being offensive. It’s harrassment. This is an event people attend to exchange ideas, even when these ideas are fucking wrong. You can either be open to an honest dialogue or you can stay the fuck away.
You need to read for comprehension. The policy reads: “Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, or race. Harassment also includes deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.”
None of your examples are listed explicitly or implicitly. They are infact preempted by the items that are included.
But did you read it. For real?
You go on to whinge about how the policy doesn’t cover behaviour outside of the conference. (Something you accredit to your argumentative force, you smug sack of shit). While simultaneously acknowledging and ignoring (wow!) that they wouldn’t be able to even if they wanted to extend the policies’ influence to extra-conventional activities. Gotcha’. There also the possibility, you know, that reports made about harassment at e.g. a bar outside the convention to convention staff can still be used to prevent attendence of known harassers in the future. This isn’t rocket-surgery.
Well, are you? If you have a point, do go on and make it.
FFS! It says: “Skepchick and Freethought Blogs organizers will be happy to help participants contact the appropriate CONvergence Operations staff, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the convention.”
Nowhere does it say that they won’t throw out a harrasser in order to make attendees feel safe. This is at the discretion of the staff.
I noticed… Wait. Is there’s a word missing?
WHAT?! I CANT HERE U! SPEKE UP!!!1
You demand a legal document that covers every conveivable permutation of every conveivable set of circumstances. At the same time you accuse organizers of policing your every action. In other words, you demand the impossible while decrying the practical.
You claim that these policies get in the way of maximizing fun. At the same time you ingore that these policies exist to increase fun by decreasing cases of and anxiety about harassment.
These policies are designed to be simple. They are meant to be comprehensible by anyone. Only someone who reads them in extremely bad faith could possibly have these objections.
And what have you done to actually improve the situation? Nothing.
You are a hypocrite, insufferably whiny and tedious company.
jacklewis
Nope, they’re not. While harassment is always offensive, not everything that’s offensive is harassment.
Clearly some religious people are mightily offended by me walking around with my head uncovered, my hair open and my neckline being low, yet it would be ridiculous to say that I harass them by walking past them at a con.
Because it’s not inconsistent?
It says don’t harass people, also not because of their religion. Don’t tail behind a catlick and bother them with your views about virgin birth. Hard to understand?
lilandra
Why do I have a hard time believing that? Oh, wait it might be because of the whole “hey, that’s what bars are for” stuff.
Wait, what? You put this whole thing down to “lack of body language and facial expression?”
Nope, sorry, doesn’t work that way. If TF’s problem is that he’s a shitty writer who can’t communicate his points and therefore feels that he’s missunderstood the appropriate reaction is to say “I didn’t make myself clear, let me try again”.
BTW, how come you feel so secure to know what he actually tries to say, wants to say, blablabla. I get that you know and like him, but it looks more like you want to understand this the way that allows you to keep your good opinion of him instead of adressing what he actually says.
In that case he should have less than zero problems with a harassment policy. Since he finds the idea of having one ridiculous (I’m wondering, does his boss know that?), that’s hard to believe.
Of course you are, by bringing up all kinds of excuses for why the shit he writes doesn’t mean the shit he says.
Wait, you’re TF himself?
No, you’re providing no such thing, your providing your biased interpretation.
That does not mean what you think it means
The problem is that you have given 0 information and shitloads of speculation
So, basically you’re saying that he’s having a knee-jerk reaction without using that big brain of his? Yeah, that really speaks for him…
dapartypoopah
That’s pressumably the people who are much more likely to engage in harassment than being victims of it.
I wished people would make up their mind.
Some of you say we demand that nobody ever disagrees with a woman, some of you say we’re mean bullies of women. Some people claim both things at the same time. My pink fluffy ladybrain is confused.
You haven’t been around much, have you?
Ahhh, I see. I suppose somebody who just says nasty and stupid things about black people aren’t racist either unless they wear a KKK hood.
That says a lot about your mental capacities, very little about reality
++++
Do they swim in the tub? Do I get one along with my stylish new uniform?
+++++
elu1
Funny you should say that when PZ has written about how he tried to get in contact with him to sort things out and was ignored…
Daz
I think that’s just his usual thorough research mode for anything socially related: it was the first one he could find and where he could find fault with.
+++++
Also, he closed the comments? When are the usual suspects going to cry out about free speech and end of western civilisation?
++++
Those poor (young) men, it’s all about them, all the time. I think it would probably kill them with shock if one day they understood that from the moment I pick my underwear to the moment I finish my make-up I’m not spending one thought on them. Yes, I know, I’m such an egoist not thinking about those poor menz and their little laddies.
skeptifem
Well, and I’d say by not doing the things I like and want to do I’m letting the misogynist jerks win. Sorry, but the argument goes all the way from doing a performance to wearing anything short of a burqa. It’s their fucking responsibility to clean up their minds.
tricster
We could create a choir for that…
++++
I recently re-started to use make-up. It’s part of my “be nice to yourself” program and it helps me to get through a shitload of psychological trouble. To paraphrase Rita Mae Brown: Any movement that gives a shit about the colour of my nails can fuck off.
anotheratheist
Cupcake, that’s because they don’t run the Con but merely throw a party.
@jacklewis:
Calling someone a misogynist doesn’t make someone a misogynist. Acting like a misogynist makes someone a misogynist.
You want evidence of Thunderf00t’s misogyny? How about thinking that his right to have fun at a bar overrides the right of women not to be harassed? How about claiming that he shouldn’t have to consult a woman before chewing on her leg? How about feeling that he’s entitled to have everyone his concerns about sexual harassment policies to be taken more seriously than the concerns of women who have actually been harassed? How about his dismissal of everyone who disagrees with him as being overly emotional and not rational, which comes dangerously close to falling into the “oh, those hysterical, over-sensitive women” trope commonly used to dismiss what women say?
How much evidence do you need?
Not really. The people who have been saying that atheist/skeptic conferences need sexual harassment policies have not been complaining that sexual harassment is the most important issue facing atheists or that no woman can go to an atheist/skeptic conference without getting harassed or any of the other strawmen Thunderf00t has set up. In fact, I think several of the bloggers calling for sexual harassment policies have claimed that they don’t think that sexual harassment is any more common in the atheist community than the population at large.
Of course, it’s hard to actually know whether or not sexual harassment is more frequent at atheist/skeptic conferences. To know that, we’d have to be able to count up the number of reports of sexual harassment at a given conference. Which would mean that we’d need to have people report incidences of harassment. Which would mean that we’d need a sexual harassment policy. Which is what you are arguing against in the first place.
Assholes will still be assholes. But a few might be inclined to be less openly assholish if they know that their assholery will not be tolerated.
Harassment policies give us a method of addressing the assholes. They let women know that if they are sexually harassed, their complaints will be taken seriously, and not dismissed or derided. That’s important.
@JL
Yeah, what if I think racism isn’t such a problem anymore, and I proceed to ignore all claims to the contrary? Denying there is a problem does not make it go away. Also, when a large number of people, particularly the ones who are on the receiving end of such harassment tell you of their experiences and you continue to deny there is a problem, then it’s clear you simply don’t want to help because kitty forbid it might take away from your enjoyment.
Actually, that’s one of the underlying principles legal systems operate on. Even if you are an asshole, since there’s a law forbidding your assholish behaviour and there’s a punishment associated with breaking said law, people are going to think twice about being assholes. But if there are no regulations in place, well you can bet assholes are simply going to shrug their shoulders and just say that their behaviour isn’t against any law. So, with apologies for the truism, doing something is always better than doing nothing.
He is mostly in the wrong, and whatever positive points he may have had were lost in all the poorly written crap he calls blog entries. Please don’t act as if bloggers here – mostly PZ and Greta, but others too – haven’t explained clearly what he did wrong. Greta had 5 blog posts about Thunderf00t because she was operating in good faith, hoping he – and others who think like him – might learn something.
So please, don’t act as if he’s some poor innocent person still awaiting trial for allegedly committing a crime. He has been weighed, tried and found wanting…that is not under dispute.
Also, don’t say nobody debated with him, because it feels FTB came to a standstill after he joined, and everybody had to put everything else on the back burner to start getting rid of some of the shit he was piling on, before it started to suffocate everybody. The problem is he didn’t listen, or if he did, he didn’t learn.
I don’t care that women choose to do these things, I care that I get told that its empowering and transgressive to do so.
They are essentially telling the patriarchy that they are in charge of their own sexuality and can’t be cowed by objectification and/or slut-shaming. If you don’t go for that kind of empowerment, no one will criticize you, but if we want to argue that women have the right to still be thought of as persons, even when they are sexy, someone has to be on the front lines actually standing up for that.
@ skeptifem:
Well, I think it depends. I don’t think that those sorts of things are necessarily empowering and transgressive, but in certain situations they can be. They certainly aren’t transgressive or empowering all the time, or even most of the time. And in the situations where they aren’t transgressive or empowering, they shouldn’t be labeled as such. But I don’t mind them being labeled transgressive and empowering in those situations where they actually are transgressive and empowering either.
I guess it’s really blanket statements in regards to what is transgressive and empowering that I have a problem with.
@ skeptifem
I think I understand what you’re getting at. It’s like they – as in some parts of the media, for instance – are trying to sell us on the idea that some things are transgressive, when, in fact, they’re conformist. On the one hand, they encourage women to own their sexuality, and then turn around and slut shame them in the same breath.
On a related note, when it comes to many aspects of being a woman, there are many things you can’t stop doing without paying the price.I mean, it’s fine and dandy if you want to wear make up, to give just one example. But most of us can’t stop wearing make up especially in a professional setting, because there’s a penalty for that.
