Faux Rape Accusations and Richard Sanderson


So I had a revealing conversation with the Slymepit’s Richard Sanderson today on twitter…

TW – Rape, Fake Rape Accusations, Slymepit and I am Generally Hacked the Fuck Off and that means angry Avicenna.

I am a patient man. Or at least I try to be as patient as possible. I listen, I take time to do things.

If you are unaware of this, I was accused of raping someone at TAM 2013 during a period of time that I was intensely busy with “work”. I didn’t know about the Michael Shermer incident. I just thought it was hate mail. Mabus was doing the rounds after all…

So I disposed of it. Tam 2013? How weird!

Then other allegations started popping up. PZ Myers, Lousy Canuck (AKA Jason Thibeault) and I realised what it was. It was laying the ground work for something big.

Turns out Mr. Sanderson is a possible suspect in the fake accusation that I raped/molested someone at TAM 2013. Why? Because when I admitted publically about the accusation, I also pointed out that I had an alibi. Oh if you wish to know why I admitted to it, I felt the need to be honest because I figured that if I didn’t admit to it, someone would drop it on me as a “surprise” and I would rather do it myself. Bear in mind, work colleagues read this blog and me admitting to the accusation was handled better than if someone else did. Bear in mind at the moment I am teaching and training midwives in safe delivery methods and doing deliveries. AKA working in women’s healthcare. This resulted in me having to deal with greater scrutiny of my work and some time for administrative leave but in the end the truth is an absolute defence.

It meant that colleagues would HAVE to mention this incident. I cleared my name with work but it’s just a painful thing to do. I genuinely thought of bowing out of blogging as I felt my career was more important. It didn’t matter that my alibi was insanely solid.

You see, I have spent the past few months in India and the UK. My passport won’t carry UK stamps since it’s a Biometric but it would mean I was somewhere in the EU or India. I don’t hold an American Visa either. I could not have “gone to TAM”. My alibi is from the UK and Indian Governments and the US government can possibly verify me not being in the USA for that event.

Mr. Sanderson was unaware of the alibi until mentioned. Indicating that he either learnt of the accusation from the accuser or is the accuser himself.

I can’t sue him. I don’t have a lawyer and I don’t wish to drag this stupidity out into a court of law. But I do wish to highlight that any lawyer trying to argue for Mr. Sanderson would probably settle for damages rather than go to court since the only real option is to accuse me of sneaking into the USA illegally in order to attend a skeptical conference. And to make a point? The only people who know what I look like are the handful of people who work with me, the Chennai Skeptics/Atheists Club (who have met me twice!) and Daniel Bruvoli and Guy Otten  who met me when I was in Manchester. Ally Fogg saw me from afar but  we were too bashful to talk to each other (Okay he didn’t know what I looked like and he forgot his phone at home. Mistakes were made…)

I am sure people at TAM would remember the Indian British Guy. We are pretty rare in the USA after all. The stack of evidence in my favour is undeniably more solid. I have never been to any Atheist Meeting and if I am going to be accused like this then I don’t have any reason to ever attend one.

I actually had a post about an entirely different issue. But this kind of came up out of the blue.

Richard Sanderson demonstrates precisely what’s wrong with the Atheist Community. Now you may say that we don’t have a community but the fact of the matter is we do interact with each other a lot. We do hang out with each other and we do read what each other has to say. And Richard demonstrates precisely what was wrong here after our twitter conversation. Richard mentioned the accusation but failed to mention the clear and obvious defence of “Seriously? He is in India and the victim was in the USA, chances are it’s not him”. Which indicates that the accusation was made but the defence was not specifically seen. Richard seemed unaware of the alibi and that means he either was told about this by someone who made the accusation or was part of the accusation. It’s not rocket science. If he learnt it from me he wouldn’t have decided to push ahead with this argument since it was clearly  daft.

They call  themselves the Slymepit out of pride. Free Speech? This wasn’t free speech this was a silencing. This was an attempt to shut me up. I don’t know why. I am not a fan of the methods of the Atheism Plus lot. Maybe I just made them look bad. Can’t call FTB slacktivists with that Avicenna bloke around right? So let’s silence  him. I know! Doctors rely on their integrity. A doctor without one is fucked! Let’s threaten that!

Oh Mr. Sanderson tried to make it seem like it was to prove a point about fake rape allegations from PZ Myers and “Jane Doe”. That it’s easy. Well? No it’s not. Because the difference between a real accusation and a fake one is that a real one is very hard and painful to do. While the Accusers here literally hammered this entire letter out in a few minutes and didn’t even bother selecting properly.

And to prove a point? You would risk my career to win an Internet fight with PZ Myers? What the fuck is wrong with your people? How the fuck can anyone be a part of the Slymepit with absolute fuckwits like this in the rank is beyond me. How can you claim to be the good guys when you behave like this? You have lost any high ground you thought you had by the actions of this absolute waste of space.

And what does that say to non-white atheists? Don’t write about stuff that’s happening locally? Like rapes and violence against women or else the Slymepit will silence you? Don’t write about your non-white problems if they involve women treated badly?

I repeat this. In order to win a fight, the Accusers fabricated a story about a rape then proceeded to hurl these stories at various people including one of the few atheists out there in Charity and one of the few atheists out there who is from an Ex-Hindu background in order to win an Internet fight. You think I am mad about this?

Nah. This is just the point where I lost my patience to be polite with these idiots. These are not the first idiots to try and silence me, although actually gaining some blog success has made their tactic a little more effective than the attempts of religious and animal liberation prior to this.

What’s made me mad was that in order to win an Internet Fight, the Accusers decided to poison the well of Rape Victims. They made it slightly harder for women and men who  were raped to come out. Because they effectively forced me to defend myself to protect my career which is important to me. Had I not come out with the information myself the Slymepit would be gleefully dancing up and down claiming I tried to cover up rape or that I am hiding behind a pseudonym. This would have been a surprise. But what their real achievement is to try and scare off the women and men who are subject to harassment and rape and throw up doubt on anyone trying to support them.

It has made it harder to be taken seriously because they are effectively making up cases on purpose. Why would they do this? Because if they make up enough cases people will start doubting the real ones. Oh it’s just another rape allegation, remember when they accused Avi? Probably the same trick!

The people they harmed the most are the ones who needed our help the most. The ones who needed us to listen and be sympathetic and non judgemental. Instead the Accusers demonstrated nothing but villainy.

Why do it? Was it for the Lolz? Was it to protect Michael Shermer? Was it because you don’t like me? Was it because you can’t call FTB a bunch  of slacktivists when I am about?

What it ended up being about was the silencing of rape victims. The silencing of me and a demonstration to minorities that we shouldn’t rock the boat too much with our issues is just coincidental really. What they wanted to do was shut “the Jane Doe up”. And it never occurred to them the damage they were causing. For all their claims about false rape accusations and the damage it causes, they were awfully blasé about the way they handled it.

Any sympathy I had for the Slymepit has vanished. This is an unforgivable dick move. This is the utmost act of well poisoning. Rape victims try and drink from the “Well” of justice only to find out it’s been poisoned by people such as the Accusers who have created more levels of doubt about all rapes. This isn’t just “within atheism” and about Shermer and Jane Doe, this is about society as a whole. This stupid, arrogant and thoughtless piece of bullshit has done nothing but harm rape victims, both men and women.

I know the real tactic was to probably throw up a bullshit screen to make it seem like  PZ Myers was just making up stuff, but real damage was done by this thoughtless act. Richard’s attempt to utilise it to somehow convince me that “Just as Accusers did to me, so PZ Myers does to Shermer” is nothing but thoughtless. Do people seriously doubt that we don’t have a problem when Richard here has a tonne of support from a variety of sources in his actions?

I was merely inconvenienced. The people harmed the most are those who wish for justice but fear to come forwards lest people like the Accusers deem their “evidence” and “soapbox” as unworthy because their heroes are no longer sacred.

Comments

  1. tiberiusbeauregard says

    @oolon : You’ve been called out on your bullshit, time to say “sorry” – to Avicenna, that is.

  2. leni says

    …and this was taken as a sign that he had an inside track on the rape accusation.

    Or that he’s the only one who took it seriously.

    ***

    Avicenna,can we send you a little bit of money to pass on to the charity you work for? Maybe help recoup some of the losses they incurred?

  3. says

    @Richard Sanderson … No you got the link to the “skeptical justice” page from me on Ian Murphys post where I accused you/the pit in general of being the likely originators of the false claim. Since you usually parrot any false allegation you feel like from the pit I wasn’t surprised to see you “appear” to give it credence in that exchange with Avi on Twitter. I imagine that pissed him off, it pissed me off and I wasn’t accused. You never apply skepticism to claims made about your beloved #FTBullies regardless of the damage they could do to people. They are repeated as if absolutely true at all times… You get away with this because you are anonymous. I’m not, hence me moralising down to you.

