Petitioned!


Update: Justin Vacula has resigned his position as co-chair. The petition to remove him is no longer necessary, and I congratulate him on making the right move for the Secular Coalition.

What do you do when you don’t like that someone has started and promoted a petition? Why, you write your own petition to complain about the person who wrote the original petition. Of course. And how do you determine what to say in your petition? What could possibly be better than copping the layout of the original petition…that you really don’t like.

Rendered image of a petition without readable content and a quill pen poised to sign.

“petition” by League of Women Voters of California. Some rights reserved.

We urge the Atheist Voices of Minnesota to remove Stephanie Zvan from her role as a leader and host with the Atheist Voices of Minnesota. We believe Zvan is unfit for this position for the following reasons:

1. She has engaged in bullying and harassment of people on her blog and elsewhere on the internet.

2. She has minimized bullying as a problem within the atheist and skeptic movement, and broader community.

3. She has used her current leadership position and blog as a tool to recruit other people in the harassment of people who disagree with her.

Stephanie Zvan often claims to be a vocal opponent of bullying and harassment. However, she publically [sic] supports and defends Greg Laden, a man who was thrown off her blog network (FreeThoughtBlogs) for sending violent threats to another blogger. At the same time, Zvan held a toast to Mr. Laden, and then attended a panel conference with him. For someone who shouts loudly in the community about bullying and harassment, we believe this behaviour is unacceptable.

I’m vaguely amused at how this story has grown. That’s the problem with a strict zero-tolerance policy, I guess. The fact that you can get kicked off a blog network for writing the ambiguous colloquialism “I’ll kick your ass” to a fellow blogger who reads it as a physical threat just isn’t exciting enough. Now we must have multiple threats!!!

And oh, the toast. Here’s a link to the damning evidence. Ooh, look. Three FtBers were out drinking the night a stressful episode came to a close and raised a toast to a comrade who had just paid a high price for one stupid moment. They dared to tweet him about it. Then he and I and about 5,000 other people attended a convention where we both did good work, some alone and some together.

Further, Zvan is part of a blog network which has a history of bullying and harassing people, especially women. Any woman who dares to disagree with Zvan’s opinions will be labelled “chill girls”, “gender traitors” or “sister punishers” by her or her commentators.

Well, no. “Gender traitor” was a term that was used by one person on a blog that doesn’t belong to this network. What it means is fairly specific, both there and in a follow-up where that blogger wants a better term for the phenomenon. It was used then abandoned by a different commenter. “Sister-punisher” is a similar story. Both of those happened months ago.

“Chill girl” is the only one of those terms in general use. I’ve defined it in the one place I can recall using it. Like the other terms, it has a specific meaning that is not “You disagree with me”.

Zvan is a willing enabler of a loud community of fringe atheists and skeptics who resort to slurs, insults and lies about other members of the community who disagree with her.

What is a fringe atheist? Is that one that doesn’t believe in the god of an obscure cult? Or would that just be a feminist? Because I’m definitely a willing enabler of feminism. In fact, I’m quite proud of the fact. Nor am I particularly shy (tactical, yes; shy, no) about insults when they’re accompanied by arguments. No idea what slurs and lies this guy is talking about, though. Funny how this is the short part of the petition. So much detail about Greg. So specific about terms that have been used how often? So…nothing on this score.

Another online plan of harassment was launched by Zvan in late September with a petition to remove Justin Vacula from his new position with an secular organisation. The accusations stated by Zvan are a series of slurs based merely on their opinion and not on fact.

Well, actually, you can read the petition for yourself. There are plenty of facts there. There are also a few assertions, which are different than opinions. Feel free to ask for any of them to be backed up. Many already have been in the comments here and additional detail given in the post here.

For the reasons listed above, we believe that Stephanie Zvan is unfit for her role with Atheist Voices of Minnesota. We urge Atheist Voices of Minnesota to consider her position and remove her as soon as possible.

I find myself really curious who they’re planning to send this petition to. Why? Because this is Atheist Voices of Minnesota. I’m neither a leader nor a host for it. I will be reading from it next week, though, and my position starts on page 67. I’m not sure how they’d go about removing me, either. Maybe with an X-acto knife.

