Summing up »« Lulu is right

Comments

  1. chigau () says

    Is simply impersonating someone illegal?
    Or would it have to be for some “wrongful” purpose?

  2. Spooky says

    That is a disturbing amount of obsession right there.

    Was this a short-term thing (based on the rapid-fire posting) or has this miscreant been keeping up with the tweets?

  3. julian says

    I mean can Rebecca sue … someone?

    From what I remember of last time this topic was brought up, iffy leaning no. The US is willing to tolerate a lot when it’s a public figure (which Ms Watson would be for the skeptic community) being ‘criticized’ even if the criticism is just a mask for venom.

  4. says

    Rebecca said at Facebook that the account had been reported.

    Meanwhile according to one of Abbie Smith’s goons, calling me a cunt would be an insult to vaginas. Right, I can see that – because – because – um – because I think Abbie Smith and her goons should not call people cunts, twats, fucking bitches and all the rest of it. So yeah, sure, obviously that makes me whatever that word we don’t have yet is, that’s worse than cunt.

  5. says

    Meanwhile according to one of Abbie Smith’s goons, calling me a cunt would be an insult to vaginas.

    I think “That should work at ERV” should be adopted as a generic response to misogynistic-crazy-vicious comments.

  6. julian says

    You are not a cunt (smelly, ugly, old or anything else they’re adding to it), Ms. Benson.

    Reading your blog and following the links you provide to sites like lovejoyfeminism has made me aware of just how poisonous religion is in our society. This blog put a face to all the vague ideas of what harm religion could do.

    …And I promise to actually buy that copy of Why Truth Matters I read in the corner of Barnes and Noble way back when. >_>

  7. Kiwi Sauce says

    Julian @3

    Say x is the percentage of arseholes in any group. By definition any large group has a larger number of arseholes compared to a smaller group, where x is the same.

    Also, being atheist and a fuckwit is a correlational, not causal, relationship.

  8. John Kane says

    Please explain something to me. Scienceblogs is where ERV blogs, correct? They are now owned by National Geographic, correct? PZ Myers left Scienceblogs and started this new blog network because National Geographic set up policies that would stifle the kind of conversation, sometimes offensive or profane, common on his blog, but ERV manages to have thousands and thousands of highly offensive comments on her site.

    They even have a code of conduct on their site.

    http://scienceblogs.com/main/code/

    Does this mean that ERV is getting away with something? Should people make complaints to National Geographic about this?

    Does National Geographic really want to have the largest collection of hate-speech this side of FOX News on one of is more visible blogs?

    I wager that a handful of complaints from readers abut ERV would shut those blog posts down. A shame, it would be, for the 10 or 20 commenters’ work over these several weeks to be lost.

  9. Philip Legge says

    Some of the usual suspects are followers of the account, so I wouldn’t put it past one of them to be sock-puppeting (followers of “Imrebeccawatson” on Twitter).

    There was a claim on one of your earlier threads, Ophelia, that the obsessive hating on the most recent ERV thread had all but petered out, and that the issue would completely die away if only people like PZ or Rebecca would refrain from mentioning it. Non credo.

  10. John Morales says

    John Kane,

    PZ Myers left Scienceblogs and started this new blog network because National Geographic set up policies that would stifle the kind of conversation

    Close.

    PZ co-started this new blog with Brayton (and the reason you adduce was no doubt significant) but has maintained an expurgated version of Pharyngula at SB.

    I wager that a handful of complaints from readers abut ERV would shut those blog posts down.

    Perhaps; that would depend on the critical mass of such complaints, I suspect.

    (I for one couldn’t be stuffed to do so)

  11. says

    @Philip – actually, I think it would eventually die down. Not many people are too busy hating on Kate Beaton any more, or Gabbie Schulz. The shit-flingers move on to the next target, whoever the next hapless designated Evil Bitch du Jour may be. But a few many continue, and I do fear for what they may do.

  12. says

    For those who may chose to inform ScienceBlogs management about the un-civil comments at ERV, the contact page ( http://scienceblogs.com/channel/about.php#contact ) suggests that editorial@scienceblogs.com would be the right email address.

