You are Judged by the Company You Keep

If you quote KKK quotes and hang out with a racist, we would assume you are a racist. Okay, the racist may be “family” but you know that you should speak out against it. You may even argue about it. You may even stop being friendly because you personally don’t think the Dutch are subhuman but your hypothetical sister does.

Because you are judged by the company you keep and by not speaking out. You may disagree with something but have to keep your mouth shut, but that just means you are supporting the thing you disagree with in the first place. If a child INSISTS on sticking his fingers into a electrical socket disagreeing with him but not telling him to stop is pretty much agreeing with him is it not?

You are always judged by the company you keep and I have slowly come to notice that the company that many naysayers against Free Thought Blogs and the like are not acceptable. The argument one individual from the slymepit made was “free speech”, well we have free speech here.

Watch this. I think Atheism Plus is heavily mishandled and it’s pure utilisation of safe zones makes debate and discourse impossible. In addition it takes a very very protectionist attitude to both culture and a purely western attitude towards feminism which is simply not universal or applicable in every situation. However due to the lack of any actual method of discourse there is no way to create active change through it. It is unfortunately a pure academic form of feminism and is unsuitable for punching out gender discrepancies in third world nations. It’s participants have little actual experience in field work and from experience are unwilling to defer to anyone who is outside the sphere of their security nor were they willing to grasp that principles are great if you can afford to have them. I have even spoken out explicitly against their cultural/race aspect of their movement because a lot of it tries to paint culture with a big fuck off brush rather than realising individual nuance.

Oh look! It’s a stance I have stated before I moved here. At no point was I ever hassled by the “FTBullies”. In fact my interviewer was Stephanie Zvan and when I specifically mentioned my apprehension with Atheism Plus we discussed precisely the above statement.

Oh look it’s genuine criticism of the movement. I have also disagreed with people like Taslima on Prostitution and Ian Cromwell on race. But the thing is through it all we have been specific about what we dislike about the other’s work. We haven’t stooped to personal attacks (Although I did offer to have a “shout racial slurs at each other till we both lose” contest with Ian),

I am not part of A+, but neither am I in the camp of the Slymepit because of the company they keep.

Stephanie Zvan survived sexual assault. But she was drunk. Oh noes! The Slut! When a Man is Drunk and Gets Laid He Taketh Responsibility! Right boys?

Many Slymepitters are represented at AVfM. Reap and Wooly Bumblebee and Astrokid who you may remember from my take on their work.

But because of free speech they get to say what they like. Free speech is fine, in fact that’s why I am examining a more flexible comment policy because I think I can do better (Hah! Suck it popular bloggers! My comments threads may be relatively empty but they will be elegant!) to give everyone the best of both worlds.

HOWEVER… The usage of this particular article by Wooly Bumblebee has crossed a line. In particular because THIS is precisely the same arguments people made when the young woman who was raped in Delhi. It was also made by AVfM. AVfM supports Indian MRAs who have blamed the rapes in India on women rather than the men.

“Coyote ugly.” It’s a phrase men use to describe the experience of waking up, hungover as shit, in bed next to a girl so ugly you’d rather chew your arm off than have her stir. Yep, another night of too many shooters and very poor judgement. Well played, tequila.

It must be Tequila’s fault!

Understand the difference between action and consent. You cannot give consent when you are drunk. You can barely order pizza yet are assuming you can give realistic consent? Yes both of you may be drunk but if both of you are drunk and want to have sex then both of you will have sex. What people who get drunk and are raped are discussing are women getting date raped through drugs like GHB or just plain old not being sober enough to put up a coordinated defence against a much stronger assailant.

You are however responsible for your actions when drunk. It’s just that simple.

I’m willing to bet that every single varsity athlete or high status (medicine, engineering, computer science) male on any given college campus has had the experience. Why? Because they get hunted. All the time. By women. You see these guys staggering bleary-eyed into the dorm rooms the next morning, bro-punching their friends and saying “Dude, how could you let me do that?”

Because women are all hungry like the wolf?

You want to know something funny? At no point has anyone ever thrown themselves at me because of my degrees. It’s always been because of my winning personality and sense of humour. I used to get women to sleep with me through the art of conversation, wit and being honest about things. It’s never been about me or my degree or my athletic skill. It’s always been because I am genuinely nice. Now I have noticed women who do sleep with these guys and if that brings them happiness then godspeed ladies, but more often than not it’s because they buy into the stupid Alpha male concept and forget that confidence isn’t arrogance. Real confidence is knowing what your limitations are. And we all have limitations. Real confidence isn’t denigrating other people but letting them shine too.

Whoever wrote that article is insulting to EVERY gender. No.1 Women aren’t Gold Diggers/Star Fuckers (Seriously? Doctor Hunting isn’t a thing), No. 2 that buys into the notion of Alpha Males which is just moronic as fuck because the “Alpha Stereotype” does poorly in medicine. It’s a team effort, if you hack your team off they will kill your credibility and your career. You can be an amazing doctor but you are nothing without your support. No. 3 you assume all men are dicks and cannot control their drinks nor who they fuck when drunk.

How could you let me do that is the hallmark of a man who cannot take responsibility for his actions. I am not your keeper, I will take care of you when sick but if you insist on doing things you consider distasteful then it’s your damn fault. I will try and field terrible decision fall outs but I won’t be held responsible for you insisting on doing something. Sleeping with a “ugly” person is not dangerous nor is it disgusting, it’s just you shagging someone who isn’t attractive.

The article goes on an on… Stephanie fields it much better than me. I would have sworn at people a lot more.

Comments

  1. says

    . And considering that it’s the exact same shit we see flung at women simply for being women again and again and again, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the issue is not Rebecca.

    So you claim that some of the shit being flung is of the same type slung in other situations, in which you ignore that women that support Rebecca also fling shit, as you are doing exactly that right now. I don’t even know where to begin to start showing you that your words here are worthless, completely illogical, and very much hypocritical.

    (Before I go any further, I already know, for a virtual certainty, that you will conclude that I am some kind of stunned idiot, or shithead, or what not. if you reply.

    So, back to your opening remarks here. Can you explain to me how you conclude that because some manner of attack on Rebecca, which you do not even bother considering whether some of the shit may be justified, you therefore reach the conclusion that other people have slung the same type of shit, in situations where they were being shitheads, that it necessary follows that because YOU SAY that there are similarities in content and execution, it proves that Rebecca is therefore not at fault?
    I’m sorry, but it looks like all you have done is flung shit on the assumption that your opinion is inclusive, and accurate

    Rebecca has had hundreds if not thousands of people call her every sexist insult in the book and threaten her in every way possible. Nothing she could say or do could make her responsible for that. Saying otherwise makes you, I’m comfortable saying, a shit head.

    So you say.
    How does the fact that Rebecca has been very badly treated, illegally and violently so, I agree, she is not at fault whatsoever for anything, and then, unbelievable, you conclude that anyone that would hold an opinion that is critical, in the logical sense, of something she has said or done – ANYTHING – is therefor a shithead? What is it with some people, that because someone, eg Rebecca, has been subject to intolerable and dangerously unacceptable threats and accusations, suddenly that anything anyone says in disagreement with anything she has been involved in, HAS NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION, AND THAT THEREFORE ANY MENTION OF POSSIBLE INFRACTION THAT IS DIRECTED TOWARDS HER, OPPORTUNIST? AND INVALID TO BEGIN WITH, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT?
    And now I am guilty of being a shithead myself? (lol, we’ll see, shhhhhh)

    I am not sure that that would hold up in a court of law, or 3 dimensional space

  2. says

    To Gretchen:

    When you make the whole elevator thing about what Rebecca said or did, you fail.