At least the new petition made the usual types happy.

Petition to remove Stephanie Zvan's role with the Atheist Voices of Minnesota.http://t.co/PJW9ro1G
@RichSandersen
Richard Sanderson

Not particularly well-informed, but at least happy.

Comments

  1. ibbica says

    Well, I certainly won’t be signing that one, but I might be signing this one:

    http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/change-org-allow-the-reporting-of-inappropriate-petitions

    It’s a petition on change.org to… Allow the reporting (note, that’s *not* removal by users, just reporting) of inappropriate petitions on change.org.

    Actually, I’m pretty sure you can use their ‘contact us’ form to report particularly egregious violations of their Terms of Service. But come on, there’s something inherently funny about using a petition site to petition the petition site you’re petitioning on XD

    Just me? Oh. Ahem.

    Anyway… the “AVoM” petition seems to my non-lawyer self to come pretty close to violating change.org’s TOS prohibition against “any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;”. But again, maybe that’s just me (and the TOS does say “that we deem…”).

  2. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    More evidence that they are so desperate to be in the club, they spend all their time trying to convince everyone that they don’t . . . by copying everything . . . .

    LOL it is amusing that they are this incredibly childish and whiny.

    if you think a bigot with no regard for the safety of others is a bad choice to lead, you’re a BULLY! but if you suck up to that bully, you’re a hero!

    LOL its impossible to take seriously.

  3. hjhornbeck says

    Wow.

    I’ve been debating these people for a few weeks now, and one thing that stands out is how little they self-reflect. My conversations basically go:

    – Person X makes claim about A+.
    – I do five minutes of Googling, and find a quote which contradicts that claim.
    – Copy-paste-link.

    It really shows how little thought goes into their stance, and how easy it is for them to act impulsively. Over at BnW, I suggest Vacula posted Amy’s address on a whim, without much thought to what he was doing.

    This impulsiveness and lack of self-reflection may be a generalization, but I have yet to see an exception. The counter-petition has just become my favorite example of it in action!

  4. ibbica says

    Stephanie Zvan

    ibbica, you can already flag petitions as inappropriate at the bottom of the page. I presume that’s been done to mine several times over.

    O.o Hm, can’t see it, but that might be because I’m not logged in.

    OTOH, that just made that petition I linked even funnier XD

    Frankly, I really just don’t understand some any of these people. It’s a bit frustrating when you encounter them ‘in the wild’, so to speak – you think what?!? seriously? what’s wrong with you?!? – but I’ll get very worried about my own ‘moral compass’ if their tactics ever start to make sense to me.

  5. says

    I hope no one this side sabotages this one, unlike the Rebecca one, as it has 17 supporters. I’d like to see what heights of popularity it can get to with no fake names.

    I see Paul Elam wants you off the book – that is high praise indeed!

  6. says

    …Although seeing that ‘Paul Elam’ thinks you eat kittens and secretly worship Elvis it might already have fake names on it.

  7. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    Because this story can’t get told enough:

    Paul Elam is on record saying that he would willingly and knowingly let a rapist go free, as long as the rapist’s victims are female.

    If that’s who is supporting Vacula, that says everything.

  8. Johnny Vector says

    I guess you had to respond as if this were an actual thought-out petition, even though it’s clearly no more than “I know you are but what am I?” fed through an automated vocabulifier.

  9. bjartefoshaug says

    Wow. If stupidity had mass, these hypergiants would have created a black hole a long time ago.

  10. jose says

    The obvious fact that is this a reaction to the Vacula petition proves nobody is actually concerned about removing Zvan from anywhere.

  11. Roweenie says

    So I did write in to Change.org to really take a look at the seriousness of this petition. I got a response back saying that they don’t take a position on the means or tactics that individuals or organizations use to achieve their goals, provided they do not violate the terms of service while doing so. I then logged on and marked it as inappropriate citing the fact that even if they made their goal number, the book has already been printed and most likely wouldn’t be redacted just to take out one essay. I know it’s funny to watch these people throw their poo, but I felt someone should contact the organization they are using as hands to throw the poo so that organization can decide if it wants to be used in such a way.