    For what its worth I now think its likely you didn’t originate the false rape claim as this is an absolute first for you ->
    https://twitter.com/RichSandersen/status/372728748946096128
    Why not apologise on here rather than just on Twitter though?

    Finally Rich you whining about moral high ground is rich, no pun intended, I do sometimes blame the Slymepit for things like this. As do many others. Who can blame them given what comes out of that place and is confirmed to be a “member of the pit”? Accusing people of falsely reporting rape claims, threatening to throw acid in peoples faces, demeaning photoshops which you crow about etc etc. I know you think #FTBullies are all evil but what is gained by trying to be as nasty or nastier than even your worst portrait of a #FTBully?

    @EddyJamesOlmos

    As for accusations that didn’t come from the pitt, I’m pretty sure Rebecca Watson, PZ and others have collected quite a few, and they would have more if they didn’t disable youtube comments. Or hell, you could go through an average thunderfoot video about freethoughtblogs, I bet you’d find quite a few libelous accusations in the comments. Those usually aren’t pitters.

    I’m not talking about threats or insults, they obviously come from all over. But when you meet some random person saying RW once got it wrong about Galilleo and never corrected, the lie comes from the pit. When you meet someone saying PZ endorsed tentacle rape porn on his blog, it comes from the pit. The allegations thrown around all over YouTube etc all originate at the pit where they churn smears and lies out in outraged horror… Unless you can find me some that don’t?

  4. Pitchguest says

    @hjhornbeck: All this time and you *still* can’t get facts right.

    Fact #1: The Slymepit? Wasn’t involved. That’s right. Rich Sanderson is NOT a member of the Slymepit. Read this *very* carefully. He does, however, *read* the Slymepit. There is a difference. Avicenna just decided to indict the Slymepit in the same vein as he did Rich, because… I don’t really know. Because you do that now. Apparently. Like a catch-all term for all things bad. You especially do it after having a conversation on Twitter that you shouldn’t make blanket statements about a network of people as a whole.

    Fact #2: Rich Sanderson is (most likely) not the person who made the rape allegation. There is no evidence, from his Twitter or otherwise, to suggest he did. It just seems Avicenna saw Rich talking about it and then assumed he was the culprit. Freethought in action! (Freethought being, of course, “opinions that should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition or other dogmas.”) So Rich was blamed for something he most likely did not do, and the Slymepit was brought in as, I don’t rightly know, a boogeyman, a scapegoat? Hard to say.

    As for your blatantly false interpretation of my motives here, I’ll deal with them in parts:

    Take Pitchguest, for instance. His two big concerns? It’s hypocritical for someone from FtB to cry “rape!” without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then turn around and bash someone else for accusing the accuser of rape. And, it’s a horrible lie to say your accuser is from a place they’re not.

    It’s hypocritical to take one accusation of rape at face value because you dislike the person, using such rhetoric as “you should always believe the accusers” and “not believing the accusers could be harmful”, but then do a complete face turn when it happens to someone you *do* like, using such rhetoric as “it’s highly implausible”, “it’s clearly false” and “they’re just doing it to get back at us” and so on and so forth. *That* is hypocritical. But I have no idea what you mean by that last part.

    Does he empathize with Avicenna? Nope.[1] Does he realize he’s defending someone making an obviously false rape charge?[2] Nope. Does he spot that he’s repeating tired, long debunked lies about the accusations made through Myers, even though he monitors us for hypocrisy and lies?[3]

    Of course not. They’re not in the rules.

    1) You what?
    2) I’m defending who?
    3) What? The “friend of a friend who he trusts” thing? That’s the “lie”?

    All he sees is a rare combo of hypocrisy and lies, and salivates over the points he’ll earn from it. The bloggers and commenters on FtB? Pawns on a chessboard, bosses to overcome, NPCs that only matter if they help or oppose the quest. They’re not real people, just pixels coming from his video card. This makes them expendable, or exploitable. His reward for a good play is recognition from his fellow gamers, and the high that comes from defeating a great evil with your wits and your sharp tongue.

    In the end, victory is all that matters to the SlymePit.

    That’s good. You have a wild imagination. Like a child. However, as a child grows up, they usually tend to learn to differentiate between fiction and reality. You don’t seem to have gotten that far.

    Hey, a one-up!

    It’s tough not to talk about a forum that specializes in spreading lies and hatred about you.

    You mean that blog post where Zvan selectively quote-mines the ‘pit? That’s a great example. *pat on the head* Do you want a lollipop?

    On a lark, I decided to Google Benson’s posts about the SlymePit. From the first page, we have:

    So not only do we fail to find daily posts about the Slyme Pit, Benson only mentions them when they slander her, or swarm other’s blogs and hashtags. This suggests an easy way to get Benson at least to shut up about the Slyme Pit:

    Stop slandering her and swarming other’s blogs and hashtags.

    First of all, I didn’t say *just* the Slymepit. I said the “other ‘side.'” It’s subtle, but different. Second of all, no one is forcing Ophelia Benson from reading the Slymepit. No one. And no one, apart from the moderator at the Slymepit, has a right to moderate it. Which I think Ophelia might even agree to, or she should considering she’s said in the past that no one has a right to dictate what she can or cannot post on her blog – including who she can moderate and how much. So I don’t see why the same can’t be said about the Slymepit. Unless there’s a double standard. In fact, Stephanie Zvan once said the same thing Ophelia did but also adding the caveat, “if you don’t like it, don’t read it.”

    “Slandering and swarming other’s blogs and hashtags.” You’re a silly lot.

    And by “calling shit out,” you mean “reposting the sex tape over and over,” I presume?

    Newsflash: there is no “sex tape.” It’s a dog humping a cow. That Zvan takes it personally isn’t my problem, or anyone else’s for that matter. Not to mention it was a “joke”, something you are obviously unfamiliar with, and not supposed to be taken so seriously. Maybe you should ask Chris Clarke for assistance.

    Oh I see, you’re not a harasser, you just chose to spend your free time hanging around with and defending people who harass others. You don’t post insulting photoshop images, you just hang around in forums with entire threads devoted to posting insulting photoshops. You don’t make false rape accusations, you just defend people who make false rape accusations.

    You are completely different from the crowd you associate with, because you’re an individual who is nothing like them.

    For the last time: Photoshops does not equal harassment. They just don’t. And even if ‘shops could, the ‘shops from the ‘pit certainly don’t. So what if they superimpose PZ Myers’ head on top of a gorilla? Is that legal ground for a harassment suit? Seriously. Get real. But what about you? This network has people that has defended a person making a violent physical threat to another, even going so far as to toast that person. It’s got bloggers supporting calling other women “chill girls” and “sister punishers.” It features a commenter that hasn’t yet been shunned where she calls other women “gender traitors.” What does that say about you, then?

    And I have *never* defended a false rape allegation. Not in this thread nor anywhere else. Your mate, doubtthat, however, has made light of rape allegations and your ally Ian Murphy has trivialised rape by mocking a person accused of rape. But that’s “our” fault I take it? The Slymepit? That seems to be where all blame is lain these days. The monster under the bed. Sorry, hornbeck. No lollipop this time.

  5. Jackie: The COLOSSAL TOWERING VAGINA! says

    Pitch, you really could not tell the truth if your life depended on it could you?

    Avicenna, I’m sorry this jerk decided to target you too. I appreciate the work you do and that you still find time for blogging here.

  6. Pitchguest says

    @Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-:

    You might also benefit from reading Elizabeth Loftus’ take on eyewitness testimony. Not as accurate as you might think.

    Yeah, because women are really terrible at recognizing whether they’ve been raped or not. Just like people who had their pockets picked are terrible at understanding whether their pocket has been picked or whether they made a consensual charitable donation.
    Got that, Pitchguest. Bitches be lying.

    Elizabeth Loftus deals with *eyewitness* testimony, not whether women “recognise whether they’ve been raped or not.” That’s not actually what eyewitness testimony means. It means that after a while, days, months, years, your memory can betray you. Maybe you need a lesson in reading comprehension?

    Wait. That was rude. Instead read this story about a woman who was wrong — twice — about the man who had raped her.

    http://nersp.osg.ufl.edu/~malavet/evidence/notes/thompson_cotton.htm

  7. Pitchguest says

    @Oolon: You really are a slimy, disingenuous turd.

    No you got the link to the “skeptical justice” page from me on Ian Murphys post where I accused you/the pit in general of being the likely originators of the false claim.