    What she did, right or wrong, was not a shit fest. The response to what she did was a shit fest, and the only people responsible for it are the ones flinging shit. And considering that it’s the exact same shit we see flung at women simply for being women again and again and again, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the issue is not Rebecca.

    Rebecca has had hundreds if not thousands of people call her every sexist insult in the book and threaten her in every way possible. Nothing she could say or do could make her responsible for that. Saying otherwise makes you, I’m comfortable saying, a shit head.

    For the love of all that is good in the world, I just told you that the whole thing *wasn’t* about what Rebecca said or did, or what happened in the elevator.

    I just told you what the initial response was to the incident and I just *told you* what it was that turned it into a shit fest.

    If you’re going to ignore the context and quote mine, just so that you can say, with comfort, that I’m a shit head (maturity has obviously not yet set in), then I can say, with comfort, that you’re being unwise and dishonest. I didn’t say Rebecca started the shit fest, I said she merely co-opted it after her friends had it spinning. That is different than saying she is responsible, although maybe Watson should look at herself before assigning others with guilt, like how she recently blamed Dawkins for the alleged rape threats she’s received since his “Dear Muslima” argument.

    Anyway, I’m sure you have proof that people — hundreds, thousands — have called her “every sexist insult in the book”? Because if her Page ‘o Hate is anything to go by, it’s sadly lacking in both numbers and sexist insults. The several insults you can see on that page are many times by the same person, spamming her for attention, and the several insults she says come from “atheists” have no indication to say they are from atheists, or sceptics, freethinkers, etc. Maybe she keeps the several hundreds or thousands of sexist insults she’s received on standby?

    As for insults, threats, and so on, that’s par for the course these days for prominent figures. I wouldn’t say Watson is a prominent figure per se, but she’s in the public light and therefore—as the rules of the internet dictate and the greater internet dickwad theory—anonymity plus audience equals shitcock. And that plus a figure to rag on, well, you get the point. I mean, you don’t think Dawkins hasn’t received his share of abuse, both insults and threats, in his life? You don’t think Paula Kirby hasn’t? Harriet Hall?

    To use a woman as an example (even though I don’t respect her views on a lot of things), when Ayaan Hirsi Ali got death threats, did she run and hide? No. Although she later blamed it on contemporary Islamic culture and broadly swept them all onto one side, so c’est la vie. But my point is she didn’t allow the threats to keep her down. Most of them are unfounded anyway and will not ever be substantiated, and the same can be said for Dawkins, for Kirby, for Hall — and yes, even though she won’t admit it — for Watson. So she gets the occasional insult and threat, well so fucking what? Get over it.

  3. leni says

    Out of interest, have you ever been to the ‘pit?

    I have, and I mostly agree with his assessment. But that’s just me and I probably have a limited capacity for bacon jokes.

    Even so, I didn’t leave there with the sense that the people there are all misogynist pseudo rapists. I left with the impression that many of people there seem to mistake edgy or crass for subversive, but that mostly it was just more of the same old shit I could read in Yahoo comments. Or maybe listen to if I played CoD. Despite the fact that everyone seems to think they’re a Peter Tosh, all it does is reinforce the status quo. In other words, I think they are childish and mistaken rather than totally, totally evil. But lately it becomes more difficult to distinguish between childishness and pure maliciousness. Wooly Bumblebee, for example.

    And I do get what you said about the hugfests. I find them a bit creepy too. However, I understand that simple expressions of empathy are entirely benign, good things. I’d rather people did that than acted like callous assholes. I’d take that over Wooly Bumblebee any day, who by the way, probably thinks she’s being edgy and badass too, rather than just malicious. But she would be wrong about that.

    What she unintentionally did though, like so many of the other Peter Tosh wannabes from the pit, is reinforce the point that we have a problem. And that problem is the same problem that every other goddamn group has and no, we aren’t special snowflakes immune to the influence of our culture because of our amazing skeptical powers.

    You can say that about the FtB bloggers you don’t like because it’s true for them too. So instead of trying to find common ground, or just being in general a decent human being, Wooly Bumblebee did what a good pitter would and made someone else’s sexual assault into a pissing contest in which the victim and the victim’s friend are more responsible for it than the rapist. Yeah, ohh, how edgy. Nobody’s ever heard that before.

    So no. I don’t think Wooly Bumblebee and the people who’ve been saying similar things are misogynists or rapists. I think they are assholes and idiots who aren’t nearly as smart or immune to conventional culture as they think they are.

  4. A Hermit says

    f her Page ‘o Hate is anything to go by, it’s sadly lacking in both numbers and sexist insults.

    “I want to drug you and rape” doesn’t qualify as sexist in your opinion?

    And just what is the threshold level for insults and threats that must be exceeded before we object to them? Are ten such comments an acceptable number to you? A hundred? A thousand? Where’s the cutoff exactly?

    Sorry, but I don’t buy this “it’s just the way it is on the internet so shut up about it” argument. Why should we accept sending people even one message like “I want to drug you and rape you” as normative behaviour?

  5. A Hermit says

    Let’s look at some of the comments Pitchguest doesn’t think are sexist: http://skepchick.org/page-o-hate/

    “Typical feminist cunt”

    “Stupid bitch”

    “Stupid cunt”

    “She looks like a train wreck…a hateful lesbian feminazi…butch lesbonobo…”

    “somebody please rape Rebecca Watson…fucking stuck up cunt”

    “Jokey ugly cunt”

    “Fucking slut”

    even a little gratuitous anti-Semitism thrown in there…

    She looks more like a feminist Jew every day”

    And that’s just a small sample from that page.

    Tell us Pitchguest; is that how you talk to the women in your life? Is this kind of stuff just supposed to be acceptable behaviour, or might it be reasonable to object to it?

  6. bradleybetts says

    And Welch listed one. One, who we kicked out of FtB despite the fact that he was and is a personal friend to some of us. We stuck to our principles. You cannot possibly say we support his actions when we made the most severe possible sanction against him.

    You bozos can’t say the same.

    Last I checked, the set of “company you keep” would include the set of “personal friend(s)”.

    It helps, it really, really helps, if when trying to prove me wrong, you don’t prove my points for me. Perhaps you should wander over to the English Department at UMinn, and see if there’s a student available to intern for you, so that you might be taught some of these basic concepts.

    They took measures to punish their friend and make clear they do not agree with his sentiments. Can you lot say the same, or are you just making noise?

  7. says

    Well, my gripe with A Hermit is his insistence (despite evidence to the contrary) that it all started with four innocuous words and that was what I objected to. However, if we should start to look at the elevator incident more closely (again), in Watson’s own view, it wasn’t bad. Not only was it not bad, it was zero bad. When she got a bit of critique for the words she used, or the condescension about asking guys not to do that (which, of course, was ambiguous enough that when she was called on it, she clarified they shouldn’t do it to her), she remained firm that this wasn’t a big deal.

    No, you’re re-writing history here. It really did start with those four little words, and what she got in return was not “a bit of critique” it was rape threats and sexualized cyber-abuse./blockquote>

    To use an argument that isn’t just contradiction: No, I’m not- yes, it did. I have the documentation to prove it, what do you have? Oh yeah. Citation needed.

    I’ve been to your precious Slymepit. While it’s not “filled with potential rapists and murderers” (I don’t think anyone has ever actually said that have they? Maybe you can find me an actual quote for that one?) it is filled with self important wankers laughing at each others juvenile comments and whining about how badly their feelings are hurt when women dare to talk about sexism. It’s a sad, pathetic place obsessed with combing through other people’s online behaviour looking for evidence of “Baboolie” behaviour and reasons to ignore real concerns about problems like sexism and racism; problems which you dismiss as “bullshit” in your comment above.