  12. says

    I once attended a conference with Greg and I have been known to say nice things about him. I guess that means I’ll now be removed from my leadership position in the Frozen Mammoth Beer Tasting Society.

  13. otrame says

    Shit, I’ve said nice things about Greg. I also fully supported him getting booted from FtB. When does the petition about me start? I’m feeling neglected.

    *pout

  14. gwen says

    I support Greg Laden; I am sorry he was thrown off of FTB for what appears to have been an unwise but understandable moment of pique. Stephanie, I listen to Atheist talk of Minnesota every week.
    Don’t let the knuckledragging moronic bags of vitriol drive you away. I think their goal is to get rid of all women’s voices in the atheist movement, and reduce us all to second class status. Ain’t gonna happen.

  15. priscilla parker says

    [Removed. Not going to have the blog used to comment publicly on ongoing legal matters. –SZ]

  16. says

    I must say I had never heard of the Atheist Voices of MN collection before this, but I just bought it the Kindle version. Consider it a show of support Stephanie et al. So thanks I guess you obsessive weirdos you for alerting me to it!

  17. julian says

    What Greg Laden did was not ok and Griffith is not “playing the victim.” He was obviously hurt and, even if he weren’t, that wouldn’t make that letter ok.

  18. tristancroll says

    [Removed. Not going to have the blog used to comment publicly on ongoing legal matters. –SZ]

  19. julian says

    It’s probably not a good idea to be linking to that. It wouldn’t be very hard to point out what Parker’s done (I thought the name sounded familar) without the link.

  20. tristancroll says

    This is one occasion where I’d be perfectly happy to see Stephanie make use of the memory hole.

  21. tristancroll says

    It’s probably not a good idea to be linking to that. It wouldn’t be very hard to point out what [she]’s done (I thought the name sounded familar) without the link.

    Name deliberately redacted. If what he says there is accurate, then she is a truly frightening stalker who has raped him on more than one occasion.

  22. navigator says

    How do I mark this “counter petition” as inappropriate? Because I sure as heck will. Please direct me.
    Stephanie, don’t listen to the jerks, lots of us are behind you all the way.

  23. says

    The obsession with the Greg Laden incidence is quite bizarre.
    So, Greg fucked up and had to take the consequences, like something people here have said should happen.
    And now those same people who shout that nobody should ever be even criticised for shit they say and who consider threats of kicking women in the c*nt to be perfectly OK and who scream about witch-hunts are aguing that somebody who actually faced consequences for saying something threatening did not face enough consequences and those who cry “guilt by association” when it’s actually about people doing things insist that there should not only be a witch hunt against Greg Laden, but that also everybody who ever had a beer with him is also out of the race…

  24. Alexis says

    …and those who cry “guilt by association” when it’s actually about people doing things insist that there should not only be a witch hunt against Greg Laden, but that also everybody who ever had a beer with him is also out of the race…

    When it comes to guilt by association, Stephanie is not innocent herself:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/09/21/i-object/
    her objection to Gurdur was not focussed on things he said, but rather on some people he used to hang out with online.

  25. Alexis says

    Wrong.
    This has been talked about and debunked in the very thread you’re linking to.

    Nope.
    You´ve posted his comments in:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/09/21/i-object/#comment-123334
    And, as you said:

    BTW, the last two were after people went there and objected about the “kick her in the cunt” threat. Not a word of him against that

    So, it seems to be about the people he used to hang out with (if not – which of his comments specifically would justify attempts to ostracize him in your opinion ?).

  26. says

    Alexis, don’t be obtuse or dishonest. The post you link to describes Gurdur’s behavior in those threads that I object to. See the bullet points. That’s what they’re there for.

    There is no guilt by association. There is guilt by participation.

  27. says

    Well, seems like some people think that “guilt by association means “guilt by whom you associate with” instead of “guilt by whom you’re associated with so it would be totally unfair to judge somebody for the fact that xe loves to hang out with the white pride boys and goes to their bar.

  28. Alexis says

    Alexis, don’t be obtuse or dishonest. The post you link to describes Gurdur’s behavior in those threads that I object to. See the bullet points. That’s what they’re there for.