    Doesn’t that mean you’re a possible suspect as well to be the accuser, if we’re to use Avicenna’s logic? But it’s funny that you should admit that you accuse the Slymepit of wrongdoing that you have no evidence for, and then much later Avicenna accuses the Slymepit of wrongdoing that he has no evidence for. Did he learn that from you?

    Since you usually parrot any false allegation you feel like from the pit I wasn’t surprised to see you “appear” to give it credence in that exchange with Avi on Twitter.

    Did he parrot a false allegation? No, he didn’t. He didn’t imply Avicenna’s guilt. You, on the other hand, implied the guilt of the Slymepit (as a whole) for fabricating it and then it seems Avicenna does the same thing. Does that mean he “parroted” it to give it credence, too?

    You never apply skepticism to claims made about your beloved #FTBullies regardless of the damage they could do to people.

    Oh, were you trying for irony? Because it seems to be lost in the sea of commenters who didn’t apply scepticism to the guilt of the Slymepit and Rich Sanderson being responsible for making a false rape allegation. Oh, wait. There it is.

    Finally Rich you whining about moral high ground is rich, no pun intended, I do sometimes blame the Slymepit for things like this.

    Ahahahahahahahaha. “Sometimes”?

    As do many others. Who can blame them given what comes out of that place and is confirmed to be a “member of the pit”?

    What was that you said about never applying scepticism?

    Accusing people of falsely reporting rape claims, threatening to throw acid in peoples faces, demeaning photoshops which you crow about etc etc. I know you think #FTBullies are all evil but what is gained by trying to be as nasty or nastier than even your worst portrait of a #FTBully?

    You’re really going to rehash the Conlon thing, even though it’s been refuted like a hundred times already?

    I’m not talking about threats or insults, they obviously come from all over. But when you meet some random person saying RW once got it wrong about Galilleo and never corrected, the lie comes from the pit. When you meet someone saying PZ endorsed tentacle rape porn on his blog, it comes from the pit. The allegations thrown around all over YouTube etc all originate at the pit where they churn smears and lies out in outraged horror… Unless you can find me some that don’t?

    No, it’s never been said RW never corrected by it. But she did say it, and she did get mocked for it.

    And PZ did endorse tentacle rape porn. I’m not just saying that, James. There is proof.

    http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=124138#p124138

  8. Pitchguest says

    @skeptifem: I’m not the one calling other women “gender traitors.” Think about that.

  9. says

    Yes, Pitchguest, keep digging up isolated examples on the net and pretend that they’re anywhere near the norm as women being raped and then not believed.
    Yes, I understand the difference between an eyewitness and a victim. It’s you who brought it up, which shows again what a dishonest lowlife you are.
    And it seems that you still haven’t found the time that whoever pulled this stunt was acting unethically instead of treating it like a “teachable moment”.
    Making up false rape accusations to prove that people make up false rape accusations is like painting your dog blue to show that blue dogs exist. Only that the paint is poisonous.

  10. says

    @Pitchguest: Has anyone actually made an unqualified assertion that all alleged rape victims should always be believed? Even if someone did, targeting Avicenna is still a detestable way of pointing out that someone overstated their position.

  11. Pitchguest says

    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-:

    Yes, Pitchguest, keep digging up isolated examples on the net and pretend that they’re anywhere near the norm as women being raped and then not believed.

    It was an example to show how memory can be deceiving in remembering an event or incident. Especially several months or years after.

    I’m not “digging up examples” to pretend they’re the “norm”, it was a response to your original question:

    How many men does a woman need to confirm her story before she is even allowed to say she was raped, since obviously her own experience and testimony aren’t sufficient for her to claim she was raped?

    Particularly the bolded part. You obviously just want their testimony to be enough. Well, it isn’t. Not always. And if they were, a lot of men would still be locked up for crimes they didn’t commit. Is that a justice you subscribe to?

    Yes, I understand the difference between an eyewitness and a victim.

    Wait, what? Did you shift the goalposts again? I was talking about eyewitness testimony and how your memory can be betrayed. You took that to mean that victims don’t know if they had been raped or not, which isn’t the same thing. Now you say you know the difference between an eyewitness and a victim? Well, that’s good, Giliell, but that wasn’t what was being disputed. Are you paying attention?

    It’s you who brought it up, which shows again what a dishonest lowlife you are.

    What *are* you going on about?

    And it seems that you still haven’t found the time that whoever pulled this stunt was acting unethically instead of treating it like a “teachable moment”.

    Well, then, you really, really need to learn how to pay attention, don’t you?

  12. says

    Poor pitchguest, so much hot air, so little substance *yawn* So little to do with the cases at hand.
    No, I’m not going to answer your nonsense. You already know the answers, you’re just trying to play gotcha. And that is damn lacking of respect towards Avicenna whose case you’re still using on your little “bitches be lying” crusade.

  13. Pitchguest says

    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-:

    You’re not actually reading anything I write, are you?

    Not going to address the points I put to you either, I take it? No? Okay.

  14. says

    Yeah, the Slymepit – so awesome, they’re not quite as bad as the (actually anonymous as opposed to known but unnamed) person who willfully fabricated a false rape accusation. So cool, they’re not quite totally associated with a pseudonymous dude who uncritically passed on that false accusation. Way to raise the bar. I’m totes impressed.

  15. says

    PitchGuest is another one so full of hot air its amazing he doesn’t just float away under his own fart power… I’ll ignore most of the PitchGallop but this bit is typical of his own approach to the lies from the pit. Like Sanderson he doesn’t care if the lies are true or not, he’ll just repeat them ad nauseam despite being corrected many times. He has no ability to comprehend, he just asserts.

    Did he parrot a false allegation? No, he didn’t. He didn’t imply Avicenna’s guilt.

    He did exactly that which is what a) pissed people off as he was on a different fricken continent and b) made it look bloody suspicious since this was a high level of stupidity even on the Sanderson scale.

    ‏@LegalFauxPas :
    @RichSandersen @Million_Gods @ool0n Eh? This claim was demonstrably false + malicious, we should not parade it as “proving” something.

    @RichSandersen :
    @LegalFauxPas @Million_Gods @ool0n How is it demonstrably wrong? He hasn’t demonstrated anything.

    He was doing exactly that parading the obviously false claim as getting one over on the #FTBullies. Didn’t look good to anyone, not just me. However worth pointing out he has apologised for that…

  16. hjhornbeck says

    Pitchguest @108:

    And PZ did endorse tentacle rape porn. I’m not just saying that, James. There is proof.

    Proof, you say? Let’s have a look at Myers’ original post from seven years ago:

    A reader sent me a link to a site I hesitate to reference, just because I know some people will be aghast at the exposed mammalian flesh and weird exploitation of women…but it’s got tentacles everywhere, and molluscs, and even a few arthropods and a giant salamander. The title, Tentacles of Desire, and the list of organisms tells you what it’s all about. If you’re easily offended or squeamish about slime or freaked out by perverse fetishes, don’t go there!

    Otherwise, though, just consider it a celebration of biodiversity.

    Interesting, he makes no mention of non-consentual sex. Perhaps he only implicitly endorsed it, via the original text? Thanks to the SlymePit, I can see the original post, and run it through Google Translate:

    Japanese (in particular) have highlighted the fantasy aspect of the “octopus” the octopus. Certainly as the West, but while it was approaching the mythical beast in the shadow of Thanatos (the giant octopus that eats humans), Japanese, them, are appropriate in the light of Eros (octopus with many tentacles that penetrate the girl). Number of erotic manga today depict mutants or other wealthy alien monsters such pseudosexuels pseudopodia “hentai tentacle rape”.

    Erotic dimension of octopus (mollusk of a more general way: mollis, soft) seems obvious: it evokes, in many ways, a living independently, as separate from the body of its owner [sex. ..] a sticky rod, moving, trailing entering the hollow body provided (or delivered), as in a flexible-walled tunnel soft flesh, soft and warm … the image can not qu’émouvoir anyone’s mind a passion for this stuff, erotica, fantasy, obscene …

    Many artists have exploited this union “against nature” between the female body and the monstrous animal (when I say “monster” is not in negative terms: the monster, sometimes can be a erotic intensity fabulous). Among these artists, here are six, six photographers who were able to recognize and highlight the relationship between the plastic body of the female and that “no body” of monstrous.

    Odd, there’s no mention of non-censentual sex there, either. It appears that, seven years ago, Myers linked to a post that mused about the Japanese use of cephalopods in erotica, which posted several examples (a few of which did depict tentacle rape) in addition to a series of photographs.

    This is held up as evidence that Myers unequivocally supports tentacle rape today. And it is not, in any way, indicative of an obsessive need to track Myers’ every online move.

    Thank you, Pitchguest, for providing a wonderful illustration of the SlymePit’s mentality.