    “Precious? It’s been called that before, but not by you.”

    If you’ve been reading Pharyngula of late, you’ll know PZ Myers has made the connection of anti-feminists (or rather those that label themselves “not a feminist”) is a Marc Lepine in the making, not to mention that his blanket ban of any member of the Slymepit on his blog is an indictment, because he feels everyone of “them” fuels misogynist, sexist and racist thought, and of course potential rapists.

    Just read this;

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/06/never-forget/

    You forget, A Hermit, that the reason the Slymepit exists in the first place is due to the people it’s “combing through” in the first place. Because of their dishonest conduct, because of their bullying and harassment. It’s simply revising history to say otherwise. ERV, or Abbie Smith, was threatened by PZ Myers, Greg Laden and Stephanie Zvan (among others) to remove the “offending posts” she’d made on her blog about Watson, or they’d talk to her supervisors. It was blatant mafia-style tactics, of which they’ve since had many attempts to expert, but in the end she submitted.

    As for “self-important wankers laughing at each eachother’s juvenile comments”, have you seen what’s regularly posted here on FTB, at Pharyngula, at Almost Diamonds, at B&W? To call them self-important would be an understatement. In contrast, at least the ‘pit treats the concerns raised with a bit of consideration, instead of accusations of ‘hyperscepticism’, ‘JAQing off’, and obviously the classics; misogyny and sexism. By the way, if you have any proof of Slymepit members looking for reasons to “ignore real concerns about problems like sexism and racism”, let me know. (There’s that “real concern” again, haven’t we gone through this?)

    How many threads are there on the Slymepit that have anything to do with skepticism, atheism or humanism and how many are dedicated to parsing through some comment made by one of the Skepchicks or someone at FtB looking for reasons to be offended? Why would anyone waste their time in a place dedicated almost exclusively to that kind of personality obsessed Junior High School level behaviour?

    You can call it whatever you like, A Hermit, only if you tell me honestly: is it misogynist? Is it sexist? Is it racist? Is it populated with callous would-be murderers and would-be rapists, who wouldn’t be averse to splash acid into someone’s face? I don’t care what you think anyone should waste or not waste their time with, as it’s their time to waste, no? But when the community gets blanket claims about how horrible it is, well, you start to look inwards and when you don’t find any examples that fit, you start to wonder if whether the ones who made the blanket claims are full of shit.

    Am I being dismissive? Yes I’m dismissive of people who appeal to that ridiculous little circle jerk of a forum as if there’s any kind of moral or skeptical authority to be found there in the same way I’m dismissive of people who think that Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Historical Review are worthwhile resources.

    Well, it’s not like you had an open mind to begin with. Toodles.

  8. says

    To A Hermit:

    “I want to drug you and rape” doesn’t qualify as sexist in your opinion?

    And just what is the threshold level for insults and threats that must be exceeded before we object to them? Are ten such comments an acceptable number to you? A hundred? A thousand? Where’s the cutoff exactly?

    Sorry, but I don’t buy this “it’s just the way it is on the internet so shut up about it” argument. Why should we accept sending people even one message like “I want to drug you and rape you” as normative behaviour?

    So because I say it’s common that figures in the public light receive occasional insults and threats, I imply it’s okay?

    Awfully creationist of you, A Hermit, but I digress. I say it’s a common occurence, I didn’t say I was fine with it. I said she should get over it.

    The assertion was also that she receives (or has received) “hundreds if not thousands” of “every sexist insult in the book”, well it wouldn’t be difficult to reproduce those “hundreds if not thousands” of sexist insults on her Page ‘o Hate, then? Or am I missing something?

    What I meant that it was sadly lacking in numbers *and* sexist insults is that the numbers scarcely exceed triple digits and the “sexist insults” are far and few in between. As I believe I’ve said before, I’m not a sexist so obviously I wouldn’t be okay with sexist insults. But you betray your honesty by acting as if these are comments I endorse, and on the bigger point you act as if these are comments endorsed by the Slymepit. They are most definitely not. (And yes, if it’s not yet clear, I mean the sexist insults, the racist insults, the anti-semitic insults, whatever.)

    Are the trollish YouTube comments indicative of a larger climate of sexism within the atheist community? They are not. And if you’re going to end with a sublimely stupid comment similar to, “Talking about sexism isn’t the problem, sexism is the problem” then we’re just going to end the conversation here and now. You’re too far gone. That’s Amy Davis Roth territory.

  9. says

    Oh, I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware we were having a contest on which threats were more important.

    I do know he was molested as a child. But that’s not important. What’s important is the now. Right? Crap. I can never get them straight.

    I don’t know how many threats he’s received over the years, but you conveniently overlooked the others I mentioned, like Paula Kirby and Harriet Hall. How many death and/or rape threats have they received, do they receive on a regular basis or as a matter of course? The point I’m trying to get across is that these people don’t use them as a crutch, as a way to prolong their status as victims. Tell me, when was the last time you saw Watson speak on anything other than the insults and alleged threats she’s gotten? Take your time. Back? Been a while, hasn’t it? She calls herself Skepchick and she gets invited to atheist and secular conventions/conferences, but what does she really talk about? Herself, is the answer. We’ll see what the topic will be at Women in Secularism 2, but I have my suspicions.

    Is it sexist that I respect Paula Kirby and Harriet Hall for their contributions to secularism and feminism, but that I don’t respect Watson for hers? Because what has Watson really done for secularism and feminism exactly?

  10. says

    Tell me, when was the last time you saw Watson speak on anything other than the insults and alleged threats she’s gotten?

    The last I saw her do so? As in with my own eyes, saw her speaking on something other than the barrage of insults and very real threats she has received? That would be Skepticon 5, last November.

    The last I heard her would be on the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, which I admittedly don’t listen to often but I’m pretty sure she’s still a host on it and pretty sure episodes are still being posted regularly.

    The last I’ve read of her would be….oh, today.

    To continue on the shit theme, if you don’t respect Watson for her contributions to skepticism and feminism then I’d say I could hardly give less of one. Your skills of perception appear less than trustworthy, as do your comprehension of what constitute sexism and feminism in the first place.

  11. A Hermit says

    You can call it whatever you like, A Hermit, only if you tell me honestly: is it misogynist? Is it sexist? Is it racist? Is it populated with callous would-be murderers and would-be rapists, who wouldn’t be averse to splash acid into someone’s face?

    It is a repository of much that is misogynistic and sexist, and just as bad is the way that real concerns about misogyny and sexism (like a threat to throw acid in a woman’s face) are dismissed as unimportant, or worse turned back and used to attack the the victim of the threat as if it were somehow she who did something bad by being threatened…

    But you betray your honesty by acting as if these are comments I endorse, and on the bigger point you act as if these are comments endorsed by the Slymepit. They are most definitely not.

    If not endorsed they are dismissed as unimportant or something that women should just put up with and get over instead of objecting to loudly.

    So because I say it’s common that figures in the public light receive occasional insults and threats, I imply it’s okay?

    When you say that it’s no big deal and tell women they should just “get over it” yes, that’s exactly the message you’re sending. That it’s OK.

    If you don;’t think it’s OK why aren’t you joining in the condemnation of such uncivilized behaviour instead of complaining about the women who are on the receiving end objecting to it?