    Seen it. And you objected to him supporting female atheists which should not be supported in your opinion and to him not condemning or in some cases (e.g. the Phawrongula thingy) encouraging behaviour that you find unacceptable.
    So, he does not speak out against behaviour that you find unacceptable, and you didn´t speak out against Greg Laden´s behaviour (or downplay his words as “ambiguous colloquialism”).

    Oh, never mind. Alexis is sock-puppeting.

    I don´t know why you think that, but no – if my ip shows up in the database with another name, it´s probably because I´m using a public proxy server.

  29. priscilla parker says

    [Removed. Not going to have the blog used to comment publicly on ongoing legal matters. –SZ]

  30. frankathon says

    Dammit I signed the wrong petition! Can I unsign? I can’t seem to be able to figure it out :(

  31. says

    I need some help here. I haven’t been folowing recent developments. Maybe they were just too depressing.
    Anyway…

    When did atheism plus go from being about atheists who are also humanists/feminists to being about atheists who are also hatemongers?
    That’s what it looked like happened from the petition wording. I though I had a nice new identifier to say I was atheist and feminist.

    What did I miss?

  32. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    That’s what it looked like happened from the petition wording. I though I had a nice new identifier to say I was atheist and feminist.

    What did I miss?

    A lesson in honesty, apparently.

    So, according to you, objecting to someone who’s shown to have no regard for the safety of others having even more access to private information is “hate-mongering”, but the fact that he release the personal info of someone without even pausing to think what might happen because of his actions Just because he hates her and wants to silence her, ISN’T hate-mongering.

    And you expect us to believe you were ever on board with A+?

    Total fail.

  33. says

    I think RH is just confused and thinks Vacula is associated somehow with atheism plus. Or that atheism plus is anything but a label for people who fight bigotry in their spaces. Or doesn’t understand that fighting bigotry entails ostracizing the bigots.

    Giving him the benefit of the doubt is all. What precious little doubt there is that he’s anything but a concern troll.

  34. KickSexistsOutOfAtheism says

    I hope the supporters of Justin realise that we can intimidate people like him out of his position. It sends out a strong signal to the rest of the community.

    We will come after you as well, if you are a misogynist. We will launch petitions to harass you. We will get you in the end.

    There is no room for people like Vacula in our community. Let this be a lesson.

  35. says

    Which position of Vacula’s would that be? That Twitter harassment of people he doesn’t like is dandy? That misrepresenting people on the podcast of the group he leads is swell? That feminism is taking away the rights of men?

    Also, could you provide definitions of “harassment” and “community”? As far as I can tell, Vacula is still leader of the group he founded. Is that outside the “community”?

  36. says

    Aw, SocraticGadfly. Still pissed at me for talking about Assange and rape? That grudge is almost a toddler. Go write another post about how Greg could only agree with me because we’re sleeping together. I’m sure you’ll feel better.

  37. Bjarte Foshaug says

    Aw come on, Stephanie, the incident with Laden that happened in June is clearly the reason these cock-roaches have been after you (and every other woman who didn’t volunteer to be their private sewage system) since long before it occurred (because hey, it was obviously going to at some point, right…) I mean, they have to be able to accuse you of something. Don’t make it so difficult.

  38. Dairy says

    Three FtBers were out drinking the night a stressful episode came to a close and raised a toast to a comrade who had just paid a high price for one stupid moment.

    Wow. Talk about letting your able-privilege out for a walk. Attempting to set off someone’s PTSD because you have a disagreement is not ‘one stupid moment’ – and it’s sickening to see you minimise his revolting actions.

    What Greg Laden did was ableist, privileged, and antithetical to everything that feminism/SJ stands for. Sickening.

  39. says

    Wow, Dairy. That’s some serious Ingsoc you’ve got going on. Warning someone that their so-called friends would make them fair game (as you’re doing with Stephanie, Greg, and others you disagree with) is as much trying to trigger PTSD as a trigger warning is an attempt to trigger someone, or a coffee cup lid saying “caution, hot liquids inside” is an attempt at burning a person.