  17. says

    Huh, was going to ignore the mouseprat, but two more obvious lies.

    No, it’s never been said RW never corrected by it. But she did say it, and she did get mocked for it.

    And PZ did endorse tentacle rape porn. I’m not just saying that, James. There is proof.

    First the Galilleo thing was repeated by David Jones/@Metaburbia as if she didn’t correct, the lies grow in the re-telling. You saddos who make mistakes on an hourly basis think one quickly corrected error in a video proves something. I feel sorry for you as if you ever looked at your own conduct with such a critical eye you’d destroy your overblown ego. David Jones gets pretty much everything wrong in the account of the Galileo incident, but doesn’t see any irony in claiming Rebeccas corrected error makes her a terrible skeptic. Swallowing pit propaganda whole. He reminds me of PG, a lot.
    _skepchick.org/2013/06/its-okay-to-make-mistakes-even-about-galileo/

    Second. PG explicitly says PZ *endorsed* a site he describes as NSFW, has perverse fetishes in it and weirdly exploits women…. So yeah more perfect evidence on PG’s lack of ability to tell/discern the truth. Try harder PG, PZ links to something with a load of warnings and you say that is “endorsing”. Your position is pathetically weak if you need to try that hard. (I wrote about how sad it is that you cannot have a grown up conversation with the pitters, they act like excited children when presented with something vaguely controversial – http://www.oolon.co.uk/?p=403)

  18. Linus says

    Uh I post on the Slymepit sometimes and I’d never heard of you, nor do I have any idea who Richard Sanderson is, nor have I ever claimed that “FTBers are slacktivists”…….

    However, what happened to you was reprehensible and you have my sympathy. I’m just perplexed as to how it somehow supposedly has anything to do with me.

  19. Pitchguest says

    Oh, James, James, James… defensive, are we?

    First the Galilleo thing was repeated by David Jones/@Metaburbia as if she didn’t correct, the lies grow in the re-telling. You saddos who make mistakes on an hourly basis think one quickly corrected error in a video proves something. I feel sorry for you as if you ever looked at your own conduct with such a critical eye you’d destroy your overblown ego. David Jones gets pretty much everything wrong in the account of the Galileo incident, but doesn’t see any irony in claiming Rebeccas corrected error makes her a terrible skeptic. Swallowing pit propaganda whole. He reminds me of PG, a lot.
    _skepchick.org/2013/06/its-okay-to-make-mistakes-even-about-galileo/

    A lot of hot air, but still nothing to support your claim that RW’s correction was never acknowledged.

    But if you’re going to use that as an example of our “overblown ego”, then why did you bring up the Conlon/acid thing just now (and why is it still brought up at regular intervals) when it’s already been corrected? Didn’t you get the memo?

    Second. PG explicitly says PZ *endorsed* a site he describes as NSFW, has perverse fetishes in it and weirdly exploits women…. So yeah more perfect evidence on PG’s lack of ability to tell/discern the truth. Try harder PG, PZ links to something with a load of warnings and you say that is “endorsing”. Your position is pathetically weak if you need to try that hard. (I wrote about how sad it is that you cannot have a grown up conversation with the pitters, they act like excited children when presented with something vaguely controversial – )

    PZ’s exact words are:

    “A reader sent me a link to a site I hesitate to reference, just because I know some people will be aghast at the exposed mammalian flesh and weird exploitation of women…” “…If you’re easily offended or squeamish about slime or freaked out by perverse fetishes, don’t go there!

    Otherwise, though, just consider it a celebration of biodiversity.”

    How is that not an endorsement?

    And the URL you say I and Dick link to, which you say isn’t the same that PZ linked to, is the same fucking URL, you bellend.

    The *actual* page that you say PZ links to: http://web.archive.org/web/20071028205103/http://sexe-aka.blogspot.com/2006/10/octopussy-tentacles-of-desir.html

    What’s the second image? Oh, it’s the same image that Dick Strawkins linked to. What does it say as a description? “Hentai tentacle rape”? Gee. How about that. It’s almost as if *gasp* we were telling the truth! Don’t you just hate having egg on your face?

  20. says

    I don’t get this… According to Richard Sanderson’s reply:

    Is Avicenna making false false rape accusations?

    Why the fuck can’t secularists discuss this delicate subject without losing their shit?

    Why is Oolon always at the center of these confusions? Maybe the shit stirrer label is more appropriate than the self-label troll.

    Short of the holocaust, why is it always the pits fault? honest non-pitter question.

    Why are even peripheral bloggers involved in drama sooner than later?

    More importantly:
    Why is everybody hating on Miley Cyrus instead of Ben Affleck? Misogyny much?

  21. says

    @skeptifem: I’m not the one calling other women “gender traitors.” Think about that.

    yeah making a post about women who stab others in the back for male approval is EXACTLY the same as making a fake rape accusation in order to hurt everyone who reports. Yep! Solid logic there.

  22. Kelseigh says

    Oh Oolon, notice that he’s still parading out the “chill girls” and “sister punishers” lie even though it’s been so often and so thoroughly refuted, including directly to him.

    And as Gilell pointed out, piling on these irrelvant lies is (1) massively disrespectful/un-empathetic towards Avicenna, (2) deliberately derailing from the topic at hand, (3) part of a continued gaslighting and smearing campaign against several good people, and (4) actively doing harm to actual victims by dissuading them from reporting lest they face similar BS.

    Seriously Pitchguest, if you’ve got a shred of decency hidden away somewhere STOP DIGGING. I don’t care how bad it makes you look to keep going (and it really does make you look bad), I care about the continued harm you’re contributing to. Apparently deliberately.

  23. EddyJamesOlmos says

    Good points all, axelblaster.

    Look, quite apart from all of this bullshit comment drama, I think Sanderson really is owed an apology by some of the people here, and the blog post should probably be modified to correct this misunderstanding so that future readers who don’t check the comments don’t get the wrong idea. You may think Sanderson is scum. That does not matter. You may think he is a sexist. That does not matter. The only thing that matters is he was accused of a crime. He was accused of defamation, or libel or whatever you want to call it. He has denied the charges, you have seen the proof that he got his information from Oolon (it’s even time-stamped) and he has even apologized for the misunderstanding, which incidentally wasn’t even his fault, but the fault of people jumping to conclusions. I mean, shit, he gave his damn link on twitter when he posted, it’s right there.

    And I notice that Oolon has not said where he originally got the information about Avicenna, and why he chose to make it public in the comments on August 26th. That is a good question. Did you violate a confidence, Oolon, or did you have permission from Avicenna to say that?

    Getting sidetracked on this bullshit internet drama about who-insulted-who is pointless. I’m more interested in how to find out who accused Avicenna of rape falsely over email, and how to make them legally responsible for making quite serious false allegations.

    I don’t expect anyone will change their minds about hating the ‘pitt versus not hating the ‘pitt. But at least hate whoever you hate for the right reasons, not for made-up reasons which are later disproved. Maybe don’t be so willing to believe the worst, because we’re all really just people, not demons, and nobody at the ‘pitt wants to see somebody put in jail on account of false rape accusations.

  24. says

    So Sanderson didn’t make up the accusation, just promoted one from an unknown source he had no good-faith basis to believe was true? I don’t see a difference, legally or morally.

  25. Pitchguest says

    @Kelseigh: “Chill girl” has been endorsed by FtBlogger Stephanie Zvan and “sister punisher” has been endorsed by ally Melody Hensley.

    I know this is a difficult concept for you, but it’s not a “lie” if you’re telling the truth.

    It’s funny that you should mention “actively doing harm … by dissauding them from reporting” when I have been having that exact same conversation, with Nate Hevens, on Maryam Namazie’s blog, on the *importance* of reporting. Except he has an entirely different contention, namely that you shouldn’t, because, quote, “rape victims – and NEVER – believed.” I don’t see how I’m engaging in a “gaslighting and smearing campaign” seeing as I’ve said nothing about Avicenna to imply guilt or to defend his accuser, but then you lot all seem to have the same faulty translation matrix.

    And it’s not possible for me to derail the discussion when I wasn’t the one who began derailing it, now can I?

    @skeptifem:

    yeah making a post about women who stab others in the back for male approval is EXACTLY the same as making a fake rape accusation in order to hurt everyone who reports. Yep! Solid logic there.

    Making a post for what, in your opinion, is women stabbing others in the back for male approval. However, let’s be honest, that’s not all your blog states signifies as a “gender traitor.”

    http://skeptifem.blogspot.se/2011/07/inside-mind-of-gender-traitor.html

  26. Pitchguest says

    Wait, I’m sorry. Am I derailing now? By responding to your comment, Kelseigh, where you’re also derailing the comment thread, does that count as derailing? It’s very confusing.