This comment system is incredibly hard to follow, and it sucks as well in my opinion.
as opposed to what? threaded comments have proven to be headache-inducing in longer conversations.
jacklewis
You really haven’t read any of the relevant threads, have you? The ones where numerous people have pointed out that organisations and institutions of every type, from universities to supermarkets to sci-fi cons to international charities to political parties, have policy documents of precisely this type for the purpose of a) declaring their position wrt employee/member behaviour and encouraging the kind of behaviour they want, b) establishing a framework for dealing with any problems that may arise – such as complaints procedures, guidelines for staff dealing with any complaints etc. etc.
In fact, your misrepresentation shows you to be a bit of an idiot, really.
Atheists, take note: This is actually an example of doing it right. Convergence having an anti-harassment policy is nothing unusual at all, it’s de rigeuer, and that’s because of experiences like this that were taken to heart instead of fought against. The science fiction/fantasy con community in the US went through this four years ago, with the Open Source Boob Project. That was a pretty intense discussion within the community, and it was a lot like lancing a boil, though nowhere near as vicious as elevatorgate, I have to say. At the same time, it spawned feminism and discrimination tracks on con programs that talked about things like male privilege and the male gaze as well as the more obvious “my eyes are up here” sort of explicit behavioral expectations, frank discussions about personal space and the role of women and feminism in science fiction, and explicit and enforced anti-harassment policies at most conventions. It’s not nearly perfect, since people are people and some of them are obviously still creepy sexist jerks and always will be, but as a female fan I find the world of science fiction cons more comfortable today than they were five years ago, a year of horribleness notwithstanding.
Most people seem to be able to cope with it. Given that, have you considered that rather than there being a problem with the comment system, the problem is with the user, i.e. you ?
@anathema
I’m not trying to bait you, but can you name an instance where e.g. sex work is empowering to the sex worker?
Both my imagination and GoogleFu are failing (all I can find is empowerment OF sex workers. Big difference).
If you have any other examples, I’d be curious. Or maybe I’m just dense.
oh look, it’s Rand Paul’s argument against the Civil Rights Act!
seriously though, it’s not actually true that having a law or policy against something doesn’t change behavior; for those who for some reason don’t know that the enumerated behavior is wrong in that setting, the effect can be immediate; for everyone else, the explicit, repeated statement that something is wrong can lead to a cultural shift where eventually people in that culture take for granted that the enumerated behaviors are wrong and will be punished. that’s a well-known effect of rules, for better or worse.
Well, the important thing is, you’ve found something to be unhappy about.
Good on ya!
This whole debacle has helped me think more clearly about what turns out to be a critical distinction. It’s the difference between (A) “not being consciously bigoted” and (B) “being consciously not bigoted”. The bigotry here could be sexism, racism, homophobia, whatever.
Most people seem to think that (A) is sufficient. If you ask me, I think everyone’s equal, ergo I can’t be a bigot, ergo nothing I do or like can be bigotry… we’ve seen where that leads.
The hard lesson from reality is that (A) is very far from sufficient. You have to get all the way to (B), and that takes effort.
Let’s stick with sexism. It turns out that “I think women are equal to men” isn’t sufficient. If you have, say, an appointment panel, and it consists of five ordinary men, and every single one of them honestly believes in gender equality… this does not achieve gender equality in appointments. If the panel’s mental image of the successful candidate is someone like them, guess what gender the successful candidate will be? To achieve equality you need explicit policies and shortlisting criteria and gender-blinding of applications and a ton of work. That’s what it takes to get to B, consciously not being sexist; and it’s what is met with all the screaming and the accusations of misandry and what have you, from people who think that A is sufficient.
This misogyny explosion has been very revealing; lots of people have been happy to publicly produce arguments which sound like “I believe absolutely in equality and feminism, and any dumb bitch who says otherwise must be on the rag or something”. To really avoid misogyny, homophobia, and a host of other bigotries that are still considered a normal part of our cultures, merely thinking “I’m not a bigot” is not enough. It takes effort.
Arguing that women must tolerate constant harrassment, and never complain, because otherwise harrassing arseholes might feel bad or not get laid… indicates an unwillingness to make the effort.
Hi everyone,
I think this about sums it up. I am also rather disappointed in PZ’s comment at 111 but it seemed to be inevitable. It’s a shame it ended this way but PZ was more than patient from what I have witnessed.
One thing I am confused about though. I have been following this controversy since “elevator-gate”. I’ve noticed “misogynist” thrown around quite a bit…to the point that I feel it necessary to invoke a form of Godwin’s law on its usage w/in the relevant threads. True “mistreatment” is quite subjective terminology but many of you have way overused the expression and cheapened its impact as a result.
What really confuses me though is that I applaud this discussion and can not figure out how any of it will stop a hypothetical “bro” from asking a “RW” to have coffee w/ him BECAUSE she seems interesting. Given it was prefaced by “don’t take this the wrong way” and many people have commented that the males who attend these conferences are socially inept…I take this as a legitimate proposal to get to know someone from a male who respects a female rather than the mysogenic advances of a chauvinist pig who objectified her. I agree that RW may not like that conversation…who am I to comment…but for people to act like her response is the logical and rational one? If nothing else that shows from her a rather large ego and gender bias that all males would like to stick it in her slimepit. i have three letters.
WTF?
skeptifem
I think thi can mean two things.
One is: wearing make-up and doing whatever is empowering for women.
That is clearly wrong. What is empowering for women is to be able to make a meaningful choice.
The other one is: Wearing make up and doing whatever is empowering for me. That is the evaluation of the particular woman who does it. I can assure you that going to the drug store, spending 20 bucks on make-up was fucking empowering and transgressive for me. Because I broke with the rule that I’m not worth the time and the money you need for such things and that I’m a bad mother and wife for wasting even a thought on myself let alone 20 buks and 5 min of time every morning.
So it’s official then: https://proxy.freethought.online/dispatches/2012/07/01/major-changes-at-freethought-blogs/ Both Thunderf00t and Greg Laden are out.
Of course the usual trolls showed up in that comment thread too.
I swear to Maude, if I have to read one more time that Thunderf00t was given the boot for disagreeing, without specifying what it was he disagreed with – which was actually the key issue – I’m going to get angry…but it’s probably inevitable.
for example, when the alternative is no job and therefore no income at all, and therefore not even the tiny bit of economic independence that comes with having a job at all. To a lesser degree, if other forms of work are available, but offer less economic independence than sex work does (Womanist Musings for a while had a blogger who was a sex worker, and she talked occasionally about why she chose to do sex work).
basically, it’s an intersectional issue: sex work rather often does nothing to fight patrarchal structures, but it can be a way for some to claw their way out of (the worst aspects of) class-oppression
There is very good evidence that using the law can change attitudes.
For example, public attitudes towards smoking in public places has significantly altered, towards being against it, since Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England banned it. Another example is the use of non-reusable bags in shops. When Wales introduced a mandatory 5p charge on each new bag, opinion in Wales was divided, but a majority opposed the idea. Now, more than 12 months on, a majority supports the policy.
So if Thunderfoot thinks that laws and policies cannot change attitudes he is wrong.
Hahaha.
Sexual performance on one’s own terms for one’s own ends would be empowering by definition. So is not performing on one’s own terms.
Uganda will fucking kill you for it, because of lobbying and laws that exist because of Christians. That count?
…as Civil Arbitration. Which Christians and Jews have had the right to do for quite some time. Case in point.
Okay; so he isn’t trying to support Thunderfoot. He’s still supporting sexist bullshit.
Fucking Dawkins. And he can’t fucking find some other wya of speaking.
And yet, you write as though this is both likely and possible.
Yeah, but we still have to deal with what we have. We should absolutely work to reduce the pressures that work to create these standards, but
Greta Christina has done posts on sexwork; here for example:
Sounds to me like those might be some empowering examples.
I’m not going to re-read both threads right now to pick out more.
I’d point to professional Dominatrices, but I’m not sufficiently familiar with the scene to know if I’m just buying in to stereotypes.
Something Positive has just a mini-arc about a woman who did burlesque to face her fears. But that of course is fiction.
@pink_monkey
But ElevatorGuy, or you by admission, do not respect her wish not be hit on (which she expressed publicly at the same event).
Also, disgusting use of “female” as a noun and “slimepit” as euphemism for female genitalia.
A. Z. Darkheart way back at 200-ish:
I’ve only worked in academia (research) and there was probably something about sexual harassment not being tolerated and how to report to the university ombudsman, IIRC. It was mentioned briefly somewhere in the two-day orientation and fat employee handbook they gave everyone, but I was more concerned about navigating the benefits system. They certainly didn’t go into detail or do a Q&A; we were packed into a lecture hall.
Before Rebecca Watson and “Guys, don’t do that”, sexual harassment and chilly climate weren’t really on my radar. (Neither was feminism, except in the broad equal-pay and medical care sense.) I figured sexual harassment meant the quid-pro-quo variety that mostly occurs in an employer-employee or teacher-student relationship, and nothing in the handbook really contradicted that assumption. I didn’t know there were such things as MRA’s, PUA’s, or entitled predators operating under cover of supposed social confusion; or that women generally have to navigate such a minefield of bitches-ain’t-shit before, during, and after being aggressed upon. Heck, before the *current* discussion it never occurred to me to ask that event organizers provide a means of complaint resolution for victims instead of leaving them to the vagaries of informal community.
The only reason I *didn’t* make an ass of myself with stupid questions was that I shut up and listened for almost an entire year (since PZ’s “The Woman Problem” post) so that when Egate hit, I was ready to debunk the same old sexist crap that came up in every. single. discussion.