    Goodness knows you object loudly enough to anyone criticizing your precious Slymepit even in the mildest terms, but then you turn around and tell women to just suck it up and not complain about the torrent of sexist comments and rape threats they get…what a fucking hypocrite you are!

  12. says

    Yes, yes, yes, you can believe whatever you want, Gretchen. What’s important (is it important?) is the evidence. I’m sure with your skills of perception and your comprehension of what constitutes sexism and feminism in the first place, you can easily find examples where I’ve failed in those instances.

    By the way, I notice you didn’t want to take your argument about Dawkins further. Too embarassing?

  13. A Hermit says

    What’s important (is it important?) is the evidence.

    Yes, yes it is and I have to say it takes an impressive commitment to one’s biases to ignore and dismiss the evidence as casually as you do.

    Woman posts a whole page of examples of just some of the threats and sexist abuse she receives and you dismiss it as not really sexist, not sufficient in quantity and sniff that unless she shares each and every single example of threat or insult she has ever received you just won’t accept any of it as valid.

    Woman gets told “Maybe a vial of acid would do you some good” (by a member of your precious little community) and you tell us she’s supposed to laugh it off ’cause it couldn’t possibly be a “real” threat.

    I know your type, Pitchy; I’ve gone toe to toe with creationists and hardcore Holocaust deniers and they do the same thing you are doing; demand evidence then ignore the evidence or dismiss it as insufficient or unreliable or unimportant. They argue against strawmen, they move the goalposts, they equivocate and misrepresent and then act like they are the victims when someone calls them on their bullshit.

    Mikmik, if you are reading, this is why I treat certain people with contempt; because they are worthy of that contempt; they are not honest players. There is no reasoning with people who are so stubbornly wedded to their prejudices and foregone conclusions that there is literally no amount of evidence that will persuade them to even consider an alternative point of view.

  14. leni says

    By the way, I notice you didn’t want to take your argument about Dawkins further. Too embarassing?

    Whatever the volume or content, the main difference is that Dawkins wasn’t receiving those threats from with the atheist and skeptical community, per se.

    It isn’t just the quantity or quality of them, but where they are coming from. She’s said more than once that they didn’t much bother her until it came from people in the movement that she mostly considered on her side, and in response to something hardly controversial. Do you honestly not understand why that might be more bothersome and hurtful to her?

    I could take that kind of abuse from people I disliked, didn’t respect, and thought were idiots too. I would get the fuck over it and probably only mention it to mock it, much like Dawkins does. It wouldn’t seem so funny or harmless coming from people I had previously respected and whom I may have to deal with in the course of my activities. Or with people I could expect to find in my audiences or at conferences I’d be attending. What Rebecca got was a level of personal, nasty and wildly out of proportion to the “offense” from people she considered allies. Does that really seem like the same thing?

    And if Harriet Hall, Dawkins, or anyone else was getting that kind of abuse from within the movement, I would want them to shine a light on it. Let the cockroaches scatter where they may, which will probably be to AVfM.

    (PS By the way, I obviously meant Daniel Tosh in my last comment. I have no idea how that Peter got in there.)

    By the way, I notice you didn’t answer my points about Wooly Bumblebee. Too embarrassing?

  15. A Hermit says

    The point I’m trying to get across is that these people don’t use them as a crutch, as a way to prolong their status as victims.

    How convenient; if women get threats and sexist insults and ignore them and never talk about them you can pretend they aren’t a problem. If they do publicly object to the threats and abuse then they are just using them as a crutch and somehow benefiting from being victims of threats and abuse (it’s a feature, not a bug!)

    Either way you can you just ignore the evidence of threats and abuse and pretend that there’s no problem here…

  16. says

    A Hermit:

    You can call it whatever you like, A Hermit, only if you tell me honestly: is it misogynist? Is it sexist? Is it racist? Is it populated with callous would-be murderers and would-be rapists, who wouldn’t be averse to splash acid into someone’s face?

    It is a repository of much that is misogynistic and sexist, and just as bad is the way that real concerns about misogyny and sexism (like a threat to throw acid in a woman’s face) are dismissed as unimportant, or worse turned back and used to attack the the victim of the threat as if it were somehow she who did something bad by being threatened…

    Damn. I should have added that you need to give examples to prove your point. Whoops.

    Look. Here’s a hint for you: context. It matters. If you’re going to throw a fit about the supposed “threat” to throw acid in someone’s face, you need to be aware of the context. Obviously it wasn’t a threat and it’s hilarious that Ophelia should spin it so, but then that’s their end game now. As professional victims, they feed on attention and vindication. That “threat” gave Ophelia her wings. Now she, too, have something to strut about.

    Then again, if you ignore the context (which matters) where Ophelia made an incident where a ballet owner got acid splashed in his face and then made it all about herself, you won’t find it as funny. That’s what happened: after Conlon’s “threat”, she spun it around and now suddenly she’s the victim. And what should be no surprise to anybody, she did it again with another comment. A supporter of hers said he would ” happily kneecap” the ones Ophelia harps on about, which is not followed by a quick and resolute condemnation, but only that she “would prefer a sudden conversion of all of them to minimal decency!”

    http://i.imgur.com/hMYdIzK.jpg

    But when someone mocks her for it, like here,

    http://i.imgur.com/uCjce86.jpg

    She turns it around and uses it as another example of her vindication. Manipulative to the last.

    But you betray your honesty by acting as if these are comments I endorse, and on the bigger point you act as if these are comments endorsed by the Slymepit. They are most definitely not.

    If not endorsed they are dismissed as unimportant or something that women should just put up with and get over instead of objecting to loudly.

    Women to put up with and get over? Public figures to put up with and get over. I’m not okay with the abuse public figures are prone to get, but I can’t shut people up – and I can’t shut everyone in the world up. And what makes you think I’m not loudly objecting to it? The only thing I’m acknowledging is that it happens to people in the public light, and if she doesn’t get that and thinks she’s “harassed” because she’s a woman, then I can’t help her. (Of course she does get it. They all do. Watson, Benson, Zvan, et al. The pretend ignorance is all part of the game they play, to cheat and manipulate. I would say the enablers who allow her and others to continue are the stupid ones; the gullible ones, as they’re not clued in yet.)

    So because I say it’s common that figures in the public light receive occasional insults and threats, I imply it’s okay?

    When you say that it’s no big deal and tell women they should just “get over it” yes, that’s exactly the message you’re sending. That it’s OK.

    What? Apparently you skipped a class in logic, A Hermit. Or social studies. I can’t really tell.

    If you don;’t think it’s OK why aren’t you joining in the condemnation of such uncivilized behaviour instead of complaining about the women who are on the receiving end objecting to it?

    What, condemn behaviour that I’ve already said I do not condone?

    Goodness knows you object loudly enough to anyone criticizing your precious Slymepit even in the mildest terms, but then you turn around and tell women to just suck it up and not complain about the torrent of sexist comments and rape threats they get…what a fucking hypocrite you are!

    I joined the Slymepit only recently. It’s no more precious to me than the scab I got this morning, cutting myself shaving. But as I am a member now, and considered a part of the community, I think I owe a debt to get some things straight. About the ‘pit. About its members. Because it’s certainly not the misogynist, sexist, racist, ableist, callously murderous and rapist commune some regulars at FTB assume. Not even close. And if you call that nonsense I just mentioned about the ‘pit ‘criticism in the mildest terms’, you’re a bit more than delusional, my friend.

  17. A Hermit says

    Well, I would respond to further comments, but it seems I’m now in moderation.