    @Ace of Sevens:

    So Sanderson didn’t make up the accusation, just promoted one from an unknown source he had no good-faith basis to believe was true? I don’t see a difference, legally or morally.

    He wasn’t promoting it. But it’s interesting that the first time he mentioned it, it was because oolon mentioned it -and attempted to implicate the Slymepit being responsible.

    https://twitter.com/RichSandersen/status/372182024372490240

    As you can see, he wasn’t implying guilt so much as asking questions. You should also take note that oolon doesn’t mention Avicenna’s alibi either. So he saw that, asked a question on his Twitter and Avicenna apparently assumed he was the culprit. Complete misunderstanding.

  27. Kelseigh says

    Okay, it’s official. Pitchguest has no decency or empathy whatsoever. We all knew that, but it’s “good” to get it confirmed.

    Avidenna: You don’t know me, but I can certify at least one lurker who’s fully on your side for what that’s worth.

  28. Pitchguest says

    Look at this crap.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/08/the-rules-2/#comment-617744

    Another one repeating the claim that the Slymepit is responsible. No further evidence required, apparently.

    Someone even quotes oolon and just believes what he says outright. Remind me, James, what was that you said?

    You never apply skepticism to claims made about your beloved #FTBullies regardless of the damage they could do to people.

    Yeah. That. Whoops?

  29. Pitchguest says

    @Kelseigh: My addressing your points is evidence that I have no decency or emphathy whatsoever?

    How do you figure that?

  30. karmacat says

    Ugh. I am so tired of the arguments about past comments, statements in reference to the slymepit, FTB, skepchick. In the grand scheme of life it doesn’t matter. So back to the topic of rape accusations. Rape accusations are not all alike. There are some that are clearly wrong, like what happened to acivenna. Then there is Myers writing the accusations by unnamed woman that shermer raped her. this is not such a simple right or wrong issue. Yes, it does affect the person who is being accused but this depends on what the consequences will be. Accusing someone in court raises the possibility of jail and this demands a high level of evidence. On the other side of this issue is how to prevent more victimization and to support those who are victims. It is not enough to tell women to be careful about their drinking and to always be on guard. It is tiring and discouraging to be on guard all the time. Potential victims need other people to speak up, to notice if a someone is getting another person drunk. It is important to speak to friends, colleagues that certain actions are criminal, objectionable, etc. I will stop here, because other people at FTB have made more eloquent comments than I can. The point is there is a lot of gray and we can’t just brush things off by proclaiming something is strictly right or wrong

  31. hjhornbeck says

    Pitchguest @105:

    I say

    Take Pitchguest, for instance. His two big concerns? It’s hypocritical for someone from FtB to cry “rape!” without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then turn around and bash someone else for accusing the accuser of rape. And, it’s a horrible lie to say your accuser is from a place they’re not.

    And what do you do? Begin your comment by stating it’s a horrible lie to say your accuser is from a place they’re not.

    [slow clap]

    Your perspective has been so warped by the SlymePit that you can’t even comprehend why we’re rolling our eyes over that:

    But I have no idea what you mean by that last part.

    To you, discussing something PZ Myers might have done seven years ago is more worthwhile than supporting someone who was just on the receiving end of a rape accusation that was blatantly groundless. I’m not a regular here, and even I knew that Avi was a poor health care worker on the wrong continent. You are so deeply into your game, even the blatantly obvious escapes your vision:

    Does he empathize with Avicenna? Nope.[1] Does he realize he’s defending someone making an obviously false rape charge?[2] Nope. Does he spot that he’s repeating tired, long debunked lies about the accusations made through Myers, even though he monitors us for hypocrisy and lies?[3] Of course not.

    1) You what?
    2) I’m defending who?
    3) What? The “friend of a friend who he trusts” thing? That’s the “lie”?

    No comprehension at all.

    In the end, victory is all that matters to the SlymePit.

    That’s good. You have a wild imagination. Like a child. However, as a child grows up, they usually tend to learn to differentiate between fiction and reality. You don’t seem to have gotten that far.

    You’re lucky I take an interest in games, Pitchguest. Tell me then, if the end-goal of the SlymePit is not victory, than what is it?

    You mean that blog post where Zvan selectively quote-mines the ‘pit? That’s a great example. *pat on the head* Do you want a lollipop?

    No, but I would like some evidence though. Can you present me with the best you have to support this?

    First of all, I didn’t say *just* the Slymepit. I said the “other ‘side.’” It’s subtle, but different.

    But you never explain how it is different. Is this a magic category which grows and shrinks, just like a “kind?” No? Then you should have no problems giving me a clear and concise definition.

    Second of all, no one is forcing Ophelia Benson from reading the Slymepit. No one.

    Incorrect. There are many people who tweet blog posts at her that gather their information up from the SlymePit. The photoshops you generate there clog up image searches, forcing her to look at them. What’s said on the SlymePit does not stay there; instead, it’s repeated by an informal network of friends and harassers, which quite conveniently means you can claim you did not directly harass her. You just got other people to do your dirty work for you.

    And no one, apart from the moderator at the Slymepit, has a right to moderate it.

    Some moderator Lsuoma is, if his reaction to worries about Greg Laden committing suicide is:

    As long as he’s acting like a complete cunt, forget it…

    In fact, Stephanie Zvan once said the same thing Ophelia did but also adding the caveat, “if you don’t like it, don’t read it.”

    I find that unlikely, given Zvan has stated she too is forced to read the thing, by the means I described above.

    Newsflash: there is no “sex tape.” ….

    Sure there is, it’s a dog humping a cow. It became a popular meme in December of last year.

    somedumbguy: Another Laden sex tape has emerged. I know that’s not Zvan, who is it?
    Mykeru: I am so tweeting that.
    Lsuoma: Looks suspiciously like paedophilia to me…
    welch: Here, the full sex tape between laden and Zvan, complete with his sexy times music:
    Lsuoma: Boston Terriers – horny little bastards…

    You yourself defended it:

    And the ‘Zvan/Laden sex-tape’ is what I would call gentle ribbing, not even close to harassment.

    So quit acting like it didn’t exist.

    …. It’s a dog humping a cow.

    That’s better. See, doesn’t it feel better to tell the truth?

    For the last time: Photoshops does not equal harassment. They just don’t.

    And yet you offer no credible argument for why they don’t, in the face of good ones that say they do.

    And even if ‘shops could, the ‘shops from the ‘pit certainly don’t.

    Because they are your fellow players in the game, and as the good guys and gals can do no wrong by definition.

    It’s got bloggers supporting calling other women “chill girls” and “sister punishers.”

    A demonstrable lie, via thirty seconds of searching.

    But that’s “our” fault I take it? The Slymepit? That seems to be where all blame is lain these days.

    I wonder why.

  32. says

    /derail yet again as “Eddy”, “PitchGuest” and “AxelBlaster” are doing the troll shuffle … Kelseigh, Skeptifem, Ace of Sevens, Sally Strange and Karmacat etc are making sense in very succinct comments, PG etc are trying to bloviate them off the thread with bad faith, tu quoque and false equivalence. These false claims should be denounced as proving nothing. I see PG is incapable of admitting that.

    Always makes me laugh when the pitters start accusing me of being a troll. In this case it is also a great demonstration of their lack of critical thinking skills. PG links to the unsolicited tweet where Rich comes running to me like a little puppy with his latest “gotcha” bone of a comment I made on B&W. So for me to have “trolled” him I somehow need to know Richie will read that then annoy me with it on Twitter. Subsequently without @’ing Avicenna I somehow get him to jump in, presumably I raised the FTB bat signal or used telepathy. Then I proceed to use my mind control skillz to get Richie to act like a douchenozzle and start claiming the obviously false and very damaging claim is meaningful somehow. (Something he admits to and apologised for) … Phew, what an uber-troll I am, frankly I’m amazed I haven’t managed to troll PG into eating his own shit yet. (Debateable I know)

    So the one thing that rings true about this is me thinking Rich et al will read my insignificant throw-away comment on B&W… Why? Because the Slymepit, while ostensibly being about calling out hypocrisy, is full of massive hypocrites. Shocking! They literally constantly call me a troll wherever I comment, this is amusing as while I get arguments and points into a thread – Richie/PG/PitterX scream “troll!” while making no points. So no beef there… But what do they say about trolls? FTB are “cray cray” for feeding the trolls – You have to ignore trolls and they will go away, its the only way to deal with them.