    Relevant quotations from the Code of Conduct ( http://scienceblogs.com/main/code/ ) might include: “Keep things civil … it is easier to work together toward this goal if we are polite to one another. … we will not stand for misplaced or ad hominem attacks.” and “If a problem arises on the blogs and you choose to respond publicly, do so in a way that addresses the problem directly without escalating personal conflicts.” and quite on point: “Do not post anything that: slanders, defames, threatens, or harasses another person ; is bigoted, pornographic, hateful, racist, sexist, intolerant, or excessively vulgar”

    I’ll post the letter I plan to write after I’ve sent it.

  13. Bernard Bumner says

    I think it would eventually die down.

    It doesn’t need to die down, it needs to be stamped out.

    If victims of bullying need to remain silent and wait for their bullies to lose interest, then there is something very wrong going on.

    I don’t know what Rebecca Watson wants, but she hasn’t shown any sign of capitulating to her tormentors, unless she asks people to stop, then I think her supporters should continue to take any opportunity to condemn her treatment.

    Those on the finges need to know that they have participated in something shameful. Those at the heart of it need to be shown up for the dangerous weirdos that they are.

  14. maureen.brian says

    chigau,

    In most jurisdictions the test of whether impersonation is wrong is whether or not there is an intention to harm. So impersonation with the intention of harassment would count, as would fraud or damaging professional reputation.

    In some places impersonation with the intention of inciting further harassment would come under hate crime.

    As always, though, too much depends upon how bright and eager your policepersons and prosecutors are, as we have seen just now with Mabus.

  15. says

    It doesn’t need to die down, it needs to be stamped out.

    If victims of bullying need to remain silent and wait for their bullies to lose interest, then there is something very wrong going on.

    Oh, so this.

  16. says

    And now Dr. Kiki is being faux-tweeted

    @drkiki One of my stalkers is now impersonating you @thedrkiki You can report to Twitter here bit.ly/kT7YBt

  17. says

    I totally agree that it should be stamped out. I would hate to think I was misread, so just in case:

    Yes, I think that ElevatorGate would die down if we all stopped challenging it. And then Rebecca might have some relief, as long as she (and we) kept silent. And thus the bullies would have won, and they would move on to target someone else. Except for the most obsessed, who could very well go on to real-life threats to Rebecca’s personal safety. (If they haven’t already.)

    This is not the good kind of moving on. This is not a desirable state of affairs. It is what I predict would happen if we were to stop standing up and fighting about this specific case.

  18. munkhaus says

    “Twitter is terrorism!” cries Benson
    “Stamp out free speech!” respond Bensons Brigade.

    *slow hand clap*

  19. munkhaus says

    Greetings Ophelia. It’s telling that you call me an ambassador of ERV; telling and absurd.
    I’ve read some threads, and posted less than a dozen times over there. (She does science you know.)
    Same with your blog; am I thus an ambassador of your blog too?
    No, of course not. It’s just your need to compartmentalise and attack “the other”. What’s next from you Ophelia, a bomb under my car?

  20. says

    Well, munkhaus, that’s the only place I’d seen you, and everything I’ve seen from you has been in their style.

    How could I put a bomb under your car? I haven’t got the faintest idea who you are. You’re entirely safe.

    You gave Abbie the impression that I called for stamping out comments at ERV by complaining to Nat Geo. You’re not accountable and you’re not responsible. That’s a nasty combination.

  21. Nick says

    Munk, your umbrage and wild hyperbole seem misplaced after you entered the thread swinging. Don’t throw your hands up and act the part of the wronged party when the first words out of your mouth were intended to misrepresent and marginalize. Or intended, to use some words I’ve read very recently, “to compartmentalise and attack ‘the other’.”

  22. Attila the Hen says

    Aratina Cage says: What’s next? Well, they already have the impersonation bit down. How about next a lifetime of obsessive stalking, vandalism, and uncontainable psychotic rage?

    How about finding a backdoor at randi.org, sending forged abuse messages using other’s identitities, deleting a whole bunch of data and destroying user accounts?