The point being, I guess, that without specific debunking of the common narrative, it’s easy to be blind to the real scale of the problem. Privilege-blind, in fact. So, I bet a lot of employees under harassment policies don’t actually realize what harassment is, even when they read and sign the documents. Far too many victims don’t even call what happened to them harassment.
So, I think conventions are actually an ideal place for this sort of education to happen: there’ll be enforcement (mostly warnings and ‘Don’t do that’-s) very quickly, with no black marks or institutional discipline except in the most severe cases, and a chance to announce, read, and learn about the policy when there’s less at stake (for harassers OR reporters) than your degree or your job. Then the attendees will go back to their regular lives with some relevant experience.
@pink_monkey
This is going to change things eventually the same way having an anti-harassment policy is going to work. While we may not see the effects immediately – in some places and countries it might take close to forever – if you keep pointing out unacceptable behaviour, people are going to gradually change. It’s like a ripple effect – the more you make waves about treating people properly, the more likely it is you are going to reach “bros” who still think it’s ok to be assholes. It’s also about creating a vocal minority who makes itself heard, because even if we can’t change this generation of bros, we can definitely influence the next one.
The whole socially inept thing is used as an excuse by people who are called on their crap behaviour and don’t want to apologize. If you are socially inept, you are going to double check to make sure you don’t step on any toes, which means you are going to be cautious and thoughtful of others.
Also, since you say you followed the whole ElevatorGate debacle, there’s no point rehashing this. Suffice it to say that Rebecca had just had a conversation with some people, elevator dude included, saying how she hates people hitting on her in inappropriate contexts. The dude then proceeded to do the very thing Rebecca had complained about. He ignored her wishes and her right to be left alone because his desire to hit on women trumps everything…that is misogynistic .. treating a woman’s wishes and boundaries as less important than his.
What behaviour and what ego are you referring to? You’re misrepresenting her position. She simply said “Guys, don’t do that”, that is, don’t hit on women unless they gave clear indication of being interested, and especially don’t hit on them at 4 in the morning, in the elevator of a hotel.
She never said all guys do that, she simply tried to help the ones who might be inclined to do that.
I haz a sad. I really enjoyed TFs creationist videos and his science videos and had never actually watched his anti-muslim videos.
His behavior since he came here has really been pathetic. I didn’t realize his ego was so fragile. Because believe me, folks, it is the ones with fragile egos who simply cannot stop digging.
As for Laden, I figured it would only be a matter of time before his anger management issues would come to the fore. His behavior in the past shows that while he can be very reasonable most of the time, if you piss him off he loses all sense of appropriate behavior.
fair enough klatu, but you aren’t addressing my point.
1) i’ve read enough ’round here that i don’t buy your offense to my language….nor do i buy that it is germane to my point.
2) my confusion arises BECAUSE many people insist she was being “hit-on”. Objectively…after assessing the facts reported, I’m at a loss as to how the data is interpreted in that manner. Try addressing that, it’s where i’m confused…as i previously stated btw.
thanks
@ pink_monkey, the short answer to your (“just asking) questions” is to wonder why you haven’t bothered to do a little reading – it’s not like there haven’t been thousands – actual real live three-figure-number thousands – of posts and comments on precisely this subject. That’s a polite way of saying, way to display your laziness, dumbassery and deliberate ignorance. You won’t get people doing your homework for you, and especially not if you’re going to start with this kind of fapwitted nonsense. It’s called JAQing off for a reason.
Slightly longer answer: all of these specific questions, and many many more, have been asked and answered already, many times over, ad nauseam. It wasn’t “legitimate” since it came directly after a) a public talk during which RW had said explicitly how unpleasant and unacceptable it is to her to be hit on at cons, b) several hours of socialising in the bar (the bloke in question was apparently present for the speech and in the bar) at the end of which RW announced the intention to go and get some sleep. It wasn’t “legitimate” because he then followed her away from the crowd to an isolated and confined space, at a time (4am) when they would be almost sure to be alone and unobserved. In other words, he had already chosen to ignore the boundaries she had explicitely set.
And all she said about it was “guys, don’t do that”. That’s ALL. That was her response. And you think that’s illogical and irrational?
The WTF is directed at you.
that’s crap. invitations for coffee after someone said they’re going to sleep AND to a location that serves the worst kind of coffee AND immediately (i.e. in the middle of the night) as opposed to at a later, more appropriate time cannot be coherently construed as invitations to a chat over a cup of coffee.
what the fuck. nice sexist behavior, referring to a woman’s genitalia as a “slimepit” (and no, lies from the actual slimepit notwithstanding, no one here has ever referred to ERV’s vagina that way)
@jadehawk #315, hotshoe #319, Sili #320
Those are some good thoughts. Thank you.
I guess, as a matter of freedom of choice, it can be empowering personally, even under economic duress.
But I have to agree with Skeptifem, if I understand her correctly, that this does not automatically empower women, or even sex workers, at large.
But I really need to some reading before I go on.
you’re contradicting yourself. if you actually had “red enough ’round here”, you’d know that specifically bigoted language is not welcome here.
Well fluffy. If your interpretation is what happened I agree w/ you. In my interpretation though her boundaries were respected and she projected behavior none of us find appropriate on this individual.
i’ll agree we disagree on our respective ability to interpret her specific thoughts. ;p
i was really just hoping for an explanation as to why this guy is being ripper for being socially inept and asking for coffee convo because he thinks she is incredible.
Troll.
And
try reading for comprehension, then. You might just be stupid enough not to have understood what kind of language is unacceptable and why, or – more likely – you’re just another silly troll.
ok jadehawk, fuckwit, mental midget, retard, porcupine in ass…sure, you can take the high road on “slimepit”.
lol
Matt, I think you’ve on to something here. But I’d say that Tfool is arguing so hard because he does think that laws and policies change attitudes. I would say that’s exactly what he’s afraid of.
So it’s not just their immediate resistance: “you’re going to spoil my fun, I won’t be able to gnaw on her leg” It’s at the next level as well,: “you’re going to spoil the attitude, you’re going to change my mates’ minds so they won’t laugh with me anymore when I do something dudely”.
Which is a good sign that he actually does have a conscience and a sense of shame hiding in there somewhere. Even if it’s only one that will be activated when the Overton window moves our way and his dudebros start disapproving.
Oh no, they’re all going to be assimilated by the
Borg, theFeminazis, the decent human beings who try to overcome their sexist raising.not on the patriarchal axis of oppression, no.
the solution here would be to fight/eliminate the economic oppression that results in women choosing sex work as “better than the alternative”; which means both intra-national income inequality as well as the inequality inherent in the World-System that divides the world into core, semi-periphery and periphery-nations. And, of course, the ridiculously prevalent feminization of poverty.
or, basically I’m saying that the kind of sex-work that isn’t being done for fun and giggles by privileged women can’t be fought on only one axis of oppression; it has to be fought on at least two: gender and class
WTF?
She clearly stated during the whole fucking conference that she doesn’t want to be approahed by that AND she announced that she was tired and wanted to go to bed and was therefore no longer avaible for conversation.
How does ignoring that respect her boundaries?
And why do you people need to rehash Elevatorgate each and every time?
citation or it didn’t happen. and since you’re specifically adressing me, you’ll have to find a quote from me using such ableist language.
and I do note that you can’t tell insults from slurs, given that string of complaints.
yeah, it’s become very clear you’ve in fact not read enough around here.
@Matt Penfold #316: “There is very good evidence that using the law can change attitudes.”
Exactly so. For example it really was not so long ago that it was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife. This reflected the societal attitude that a wife owed a husband sex whenever he wanted it, that this was part of the agreement made in getting married. The lingering societal idea that a wife was a husband’s property and under his control was an idea and was reflected in law for far longer than young people probably think today. A lot of younger people would probably be shocked to see the position of women as regards property law before the 1970s. Women were presumed not to own any property in many areas of the law before then because society assumed that women would not be working or accumulating property on their own.
Obviously many factors have contributed to women’s rights over time, activism being the catalyst for most of it, but changing laws to convey and enforce equality has been a powerful factor as well.
Oh wow, Josh, I can’t believe I’ve forgotten what Greg Laden did to you that time on SciBlogs. I’ve always had a bad taste in my mouth about him, but I actually forgot how atrociously he behaved to cause that bad taste! I’m genuinely sorry. Sometimes I’m so self-centered, I’m surprised I don’t conjure up a black hole.
pinky_monkey #325
You’re right, it’s not germane to your point. It’s germane to your person.
anyway guys, i’m not here to flame. fluffy engaged me appropriately. that’s it to this point. i’ll take a break for the time being before i get tone trolled to death by jadehawk…
hmmm…
anyway, i asked a specific question that only fluffy attempted to address. flame away, but at least answer that question by rebutting the evidence i presented if you disagree. I was interested in a convo…not flame wars.
ttyl, and thanks fluffy for at least taking my question seriously before i got labeled a troll. really i should invoke godwin on that ridiculousness too.
btw, im gonna watch “get the gringo”…no disagreement from me that mel gibson is a misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist pos but the ensuing train wreck entertains me at least. ;p kinda like tom cruise but i’m bored w/ him. O0
@pink_monkey
opposable thumbs and jadehawk have also explained the situation to you.
If my interpretation?? Here’s a thought, why don’t you believe Rebecca and the people who were in the bar and who heard both her desire to be left alone and the decision to go to bed? Why do you second guess her and keep mentioning in other posts stuff about objectivity? There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to human behaviour, as we are all influenced by a myriad of biases and logical fallacies. The key is to be aware of at least some of them and try to avoid them.
He was not socially inept. People who are shy, or unsure of themselves, or neurologically atypical, hence unable to read, for instance, all non-verbal cues, usually err on the side of caution and don’t annoy people in elevators at 4 am.