    So last time I pointed out the inanity of the pit obsessing over what I say all the time a Google search showed 60K mentions of just “oolon” on there. (Not even their little nicknames for me) … Now? Nearly 120K mentions of the word “oolon” … Jeez guys way to lose any credibility. I am, to my knowledge, the only person to even vaguely troll the slymepit (Actually just a bit of piss taking) and you lot cannot let it go, how dare I claim to have “trolled” the uber-trolls. You have to try and get back at me, fortunately you fail *miserably* every time. What happened to your “knowledge” on how to handle trolls? Or am I not really a troll? This is very confusing, surely the Slymepit isn’t full of hypocrites?!

    So as I said on that trolling post, how you can complain about Rebecca, Ophelia, Stephanie, PZ, etc. not ignoring the “troll” comments while being utterly obsessed with every “trolling” comment I make … Well I assume its compartmentalisation, cognitive dissonance, who knows what cognitive bias or error creeping in there. But you have to admit you are as “bad” as the FTBloggers you criticise for this, even to the extent of seeking out things I say to make a mountain out of them.

  33. says

    Making a post for what, in your opinion, is women stabbing others in the back for male approval.

    Wow I did post my own opinion on my own blog, I can see now how maliciously lying in order to discredit rape victims as a whole is comparable. thanks for clearing that up for me.

    However, let’s be honest, that’s not all your blog states signifies as a “gender traitor.”

    Nope, pretty much everything I listed there counts as stabbing women in the back from where I’m standing (you know, as a woman, and as someone who did stab women in the back for male approval in the past). Lord knows I am not entitled to discuss my own life experience of having participated in the dynamic I named! I’m ‘scum’ for having formed an opinion about my life without consulting everyone else first to make sure their feelings weren’t hurt.

    As I noted before, its dudes that generally have a problem with the content of this article. You don’t like it when the argument “hey look, SHE isn’t offended, why are YOU?” falls flat.

    oolon

    You have to ignore trolls and they will go away, its the only way to deal with them.

    that is far from being true.
    you can ban them if you are an admin, or delete their comments, or give them a commenting allowance
    you can ridicule them into leaving.
    you can make an example of their crappy arguments for the sake of the lurkers
    you can monetize the hatred (like dances with fat’s ragen chastain does)

    not saying anything looks like apathy, or possibly approval.

  34. Jacob Schmidt says

    Another one repeating the claim that the Slymepit is responsible.

    At this point I couldn’t give a shit. Your repeated praise for the stunt is all I need to know.

    That being said, I don’t see any reason to claim the slymepit is responsible. They’re one group of shitbags; there’s a lot more than just them.

  35. says

    @Skeptifem, re:Trolls, yeah sorry should have made it clearer that is the Slymepit stated opinion which is used to justify calling FTB people “professional victims”. Because they don’t just ignore the trolls, eg them. Not my opinion.

  36. says

    Yeurgh, I see @felch_grogan aka king loon of the Slymepit has settled PG’s argument for him… The Slymepit absolutely is fine to repeat the accusations as if true as all that matters to them is “getting at” their targets whether the result of that is suicide or loss of job. Winning is what counts to the nasty children over there.
    https://twitter.com/felch_grogan/statuses/373089970241560576

    BTW @Million_Gods, KNOWN RAPIST (rumours are EVERYTHING, he vouches for them) is still begging for laptop. So GIVE GENEROUSLY to the #rapist

    Why would anyone knowingly associate themselves with Felch etc? Damion and a few others I believe left because of the “emo” pitters like Franc, how much does it take to get a “moderate” to realise they are supporting his ravings?

  37. Tony! The Immorally Inferior Queer Shoop! says

    Why does Pitchguest think a post from PZ back in 2006 means he supports tentacle rape? Hasn’t PZs feminism grown over the years? Does anyone honestly think he endorses that now, in 2013?

    That is just as stupid as dredging up a DIAF comment from years ago (which pitters have done, despite the fact that the commenter apologized and has not used the phrase since).

    You Pitters (of which I include those individuals whos actions are indistinguishable from members of the Pit) have to dig back into comments from years ago to make any kind of ‘gotcha’…while we have evidence of you Smugnoramus’ being Rape Culture supporters in the present. Continuously.

    You Pitstains are a piece of work.

  38. Pitchguest says

    Alright, it’s been a while but I’m finally going to attempt to respond (even though I know it’s for naught) to the spurious things said about me and the ‘pit.

    First one out is hjhornbeck.

    http://www.themousehole.org/tealdeer.jpg

    No, but seriously.

    Take Pitchguest, for instance. His two big concerns? It’s hypocritical for someone from FtB to cry “rape!” without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then turn around and bash someone else for accusing the accuser of rape. And, it’s a horrible lie to say your accuser is from a place they’re not.

    And what do you do? Begin your comment by stating it’s a horrible lie to say your accuser is from a place they’re not.

    [slow clap]

    Your perspective has been so warped by the SlymePit that you can’t even comprehend why we’re rolling our eyes over that …

    Actually, I honestly had no idea what you meant that time. It was only after I read this I realised you meant Rich.

    My “concerns” were the blanket blaming of the Slymepit and the assumed guilt of Rich without evidence. People saw this and wondered why I didn’t emphatize with Avicenna, and I said, I do, and linked to a comment where I unequivocally condemned false rape accusations. Why wouldn’t I feel the same about Avicenna’s predicament? However when you’ve made up your mind about people, it’s easy to ignore statements that go contrary to your opinion about them. So my comment about unequivocally condemning false rape accusations was swept under the rug.

    As for the hypocrisy of rape allegations being believed one “side” to the other, you have to admit that there is a double standard. Shermer’s rape accusation was believed without question. However, when PZ and Lousy told of their experiences about being falsely accused of rape, then it was suddenly “clearly false.” Even after when PZ had made his blog post about Shermer, when PZ was accused of rape (again), it was “implausible” and the commentariat was convinced it was “just a way to get back at him.” Indeed, the double standard becomes twice apparent when there’s actually blogs made about Shermer that almost eagerly attempts to imply he’s guilty. (Case in point: Lousy Canuck’s blog post, “The web of trust: Why I believe Shermer’s accusers.”)

    To you, discussing something PZ Myers might have done seven years ago is more worthwhile than supporting someone who was just on the receiving end of a rape accusation that was blatantly groundless. I’m not a regular here, and even I knew that Avi was a poor health care worker on the wrong continent.

    Look. I realise that you people want this blog to be an echo chamber, circle jerk, pulpit where you preach to the choir, but I posted because I saw Avicenna make two unfounded claims and I wished to set them straight. If you think my lack of adding, tacking, “I’m sorry this happened to you” to Avicenna at the end of it is evidence that I don’t emphatise with people who’ve been falsely accused of rape, you’re delusional. I have already shown proof that I don’t make light of rape allegations, and still this is being brought up as a ‘gotcha!’ as you are content, as always it seems, to paint me in the most uncharitable light.

    Furthermore, I wasn’t the one who brought up what PZ did seven years ago; oolon did. I only extrapolated on it and corrected his claim that PZ didn’t endorse it, when he clearly did. If you think it’s not a worthwhile subject to discuss, then maybe you should ask boy wonder himself why he thought it was important enough to mention.

    As for Avi being a poor health care worker, I have no idea what relevance that has to either “the Slymepit” (it’s not a collective) or Rich, unless you still think either of us had anything to do with it. We don’t.

    You are so deeply into your game, even the blatantly obvious escapes your vision

    About what? The fact that you made these accusations …

    Does he empathize with Avicenna? Nope. Does he realize he’s defending someone making an obviously false rape charge? Nope. Does he spot that he’s repeating tired, long debunked lies about the accusations made through Myers, even though he monitors us for hypocrisy and lies? Of course not.

    … which has no bearing on anything I’ve said? I do emphatise with Avicenna’s situation and I’ve said so several times, I have not defended whoever made the false rape accusation and I have not “lied” about PZ Myers’ accusation about Shermer. So who is it who has “no comprehension”, exactly?

    You’re lucky I take an interest in games, Pitchguest. Tell me then, if the end-goal of the SlymePit is not victory, than what is it?

    You tell me. You’re the one who concocted the strawman.

    No, but I would like some evidence though. Can you present me with the best you have to support this?

    Do you know what ‘selectively’ means? (If not, I have a dictionary ready at my disposal.)

    Zvan wished to paint a certain picture of the Slymepit and she succeeded, by *selectively* choosing posts and images from it and putting it on her blog. Most if it was removed from its context, making it more derisive than intended and some of it was taken from a single source. (That quote at the end, for example, is from a single source. No one else is responsible.) There are also various fights and disagreements on the ‘pit, which Zvan ‘neglected’ to mention, that not all things are agreed upon.