  40. ewanmacdonald says

    While I don’t think Stephanie Zvan should be removed from her position, I am constantly mystified at the thrall in which Greg Laden holds people in this movement. The guy has shown himself to be a threatening individual on at least one occasion, and an unscrupulous dissembler on many others. Kicking him off FtB was absolutely the right decision, but the way certain parties dragged their feet about it – one or two even blaming the victim – lingers long in the memory.

    On the subject of the petition itself – ha ha ha. So which is it, Vaculites? Are petitions a legitimate way of airing grievances or aren’t they?

  41. says

    ewanmacdonald, there is a rather large and important difference between victim-blaming and being disgusted with someone’s behavior but still stepping up to treat their complaint the way you would anyone else’s. However, just as in the case with Thunderf00t, you can’t see what I’m talking about because it happened in private. So you are only able to see the stories of the people who are willing to share some of what happened behind the scenes.

    Also, who told you anyone dragged any feet? There was a very brief whirlwind of activity and it was done so fast it left most of us wondering what had happened. I think it set a record for a decision being made on the network. Thus the drinking.

  42. ewanmacdonald says

    Sorry, let me try again:

    Feet-dragging: I phrased this very badly and I apologise for being completely unclear. Feet-dragging clearly implies taking too much time, which isn’t what I meant, but clearly what I said. To try to clear that up: what I meant was that the removal of Greg Laden was, from some at FtB (notable exception: Ed Brayton), clearly only done because it had to be done, and not because it was the right thing to do. I think there are good grounds to believe this, particularly in light of my next point.

    Victim blaming: PZ Myers blamed the victim in that he passive-aggressively slammed Justin Griffith for daring to speak out about Laden’s threat of violence. You can see that on the Pharyngula post ‘Preemptive disclosure’, which I won’t link to in case it results in moderation, but you can easily find it on Google. It opens thus, emphasis mine:

    I just had to send a complaint to one of my fellow bloggers here at FtB. And since he likes to post his email publicly, I just thought I’d do it myself and get it out of the way.

    This was hours after Justin posted the thread, so there really is no other interpretation possible here. Justin was to be shamed for publicising a threat of violence. This is textbook victim-blaming.

    The hypocrisy from PZ was staggering, given that he publicly reserves the right to post threatening emails with identifying info (for the avoidance of doubt – this is a perfectly legitimate choice for him to make.)

    I bear you absolutely no ill will at all, and I signed the Justin Vacula petition that you set up. That doesn’t mean, however, that defending the mendacious bully* that is Greg Laden is in any way the right thing to continue doing.

    *A word I use very carefully. Threatening violence against someone then telling them on what terms they can discuss it – as Greg did in the aftermath of the event – is loathsome, controlling behavior.

  43. says

    There you go again, ewanmacdonald, assuming that what you see is the whole story, even after you’ve been told it isn’t. But hey, you cling to that interpretation of what PZ is disgusted about, since it appeals to you. You can also cling to your mind reading of other bloggers here. Enjoy it. Revel in it. Argue with people who have told you they can’t tell you everything that you must be right based on what you can see. Assume that every action has no antecedents you don’t know about, because you can’t see them even though you’ve been told they’re there.

    Then fuck off.

  44. ewanmacdonald says

    Mere hours elapsed between Justin posting Greg Laden’s email and PZ saying that Justin “likes to post his emails publicly”, so yeah, I think I will carry on with that assumption, thanks.

  45. says

    Sure, because your imagination tells you it couldn’t have anything to do with how Justin went about posting that email, since that was exactly all he did in that post, right? Justin didn’t do anything else there that PZ might have background information on and feel disgusted by and still not be able to refer to explicitly because it’s all private information? Justin just said, “Hey, I got this email. I consider it a threat, and I find that unacceptable” without any other “context” or emotional manipulation, right? So you just get to sit in smug judgment, do you?

    As I said, fuck off.

  46. ewanmacdonald says

    Haha, OK – PZ Myers gets to be the arbiter of how Justin deals with threats of violence. Got you. Off indeed I shall fuck – I don’t want to stick around if that’s your idea of appropriate behavior.

  47. says

    Right, because that’s what I said. When you get to the point that you have to resort to intellectual dishonesty to hang onto those judgments you’re fond of, don’t.