    Are you posting links? If you post more than two you automatically get strained through a spam filter…happens to me too, so get off your crutch you professional victim, you…^_^

  18. says

    To continue on the shit theme, if you don’t respect Watson for her contributions to skepticism and feminism then I’d say I could hardly give less of one.

    You better watch it, some people claim that that’s what some women in the feminist movement have been doing all along, and I specifically said that some people regard her as being :pristine and pure.”

    I happen to give money to charity organizations that fight poverty, mostly in Africa, but wherever there is crisis. What really got to me, about three years ago, was the picture of a tiny little child, trying to drag herself many miles to try to get food.
    I can’t remember his name, but I remember that he had won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the situation in the country. Long story short, he was sitting in the shade of some trees as she barely could drag herself by. Someone apparently asked him why he didn’t try to help her, and I think he said something about the very futility trying to save this child, and that there are so many that needed help, which wouldn’t save them anyways. Then the report finished by explaining that this reporter had committed suicide three month’s later.

    I am very poor, but I still send money to Save the Children and Oxfam, and others, if there is an especially desperate crisis going on. I cannot fathom how little money the countries in the G20, or something, would have had to contribute to the goal of erasing poverty by 2010, or somewhere around this decade, 2015, I can’t remember, and anyone can look it up, just not myself right now.

    I just cannot believe the selfish cruelty of the US, Canada, Japan, and the richest countries that they can’t be bothered to meet their commitment to the effort that would primarily help women and their children, and establish a framework that would give the women an education, in order to give them an opportunity to get an education, and level the inequality a bit, but most importantly, provide them with knowledge necessary to enable them to be able to understand the severity of their oppression, and start to realize their right to not be treated as slaves and fuck toys for the men and culture that promotes the idea.

    I fucking don’t have to justify my right to participate in discussion, where I want to be able to help, and promote feminism. because of you and a few others that insist on their right to categorize myself and others like me, and potential rapists, and menz, and MRA’s, and misogynists, and really I ought to be castrated, and on, and then have the audacity to blame us for bringing it up, when is was pathetically obvious that they had very quickly mentioned this attitude, and then a few of us said we didn’t5 appreciate that having to be brought up in the first place because it made us uncomfortable

    I am talking only about about a very few women , oh, and Avicenna with that pathetic attempt to avoid the real discussion we were having there, and another blog at the time, and launch a full scale attack on myself, and a couple of others there, by pretending that we were so out of control that it was necessary to mock us, and basically lie about what we had been trying to do, and used his advantage of having a blog that he could use to his advantage to promote his propaganda and defame us in a way that we could do nothing about.

    Avicenna is one of my more favorite people to read here, and I say this to, again, try to show that there are far more matters that we have in common with him, and the womens goals in fighting the millionsw of little ways, up to the obvious displays of hatred directed directed at women., and agree with him, not to mention a couple of other bloggers here with the same dynamics. of matters that we see the same, and enjoy discussing

  19. says

    Well then. My mistake.

    Yes, yes it is and I have to say it takes an impressive commitment to one’s biases to ignore and dismiss the evidence as casually as you do.

    You’re not much for sarcasm, are you, Hermit?

    Woman posts a whole page of examples of just some of the threats and sexist abuse she receives and you dismiss it as not really sexist, not sufficient in quantity and sniff that unless she shares each and every single example of threat or insult she has ever received you just won’t accept any of it as valid.

    Yes, a whole page where many of the comments are made by the same person, spamming her, and many of the comments obvious trolls and/or adolescents doing it for a laugh. But you see, Rebecca Watson doesn’t really treat them as anything serious. In fact, she’s not even taken aback by them. She merely uses them as a device to further her own goals. Because she can just point to it and say, “Look! I get sexist comments, look at how sexist they are!” But the other comments that aren’t sexist, aren’t obviously trollish and aren’t immature don’t even get a mention and to this day, Watson has not acknowledged any legitimate criticism at all to what she says or does.

    Believable, right? Not a single person that has criticised her has said anything reasonable or anything that wasn’t sexist this entire time. For a year and a half, not one.

    Woman gets told “Maybe a vial of acid would do you some good” (by a member of your precious little community) and you tell us she’s supposed to laugh it off ’cause it couldn’t possibly be a “real” threat.

    Because it *wasn’t* a threat. It was a joke. A tasteless, tactless joke, but a joke. And if you consider the context, then perhaps you would realise why he said something about acid in the first place. But it wasn’t condoned at the ‘pit, nor did anyone think it was funny. But they did acknowledge it was a joke, more than Ophelia ever did. Because if she did, then she wouldn’t be a victim anymore and gosh golly, that would be terrible, wouldn’t it? *tear*

    I know your type, Pitchy; I’ve gone toe to toe with creationists and hardcore Holocaust deniers and they do the same thing you are doing; demand evidence then ignore the evidence or dismiss it as insufficient or unreliable or unimportant. They argue against strawmen, they move the goalposts, they equivocate and misrepresent and then act like they are the victims when someone calls them on their bullshit.

    You have some gall. Or you have no sense of irony or self-awareness, but you have some gall to talk to me about dismissing evidence as insufficient, unreliable or unimportant – and you call me a hypocrite? You’re the slimy one.

    Mikmik, if you are reading, this is why I treat certain people with contempt; because they are worthy of that contempt; they are not honest players. There is no reasoning with people who are so stubbornly wedded to their prejudices and foregone conclusions that there is literally no amount of evidence that will persuade them to even consider an alternative point of view.

    I’ve asked you several times to provide me with evidence that we are as misogynistic, sexist, racist, ableist, etc, etc, as regulars on FTB make us seem, but you’ve given me zero. If you’ve given me zero, then I can’t really be persuaded to consider an alternative point of view, now can I? And as for Watson, even you have to admit that her grievances are manufactured. (No, I don’t necessarily mean the comments on YouTube, I mean that she’s upset about it.) Look at this comment;

    http://i.imgur.com/Fm3i0.png

    Rebecca would honestly look at this and see harassment?

  20. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    You know, when I disagree with someone, I stop reading them. Or talking to them. I stop whatever interaction we might be having, at least on that subject. There are plenty of people (even a few feminists, GASP!) that I don’t agree with, that I don’t like, so I don’t read their blogs! For instance, I don’t read Shakesville anymore, but I don’t spend all my time insulting her on the internet; I just deleted it from my bookmarks and went on my merry way, like a goddamned adult.

    That’s how you’re supposed to act as an adult. You don’t make a forum where you and likeminded assholes can spend almost two years obsessively stalking, mocking, and harassing women who dared to disagree with you or say something you didn’t like. It would be one thing if the Pit had started off with this sexist bullshit and quickly moved on and developed into something else, but I went back there yesterday after reading about the fucking shoe controversy (PS, you clowns totally screwed that one up, too) and it’s the exact same crap as always: OOH REBECCA WATSON BOOGA BOOGA! GRETA CHRISTINA BOUGHT SHOES, WHAT A WENCH!

    I don’t even care about the Pitters’ “arguments” anymore, I just wanna know why they haven’t moved on with their lives already. Don’t you people have jobs, families, hobbies? If you don’t like Rebecca Watson, don’t read her! If you disagree with Ophelia Benson, don’t read her either. Why’s it necessary, or even fucking acceptable among you people to joke about assaulting her and throwing acid in her face?