    We have women and men commenting regularly, not all share the same views. We’re not all MRA’s, MGTOW’s and libertarians. We’re not sexists, misogynists and rape apologists. We’re not any of these things that you and the friends you rally with have chosen to tar and feather us with. You use smear tactics like that, but then have the temerity to complain about a few mocking Photoshops? It is to laugh.

    First of all, I didn’t say *just* the Slymepit. I said the “other ‘side.’” It’s subtle, but different.

    But you never explain how it is different. Is this a magic category which grows and shrinks, just like a “kind?” No? Then you should have no problems giving me a clear and concise definition.

    The other “side.” Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus; Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives; Slymepitters.

    If you read PZ’s blog with any regularity, doesn’t it, too, become “tedious” when you notice the pattern?

    Second of all, no one is forcing Ophelia Benson from reading the Slymepit. No one.

    Incorrect. There are many people who tweet blog posts at her that gather their information up from the SlymePit. The photoshops you generate there clog up image searches, forcing her to look at them. What’s said on the SlymePit does not stay there; instead, it’s repeated by an informal network of friends and harassers, which quite conveniently means you can claim you did not directly harass her. You just got other people to do your dirty work for you.

    There are many who tweet blog posts at her? Who are? Her supporters? They’re tweeting blog posts at her that have “[gathered] their information” from the Slymepit and this is somehow proof that Ophelia is *forced* to read the Slymepit?

    *sigh* To begin with, I have three questions: How? Isn’t Ophelia using the Block Bot? Why doesn’t Ophelia just block them?

    Next, the assertion that the Slymepit has been “harassing” Ophelia doesn’t become true simply because you repeat it. If others take it upon themselves to use what’s been said on the Slymepit to harass Ophelia, as you say, why should that be an indictment of the Slymepit itself? Why should it be the business of the Slymepit what other people do? Moreover, why is it “convenient”? There has been no plan or campaign to “harass” other people, specific or otherwise, from the Slymepit, so how is it possible they’re doing our “dirty work” for us? This grasping at straws really is quite pathetic.

    Some moderator Lsuoma is, if his reaction to worries about Greg Laden committing suicide is

    As long as he’s acting like a complete cunt, forget it…

    Really? Let’s review.

    Let’s see. Gefan says he thinks Greg seems to increasingly emotionally fragile, rendered harmless by his own ineptitude, blah blah blah … no desire to drive him to suicide … oh yeah, and this,

    And, because I can’t be bothered to do it myself, whoever wants to post the inevitable, Chris Crocker “Leave Greg Alone” picture, you have my blessing.

    To which Lsuoma responds,

    As long as he’s acting like a complete cunt, forget it…

    Huh.

    You must be kidding about the whole ‘sex tape’ thing. I really can’t be arsed to deal with that kind of stupidity right now. Moving right along.

    For the last time: Photoshops does not equal harassment. They just don’t.

    And yet you offer no credible argument for why they don’t, in the face of good ones that say they do.

    Here, I’ll quote the relevant passage that makes it harassment.

    Keep in mind that these are only a selected few of the harassing images that have been sent to me.

    See that? If the images were sent to her personally, then that could classify as harassment. However, seeing as I’m not sure what “being sent to me” really entails (if they were sent to her personally by the person who made the actual image or by well-meaning friends saying, ‘look at this insulting shop someone made of you’), it’s difficult to discern if they really do constitute as harassment or not. You know, seeing as harassment as defined by being systematic and *personal* — preceded by a clear message for the attacks to cease — and if the people who send the ‘shops to her are her friends and allies, then arguably *they* are harassing her.

    It’s got bloggers supporting calling other women “chill girls” and “sister punishers.”

    A demonstrable lie, via thirty seconds of searching.

    And with an additional thirty seconds of searching (or five), you could’ve found a post by Stephanie Zvan that deals with the usage of “chill girl” and “queen bees.” If you did an *additional* additional search, you would’ve found a post by Ophelia Benson where Melody Hensley says about Abbie Smith, “This is what you call a sister punisher: a woman who turns on other women to gain the favour of sexist men.” To which Ophelia replies, “Yeah – it’s puzzling. The payoff is friendship with…the kind of people who like that kind of thing. Score!”

    In other words, via thirty seconds of searching, I found two blog posts which verified my claim and you found a comment by Jen McCreight that implicated the Slymepit. Yeah.

    But that’s “our” fault I take it? The Slymepit? That seems to be where all blame is lain these days.

    I wonder why.

    Reading comprehension seems to be a problem around here. That’s my bet.

  39. Pitchguest says

    @skeptifem:

    Wow I did post my own opinion on my own blog, I can see now how maliciously lying in order to discredit rape victims as a whole is comparable. thanks for clearing that up for me.

    You did, but your opinion does not make it fact. Just putting that out there. And no one has been “maliciously lying in order to discredit rape victims as a whole.”

    Nope, pretty much everything I listed there counts as stabbing women in the back from where I’m standing (you know, as a woman, and as someone who did stab women in the back for male approval in the past). Lord knows I am not entitled to discuss my own life experience of having participated in the dynamic I named! I’m ‘scum’ for having formed an opinion about my life without consulting everyone else first to make sure their feelings weren’t hurt.

    As I noted before, its dudes that generally have a problem with the content of this article. You don’t like it when the argument “hey look, SHE isn’t offended, why are YOU?” falls flat.

    Watching porn counts as stabbing women in the back from where you’re standing? Playing video games? Being spunky and not being in favour of “feminine” things counts as stabbing women in the back? Really? They’re not allowed to have their own agency, their own feelings on the matter, or they risk being called a “gender traitor”? The way you paint men in that blog post is also quite disturbing. It’s actually quite curious that this kind of rhetoric is acceptable around here.

    Oh, right. You also say the same thing about Abbie Smith. No wonder they let it slip.

    And is it supposed to reflect badly on me that I object to you calling other women “gender traitors” because I’m a “dude”?

  40. Pitchguest says

    Forgot this one.

    @skeptifem:

    hey pitchguest- do you see something wrong with the term ‘uncle tom’?

    Yes. I do. Why?

  41. Pitchguest says

    Jacob Schmidt:

    At this point I couldn’t give a shit. Your repeated praise for the stunt is all I need to know.

    Who’s repeatedly praised the stunt, you dishonest shit?

    That being said, I don’t see any reason to claim the slymepit is responsible. They’re one group of shitbags; there’s a lot more than just them.

    How generous of you.

  42. leni says

    My “concerns” were the blanket blaming of the Slymepit and the assumed guilt of Rich without evidence.

    Have you ever heard the phrase “the perception of a problem is a problem?”

    I know you can level that at anyone with a troll problem, or any problem at all, but bear with me for a moment.

    I first heard this phrase while taking “business ethics” (I know, ha ha) training at a contract lab that did live animal testing. I imagine you can imagine how a live animal testing lab might have a public perception problem? Right?

    You know what their response to that was? A zero tolerance policy about animal abuse. Zero. I mean yelling at an animal would get you walked out the door immediately. (Of course assuming your coworkers took that policy seriously and reported it, which is a different story.)

    Even so, they took the “a perception of a problem is a problem” seriously. They didn’t blame PETA when someone videotaped an employee cursing out an animal. They unceremoniously fired the motherfucker.

    So here is your problem: you are tasked with defending acts that are indistinguishable from the sorts of things AVfM does. This might strike you as unfair, but it should also strike you as problematic.

    You figure it out, you fix it. Don’t ask us to. You fix it.

  43. hjhornbeck says

    Pitchguest @142:

    [image of a teal deer]
    No, but seriously.

    It’s a good thing you weren’t being serious there, because otherwise you would have:

    1. Complained my 463-word (excluding quotes) comment was too long to read, then
    2. Read through it anyway, and
    3. Replied back with a 1,269-word (excluding quotes) comment of your own.

    People saw this and wondered why I didn’t emphatize with Avicenna, and I said, I do, and linked to a comment where I unequivocally condemned false rape accusations. Why wouldn’t I feel the same about Avicenna’s predicament?

    Because you buried your opinion as a link to a comment about your general opinion on false rape allegations, with nothing specific to this situation. Why is it so difficult for you to simply say “Avicenna, no-one should have to face a false rape charge, and I’m sorry to hear it happened to you?” Why must you force us to to follow a link to find out what you really think, when it takes less effort to simply tell us?

    Having said that, you did say:

    Being falsely accused of rape is no laughing matter. At least, not in my book. Perhaps you think it’s hilarious, in which case I know in which category of persons of moral fiber to put you in, but I don’t. And that means anyone, including PZ.

    which is sufficient, for me at least.

    As for the hypocrisy of rape allegations being believed one “side” to the other, you have to admit that there is a double standard.