  48. ewanmacdonald says

    Please do me a favor: if you don’t want me posting on your blog, please don’t post responses to me, otherwise I feel entitled to respond in kind. Which is it to be? Do you actually want me to fuck off or not? Say the word and I won’t be back. If on the other hand you want me to defend my position, I’ll be here.

  49. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    Ewan, diddums, this isn’t your blog. You don’t get to dictate how it’s run, or who the blog owner responds to, or how, or how often. She’s said fuck off at least twice. Exactly what is confusing to you? You’re wrong, she showed you why. End of story.

    Grow up, accept that you’re wrong and move along.

  50. says

    Your position of, “Hey, I feel really good for judging people on incomplete information and interpretations I make up and then defend by pretending people are saying something they didn’t”? That position?

  51. ewanmacdonald says

    Ewan, diddums, this isn’t your blog. You don’t get to dictate how it’s run, or who the blog owner responds to, or how, or how often. She’s said fuck off at least twice. Exactly what is confusing to you? You’re wrong, she showed you why. End of story.

    Grow up, accept that you’re wrong and move along.

    I don’t think I am wrong, though… so obviously I’m not going to accept that. “Fuck off” can mean a lot of things. I said “fuck off” to my cat earlier – it doesn’t mean I want her to pack a bindle and head out west.

    Your position of, “Hey, I feel really good for judging people on incomplete information and interpretations I make up and then defend by pretending people are saying something they didn’t”? That position?

    That is what you said, though. You said PZ’s disgust could have been predicated on how Justin posted the email in which he received threats of violence. I personally don’t think it’s PZ’s place or anyone else’s to pass judgement on how Justin deals with threats… and even if I did, I don’t think I should be expected to infer it from the post, which you apparently expect of me.

    The rest of your post, about the various other hypothetical offences that Justin apparently committed, is yet another way to mitigate what Greg Laden did and instead to blame Justin for bringing it on himself.

    I personally can’t stand Justin’s blog, I think it’s long-winded and terribly written, so I can’t speak to any great knowledge of his apparent track record of emotional manipulation. I’ll take your word for that. I’ll ask in turn what you think, personally, of Greg Laden’s email leading up to his threat of violence, and whether or not that also comprises emotional manipulation.

  52. says

    Let me just say one more thing here to make my position perfectly clear. Yes, people do get to judge how Justin handled what he read as a threat. There is nothing about sending that email that makes Greg “fair game” for any kind of unethical behavior any more than Justin sucking up to and empowering my harassers and Greg’s makes Justin “fair game”. When there is a problem, you deal with the problem. You do not loose the hounds.

  53. ewanmacdonald says

    Let me just say one more thing here to make my position perfectly clear. Yes, people do get to judge how Justin handled what he read as a threat.

    I appreciate your clarity. I disagree with this entirely, needless to say, because down this road (thousands of miles further down this road, lest anyone think I’m drawing a direct comparison) lies hyper-skepticism of more serious allegations – the “why did they wait to report it?”, “why didn’t they tell the cops right away?” kind.

    There is nothing about sending that email that makes Greg “fair game” for any kind of unethical behavior any more than Justin sucking up to and empowering my harassers and Greg’s makes Justin “fair game”. When there is a problem, you deal with the problem. You do not loose the hounds.

    With this I could not agree more. Two wrongs absolutely do not make a right.

  54. says

    ewanmacdonald, you’re being dishonest again. The statement you agree with and the statement you condemn are the same fucking statement, restated in its particulars in the second case.

  55. ewanmacdonald says

    I’m not certainly not being dishonest, and if they’re supposed to be the same, you did a really good job of making them… the same. The first is whether or not people external to the situation can judge. The second is whether or not people external to the situation can consider the sender/sendee/anyone else “fair game” and act on it. Judgement and action are extremely different things. Note that I don’t think you’re being dishonest here – I think you’re just arguing very, very badly.

  56. ewanmacdonald says

    God damn, I can’t type when I get riled. “I’m most certainly not,” and “… not the same,” should be the first two lines.

  57. says

    Because “Two wrongs don’t make a right” is completely not a statement of judgment in any sense. It isn’t made by anyone external to the situation. Nope, nope, nope.