I think it’s telling you’re trying to misrepresent Rebecca’s action while insisting to defend the dude and presume his innocence.
And he’s not the one on the receiving end of all the hatred and abuse, Rebecca was and is for simply speaking her mind while female. Considering he’s still anonymous, I don’t see how he’s getting ripped apart, while Rebecca has vile shit directed at her everywhere on the internet.
false equivalence, or just a boring-ass lie? you decide!
oh? is this the “question”* in question?
because if so, you’re not correct when you say only fluffy addressed that.
I think you might be as unclear on the meaning of the word “evidence” as you are about the distinction between an insult and a slur.
– – – – –
*questions usually are indicated by question marks. just FYI
before i engage mel gibson, jadehawk…. idk what language you read or type personally. believe it or not idc.
i do know all of those words and many more have been thrown around on here including “retard” and you never commented like you did to “slimepit”.
telling to me…but maybe you’re right. i can’t read for comprehension, i’m a troll. fact is you use invective language w/ a double standard and you haven’t engaged an actual argument. perhaps that was a test…my test…and you failed w/ flying colors.
perhaps read a “fluffy” reply…you might learn substance.
anyway, i look forward to substance later. in MY READING i know you are quite capable.
again, citation or it didn’t happen. “retard” is generally criticized if not by me (because amazingly enough, I’m not here 24/7, nor am i perfect and thus sometimes miss an instance) then by others, so for me to believe your claim I’d have to see evidence of the hypocrisy you want to accuse me of.
your inability to tell a slur from an insult is not evidence for a double standard
this is factually incorrect.
“Retard”, like any ableist slur, is frowned on here. You won’t often find the regulars using it, and when they slip up, one of the others calls them on it fast.
And I really should stop being surprised that people are still pretending that Watson’s story is somehow doubtful.
btw, and it’s quick. usually…you type that yourself.
I’m going to have to second Jadehawk’s claim for a cite. I have NEVER seen “retard” used as a slur without being called out. Never.
Although obviously, I don’t read all posts and comments. That’s just not how the Horde rolls, from what I’ve seen in over 3 years of lurking and observing.
<i@Matt Penfold: What the fuck is wrong with you. I never said anything like that. I believe in equality for all.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Liar.
Here is an example of a woman (Diablo Cody) finding sex-work empowering.
http://www.amazon.com/Candy-Girl-Year-Unlikely-Stripper/dp/1592402739
@Jadehawk #334
Shit, Jadehawk. Now what? The only way I can come up with to cross those highly theoretical socio-economic borders are donations and petitions to change specific legislation. Which frankly, is a drop in the ocean of marginalization. Any suggestions besides the usual suspects, like AllOut.org?
@monkey
You have not provided any evidence, only opinions. Try harder or go away.
guys…holy fuck?
do i doubt RW story…NO. Do i disagree w/ the interpretation…YES. How fucking hard is that?
and no…you use invective language w/ a double standard.
and you are keeping me from mel now by your pointless and nit picking replies. Many of you interpret invective as ok because of the substance of the post and NOT the language. IMO it isn’t ok, but i’m ignoring it to focus on substance. I haven’t seen much….and that’s an objective critique.
plz read what you wrote to me to this point.
“Okay; so he isn’t trying to support Thunderfoot. He’s still supporting sexist bullshit.”
Please explain that, because I don’t know what you are referring to.
“Fucking Dawkins. And he can’t fucking find some other wya of speaking.”
So, are you telling me that he would need to find a different way of speaking? So, do you mean to say, “Yes, it would be considered harassment under this policy.” or “No, it wouldn’t be considered harassment, but I personally don’t like it.”
The reason I used that example is because he uses “African Ape” to refer to a scientific consensus that humans are apes (literally in the same taxonomical categories as apes) and that our common ancestors originated somewhere in or near Africa.
So, he should “find some other way of speaking”?
“And yet, you write as though this is both likely and possible.”
Believe it or not, I didn’t. I was just worried that some attendees might get the wrong idea based on the use of the word “offensive”. However, considering your answer to my hypothetical question, I might be wrong about that.
(BTW – I just thought it was a good example. If you’re tempted to put me into some sort of “camp” because I used something he has said, please don’t. Because, unlike Stetsons, that’s not cool.)
unfortunately not. the prospect of having to change the economic structure of the world is… somewhat daunting, to put it mildly
No you don’t, Cupcake. Provide citations or just stop digging now. Retard, like other ableist, gendered or homophobic slurs are always called out here, have been before FTB even existed and everyone was back at Sciblogs.
All of us aren’t around 24/7, so each of us might not catch every instance, however, when we do, people are corrected, firmly.
and klatu…i have provided the acct by RW…wtf else is evidence?
If only this were true. It would be a great superpower.
merely repeating this won’t make it come true.
I have. and I’ve not called you a single “bad” word yet. you’re grasping at straws and failing to respond to the substance you claimed you wanted, which is still sitting right there at comment #327, waiting for engagement from you.
wow caine…i’m shocked. tell me one more time and maybe i’ll devote my time to pasting references. You guys are proud of how PZ moderates this forum…I have read 1000’s of replies. Frankly i don’t disagree w/ him or you about this. You really need citations if you are being honest? One thing i am not is disingenuous and you won’t look good calling this a “bluff”.
It’s pretty darn hard for non-idiot honest people.
The “don’t take this the wrong way” – classical attempt at plausible deniability by the socially dishonest.
Not to mention the mere gall of inviting people on a cup of decrepit instant coffe. A crime against coffe that is!
Seriously, pink_monkwit, why? Why, after OVER A YEAR, are you playing the “doubts about the incident” game? Do you have any idea how many, many times that has been hashed over? Do you actually think you’re doing anything clever, new, or for that matter, intelligent?
““harass” and “offend” are not synonyms of one another. I offend Catholics all the time, but one thing I do not do is go stand outside the church on Sunday morning and heckle everyone going in.”
SPOT ON. This should be a meme. Anyone wanna create a graphic of that quote and spread it ’round tumblr and reddit and facebook?
of course we need evidence before we accept your claim that contradicts our experience with this blog. who do you think you are, that we should just take your word for it?
also, are you going to engage in the substance you claimed you wanted, or not?
and WTF guys? you have again succeeded in obfuscating my point and then accusing me of trolling. par for the course i suppose…but PZ isn’t proud of that behavior if i could take any sort of guess.
I will leave now cause this is going nowhere…but i will read again and i will reply w/ references if you want to remain so obtuse. To me, what you are doing is equivalent to a male chauvinist denial of sexual harassment. thing is i have documentation i’ve already read and can go back to. gl.
you’re the only one who used the word “trolling” in regard to yourself so far.
excellent. looking forward to seeing it, and if it turns out your claims were accurate, I’ll make sure to step up my calling out of ableist slurs.
@ pink monkey
Um, male is not the default, so something gender neutral, like people or folks is better.
Wait, so you are gracious enough to think that what Rebecca said is true, but you simply don’t think that it was harassment or anything problematic. Well, guess what, you don’t get to decide. My knowledge of legal matters is shaky, but I’m pretty sure harassment laws look at the incidents from the perspective of the person victimized because…duh! the perpetrator and the like-minded dudebros would never think it was harassment.
Nobody is going to think you are arguing in good faith, especially about EG, which has been discussed to death, when you prioritize watching some crap Gibson film over actually engaging the conversation here and finishing what you started.
Oh, and I see you keep using that word, objective. [all together now] I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
It certainly doesn’t mean you are not seeing this through the lens of possible privilege. Just because your life experience was of such a nature that you wouldn’t feel annoyed by a man behaving like that in an elevator at 4 am doesn’t mean we all share your attitude. In fact, most of us struggle with harassment of all sorts every day, and just getting from the subway to work without getting whistled at is a rare occasion.
And that’s why it’s important Rebecca said “Guys don’t do that” and that’s why it’s important we keep pushing back, in the hopes things will improve for anyone.
I haven’t seen anyone do that, but now that you mention it – you certainly have a trollesque air over you.
Either that, or you’re really that very special kind of nitwit that just can’t get it.
One way or the other, you’re not worth the waisted electrons.
Just noticed comments are disabled on TF’s “lol-icy” post (gosh, what a way with words he has). Interesting timing, considering he’s getting loads of comments telling him what he a petulant little muppet he’s being about this issue. He might want to stop throwing shit around if he doesn’t like splashback.
Now, I’m assuming TF closed the comments himself. If that’s the case it might interest him to know I’ve almost filled up my “creationist blog bingo” card after only five of his posts. Closing comments is just about the most creationist-y thing a blogger can do!
Now, while it’d be nice to see a mea culpa, maybe a tiny retraction, or even just a “ok, I’m done” I don’t expect it. Humility is not one of TF’s strong points – in fact it’s not a point of his at all. One of the reasons I unsub’d from his YT channel was his willingness to engage in histrionics and intra-tube melodrama with other users – even his spat with VFX/PCS got tiresome. What he does now would be irrelevant to me now anyway as he’s shown he’s more or less incapable of participating in a rational debate – hell, his very first non-intro post was flamebaiting a blog-neighbour. So was his second. His third flamed the entire blog network he was _invited_ to join and this latest post is yet another example of his goddamned ignorance and utter unwillingness to look at anything without his fucking “I AM RIGHT” goggles. He simply can’t be disagreed with without losing his shit – and has the nerve to counsel others to stop being so emotional. Ignorance, hypocrisy, hyperbole, histrionics, melodrama, vague waffle – these, unfortunately, are all I’m getting from TF’s blog. Not science, skepticism, reason or anything else I read FtB for.