  21. A Hermit says

    And just to prove my point here’s Pitchy back with another round of “that’s not REALLY sexist” and “that bit of sexism doesn’t count” and saying someone should throw acid in a woman’s face is “just a joke…”

    There is literally nothing that would count as sexism, harassment or a credible threat according to you is there? The excuses you are making here are exactly the kind of thing that I count as sexism and misogyny on the Slymepit; it’s the out of hand dismissal of any concern a woman might have about her safety, not just online but in real life, from some pug who thinks that a threat to throw acid in her face and juvenile insults about her appearance are legitimate forms of criticism instead of abusive attempts to bully and silence her. But not to you; to you those things a re “just a joke…”

    And further, according to you, if these women ARE getting real sexist abuse, harassment and threats they should just suck it up and not talk about it…

    And that comment you linked to? Yeah, that would count as an example of a sexist remark, and one tinged with a rather astounding layer of racist overtones as well. I’m not surprised you don’t see sexism in the Slymepit if you can’t recognize it in that comment…

  22. A Hermit says

    Rebecca Watson doesn’t really treat them as anything serious. In fact, she’s not even taken aback by them. She merely uses them as a device to further her own goals.

    And what nefarious goals would those be Pitchguest? To make secularism a more welcoming place for women? To encourage civil debate instead of juvenile taunting and threats?

    Oh, the horror! The horror!

  23. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    And just to prove my point here’s Pitchy back with another round of “that’s not REALLY sexist” and “that bit of sexism doesn’t count” and saying someone should throw acid in a woman’s face is “just a joke…”

    I don’t know why this would surprise you, they do this shit all the time. They agree that sexism is bad, as long as sexists get to define it, and then sexists will define everything as not sexist. There’s always an excuse.

    Same thing happens with rape. Can’t tell ya how many conversations I’ve had where some a-hole will go blue in the face condemning rape as THE WORST CRIME IN THE HISTORY OF CRIME, but will then excuse every instance of rape as not-rape. It’s playing with definitions and categories so they never have to accept a shred of responsibility.

  24. says

    Fuck, I really didn’t want to submit that yet really for sure, bit I clicked the submit button by accident when I meant to preview it.

    The thing I am getting at, and will continue to get at, if necessary, is that I am sick and tired of having to walk on eggshells, and have to prove myself, by never being in disagreement with RW, or that I have no right to worry about my petty little concerns because I don’t know what it is like to be raped and sodomized so viciously that it causes death.

    I am absolutely not going to put up with this irrational shit from anyone any more because it is so mind boggling and bizarrely ludicrous that anyone should have to earn the right to voice an opinion. and the only way to earn that right was to not question anything that a few power drunk freaks decree, not only what is allowed and necessary to do, but that they tell us what we are really thinking, and misunderstanding. Does anyone think that it is benign to tell someone what they are really thinking and doing, and then when we try to stand up to this pathetic attempt at telling us what to think and do, then it suddenly becomes an issue of poor little menz getting bent out of shape3 about a fucking triviality that isn’t worth the consideration of one second of effort to maybe listen, and then agree or criticize us.

    Fuck you, and everyone that talks like you. Fuck you and your badly twisted perspective that almost anything at all is a sign that I’m a selfish freak, and have surrendered any claim about the right to have a divergent opinion and different perspective.

    The most hilariously misguided observation offered in defense of our treatment, is that we obviously are completely unaware of a little concept of logic, and that is the reason we are unable to distinguish the difference between an easily and plainly obvious, to them, understanding of what they have said, and insanity.

    Okay, Gretchen, it’s about time for rebuttal which involves calling me a piece of shit, and absurd.
    Secretly, between you and me, I am only arguing with you to get some attention, because I secretly agree with everything you say, and decree what is ethical. I hope it’s just our little secret, because in all honesty, you make a very structured and air tight case for yourself. I, and everyone else can plainly see that your presentation is beyond repute. It’s just a show, could you lighten a wee bit with the piece of shit crap? Thanks, I knew you would understand.

    Hey, now I understand your tickled enjoyment when being subtly a wee bit sarcastic. No no no, Gretchin I’m talking about something else, not you :)

  25. Bo says

    Not interacting with people you disagree with is not the action of an adult.
    It is extremely immature.

  26. A Hermit says

    don’t know why this would surprise you, they do this shit all the time.

    Oh it doesn’t surprise me; but it still disappoints me.

  27. says

    Whatever the volume or content, the main difference is that Dawkins wasn’t receiving those threats from with the atheist and skeptical community, per se.

    Are we going to argue semantics now? What does it matter if it’s from the atheist community or not? Moreover, Rebecca hasn’t been able to prove without a doubt that the comments she’s gotten on YouTube and elsewhere have been, exclusively, from people within the atheist community.

    I’ll link to it one more time.

    http://i.imgur.com/Fm3i0.png

    This is from an atheist, is it? Because I really can’t fucking tell. That she’s able to divine it’s from an atheist makes me think she’s either a mindreader (who can read minds across the internet) or full of shit. Take that how you will.

    It isn’t just the quantity or quality of them, but where they are coming from. She’s said more than once that they didn’t much bother her until it came from people in the movement that she mostly considered on her side, and in response to something hardly controversial. Do you honestly not understand why that might be more bothersome and hurtful to her?

    I would have more sympathy if she weren’t so keen to make a fucking career out of it, if she weren’t so keen to make light of it whenever she makes a speech and giggle when she does it. If she really were bothered by them (the threats, the insults), would she really recount them with such fervour? With such joyous abandon? Like if we were to use another situation to give it some perspective. Would a rape victim telling the story about their rape laugh, giggle and make jokes about it, if they were really bothered by the ordeal? Now I don’t know any rape victims personally so I’m only stabbing at the dark, but I think not.

    Would they also make the most about their rape, create a career making speeches about how they were raped and so on and so forth? Again, I don’t know any rape victims personally, but once again, I think not.

    I could take that kind of abuse from people I disliked, didn’t respect, and thought were idiots too. I would get the fuck over it and probably only mention it to mock it, much like Dawkins does. It wouldn’t seem so funny or harmless coming from people I had previously respected and whom I may have to deal with in the course of my activities. Or with people I could expect to find in my audiences or at conferences I’d be attending. What Rebecca got was a level of personal, nasty and wildly out of proportion to the “offense” from people she considered allies. Does that really seem like the same thing?

    *sigh*

    And if Harriet Hall, Dawkins, or anyone else was getting that kind of abuse from within the movement, I would want them to shine a light on it. Let the cockroaches scatter where they may, which will probably be to AVfM.

    Look. I don’t know what kind of abuse Dawkins or Hall gets, nor do I know the extent of Watson, but my point has been that one of these is not like the other. As I’ve said before, the sword is double-edged and while there’s women who speak up for Watson, the women who speak up against are labelled either ‘sister punishers’, ‘chillgirls’ or ‘gender traitors’. Neither “side” are clean. But it’s clear who takes the mantle from their eyes and really tries to do something about it, rather than use it as an aid.

    By the way, I notice you didn’t answer my points about Wooly Bumblebee. Too embarrassing?

    Jesus. Wooly is her own person; she’s a grown adult. You make it sound as though everyone on the ‘pit agreed with what she said, or that people on the ‘pit never disagree on anything. They do. Almost every day, somebody disagrees with another ‘pitter about something and sadly that’s more “dissent” than can be seen on some boards here. For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with her assessment on the Zvan situation. I think Zvan uses her sexual harassment too much as a crutch, too, but I don’t agree that she wasn’t sexually harassed. Take it up with her. Her YouTube channel is “TruthAndOblivion” and she doesn’t, as far as I know, moderate comments.

  28. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    Not interacting with people you disagree with is not the action of an adult.
    It is extremely immature.

    So since the Pitters don’t agree with Rebecca and can’t disagree without making it personal and vindictive, then doing what they’re doing is more mature than just leaving her alone? I don’t see how that’s supposed to make any sense.