    How so? The case against Shermer consists of one named public accuser of rape, one unnamed accuser of rape vouched by two named people (who herself alleges five more), one or more incidents of sexual assault vouched by a named person, one pseudononymous accusation of rape, several pseudononymous accusations of sexual assault and/or rape, several named and pseudononymous accusations of bad behavior, and the existence of a list circulated from woman-to-woman that named Shermer as someone to watch out for. Some of these accounts are independent of one another, and made by people who hold a grudge against Myers or don’t know him.

    The case against Thibeault consists of one poorly-argued article by a person known to make false rape allegations, and who plausibly carries a grudge against Thibeault for being an outspoken feminist and criticizing them in the past. In both cases, we are proportioning belief based on the quantity and quality of evidence to equal standards, and so there is no hypocrisy.

    Indeed, the double standard becomes twice apparent when there’s actually blogs made about Shermer that almost eagerly attempts to imply he’s guilty. (Case in point: Lousy Canuck’s blog post, “The web of trust: Why I believe Shermer’s accusers.”)

    He does not. I quote:

    But there’s always another option, as I suggested. There’s “trust implicitly”, there’s “distrust”, and there’s “trust but verify”. And in “trust but verify”, you can know to be wary of certain people without necessarily pointing at them in horror and shrieking “rapist” every time they’re nearby; or throwing them in jail on the least unsubstantiated word.

    This is all I, or anyone else fighting for victims rights with regard to rape, have ever advocated.

    There is no presumption of guilt, merely sufficient evidence to move from uncertainty to probable (what Thibeault calls “trust but verify” here).

    Look. I realise that you people want this blog to be an echo chamber, circle jerk, pulpit where you preach to the choir

    By criticizing you, I am asking everyone to listen to and agree with what I say? How does that even follow? I presume you have evidence to back up this claim, and are not being hypocritical by making unfounded assertions.

    Furthermore, I wasn’t the one who brought up what PZ did seven years ago; oolon did. I only extrapolated on it and corrected his claim that PZ didn’t endorse it, when he clearly did.

    I argued the contrary. Where are the flaws in my argument?

    As for Avi being a poor health care worker, I have no idea what relevance that has to either “the Slymepit” (it’s not a collective) or Rich, unless you still think either of us had anything to do with it. We don’t.

    It has no relevance to that. It was relevant to the claims made against Avi, however, and demonstrated they were very plausibly false.

    About what? The fact that you made these accusations […] which has no bearing on anything I’ve said?

    Your actions speak louder than your words. The only hint of empathy for Avi’s plight came via a link in a single comment to another comment you made elsewhere about your general opinion on false rape accusations, which only came after others asked where your empathy was, which makes this statement:

    I do emphatise with Avicenna’s situation and I’ve said so several times

    questionable.

    I have not defended whoever made the false rape accusation

    When confronted by Snowden’s leak, the US government attacked his character, shut down embassies, threatened the countries which would grant him asylum, but did very little to directly falsify the claims he made. The constant shifts in topic form an indirect defense against the claim, by keeping people distracted from the real issue at hand.

    In your case, you immediately shifted the topic from “what sort of person would make these allegations?” to “did they originate from the SlymePit?”, and made a pretty big stink about it. This has taken some heat off whoever made them, making their lives easier and thus indirectly defended them.

    and I have not “lied” about PZ Myers’ accusation about Shermer.

    Pitchguest @36:

    I would say there’s *quite a bit* of spite involved if he’s already decided Shermer’s guilt on that vague of an account

    Here you are arguing Myers posted the accusation out of spite, despite a total lack of evidence for a grudge between the two, and you are stating Myers only knew what he presented to us, when Myers made it clear he was holding information back. That’s two lies in one sentence.

    hjhornbeck: In the end, victory is all that matters to the SlymePit.
    Pitchguest: However, as a child grows up, they usually tend to learn to differentiate between fiction and reality.
    hjhornbeck: Tell me then, if the end-goal of the SlymePit is not victory, than what is it?
    Pitchguest: You tell me. You’re the one who concocted the strawman.

    You’re claiming my statement was a fiction, which means you have an argument which disproves it. I asked for this argument, and rather than provide it you shifted the burden of proof onto me. Why didn’t you answer me instead?

    Zvan wished to paint a certain picture of the Slymepit and she succeeded, by *selectively* choosing posts and images from it and putting it on her blog. Most if it was removed from its context, making it more derisive than intended and some of it was taken from a single source.

    She linked to the SlymePit itself so that readers could verify her claims for themselves. For instance, her claim that someone called her “vinegar-tits” links to:

    Looks like her campaign based on nothing more substantial than chinese whispers hasn’t been the great success vinegar-tits was hoping for. Obviously then, twitter people (rightly) thinking that she’s an idiot will prove something. – cunt

    Some of the nastier images she links to have been removed by Lsuoma and replaced with the word “image.” Some have not. But by linking to everything, she’s allowed her readers to check out the context for themselves. I did this for a few of the links, and found her descriptions to be accurate. Your only counter-argument:

    That quote at the end, for example, is from a single source. No one else is responsible.

    appears to be false, if you mean the quote starting “Jerry Conlon this is how you mock Ophie without giving her victim points.” Zvan never claims that was from multiple sources. Do you have a better refutation?

    There are also various fights and disagreements on the ‘pit, which Zvan ‘neglected’ to mention, that not all things are agreed upon.

    Which does not change the fact that she is given teasing nicknames, photoshopped into degrading scenes, and had it implied she must be sleeping with someone for the sole reason that she defended them. Yet again you try to shift the focus to a different argument, instead of focus on the primary one.

    We’re not sexists, misogynists and rape apologists.

    Not all of you are those things. But some of you are sexist, some of you are rape apologists, and all of you choose to hang around with sexists and rape apologists. Out of the million other places you could hang out on the internet, you chose to hang around there. That suggests implicit endorsement, in the same way that someone who only hangs around the websites of white supremacists likely endorses white supremacy themselves.

    You use smear tactics like that, but then have the temerity to complain about a few mocking Photoshops?

    A few, you say?

    The other “side.” Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus; Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives; Slymepitters.

    Ah, so you want Benson to stop discussing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, and Slyme-Pitters. In other words, you want her silent.

    Isn’t Ophelia using the Block Bot? Why doesn’t Ophelia just block them?

    She’s not, for the simple reason that any searches for her will show tweets from people that she’s blocked. While she may not see those tweets, others will, and it pays to have an idea of what the latest slander against you is.

    Next, the assertion that the Slymepit has been “harassing” Ophelia doesn’t become true simply because you repeat it.

    From Wikipedia, with emphasis mine:

    Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive.

    Anything repeated at you will be harassing, if done often enough, and Benson’s been on the receiving end of repeated tweets for years.

    There has been no plan or campaign to “harass” other people, specific or otherwise, from the Slymepit

    Then how do you explain the comments where some people wondered if they were driving bloggers to suicide?

    You must be kidding about the whole ‘sex tape’ thing.

    I’m not. Will you respond, or accept my arguments?

    Keep in mind that these are only a selected few of the harassing images that have been sent to me.

    See that? If the images were sent to her personally, then that could classify as harassment. However, seeing as I’m not sure what “being sent to me” really entails (if they were sent to her personally by the person who made the actual image or by well-meaning friends saying, ‘look at this insulting shop someone made of you’),

    So you only think it only counts as harassment if the original author sends it? That explains a lot.

    And with an additional thirty seconds of searching (or five), you could’ve found a post by Stephanie Zvan that deals with the usage of “chill girl” and “queen bees.”

    Which came five months after the Slyme Pit started complaining about the rampant use of “sister-punisher.”

    If you did an *additional* additional search, you would’ve found a post by Ophelia Benson where Melody Hensley says about Abbie Smith , “This is what you call a sister punisher: a woman who turns on other women to gain the favour of sexist men.” […]

    In other words, via thirty seconds of searching, I found two blog posts which verified my claim

    No, you found a single comment, which somehow demonstrates multiple blog posts that used the term “sister-punisher.”

    and you found a comment by Jen McCreight that implicated the Slymepit.

    The Slyme Pit did did make a big fuss out of the accusation, and swarmed FtB threads accusing it of being a commonly-used term. This has been well-documented.

    More to the point… why is merely being called “chill girl” so horrible? That’s like complaining it’s bad to call some action “sexist,” yet ignore that it was biased against a sex. It’s bizarre to see someone from the SlymePit decry a word as hurtful and mean, when they toss around “cunt” like it was candy over there and argue it’s just a word and therefore powerless unless you grant it power.

  44. says

    You probably need a refresher around the useful tips every online business
    proprietor should be familiar with. The simple truth is,
    people join MLM opportunities because of who introduced them.
    ” The company sees innovation as one of its core organizational competencies.

    Feel free to surf to my blog … dead.net

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>