Maybe pink_monkfish is just confused about coffee.
@monkey
Let me put it bluntly. Your opinion does not constitute fact. You claim your interpretation is different. That’s an opinion, not evidence. The reason people are not engaging you or your argument enthusiastically or patiently, is that this fucking argument has been repeated to death. Your position on the subject has been countered a million times over the years. If infact you had any familiarity with the topic, you would know this. You would also know why your position is dismissive toward women and apologetic of a culture in which womens’ boundaries are trampled on every day.
And then you say stuff like:
The response RW got for saying “Guys, don’t do that” from people who just interpreted the events differently is what makes me weary to talk to you.
Frankly, I don’t like you and I take no pleasure in having any conversation with you.
Now go watch Mel Gibson or whatever.
pink_monkey, you seem to believe that EG was misunderstood as rude or not caring for Watson’s boundaries, when in reality he was totally respecting these boundaries because his asking her for “coffee” was driven by an interest in getting to know her better.
Did I get that right?
Because if I did, you are so far deep in the wrong that you can probably see the curvature of the universe.
It does NOT matter why EG decided to approach Watson in an elevator, at 4am. That was a big part of the issue, because as many here will tell you, intent is not fucking magic! The fact that EG may have found Watson to be the most amazingly interesting individual on the planet does not change the fact that he did not respect her wishes to be left alone.
And you can’t argue that he did, because she explicitly stated that she was tired and going to sleep, and AFTERWARDS this dude approaches Watson, which demonstrates that he believed his own interests (whatever they may have been) to be more important that Watson’s wishes.
This is disrespectful. It’s a violation of boundaries. If you disagree with that, then you really need to explain why is that (because “HEY, I THINK YOU ARE SOOOOOOO COOL!” is not a valid excuse to disregard another person’s wish for privacy).
I would also like to see an instance of Pharyngula commenters letting an ableist slur slide. Because I’ve been reading for about a year and change, and every time someone uses such an insult, they get a well-deserved smack. Hell, seeing those well deserved smacks motivated me to clean up my own language, sad as it is to admit it needed cleaning.
lol, well gnumann…i agree. i dont dispute hotel instant coffee is a crime and laughable as a potential pick-up. it just adds to my feelings that it was genuine tho. who the fuck would use that ever? i suppose socially inept? idk, neither do any of you.
anyway, it’s hard to leave cuz too many rapid fire people combat. i’m gone though…til i post references and some ppl here put foot in mouth and then accuse me of “why i’m talking about that”. some of you know and you know you’re being ridiculous even asking.
again gl…and at least gnumann gives me a chuckle before mel makes me lmao… ;p
@Gnumann
I’m sorry that I’m pushing aside the topic for one second, but
?
That was funny. Even electrons have to watch their waistlines in our world! What if they’re not attractive enough and the atom decides to trade them in for younger models of electrons? And I’m pretty sure waisted\wasted neurons would be more appropriate.
[BTW, I make spelling mistakes like that all the time, just not the funny kind]
Since we apparently have to explain Rebecca Watson and the Elevator of Doom every two months, Imma just leave this link here.
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins/
Read all the letters. If you still don’t understand, pink_monkey, you’re being deliberately obtuse. My letter is Robynne W, partway down the page.
wait, what? the fact that the coffee being proposed was the worst kind available to be proposed (as I noted in my reply that you’ve still not addressed) is evidence that it was really an offer for coffee? because the answer to “who’d do that” is a pretty obvious “a person who understands this euphemism well enough to know that no offer of drinking shitty hotel-room coffee is actually being made”.
@ pink_monkey
You know what? Don’t bother coming back. It’s funny that you demand people not use invectives in their posts to you while your own creations have descended to a level of incomprehensible net speak. You see, even when using the language you were complaining about earlier, posters were still very clear in their messages.
The only thing I’ve been able to gather from your latest verbal ejaculations (stole this one from the masthead) is that you like Mel Gibson and that you think people are talking to you for your own amusement.
So honestly…good riddance!
I’d like to QFT this very hard.
pink_monkey:
Fuck off. In whatever colourful way you choose. Just fuck off.
But I am not aware of christian state still holding official death penalty for apostates, witches and gays. I know of states where christians are trying to establish such backwards standards, but I really do not know any christian theocracy, which would currently still hold such laws.
I take it you haven’t heard of Latin America, Italy, Poland, Ireland or the Philippines?
Those countries aren’t “officially” Catholic, but somehow do the Vatican’s bidding, anyway, on a vast array of matters. These nations have people acting on the church’s behalf, through secular government, to force church policies on the entire nation. Like in Italy when Berlusconi said that a woman who had been in a vegetative state for 17 years should be kept alive because she could technically bear children (yes, that scumbag said such a thing). Or the near-unanimous illegality of abortion in all of those nations listed above.
Think that came about because the kiddie-rapist cult didn’t push those abhorrent ideas and threaten members in government with excommunication if they didn’t toe the party line?
Get real.
Theocracy by proxy is still theocracy. Didn’t we learn that around the time of the Enlightenment?
Fabulous. Thunderfoot is gone, but Justicar and Welch and the gang are gloating about kicking me in the cunt on Justin’s blog – and Justin is laughing, at least he says he is.
This is going super well. Apparently the one nice thing we do get to have – the only one – is lots of hahaha funny 4chan-ish boiz around going on and on and on and ON about kicking me in the cunt.
And people think there’s such a thing as misogyny! Did you ever?
I’ll destroy it, right after i’m finished with englands quaint notions of gender.
You somehow managed to miss multiple explanations so you either didn’t read or you are lying.
I am leaning more toward lying since this sentence is not an accurate interpretation of the incident.
Intent is not magic. He followed her onto the elevator in hopes of getting laid. He decided his tingly pee-pee was more important than her clearly stated preference. None of his actions indicate that he thinks she is anything more than a fucktoy.
The fact that monkeypoo can’t grok this indicates that ze is probably a privileged asshat.
@Tethys
Props on the gender-neutral pronoun. I wish it was used more often when the gender preference of the poster is unknown.
Reading these posts is enormously frustrating to me. It makes my blood pressure go up 40 points. Why don’t these imbeciles understand? Harassment is in the eye of the recipient. If it’s offensive to the recipient — it’s offensive. End of discussion. Always was. Always will be.
@skeptifemme
>>hey jack, you never answered my question.
if you say something mind numbingly stupid, and no one tells you, have they somehow done you a favor?<<
Well, it might be a favor if they could actually argue what makes it mind numbingly stupid (assuming they were actually right in the first place) instead of just pretending that's what it is because they disagree about it and they can't give better reasons for their disagreements than throwing boring insults.
Calling people faggots is a favor in what universe? Telling people to stuff porcupines up their ass is doing somebody a favor? You really think it is? Well if you do, you are hopeless.
who claimed it is? if no one, why are you bringing this red herring up?
pink_monkey – In this thread alone the term retard was used by a commenter and shot down by myself and others. You too can take your ableist language the fuck outta here.
Ophelia:
I said, sometime back, that every time I read “kick her in the cunt” it just makes me cringe. Now it makes me cringe and makes me feel sick.
I am tired of this. Justin needs to stop fucking hosting the slimepit. My safe space is not safe anymore and having already been targeted by a number of those assholes, I’m really not in the mood for more of the same.
Still can anyone explain what is the purpose of having the word religion in that freaking policy?
Sure I’ve received the standard insults but nobody wants to address this simple enough question…
Compared to the other things listed:
gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, or religion.
It seems pretty obvious which one has no place being there. All of these but one are things people are born with and do not get to choose.
jacklewis #384
Yes. It brings amusement to the writer and the onlookers. The recipient of the porcupine might not appreciate it but they are in the minority here.
You may pick up your porcupine on your way out.
people shouldn’t be harassed for things that they chose, either. Criticized, yes. Harassed, no.
@Ophelia Benson
I’m not really up to speed. Why the hell do they single you out so? What’s up with this disgusting cunt kicking bullshit?
@jacklewis #388
It’s in there because it’s possible to harass/be harassed on religious grounds. How is that not obvious?
So what you’re saying is that just because religion is generally something one chooses, that means it’s totally cool for you to HARASS people about it? Well aren’t you just a nice person.
To everyone who has a problem wit harassment policies: Do not go to ANY EVENTS that have them. Which is nearly every event. So have fun sitting at home.
(*and I think I can argue about how much of a “choice” most people have in this regard, because life is far more complex than that, which I am sure you’re aware of, but that’s for another day)
Ya know, “free speech” defenders need to realize that a crime and a tort are two different things. Free speech means that you can’t commit a crime by saying something, which means you can’t do wrong by society. It doesn’t mean that the person you’re talking about can’t step up and say “hey, that’s a lie” and take you to court to make you prove your statement or else pay up for the damage you (could have) caused by lying about them in public.
indeed. one could argue that in the instance of religion (and other ideas), there should be made explicit a way to distinguish harassment and mere criticism, because in certain contexts, even within the skeptical community, these two have been conflated to limit the ability of people to criticize religion.
But that’s not the same as complaining that religion is included in the list of things people tend to be harassed for and definitely shouldn’t be.
Poor jack lewis has a severe case of headuprectum caused by a complete lack of empathy. It’s sad isn’t it?
QFT. even things that aren’t inherent and can be changed can’t and won’t be changed on a whim.
I mean, most people here have taken Sociology 101, at the very least, right? RIGHT?
*sigh*
klatu @ 391 – why do they single me out so? Because I’m the most evil person in the universe!!1 Why am I? Ah now that I don’t know.