  29. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    I think Zvan uses her sexual harassment too much as a crutch, too, but I don’t agree that she wasn’t sexually harassed.

    See, this is a perfect example of why you people are sexist. You think you all “dissent” from each other because you don’t agree on how you audit and validate a woman’s personal experiences. We don’t think it’s your place to audit and validate a woman’s experiences at all. Your opinion on whether or not a woman was harassed is irrelevant, and the idea that she uses it as a “crutch” is insulting.

  30. A Hermit says

    I think Zvan uses her sexual harassment too much as a crutch..

    You really have to explain this one; how the fuck is talking about a painful incident like that and examining the implications and lessons that can be drawn from it using it “as a crutch?”

    What the fuck does that even mean?

  31. A Hermit says

    I am absolutely not going to put up with this irrational shit from anyone any more because it is so mind boggling and bizarrely ludicrous that anyone should have to earn the right to voice an opinion. and the only way to earn that right was to not question anything that a few power drunk freaks decree,

    Oh for goodness sake mikmik, no one is saying that…Avicenna disagrees with a bunch of A+ stuff right here in this post and no one is coming down on him.

    I’m still a little unclear on what exactly it is you’re disagreeing with though, you still haven’t actually said…

  32. says

    RahXephon:

    Tell me something, RahX. Has Ophelia Benson “moved on” about her qualms with Michael Shermer? Has Stephanie Zvan “moved on” about her qualms with Justin Vacula? Has PZ Myers “moved on” about his qualms with the Slymepit? No?

    A Hermit:

    Do you never stop to look at the evidence people offer you, or look at it from their perspective? Did you look at the screenshot from Rebecca’s “Page ‘O Hate” that I linked, whose comment was either a joke, a troll, an idiot or manufactured for that single purpose, because I can’t think of a good reason why Watson would look at that comment and think it’s harassment. It looks like somebody having a fucking stroke. But if you want to consider it and the rest of the plentiful comments on her page with similar content and call it sexism, then go ahead. But if you don’t mind, I’m just going to keep mocking it.

    Jerry Conlon’s tweet about the acid was a joke. A joke. If Ophelia Benson thinks she can fool us all by saying she was threatened when she was clearly not, not even close, then she’s even more manipulative than I thought. She also distorted a mock-tweet she got making fun of a supporter of hers suggesting to “kneecap” people for her, by making it out as though she was threatened there too. Which is now memoryholed, obviously, but screenshotted and exists in the comment that is currently in moderation. She is a hopeless, endless victim, but a hopeless, endless professional victim since she gets paid for it.

    You can make all the presumptions you want about me, but I ask you again, unless you provide proof where I am clearly being sexist, misogynist, racist, ableist, or what have you, then all you have left are your assertions. Which you have to admit doesn’t have much to stand on in terms of peer review.

  33. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    Has Ophelia Benson “moved on” about her qualms with Michael Shermer?

    Has she talked about kicking him in the cock or throwing acid in his face? Or does she just disagree with something he said? If not the former, then there’s no comparison.

    Has Stephanie Zvan “moved on” about her qualms with Justin Vacula?

    Has Stephanie Zvan speculated that Justin’s experiences of sexual harassment aren’t real or that he uses them as a crutch? Does she regularly do that to any men? Does she claim it’s fair to be able to do so? If not, then there’s no comparison.

    Has PZ Myers “moved on” about his qualms with the Slymepit? No?

    Because mentioning your harassers is just as bad as the harassers themselves.

  34. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    You can make all the presumptions you want about me, but I ask you again, unless you provide proof where I am clearly being sexist, misogynist, racist, ableist, or what have you, then all you have left are your assertions.

    In this very thread you’ve asserted that you have the right to judge the validity of a woman’s sexual harassment experience and decide to what degree she should be able to talk about it before it becomes “a crutch” (and apparently, that degree is zero). That’s sexist.

  35. says

    Rahx, A Hermit: Well, I’ll tell you. When Stephanie Zvan wrote a letter to Dawkins where she called him a ‘Dick’, she used her sexual assault to berate him. But either forgot, was unaware of or ignored the fact that Dawkins was molested as a child. But has he ever written about it? Yes. Once. In a book. In one sentence. Never once has he used it as a crutch. Moreover, some of the members on the ‘pit have also been sexually assaulted in some way, even raped, but did they allow themselves to become perpetual victims?

    That is why I think she uses it too much as a crutch. But it’s her blog and she can write whatever she wants.

    If Stephanie thinks it’s fine to use her sexual assault as a “badge of honour” in the face of “privileged white men” like Dawkins (even though he was molested), she doesn’t have my respect. That’s the line of cowards.

    Oh, and RahX?

    So since the Pitters don’t agree with Rebecca and can’t disagree without making it personal and vindictive, then doing what they’re doing is more mature than just leaving her alone? I don’t see how that’s supposed to make any sense.

    Turn it around on yourself, dickhead.

  36. A Hermit says

    Did you look at the screenshot from Rebecca’s “Page ‘O Hate” that I linked, whose comment was either a joke, a troll, an idiot or manufactured for that single purpose, because I can’t think of a good reason why Watson would look at that comment and think it’s harassment.

    Why do you think that the two things are mutually exclusive? What is the purpose of that kind of trolling if it isn;t to harass and intimidate and silence someone? And when you’re getting hundreds (or even just dozens or even just a handful) of such comments every day every time you comment or post an article or make a speech it certainly does look like harassment. You seem to be a little fuzzy ion the concept,,,

    And regardless of whether you categorize it as “harassment” or “trolling” how is that comment not sexist?

    Jerry Conlon’s tweet about the acid was a joke.

    It takes a sick sense of humour tho think that was “just a joke…” What’s the purpose of such a joke, Pitchguest? was it goodnatured ribbing? A gentle jest? Or an attempt to demean and intimidate?

    unless you provide proof where I am clearly being sexist, misogynist, racist, ableist, or what have you, then all you have left are your assertions

    All anyone has to do is read your comment here in which you dismiss women’s concerns about harassment and sexist abuse and even explicit threats as “just jokes” or not important or not worthy of any concern; in which you accuse a woman who has the courage to speak publicly about painful memories of a sexual assault as using that experience as a “crutch”, in which you make excuses for all kinds of sexist behaviour but whine and cry and moan endlessly about how awful it is for women to dare to talk about sexism.

    If you don’t like being lumped in with misogynists and sexists stop making excuses fro them.

    You’re like all those Holocaust deniers I run into; they all insist they aren’t REALLY anti-Semitic…they just want to expose the international Jewish conspiracy…O-o

  37. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    When Stephanie Zvan wrote a letter to Dawkins where she called him a ‘Dick’, she used her sexual assault to berate him.

    How does calling someone “Dick” use their, or your, sexual assaults to “berate” them? You’ve lost me there, sunshine. As far as that comment, I don’t know if she used that as a gendered slur, but I don’t approve of gendered slurs against anyone and don’t use them. Doesn’t mean I feel the need to make an anti-Stephanie Zvan forum so everyone on it can obsess about how horrible she is for the next two years. You still haven’t answered me about how that is a rational or proportional response in this, or any, universe.

    Turn it around on yourself, dickhead.

    I don’t agree with the Pit, so I don’t post there. I don’t communicate with anyone from there unless they show up over here on FTB. You know, that place they hate? So what’s your point, dearie?

  38. says

    In this very thread you’ve asserted that you have the right to judge the validity of a woman’s sexual harassment experience and decide to what degree she should be able to talk about it before it becomes “a crutch” (and apparently, that degree is zero). That’s sexist.

