Quantcast

«

»

Jan 01 2013

RIP JREF

The first news I got in the new year was that someone at JREF was drunk-tweeting–or that their Twitter account was hacked. Given that two tweets got out, I suspect the latter. They weren’t bad tweets, but the wording wasn’t what I would suspect even if the sentiment had been sincere.

Two tweets from JREF. Text blockquoted in the post.

Tweet 1: New years resolution: don’t attack women for speaking out about feeling uncomfortable.

Tweet 2: New years resolution: don’t mock and scapegoat my allies.

I just don’t think they’d be talking about scapegoating that baldly. Given that the tweets came down very quickly, someone at JREF appears to agree with me.

As a drunken joke involving accidentally pressing Tweet–twice–they would be kind of funny. As someone hacking the @jref account, they are, of course, much less so. The reactions to them from the usual crowd of Twitter anti-feminists, however, are hilarious.

One was relatively rational given their prior stance.

Others were just bizarre.

Yes, “RIP JREF”. Because if the organization can’t scapegoat anyone, there go all their programs. The million-dollar challenge is doomed (DOOMED!!!) without scapegoating.

@ Fine, I'll just give women more alcohol when they feel uncomfortable around me. #lonelyatheist
@FartsNLadyParts
FartsAndLadyParts

Because a rape joke always makes a bad situation better.

@ judging by the previous resolution, I can only assume you're including the A+ cult in your "allies". You'd be mistaken to do that.
@AchronTimeless
Achron Timeless
The mysterious case of @ and the missing fealty to #atheismplus tweets http://t.co/iClbsXvm methinks someone unauthorized posted those
@AchronTimeless
Achron Timeless

Because caring about whether women are uncomfortable in our movements is strictly limited to Atheism+ and not attacking is swearing fealty to…things.

And a response to that last tweet:

@ @ Yeah, I don't believe for a second that they would give in to that quackery.
@tecknogyk
tecknogyk

Feminism is now practicing medicine without a license.

So sad this tweet exists. RT @: New years resolution: don't attack women for speaking out about feeling uncomfortable.
.@ Sad that JREF's a/c appears to have been hacked or sad that tweet advocates suspending rationality in face of feelings?
@prepagan
Paul Miller

Not attacking = suspending rationality.

Anyone still wonder why we don’t consider the anti-feminists to be skeptical or, indeed, able to cobble together a basic argument?

10 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar

    … or why we don’t consider them to be decent people, or why we don’t consider their bullshit claims of “merely disagreeing” to be remotely honest?

  2. 2
    cethis

    The tweets are gone, so I think the account was hacked.

    I’d consider supporting the JREF again if the tweets were real. It would mean that they reconsidered their actions, and wanted to work for a skeptical movement that reaches out beyond the old boys club.

    Instead, by someone hacking the account, the jREF can claim that they’re being attacked. They might use the attack to say, “Both sides are doing it.” That hacker didn’t do us any favors.

  3. 3
    A Hermit

    What do these people think it says about them that a resolution to “not attack women” is seen as a bad thing?! Do they think at all?

  4. 4
    Aratina Cage

    Thank you for the new list of slimes to block. Happy New Year!

  5. 5
    Tom Foss

    Add Sid Rodrigues to the list of skeptics who have apparently lost the plot:
    https://twitter.com/SidRodrigues/status/286011722811191297
    https://twitter.com/SidRodrigues/status/286136433318711296

  6. 6
    screechymonkey

    In before some idiot shows up to complain that no one here has condemned the (alleged) hacking of the JREF Twitter account.

    (Seriously, though, that kind of shit is Not Helpful.)

  7. 7
    WMDKitty -- Survivor

    Dude. What Joe and The Hermit said at #1 and #3.

  8. 8
    jimmy russel

    The objections are not to the literal content of the tweets, to those who understand nuance and context it’s clear. Because this stuff is the “lite” version of the views expressed, the stuff that on the surface is not hard to agree with. It’s the stuff you throw up when accused of being radical and irrational “we just want to be safe”, but people outside of the in group understand that it isnt as innocent as that. It’s about controlling peoples interactions beyond that. It’s about policing words and thought in the name of “free thought” and visciously attacking those who don’t conform, both on the internet and their personal/professional lives.

    That is why people protest, not because of the words said, but what the implications of those words would be.

  9. 9
    Stephanie Zvan

    Ooh, jimmy, they haven’t handed out the secret marching orders that will go into effect once JREF adopts a reasonable anti-harassment policy for TAM. Tell me, pretty please, what will I get to do? Is it any different than what happened at the four cons I attended this summer and fall that had policies? Are we just waiting for all conferences and conventions fall in line before we jump out from behind a bush, screaming, “Suckers!!!!”? Will we start banning sex everywhere on Earth?

    What will we do? Huh?

  10. 10
    Anonymous Atheist

    Secret plan: All men attending conferences/conventions without Atheism+ credentials will be blindfolded, gagged, and handcuffed for the duration of the event. ;-)

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="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>