You are still there showing that is your definition. Otherwise, you would let us make up our minds, which you aren’t as we don’t agree with you. Freethought is more than asking questions. It is looking at EVIDENCE to answer those questions. EVIDENCE you never present. In fact, you present nothing other than attitude. Which means you have no rational argument. We both know that.
He doesn’t think assholes become less “asshole”like magically through the writing of some words like “don’t be assholes” on a policy paper (I guess most here do?).
So fucking dumb it’s gone around the block to be dumb again.
Look, people don’t stop murdering people or raping children because there are laws against it. But we have those laws, anyway. Are you saying we should take those laws away, just because some people choose to be the worst kind of assholes to other human beings?
Do you think taking those laws away will help make murder or kid-raping unpalatable for society–or is it more likely that they will empower the murderers and kid-rapists because the lack of laws seems to condone what they do?
Think real hard on that one. If you know how.
Tom Johnson might have been fake, but apparently there really are people out there that think it is okay to harass religious people and do not understand why it might be included within a harassment policy. I would be disappointed if Chris Mooney got a new and sadly real example.
If they didn’t single someone out, then they’d lose the isolation effect. “Because if it’s just you alone, you’re not as much of a threat.”
I don’t give a shit who it is, nobody deserves this. I bet in a month, nobody will be bothering Thunderfoot about this past week’s bullshit, but it’s already BEEN more than a month of harassment for Ophelia. And if Rebecca’s case is anything to go by, it’ll still be going on in a year. The freaking health care mandate will kick in before then.
Still can anyone explain what is the purpose of having the word religion in that freaking policy?
If I go to a conference and a bunch of lackwits like you go around saying that all Jews are evil, that we’re taking over the world, that we are all cheapskates and all the other bullshit things that are said about us, that’s still wrong.
We can ridicule the idea that if you eat pork you’re pissing off YHWH, but we can’t say that all Jews are evil, have plans to take over the world, are all cheapskates, or all the other bullshit things that get said about Jews. That’s discrimination, and it’s just plain dishonest.
We can argue with how the Catholic Church handled the child-rapists in their midsts, and even condemn the church itself for that, but we can’t say that all Catholics rape children, or even that being Catholic inherently causes people to rape children. That’s also discrimination, and it’s just plain dishonest.
That you need this explained to you sort of indicates that you’re a fucking moron.
And that’s not ad hominem, moron.
Because harassing people because of their religion is still harassment. An anti-harassment policy should cover various types of harassment. I’d have thought even a stupid dumbfuck like you would have figured it out the first time it was explained, but obviously you’re not smart enough to qualify as a stupid dumbfuck.
Aquaria, off-topic note – check your FB messages.
actually jadehawk 375…what i said was i agree…wtf? but how does that not support my hypothesis that this “dude” really was socially inept and clueless? again you miss the point.
anyway…i’m a lil aggravated now. mel didnt do it for me…i couldnt even stay awake. i’d like to equate that tyo some of your drivel but i can’t…i am more amused by what most of you say. sorry for attempting mel…i knew it was poisoned from the start but i can’t get out of my head lethal weapon….and braveheart. i liked those, before facebook. ;p
Well, I was somewhat withholding judgement on Thunderf00ts views. He had made some vague statements that harassment was bad, and action based on it was acceptable. I was hoping it was mostly an over the top writing style, and concerns over the prominence of the topic rather than his views on how to handle harassment being horrible and ignorant. I was hoping(and suggested in a couple places) that he’d take one of these policies and review it.
Well… yeah. I used the past tense in the above because, well, I’m not withholding judgement anymore. He couldn’t even get past the preamble before spouting off blatant idiocy. Where does he get the idea that Skepchick was viewing religion as an intrinsic property? Or that a harassment ban means a ban on all criticism? If the principles expressed in his response to the preamble were taken to their logical conclusion, criticism = harassment. Since he’s already said harassment is wrong, is he saying that criticism is wrong? But he’s saying here that banning harassment is wrong? I don’t think this would make sense to me on my ‘special’ tea.
And Skepchick clearly delineated the jurisdiction of their policy, in a way that Thunderf00t has previously said is a good thing- and he now criticizes it as toothless? The jurisdiction issue was one of his better original points, why is he attacking them over it? I’d have expected “Well, the rest sucks, but this part is solid”. He vaguely indicates he’s ok with this part of the policy, but why still twist it to attack them? If he was honestly reviewing the policy, with an actual open mind to the possiblity he was wrong, he’d have let this part stand as a good part. His comments on this section show this review to be patently dishonest. He’s not reviewing an anti-harassment policy. He’s fishing for ammunition to use against anti-harassment policies, and deliberately twisting whatever he can to fit that agenda.
This is the sort of bullshit I expect from Fox News.
*scratches head*
Can anyone understand most of what pink_monkey is saying? That last comment is a mess…
btw guys, im not part of this religion debate. i love to shit on religion but i know the distinction between offend and harass and it makes perfect sense religion makes an appearance in skeptichicks “rules”.
pink_monkey:
Skepchick
Not skeptchick.
No T.
Ultimately, what jacklewis is arguing is that there are cases where harassment is OK. Anything about a person that is not inherent and unintentional is fair game. Which is a fuckton of things, if you think about it for a second.
@Ophelia Benson
People equal shit. I’m sorry.
marilove
Nope. I’ve just trawled through most of their comments while catching up with the thread, and I’m also head-scratching.
tsk tsk marilove…have some own medicine. maybe scroll up?
“By the way, I know it’s in vogue in these parts to mock the old-school skeptics who track down Bigfoot and UFOs and other such weird phenomena, but I think the contempt is misplaced. As the survey shows and this series exploits, the gullibility of the population for these topics needs to be addressed. If serious organizations with good reputations like National Geographic are going to be pandering to idiocy, we need skeptics like Bob Sheaffer to counterbalance them.”
i agree w/ this post from pz. i also agree that in my context you can replace bob with myself. what do you say to that?
No, no, don’t worry. There’s no expectation that all of us can remember every little thing that goes on with other commenters. I can’t even remember some of my own shit:)
It made me really mad at the time, but I’m not trying to make a big deal out of it—the person who got outed was treated much worse. I do think it’s indicative of what Laden is capable of.
@pink_monkey
So, uh… what other debates are you not part of?
I did. I can’t understand anything you’re saying. And I’m not going to bother reading any more of your drivel.
ok guys…you make it a necessity and sorry to ppl who watched for the redundancy.
skepchick (is that right now?) for ppl that promote derision if the point is logically valid im not sure why this clarification of one letter matters btw. you guys/gals are very skilled at attacking a sentence for grammar but not substance. gj. as far as i knew the point of communication is just that [communication]…correct me if i’m wrong.
and holy fuck. i don’t even believe i’m now arguing as meat for the hoard….cuz frankly starv to death and never understand why. that is mob mentality 101.
i still dont want a flame war but you all persist. why? cause you dont know my handle?
pink_monkey
Believe me, a few grammar mistakes are not your problem. A few spelling mistakes are not your problem. An occasional acronym is not your problem. Lack of punctuation and capitalisation is not your problem.
Your problem is that you combine all of the above, with gay abandon.
pink_monkey @ 417:
The problem is that you are not communicating. You are puking words all over this place, and they don’t make sense. So no, you aren’t communicating, because nobody knows what the hell you’re trying to say.
The evidence is in the attitudes and rationale presented by TF. If you are blind to the code words and attitudes presented publicly, it isn’t my fault you show misogynist tendencies yourself.
@pink_monkey
What do you want?
Kion vi volas?
Was wollen Sie?
Que voulez-vous?
¿Qué quieres?
あなたは何をしたいですか？
Что вы хотите?
Ne istiyorsun?
Τι θέλετε;
It’s more than that. It’s just an inability to actually write clearly, so that someone other than pink_monkey can understand WTF they are trying to say.
For fuck’s sake. Ok look. I am dyslexic so spelling and grammar is a problem for me. I understand that. However, proper (or at least passable) capitalization and punctuation also is important to me because it’s really hard to read what you write otherwise. So before I bother to strain my eyes going word by word to tease out your attempt at communication; please first tell me if what you say is actually worth the effort.
actually daz, the problem is i dont understand your point regardless. you didnt actually say anything affirmative. no doubt i disregard convention…but my letters do form sentences.
but again…you leave substance off the table. this is why ppl get banned here. pz is no idiot. ppl submit to circular arguing w/ ppl bating them to engage.
plz tell me how by what ppl have posited on this site males who attend atheist conventions are socially inept? then tell what was actually my question… how an asking for god awful coffee relates to misogyny?
pfft…and you think i care i get derision? as students of logic as you profess to be you know that whether you can attack my argument for “my personal failures on delivering it” has no bearing on the truth. i’m not sure why you bother to do so. i think i’ve been clear enough to promote an adequate discussion but apparently i’m not?
pink_monkey reminds me way way too much of reddit, ugh.
This is basically the attitude that, in my school, made it ok to tease boys or girls for liking things outside of gender norm or that was seen as below their age group. Boys who liked sailor moon or anime or that were fags who were harassed constantly, but that’s ok because it’s not inherent!
PEOPLE! PEOPLE! It’s a word! ppl is not a word! ARGH!
*head asplodes*
You’re about as clear as mud.
Her reaction was a short sentence during a presentation saying “don’t do that”. The rest is from MRAs, PUAs, liberturds, and other social vermin who don’t like the concept of their predations being curtailed. Context, you failed context. Makes what you say sound irrelevant.
Ha! Proof of an #FTBully using homophobic slurs to bully!
/sarcasm
Context, you fucking idiot! CONTEXT FUCKING MATTERS!
And there is an entire context to this event that you are are ignoring, either willfully, which is a hugely dishonest and jack ass thing to do, OR you’re a moron.