    Oh wait. Rebeacca Watson has already done that…

    You can’t have double standards if you have no standards to begin with. You folks are amazing.

  23. Attila the Hen says

    Aratina Cage says: What’s next? Well, they already have the impersonation bit down. How about next a lifetime of obsessive stalking, vandalism, and uncontainable psychotic rage?

    How about finding a backdoor at randi.org, sending forged abuse messages using other’s identitities, deleting a whole bunch of data and destroying user accounts?

    Oh wait. Rebecca Watson has already done that…

    You can’t have double standards if you have no standards to begin with. You folks are amazing.

  24. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Attila, you do have double posts — but to have double standards, you need to have standards.

    (Are your citation skills equally lacking, or do you merely fear others may see your bombastic misrepresentation for what it is?)

    You folks are amazing.

    Simpletons are easily amazed.

    PS Mom, Don’t Read This

  25. munkhaus says

    Come off it Ophelia. It’s you and yours that have argued that Abbie be somehow accountable for the comments on her blog, even though unlike you, she makes it plain that she employs no censorship. And now you wish to be detatched from the carefully controlled and filtered comments on yours?
    Even taking into account your fondness for hypocrisy, this is too rich!

  26. says

    Attila the Hen,

    Did you read the article I linked to and the newly realized evidence on the anthrax mailings of 2001? Have you been to the greylining blog on WordPress? I’m just saying…

    How about finding a backdoor at randi.org, sending forged abuse messages using other’s identitities, deleting a whole bunch of data and destroying user accounts?

    Oh wait. Rebecca Watson has already done that…

    Has she been obsessively stalking someone or some female group? No? Then you are talking about something entirely different from what I was talking about.

    Anyway, about her banning from JREF (which I really don’t care about other than that people keep bringing it up as if it had anything to do with anything!), was any of the data permanently lost? Was there something about it that was not recoverable? From what I’ve learned, it was stupid of her to do, but not even one bit like what Josh Timonen did to Richard Dawkins’ forum where information was permanently destroyed and the forum permanently disbanded. So cry me a river, but until you show proof that what Rebecca Watson did at JREF was anything more than having a little fun at the expense of her friends, you have nothing to be so upset about. Nothing.

    You can’t have double standards if you have no standards to begin with. You folks are amazing.

    As I’ve shown, you are comparing apples and oranges in your piss-poor attempt to sully Rebecca Watson, which would be kind of funny if it weren’t so annoying and cruel to a person who hasn’t done a damn thing to you.

  27. says

    It’s you and yours that have argued that Abbie be somehow accountable for the comments on her blog, even though unlike you, she makes it plain that she employs no censorship.

    Hardly. It’s not just a matter of no censorship, to put it mildly. She encourages it, she praises it, she does some of the worst of it herself; she starts new threads for it so that it can go on; she calls it a monument to everything she loves. She hosts, not passively but actively, more than three months of people doing everything they can to destroy one woman for reasons of personal disagreement and distaste. She should know better. It’s that simple.

  28. idahogie says

    This whole episode is fascinating. I originally applauded Rebecca Watson for her initial commentary — she was dead-on right, and her approach was much more mild and forgiving than she could have been.

    And as this has played out, I have grown completely disgusted with people like ERV and those who are on full-out assault against Rebecca and her defenders. I see nothing but hateful, ignorant, deceptive creeps. Reading their comments gives me the willies.

    What is wrong with them? What is it about this subject that drives people like munkhaus and TylerD to behave as shamefully as they have here?

    This will make a great book someday.

  29. says

    I know. Morbid, isn’t it.

    What drives them, as far as I can tell, is just frothing rage at women – along with the fact that most of them can do it with impunity, because nobody knows who they are.

    What drives Abbie I have absolutely no idea.

  30. Philip Legge says

    Shame, munkhaus:

    Yo.
    Accidently went to that tosspot Benson`s post about the idiot who was doing that fake Watson tweeting business. It`s typical she asks if “putting a bomb under her car” is next; she can`t resist another slavering outburst of “fucking cunt bitch whore” (she loves it!) but what I`m posting about it the calls to “stamp out” the evil comments here by complaining to National Geographic or something. In case anyone found it interesting etc with regard to the free (speech) comments above.