    You’re a dishonest, lying turd, you know that, RahX?

    I’ve done no such thing as “assert” I have the right to judge someone’s sexual assault experience. That’s bull. I’ve said I wish she didn’t use it so much as a crutch (because she is). But because I say that, I am suddenly judging the validity of her sexual assault? Piss off. And I have never once mentioned at what “degree” she should be able to talk about it, so what the fuck are you talking about?

    Furthermore, it’s not sexist to say I think she uses it as a crutch. Why the hell would it be sexist? It would be sexist to say I think she uses it as a crutch because she’s a woman, but never once have I said that so where are you getting the sexism? Wait. I know. Thin air. Formerly known as your brain.

  39. says

    A Hermit:

    For the last time, LOOK. AT. THE. FUCKING. CONTEXT. I’m not going to say it again. If you’re denigrating me for dismissing evidence out of hand, then at the very least you can do the decent thing and actually consider the fucking context before you prematurely judge the comment as a “threat”?

    Besides, it’s obvious why Ophelia would consider it a threat. It’s damage control, for the utterly inane blog post she made about the Bolshoi.

    Are you going to do as I say this time, or are you conveniently ignore it like all the other times? Or maybe you should take a break, sonny boy.

  40. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    I’ve done no such thing as “assert” I have the right to judge someone’s sexual assault experience.

    I’m sorry. You’re right on that, actually, you didn’t do that. I forgot that you said you “don’t agree that she wasn’t sexually harassed”.

    However, you associate with people who do. If you’re not fine with them judging the validity of women’s sexual harassment experiences, do you challenge them on that? I’m genuinely curious.

    I’ve said I wish she didn’t use it so much as a crutch (because she is).

    You still haven’t explained how she does that. I’ve read her blog periodically and I haven’t read anything in her writing that shows her using it as a “crutch” or that she sees herself as a “perpetual victim”. Can you explain how that works or point me to the comment where you explained?

    And I have never once mentioned at what “degree” she should be able to talk about it, so what the fuck are you talking about?

    Well, you did compare her to Dawkins who mentioned his experience once in a book, so all I know about your criteria is that mentioning one’s experience once means you’re not using it as a crutch. Is it the number of times she mentions it that makes it a crutch? Is it how she talks about it? I’d like to know.

    Furthermore, it’s not sexist to say I think she uses it as a crutch.

    Given that women’s experiences are often denigrated and minimized, I disagree.

  41. says

    I don’t agree with the Pit, so I don’t post there. I don’t communicate with anyone from there unless they show up over here on FTB. You know, that place they hate? So what’s your point, dearie?

    My point, dearie, is why don’t you turn it around to the people here who obviously doesn’t have the good sense to “move on” as you say?

    Indeed, why do the regular bloggers make so many blog posts about the people they clearly dislike, when they can just ignore them?

    Oh, wait. According to Myers and co., that’s “bad science.” But I’m sure they would love to hear from you, RahX. They love you so very much. *hug*

  42. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    My point, dearie, is why don’t you turn it around to the people here who obviously doesn’t have the good sense to “move on” as you say?

    I have a hypothetical situation for you. Person A has a grudge against Person B. Because of this grudge, Person A follows Person B’s actions and complains about them almost on a daily basis. They even start an anti-Person B community to amplify that grudge and include other people with grudges against Person B.

    What you’re saying here is that because Person B hasn’t moved on from feeling annoyed or even threatened by Person A’s behavior, then Person A shouldn’t have to move on either. Do you see a problem with that? Because I do.

    Indeed, why do the regular bloggers make so many blog posts about the people they clearly dislike, when they can just ignore them?

    Erasing the fact that most, if not all, of those posts are responses to attacks made by the Pit, not attacks in themselves. Should Greta Christina have “ignored” the Pit conspiracy theory that she exploited or even faked having cancer for donations? I think she was actually pretty fucking classy about the whole thing.

    Oh, wait. According to Myers and co., that’s “bad science.” But I’m sure they would love to hear from you, RahX. They love you so very much.

    I disagree with many people here on FTB. The difference is I don’t tell them they use their personal experiences as crutches or dismiss threatening statements against them as “trolls and jokes”. You’d be amazed what a difference that makes.

  43. says

    Most, if not all posts, from regular bloggers on FTB are responses to “attacks” from the Pit?

    Now I’m really curious. What is your evidence for that piece of logic? As for the Greta thing, I have strong recollections that a lot of people from the ‘pit actually contributed to Greta’s fund (which later turned out to be charity to keep her lifestyle going) but then that they were disappointed that not only did she not donate the remaining money she received, but that she would spend it on $260 dollar shoes.

    I think that was what got their knickers in a twist if you ask me.

    But that was the ‘pit’s response to what Greta planned to do and Greta’s response to the ‘pit came after. So who should have ignored whom? I’m confused. However, I’m being gratutious here, because it wasn’t “the Pit” that was disappointed at Greta. It was “some people at the Pit” were disappointed. Some people didn’t care, some people ignored it, and some people symphatised with her decision. Because again, it’s not a fucking cult, or a “team” or whatever else you can think of that rouses the Carrier mentality.

    And on the Pit, the women tends to want to be treated as equals and not as helpless weaklings. I swear, half the time, when women are mentioned on FTB (at least on the regular blogs), it’s as if the men turn into some kind of knights in shining armor looking to protect the fair maidens from dirt and words and acting as though they can’t fend for themselves. Chivalrous, but sexist — benevolent though it may be.

  44. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    Most, if not all posts, from regular bloggers on FTB are responses to “attacks” from the Pit?

    Now I’m really curious. What is your evidence for that piece of logic?

    I provided just as much evidence as you did.

    As for the Greta thing, I have strong recollections that a lot of people from the ‘pit actually contributed to Greta’s fund (which later turned out to be charity to keep her lifestyle going) but then that they were disappointed that not only did she not donate the remaining money she received, but that she would spend it on $260 dollar shoes.

    Greta’s fund was not to “keep her lifestyle going” unless you mean “not losing one’s house” counts. She canceled the fundraiser in less than a day because she got all the money she needed and directed anyone who wanted to contribute to donate to other charities. The money she spent on shoes was not from donations. She bought those shoes with her own money after she started working again. She also offered to refund money to anyone who felt they were “ripped off” after having donated, and she extended that offer to people she now ignores. As far as I’m aware, no one has yet asked for their donations back.

    This information is readily available on her blog, and is utterly uncontroversial unless you get all your info about the event from people you know already hate her.

    It was “some people at the Pit” were disappointed.

    You keep characterizing this as “disappointment”. Accusing someone of cheating people out of donations by exploiting or faking cancer is not an act of “disappointment”.

    Because again, it’s not a fucking cult, or a “team” or whatever else you can think of that rouses the Carrier mentality.

    Ah yes. The Pit is a collection of rugged individuals who blaze their own paths and have absolutely no accountability for who they associate with, unlike FTB. Funny that you mention Carrier, since everyone on this fucking blog network disagreed with Carrier regarding his A+ comments yet the Pitters can never shut the fuck up about that. You get to be individuals and we don’t?

    And on the Pit, the women tends to want to be treated as equals and not as helpless weaklings.

    “Perpetual victims”, “helpless weaklings”. Where do you get this characterization of any women on FTB? Because I can guarantee that no women on FTB think of themselves in those terms or want anyone else to, either.

  45. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    In fact, I’ve seen plenty of occasions on Pharyngula in which women have told someone to stop White-Knighting them because they didn’t need their help.

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>