And, seriously, PEOPLE is a word. I’d take a few thousand typos over even one more “ppl”.
@monkey
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur adipisici elit…
You did have a point somewhere up-thread. It was a bad point, but there you go. It was adressed abundantly.
Your last couple of comments are near indecipherable.
Ok. I’m going to try to retype this so you can get some idea of how this looks to me as a, dyslexic ok?
pink_monkey
You don’t understand my point? Okay:
We have a convention on how to construct sentences, with rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation for a reason. That reason being that a shared convention of how we present a thought means that the reader can, hopefully, follow the thought that the writer is trying to express. We can break the occasional rule and get away with it, but break too many and the convention falls apart.
For all I know you’re the bleedin’ Socrates of the 21st Century, but if you can’t express what you’re trying to say within a framework which enables me to follow your thought, we will both have wasted our time.
I’m not trying to be mean here, this is an honest question. Is English your first language? Because if it’s not then you should be aware that there are terms and idioms in English that do not directly translate. English is in fact a rich language for word play and turn of phrase because of it’s redundancy and the highly culturally contextual influence on terms.
In English terms like “Would you like come in for some coffee” or “Care for a night cap” in certain situations are understood to mean “Would you like to come in to engage in amorous activities”
Consider this joke from Futurama
Do you understand now?
—————————————
Alternatively, if English is not your first language then I am left to presume you are either dishonest or have never seen a single Western movie or TV show ever to have missed this bit of the culture. You should have absorbed it by osmosis.
sorry, i’m disappointed. “ing” you fail on many levels. klatu, you illustrate my point but don’t even know it.
whatever guys. i am positive for no reason shown to me, barring “fluffy”, that we will agree in the future. this also reaffirms that pz doesn’t throw the ban hammer around lightly as was already evidenced by his previous interactions…explicitly TF.
however, the way you ppl (sorry you do know what that means whether i spell it proper)approach this particular argument is unacceptable…IMO obv, and i will engage no further with you at the moment.
i’d imagine pz and most of you agree w/ me on one thing. “proving” anything on the interwebs is pointless.
we will meet again and i look forward to agreement. i’m sorry you can’t recognize a healthy skeptic from a troll but that really isn’t my bother…and won’t be. you all know what dishonesty is and i do believe that you are some of the sharpest i’ve encountered on the interwebs. for this reason and your commitment to truth, i see no need to waste my time in posting previous “posts” to back up points that facilitate more argumentation. be honest with self plz….we agree.
gl all. i support this cause nonetheless and i appreciate the exchanges regardless.
you see what i did there? thing is i mean it…
Well that was one super passive-aggressive flounce.
@ pink monkey
So basically you came here, added nothing of substance, annoyed people with your incoherent crap, and now you’re going to show us what a magnanimous creature you are by leaving while still believing that we can all get along?
How about you try to engage the topics you yourself introduced, instead of skirting the issue and making word salad?
I’ll say this, however. You were useful, in the same way a rock is useful for sharpening a blade. We get to practice our communicative abilities, we get to find new ways to explain what problematic things, like privilege really are, and hopefully, manage to reach not clueless persons like you, but lurkers and others scanning the threads.
So …thank you for being a rock…I guess.
I half wish Elevator Guy had asked RW back to see his etchings. I’d purely love to see how ‘ppl’ might try to pass that one off as innocent.
Well, that’s what you do loser. No evidence to back your fuckwitted OPINIONS, which get the derision they deserve, since they are factless.
Context, which you intend to ignore, and chose like a misogynist fuckwit to keep bleating “ITS JUST A QUESTION”. Context is an enclosed elevator at 4:00 in the morning without witnesses. A deliberate act by EG. Include RW saying she doesn’t like being hit on, and was going to bed. EG ignores both warnings, making him a misogynist aggressor. That is the only logical reading.
*cue dramatic music*
I agree. I have no idea what your point is.
@marilove
It won’t stick, though.
Aw, a fuckwitted misogyist idjit doesn’t like the feminist approach. Here’s a tiny violin playing for your benefit…Your OPINION is worthless, like your posts. Won’t change any minds, which requires EVIDENCE.
wait wait…that isn’t fair fluff.
i am here to sharpen your blade. im not to belly flop on.
address my issue if you are ready now. i am….judging on my responses i “took a knee”.
Apparently, my comment at #371 was too rude for pink_monkey’s tastes. And I tried so hard to be nice too :(
wow…wtf any of u know of elevator guy?
you are healthy skeptics?
maybe i’m only one pointing it out but stfu.
you have offered nothing in rebuttal.
Ok I tried to explain this again.
I literally CANNOT read what you write. I got that far and then it degraded into gibberish. And frankly it took me twice as long to read that as it does anyone else. Dyslexia is not uncommon, you are being a blatant insensitive twit.
I have no idea how I failed or on how many levels. From my reading it looks like you’re mocking my condition which isn’t cool at all. If you had some actual good points in there I cannot find them because all of your sentences look like this ghsiodghcxjbhuiosht i hahahoishoisdhjnie vnosdkitheois to me. Do you understand?
purple monkey dishwasher?
Is English your first language?
@FluffyTheTerrible #437
I kinda disagree. You are not wrong, but there are plently of 101 resources online. By now, it’s a firmly established derailing technique to Just Ask Questions, aka JAQing. Basically, the troll will ask “why, why, why?” and get you to go over the frecking basics over and over again. Halting the entire conversation.
Having to explain to JAQ-Off#1483256 what happened to RW for the bajillionth time does not achieve much of anyhing at this point.
Look, klatu! You’re psychic!
pink_monkey
“Come back for coffee?” is an old, worn out and transparent euphemism for “Wanna have sex?”
It’s that simple.
Please, for the love of humanity try to write in proper sentences with proper punctuation. It aids communication; makes you easier to understand.
pink_monkey @ #444
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand we’ve hit the crux of the issue. We’re not really skeptics because we accepted Rebecca Watson’s story. And everybody knows women lie.
But at least pink_monkey has demonstrated xe’s a dishonest asshole. So yay for that?
Misogynist creep.
Yep, questions per se are mostly irrelevant, but the EVIDENCE is what makes the answer. You present no evidence, and questions are evidence.
No, you are pointing out you are a delusional fool, probably a misogynist fool, MRA creep, or a PUA.
Rebut what? You haven’t said “this is what I believe, and this the EVIDENCE (link to evidence) to back up my assertion”. Until you do, there is nothing to rebut, as your OPINION is gibberish.
I’m not dyslexic, not even a little bit, and even I can’t parse through most of what drunk_monkey is saying, ing.
This Elevator thing HAS BEEN DISCUSSED TO DEATH. There’s been no stone left unturned. Unless you offer some new evidence or angle, there is nothing to discuss any more on that topic.
Also, STFU is not an argument, let alone a valid one. You don’t come to a thread where people are discussing things in order to better their understanding of said things and maybe learn a thing or two and tell us to shut up.
Trying silencing tactics on people is not conducive to a dialogue.
Once again, what do you want? What is your point?
and btw…i can and will ignore ur nonsensical bs as u can claim i am. thing is i wont engage w/ those of you trolling and you know who you are. and no, i can’t put together(well i could but i won’t) a cogent piece on you disregarding arguments that are valid.
the reality is we mostly agree. that doesn’t matter but maybe it removes your focus from bs attacks. your lucky creationists are so easy to defeat based on what i see.
but again, i’m not grouping all of you and many of you make valid points. thank you, you give me hope for the future.
i really am done tho. in your terms you can stick a rotting porcupine up your ass and sniff it every morning. yep…that’s how much your dishonesty matters on the interwebs….gl rl and you’ll need.
@ klatu
OK, maybe I should have said *I* find pink monkey somewhat useful useful for sharpening my abilities. I am one of those people conditioned to find the silver lining in everything.
Imagine my difficulty. The only reason I’m trying to be nice is that I honestly can’t tell what he’s saying and if it is trolling or not.
Ummmm Thursday?
bevek vfe fer e reyqf hdeow ghvei? Bebvek!!!11!!
G ew fio hueiov-bjekvbb.. Gyuek gfy
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .“~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./…..\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>–
That last comment was the worst yet, drunk_monkey.
I read it. Twice.
Ing, honestly, it probably makes as much sense to you as it does anyone else. Which is to say, no fucking sense at all.
Dang, error will robinson:
@ Daz
Also, people like pink monkey are very good at bringing out the best in others, like a strong sense of humour in you.
I’m giggling uncontrollably at your post, Daz. I really thing you captured the very soul of the pink monkey.
Maybe I should write a poem about this encounter.
No, you are an incoherent idjit, and we are rational thinking people.
Stick the flounce. Why should we care what you think? You never showed you could think…
FluffyTheTerrible
Glad to be of service!
stop lies guys…and that rhymes…lol
i said. you ppl say males who attend these events are socially awkward.
RW stated that a male asked her to have coffee at 4am.
it obv follows that he is misogynistic and not a socially inept jack-off who offers hotel instant coffee. you guys are being purposefully obtuse, dishonest, and complete aholes.
i know this from watching you previously.
it remains stfu, and you lie. seriously…knock it off…it isn’t endearing.
What?
If I get you right…
No one is so socially inept to not know what late night coffee means. No. One.
Anyone with an honest invite for coffee wouldn’t make it at that time. Duh.
And because there still are people complaining that you can’t boot people from FTB because these are Free Thought blogs, and we are not respecting their Free Thought, David Fincke has written a post on this very subject, and I think he makes a lot of very good points. See here: https://proxy.freethought.online/camelswithhammers/2012/07/01/my-philosophy-on-what-freethinking-and-free-speech-really-entail/
I think my favourite passage is this:
But really, the entire post is worth a read.