    I see from the above quote that you’re complicit in contributing to the on-going frothing cesspit over at ERV. I also note that like the unsavoury gang of other occasional posters there, you did not join SC (Salty Current), John Morales, Caine, or various others in condemning Franc Hoggle’s disgusting comment about Ophelia: “If I was a girl, I’d kick her in the cunt. Cunt.”

    That sort of threatening sexist language is unacceptable. Congratulations on your membership of the asshole club over there.

    Disclaimer.

  31. Philip Legge says

    SPFem @ #48, that post is already linked via a pingback at comment #41 — you really don’t need to repeat the dose. Really.

  32. Luna_the_cat says

    @Ophelia Benson, #45:

    “What drives Abbie I have absolutely no idea.”

    May I offer some suggestions?

    Girl bullies checklist
    Some girls are naturally popular, but other socially savvy girls abuse popularity for control and attention. Here’s a checklist to determine if a girl may be a bully.

    • Her friends do what she wants them to do.

    • She can argue anyone down, including friends, peers, teachers and parents.

    • Her comments about other girls are about the lame things they did.

    • She doesn’t want to invite everyone to her birthday party, and if she does, she ignores some.

    • She’s charming to adults. [NB: past this stage, now. She's no longer a kid, and feels no need to be "charming" to adults, although I note there is still a tendency to want to ally herself with people perceived as having high status, like Dawkins.]

    • She makes other girls [NB: or boys] feel “anointed” by declaring them special friends.

    • She is affectionate to one person to show rejection of another, like throwing her arms dramatically around one girl to emphasize the exclusion of another.

    • She does not take responsibility when she hurts another’s feelings.

    • She seeks revenge when she feels wronged.

    http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/0226edgirlbullies0226.html

    See also some of the writing about “Queen Bees.”
    http://jezebel.com/5377987/queen-bees-wannabes–how-technology-has-changed-teens-forever

    and,

    “Bullies go for admiration, for status, for dominance,” Veenstra said. Unlike friendly teasing, he said, bullying is long-term, unwanted and doesn’t occur between social equals.

    Despite their aggressive behavior, bullies also want affection, Veenstra said. His work has shown that bullies care about the approval of their own in-group, so they strategically pick victims they know few other classmates will defend.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36335617/ns/health-childrens_health/t/brutal-bullies-what-makes-kids-cruel/

    Abbie has found her “in-group” which gives her admiration and reinforcement, for picking on other women.

  33. munkhaus says

    Legge; oh ok, fair enough.
    Just kidding.
    Abbie is a scientist, and here post are interesting. Thought I’d give her a heads up about the stamping out. She couldn’t give a monkeys of course. I don’t think you people show up on many radars.
    I did wonder why all Dah Wominz were showing up over there; thought someone must have blown a whistle.

  34. Dr. D.E. Cameron, retired says

    This is truly appalling. if I had known it would come to this, I would have done something different.

    What, I don’t know…but it worked well for the first few decades, at least.

    They really do need some medication over there.

  35. Philip Legge says

    If comment #51 is supposed to be demonstrating contrition, it’s not a very good attempt at it.

    A number of the greylining blog posts are tagged as “character assassination”. That’s precisely what it is, and it’s been going on for months there and elsewhere. It wasn’t any more impressive when it was being carried out by the largely pseudonymous sock-puppet collective at the Intersocksection blog or the defunct You’re Not Helping blog, and it’s certainly not an impressive advertisement for the motley collection of ERV groupies. (The behavioural similarities have been noticed before now.)

    (Porcupines. Metaphors. Ranting.)

  36. franc hoggle as "EvaBeige" says

    #35 Ophelia: You gave Abbie the impression that I called for stamping out comments at ERV by complaining to Nat Geo. You’re not accountable and you’re not responsible. That’s a nasty combination.

