Because some folks are asking it be pulled out of Twitter into a readable form. Throwing in another voice or two you don’t usually see involved, because ripple effects are part of the point.
@ With is with your constant pandering toward women, Dave? It seems to belittle them, as if their merits don't stand on own.
@ you mean when I treat women as equals & allies, while dissing the anonymous assholes who post and rt vile messages & pix?
@ So much pandering w these anti-harassment policies, http://t.co/08M3nW6jWK, tweet about having more than 50% speakers...
@ This stuff is not needed. The merits of women in this movement stand on their own...and they don't need to be 'defended.'
@ With your pandering, you help spread false narrative - that community is hostile to and excluding women.
@ SOME of the community is genuinely hostile. It disgusts me. When some Pretend otherwise,despite evidence,it looks like defense
[Okay, one editorial comment I couldn't resist: When this guy tells you he recognizes hostility, treat him as the expert he is.]
@ I would LOVE to see you publicly trash the genuine haters. Stop pretending there are no assholes.
@ for example, the fake pic of @ in sexually demeaning position. Can you agree that's shit? Publicly?
@ @ even talking about it would draw attention to it, which is exactly what the person who did it wants.
@ agree, but praise is implied in the defense, prompting repeat. If @ is to be heard he must acknowledge, abhor it.
@ @ @ Reprehensible? Yes. However, not related to atheism or skepticism.
@ @ @ I completely disagree, and use your tweet as case-in-point.
@ @ @ same goes for EVERYONE who lol'ed it and rt'd. Shit shit shit. This is your problem.
@ can't get into this now. One final word. If you can't bring yourself to fight shit, you will be seen as approving it.
@ @ Sure, it's shit. ...but this is not a serious voice in the discussion. It's an obvious Rule 34 troll picture.
@ @ You say this is problem in movement. Do we know identity of person who made this picture?
@ @ @ Apparently, we can bash Islam all day and Draw Mohammad, but RW is sacred, immune from ridicule?
[Another required editorial comment: Does he not know what "defending" means"?]
@ What is the evidence? Who are these "genuinely hostile" people and how do you know they are part of community?
@ Why is it case I ought to publicly trash? I can't police the whole of internet trolling. Who are these "genuine haters?"
@ There are jerks out there, sure, but are these people in movement, serious voices in discussion? What are they saying?
@ @ Defense? What defense? Who or what am I defending?
[Oh, I give up: Yes, just not very well.]
@ @ @ Is this photoshop from someone in the movement? How do you know?
@ I suppose, Dave, you approve of everything you don't fight?
@ @ @ RW and co. lump all critics as one in same when it actually is not the case.
[That's 10 tweets. In case you were wondering why he gets blocked on Twitter.]
In response to asking whether Rebeca is sacred:
@ @ @ hyperbole. Never said nor suggested that. You are not hearing me.
@ @ @ @ @ I don't support that image. Don't see as 'problem' in mvt from this
It's the avalanche of such harassment, @ It's a problem. @ @ @ @
In regard to a “LOL” from Vacula on a side conversation:
@ Your detractors don't mind criticism. They mind hate. Take their sides when you agree. Seek no excuses to miss opportunities.
@ @ @ @ @ no Justin. I said YOU are seen as approving.
@ People like RW conflate - act as if all opposition is "haters" "misogynists" "sexists" and such.
@ I'm not up for policing the internet with every objectionable picture that might be out there.
@ People detest RW and complany because of their behavior, not bc they are women - RW claims misogyny problem in mvt
@ Besides, PZ Myers gets a tremendous amount of pushback, people detest him bc of behavior...is that because he is a man?
@ then criticize her. But just as I vocally abhor violence against churches, YOU must abhor hate v women to be taken seriously.
@ What is this "hate v women?" Why make it a gendered issue, anyway?
@ Has RW been met with violence or threats of violence? Evidence please.
@ you're not listening. I tried to help. Please consider what I've written and meant. Gotta go.
Going back to conflating criticism and hate:
@ @ You LET her do that by not separating yourself from the hatred but making excuses for it.
@ @ What excuses am I making?
@ @ A moment ago you justified sexually demeaning images of RW by comparing them to justifiable satire of islam
@ @ I did not justify anything. I asked a question.
@ @ If we are going to demean Mohammad, Islam and be OK, why be up in arms about (1/2)
@ @ people satirizing, ridiculing Rebecca Watson? Why is she on the pedestal? (2/2)
@ @ Here was my answer about the satire of islam vs. satire of tw, in case you missed it: http://t.co/e6hG9nkfTj
@ Because she is a person and sometimes ally while Mohammed is not. @ @
@ @ She's not on a pedestal.The real question's why there's website DEVOTED to hating her & allies as sole purpose
@ @ Can you pls identify site and how you know it has sole purpose, is dedicated to hate of RW and friends?
@ @ Is there another purpose to the SlymePit than hating RW and friends? Is it advancing some other agenda?
@ @ you make excuses by defending any and all satire of RW on grounds she's not off limits in general, like islam
@ @ Actually, there are all sorts of non-RW and friends conversations...and it is not all hate...or even mostly.
@ @ I'm talking about the purpose of the site, Justin, not whether friendships have happened to bloom there.
@ @ You should know, anyway, I am among most photoshopped person there. Everyone gets made fun of.
@ @ You should visit and post on the Slymepit. Put some ideas forth, ask questions. It is fun place.
[Vacula finds the slimepit a fun place. He can't, apparently, figure out why other don't.]
Dave steps back in to try, one more time to reason with Vacula:
@ you are fighting two different fights. U see it as attacking actions but they see it as hate bc you support shit. 1/2
@ if you denounce shit, your attacks on rw's actions will be taken far more seriously. Like when I denounce church vandalism.
@ few would seriously consider criticism against me from a WBC supporter, right? Even if it were correct? Abhor hate & b heard
@ What is this assumption - that if I don't speak against x I support x? That's unreasonable, very high demand you pose
@ Again, me & Church vandalism. Perfect analogy. Decry or be perceived to support, fair or not.
@ hate and threats against your opposition is the wrong thing about which to be silent.
@ It's unfair and unreasonable. You must be moral monster bc of all the things you don't speak against...
@ Shall we say, Dave, you support campaigns of male circumcision in Africa if you don't speak against it?
@ it is neither. It is fact. Every time a church is vandalized I put out a statement abhorring vandalism bc I am not about that.
@ your hesitancy to do the same is troubling. This is a clear and easy path I take all the time.
By this time, the “conversation” is general, messy and repetitive, so I’ll just leave it with this, from one of the guys who’s been using the TAM hashtags as dumping grounds for anti-Skepchick BS for the last couple of years and who participated in the Great Penis Debate:
wow, @ and @ are arguing on twitter, and I must say, I pretty much agree with @