    So, you’re not dishonest, just so blinded by the desire to win an argument that you can’t step back and see what you’re saying or what I am?

    Yes, if I see Justin do something unethical in his dealings with Greg, if I see him treat Greg as “fair game”, I don’t have to be either of them to judge that situation and condemn it. That is nothing like hyperskepticism. That is nothing like deciding something didn’t happen or was justified because the victim dealt with it in any one of a number of ethical ways. Your attempt to draw that parallel is disgusting.

    Seriously, if you have to act like this because you think this is some argument you have to win, like you’re in a debate club instead of discussing something that affects the lives of real people, step the fuck back. Go cool off. Get a grip on yourself and a little humility.

  58. ewanmacdonald says

    Project much? You were so eager to “win” the argument via taking the moral high ground, by any means necessary, that you grabbed for the “dishonest” card on two occasions. On neither was it accurate.

    I disagree that my attempt to draw that parallel is disgusting. I think Justin is entitled to deal with a threat of violence in the way that he did. You feel differently. I don’t think posting an email is analogous with Justin’s making Greg Laden “fair game for any kind of unethical behavior”. In fact I don’t think posting an email is unethical behavior at all, but the idea that it’s even close to a threat of violence is, I think, a very eccentric viewpoint.

    Of course, this all rests on the assumption that Justin is a victim here. I assume we don’t agree on this?

  59. says

    I think Justin is entitled to deal with a threat of violence in the way that he did.

    No, you think Justin is entitled to deal with a threat of violence in some way that you think you understand even after being told you don’t have all the information. That’s very different. Dishonesty 1: Pretending you’re not dealing with a the information that you don’t know all of what’s going on.

    I don’t think posting an email is analogous with Justin’s making Greg Laden “fair game for any kind of unethical behavior”.

    Dishonesty 2: Pretending we’re talking about the act of posting an email after I’ve told you that’s not what we’re talking about.

    Of course, this all rests on the assumption that Justin is a victim here. I assume we don’t agree on this?

    Dishonesty 3: Pretending I didn’t just tell you that Justin also isn’t “fair game”. Pretending I didn’t say in the original post that Greg fucked up. Pretending I didn’t just say that Justin’s complaint should be and was treated the way anyone else’s would be.

    You’re done. Go nurse your smug, ignorant superiority somewhere else and try not to let in the creeping thoughts that you had to maintain it by disregarding what I said and claiming positions for me I dont’ have. Yep, don’t let those doubts get to you when the need to win stops buoying you up.

  60. says

    I apologize. I should have been more clear in my earlier post.
    I identify as an atheist, a humanist, and a feminist
    I firmly believe that these positions include actively calling out people who are hateful, bigoted, and threatening or harassing to women in every case.
    I think downplaying harassment is in and of itself harassment.

    When the idea of atheism plus was first brought up I thought it was (and apparently still is – My mistake) a wonderful way of identifying yourself as an atheist who also has a particular humanist/feminist moral outlook.

    My confusion came when I read the petition and it mentioned that Justin was “actively in the #FTBullies and #atheismplus campaigns”

    I thought that meant that atheism plus had been co-opted by the very people it was supposed to distinguish us from.

    I sincerely apologize if I gave the impression of trolls invading the thread, or that I though for an instant that enabling harassers, or harassment was in any way acceptable.

  61. Forbidden Snowflake says

    RH:

    My confusion came when I read the petition and it mentioned that Justin was “actively in the #FTBullies and #atheismplus campaigns”

    Yeah, I think that if it said “hashtags” instead of “campaigns” it would have been less confusing.

  62. says

    That might have helped. But I think my main confusion was because I understood the hash tag FTBullies It makes sense as a tag for posting about how the person posting is a juvenile idiot who hates everyone at Free Thought Blogs because we dare to say sexism is wrong.
    I foolishly assumed that the hash tag atheismplus would be used by people identifying themselves or their post as being part of the atheismplus movement.
    I guess I expected sexist scum to use something like atheismplusjerks or something, judging from the first tag.

    I am really glad to still have a group name I can identify as that communicates what I actually agree with.

    I am an atheist plus. And I am proud of that.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>