    Uhuh. Can you explain epistemic relativism again? You are unreal. You have been maintaining a relentless slander campaign against Abbie for ages now, based on convenience store quote mining. One has to assume that, based on the frequency with which you recite the same substance free nonsense, you have only one aim here – and that is to poison google, and Abbie’s reputation, for anyone that searches for Abbie. Petty, spiteful malice and raw woman hatred – that’s what misogyny actually is Prunella. That you can also say with a straight face you do not want a spurious complaint storm against ERV is beyond slapstick.

    idahogie and a conga line of others –

    I see nothing but hateful, ignorant, deceptive creeps. Reading their comments gives me the willies.

    ::cough::

    “When it brings him [the Jew] no such advantages he [the Jew] is the deadly enemy of enlightenment and hates all culture which is real culture as such.” — Mein Kampf, CHAPTER XI: RACE AND PEOPLE

    Yes. Let’s speak up about hate. Of course you will deny being fascists. But you’d also deny the sky was blue if it deviated from orthodox ideology.

  37. julian says

    Petty, spiteful malice and raw woman hatred

    I think… my irony meter just broke… So this is what it feels like.

  38. franc hoggle as "EvaBeige" says

    I think… my irony meter just broke… So this is what it feels like.

    Unfortunately Julian, snappy comebacks are no substitute for substance. The only folks grinding the “hatred” millstone are from around here – and its standard dehumanization/demonization practice. You omit the relevance and focus on opportunistic soundbites. Teabaggers do it, Glenn Beck does it, so does Coulter. You have no interest in reality or substance. Just villification. If only somebody would say something that did not rely on simple debasement of those that you disagree with. And complaining about reductio at Hitlerum is a bit rich considering how everything you have is glued together by reductio ad Watsonum.

  39. julian says

    That wasn’t a snappy comeback, as I’m sure your friends would agree.

    Anyway, have a beer. You strike me as way to worked up. What’s your favorite? I’ve got Pabst (roommate likes it because, I dunno, he eats babies or something), Yuengling (dark brewed) and some Corona. Or we could make some Incredible Hulks. No ice but I’ve been getting by by breaking chips off the poor excuse for a freezer we have.

  40. says

    Eva Beige like Eva Braun, just a little bit lighter?
    Ah, yes, I see, that seems like what passes for humor over there.
    Oh, and Eva “Franc” Beige:
    If Abbie’s reputation suffers, it’s because of her actions.
    Because whatever is said here and on the other blogs you hate about her behaviour is usually propperly sourced back to her own blog.
    So, if her reputation suffered from the HPV-vaccine debacle, it’s not because people discussed it elesewhere.
    If her reputation suffers from providing a lovely home for people like you, it’s not because people point it out elsewhere.
    If her reputation suffers from using gendered insults, it’s not because people oppose it.
    But I guess you’re one of those people who, when they get a ticket for speeding, blame it on the damn cop who caught them.

  41. John Morales says

    [meta]

    EvaBeige:

    Unfortunately Julian, snappy comebacks are no substitute for substance.

    julian wasn’t kidding.

    I add “That would look very good on your CV: not so much on mine”.

  42. says

    Eva Beige like Eva Braun, just a little bit lighter?

    As I pointed out in the “Did a Wolf Howl?” thread, there is a White Supremacist atheist group behind some of this obsessive hatred that we see on display.

  43. says

    Oh right, I did see the comment. Now I’ve looked at that page – briefly. Ew.

    I don’t see any connection though. MRA types are not scarce, so overlaps in rhetoric needn’t signal overlaps in personnel.

  44. says

    You have been maintaining a relentless slander campaign against Abbie for ages now…

    What falsehoods, exactly, has Ophelia been writing about Abbie for “ages?” Specific citations, please, or admit you’re full of shit.

    …based on convenience store quote mining.

    I’ve NEVER seen a convenience store that does quote-mining. What fucking planet are you posting this shit from? Do you have ANY idea what you’re talking about?

  45. says

    This business about my poisoning google – out of curiosity I googled Abbie’s name and you know what comes up? That thread. Abbie is doing her own google-poisoning, I have nothing to do with it.

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>