@Ing #456
I’m not sure I’m doing you any favors with this, but here’s my effort to decipher pink_monkey.
original comment
conversion into actual words for ing:
conversion into actual senteces for ing:
conversion into actual content for ing:
Um, no. You were the one who insisted at least twice in this thread that the dude must have been socially inept, and I personally explained, also twice, that people who are truly socially inept do not commit such blunders, because their social ineptness also makes them to be cautious, lest they unwittingly step on some toes.
So what it is you are trying to say? In short sentences, please..it might help your verbal incontinence.
i really am done tho.
Such a fucking lying, terrible little troll. :(
ok, i agree w/ fluff…the focus needs to shift.
BUT. all i’ve said the whole time is that no one was sexually assaulted…in-fact i’ve even stated that EB was actually very respectful of women…in this instance RW.
how you disagree based on the evidence?…well obv your interpretation of said evidence annoys me. i’m right and you arent. ;p. funny thing is you wont give me that although i give it to you…but you pretend you “proved” it. not that any of you even attempted, but if you had we’d be left w/ failure to falsify my position meaning yours is unfounded.
BUT…you won’t even admit we are both legitimately interpreting the evidence differently. That is precisely why you show bias and a priori disagree. skeptic? lmao
I transmission tomatoes, the monkey exclaimed.
Indeed, it exclaimed it again and again.
When asked for translation it hollered “cold cheese!”
Then explained how the turnips affected its knees.
@pink monkey
Seriously, no one understands. No one cares either.
And when did anyone claim that Elevator Guy sexually assaulted Rebecca Watson?
I really hope you’re just a troll and not actually this stupid.
@Marilove
A troll would be that stupid
True dat, Ing. True dat.
Once again, harassment is interpreted from the point of view of the person being harassed. If someone tells you to quit your hateful remarks and you start complaining how they are not really hateful and you were just making a joke, you are in the wrong, and the other person is in the right.
Elevator dude was NOT respectful of anyone, least of all Rebecca. He heard her say she did not like being hit on in professional settings, he heard her say she was going to bed, it was 4 am, they were alone in an elevator, to which he followed her, and he ignored her wishes and all proper social norms, and exercised his privileged douchebag right to hit on her.
There are situations where there is only one valid interpretation, and if you are trying to introduce another point of view, you are being a hateful bigot. Example: someone looks at the death chambers in concentration camps and decides they were not used for exterminating people,but for making barbecues. Do you think that person shows no bias, and does not have a very precise agenda?
(also, apologies for the Nazi example…I was too lazy to dig something else up)
”
i said. you ppl say males who attend these events are socially awkward.
RW stated that a male asked her to have coffee at 4am.
it obv follows that he is misogynistic and not a socially inept jack-off who offers hotel instant coffee. you guys are being purposefully obtuse, dishonest, and complete aholes.”
Asking for coffee at 4AM at the Dunkin Donuts across the street from the bar you are currently at, ok, that could be fine.
Asking for coffee at 4AM in your room, while in an elevator alone with the person, when you don’t know the person and they have given no prior indication that they might be receptive- WHAT THE FUCK?
I’m socially awkward, to the point where someone with very relevant knowledge and experience has suggested I get checked out for autism. This is someone that knows me well from about 15 months and would not make such a suggestion lightly or out of ignorance. This is such a crippling issue for me that my success in retail sales is nearly an argument for God(though many autistics can do very well in clearly defined social situations). I really should take this persons advice one of these days. It might help me out quite a bit. Anyways, back on the rails…
Even I can tell that this is a bad thing to do. Granted, he apparently took the refusal reasonably well, so he’s not the biggest asshole on the planet- but you know what- Rebecca never said he was. No one has that I’ve seen. The only people even suggesting that are those attacking Rebecca and her allies for overreaction.
The voice of those who think clearly:
Shut the fuck up.
You hate chicks
You’re a faggot.
You’re a mysoginist
If that all stems from simply thinking TF’s posts are to some extent reasonable then keep the clear thinking coming…
“these sorts of pressures have shut people and ideas out of conversations. ”
At least that stuff doesn’t happen here…
Dante should have visited this rat hole there would have been another book in it for him.
Nobody said otherwise! That was never the point!
Who is EB? Do you mean EG, as in ElevatorGuy? If so, you are dead wrong! As has been explained to you in detail numerous times now.
Great. Glad we got that out of the way.
Wrong. Your position is unfalsifiable, because it’s just a fucking opinion!
*Groan*
Also, write like a person who wants to be understood and you may yield better results.
@ Daz
Aww, you wrote a poem about the trolling pinkish monkey. Now, if you combine your previous drawing and your poem, you might just as well be on your way to becoming the next William Blake.
[continues laughing quietly while re-reading the stanza]
WTF?
The sin of feminism?
Ban
How creationist
LOLWHUT. Maybe someone called you a misogynistic and to shut the fuck up, I don’t know, but the rest? Really? Seriously?
No one here would call you a faggot. I mean come on. Are you even trying?
well no ing…i disagree. buy this sites own std some ppl are socially inept. what does that mean? hmmm….maybe a 4am invitation to coffee.
btw, i love how all you “guys” know this guys motivations. you really sound as bad as fundy christians and motivations of jeebus. i know you are smart and you get it so knock it off FFS.
again, your derisions glance off because they are way off. you guys seem to forget how to actually argue anything because you’ve had it easy? idk, but i do know all of you fail to grasp what i say and it isn’t complex or nuanced…aka TF. Oo
anyway…sorry i didnt leave before. you are right and i am as well. you guys flame quickly and pile on w/ bs and it is hard to leave. fine, i accept that. my gf back tho, and to wrap it back im gonna put it in her “slimepit” by consent (and not triplicate forms).
funny how it all comes back. and i advise getting a sense of humor because despite the way you play w/ words it is all subjective reality we describe. if you actually read what pz writes you’d know that he just wrote that on another thread…well i paraphrase a ‘lil but ask him. good luck defining your absolutes….seriously…lol.
Who gives a shit what an incoherent idjit thinks? You must refute evidence with more evidence. Or you shut the fuck up…Welcome to science, where evidence, not your OPINION, rules.
And if you ignore context, keep your muddled misogynist thinking going…but elsewhere. You haven’t changed any minds with your “evidence”, better known as quotemined drivel…
And oddly the word ‘faggot’ appears for the first time in this thread in Jack’s comment #384 “Calling people faggots is a favor in what universe?”
If this happened on another thread, Jack, would you care to link to it?
@ jack lewis
From the same post by Dan Fincke which you probably didn’t bother to read:
If you think people calling you a mysogynist is an illustration of the hostile speech mentioned above, you’re wrong. You see, people don’t call you names here for no reason, and they don’t make offers of porcupines for no reason either.
Your posts were read and found hateful. You are part of the problem, trying to drown other people’s discourse in your ragey comments.
Also, leave Dante out of this. He did describe that circle of hell reserved for hypocrites.
stupid monkey
Why would we care if you don’t find it endearing? We are just chewing you for the fun squeaky noise at this point.
Fluffy, I have to admit the drawing wasn’t original to me. A mate included it in an email and I saved it. Bog knows where he got it from, but I’ve seen it in a few places since. (I thought the pome was more Lear than Blake…)
Motivation doesn’t matter. Results do, and his actions were misogynist PUA posturing, better known as harassment. You lose again, and why you sound incoherent.
Then show us some third party evidence, or shut the fuck up. Your OPINION won’t change any minds. You have no coherent OPINION.
It is easy to leave, as all you need to do is to delete your bookmarks. Liar. If you lie about that, what else will you lie about? Not showing yourself to be a person of honesty and integrity.
What absolutes? Citation needed from a liar and bullshitter like you.
jacklewis—are you mad? No one here would call anyone a faggot. This just shows how you don’t understand the difference between deserved insults and bigotry against oppressed people.
Besides, if anyone did they’ve have one fightin’ ass motherfuckin’ faggot on their hands and they do. Not. Want. That.
And yeah—I get to say it and you don’t.
jacklewis:
Stop arguing with strawpeople.
@ daz
Well, I was thinking more of poets who combined ..poetry with drawing, among other forms of art, and Blake was the best known one who seemed to fit the bill. But yeah, I guess it does sound more like what Lear had written.
If monkey continues to stick around, we’ll have to switch from limericks to curses and incantations.
EW EW EW EW, why? WHY? Why is there always a girlfriend? And why do they always have to tell us what they are going to do after they finally finish their flounce? As if we need to know this info?!
EW
seriously guys/gals wow.
least some got it right and go after a “real target”.
all i’m asking for is introspection and an actual argument. wonder why we’re at an impasse? oh yea, you didn’t offer an actual arguement and some moved on.
No, all you’re asking for is for us to agree with you. Anything short of that, you’ll claim is a failure on our part to be properly sceptical.
seriously guys/gals wow.
least some got it right and go after a “real target”.
all i’m asking for is introspection and an actual argument. wonder why we’re at an impasse? oh yea, you didn’t offer an actual argument and some moved on. (even if they reason im incoherent which is bs)
pink monkey had one too many golden monkey(look up victory beer) tho…that means he go sleepy…not that any of you have ever responded to an argument i made. gn, gl, and above all hf. i think it lacks too much and we all agree there is only one shot. so hf…maybe i bother tomorrow, maybe i don’t. depends on mood, but many of you very angry and i’m sorry for that. take own medicine? thats all i ask and that is reasonable. ty and gn.
Oh fuck off asshole! We are not at an impasse, nobody cares about your fuckwitted opinions, and you are an asshat who needs to do some introspection.
Spam clean-up on aisle 3.