Appendix: stupid questions


holy

EllenBeth Wachs @BlameEllenBeth Jun 6

Holy mofo crap how do you not see your hypocrisy Ophelia?-> Why do they think they are above being questioned?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/06/why-do-they-think-they-are-above-being-questioned/

I’m not an organization.

Comments

  1. says

    But aren’t you trying to recruit wealth donors to throw money at you, and for masses of people to get your newsletter and support your leadership?

    I wonder, not so much about the Benson Coalition of America, but about why Ellen Beth thinks it is unseemly to question the goals and processes of an organization.

  2. James O'Day says

    Ms Wachs is trying to claim that since she didn’t actually say in so many words that Ms Benson couldn’t question the GSC that the accusation of hypocrisy isn’t there. It’s literally (a word used correctly in this case) true that Ms Wachs didn’t mention questioning the GSC. However the implication is there for anyone who’s been following the discussion of the GSC on this blog.

  3. says

    Context certainly matters when you want to hold people or organizations to levels of standards. For one example- I think a blogger should be held to the same standard of ethics and honesty as as an organization with a paid professional staff.

    But that really had nothing to do with my tweet either.

  4. says

    Oh stop tap dancing, EllenBeth.

    You said I’m a hypocrite for asking why the people behind the Global Secular Council think they are above being questioned. Thus you’re saying that I think I’m above being questioned. I don’t think that.

    But even if I did think that, it’s still the case that I’m not an organization. I emphatically don’t think that I owe anyone a reply in the same way that a public non-profit organization that sends out press releases and requests donations and publicity does.

    I’m not an organization. I’m not a CEO of a big corporation. I’m not a Senator. I’m not a General. I’m not a pope or an imam.

  5. says

    Oh, well, Joe but you see there are no comments from people such as “Pitchguest” or “Steersman” or any of the countless sock puppets offered by Richard Sanderson etc etc etc. I don’t allow people with a long monotonous history of harassing me and others to comment here, therefore I’m a hypocrite for saying the GSC should not block people on Twitter or call them names or both as its response to being asked serious questions about its plans and staffing.

  6. says

    Ellenbeth Wachs isn’t being clear at all about what she was trying to say; she seems to admit or suggest that her tweet was not clear, at least not understood, but she won’t say just what it was she was trying to say. Why not?

    Maybe she’s auditioning for the official GSC tweetership spot.

  7. says

    These same people who aren’t very good at the thinky stuff also aren’t very good at the honesty stuff. There’s a world of difference between “above being questioned” and “not allowing dishonest, tedious, abusive assholes to hijack every comments section to rehash their petty unfounded grievances.”

  8. says

    I didn’t use quote marks, so saying “that isn’t what I said” is a little inappropriate — and if you’re complaining that you were inaccurately understood, the correct thing to say after “that isn’t what I said” is, “Here’s what I actually meant”, or something along those lines.

    I currently have no idea what EllenBeth was trying to communicate, since she seems to be trying to disavow any meaning in her comment.

  9. says

    Ellenbeth didn’t mean anything at all. Any resemblance to meaning in her assemblages of words in grammatical sentence-like structures is purely coincidental.

  10. says

    PZ, you have no idea what I was trying to communicate yet here you are telling me what I think not once but twice. It would have been very easy to simply ask me instead Ophelia took my tweet to use it for a, dare I use the word, “rage” blog, Ophelia?

    Y’all have a nice day.

  11. Anthony K says

    I currently have no idea what EllenBeth was trying to communicate, since she seems to be trying to disavow any meaning in her comment.

    I hope her PR team gets back to you with a media-ready response for immediate release, since I think a twitter user should be held to the same standard of ethics and honesty as as an organization with a paid professional staff.

    -30-

  12. Anthony K says

    PZ, you have no idea what I was trying to communicate yet here you are telling me what I think not once but twice.

    Please point to where PZ told you ‘what [you] think”.

    Note: “what this appears to say” is not the same as “this is what you think”.

  13. says

    I think the only “meaning” here is that no one gives half a shit about EllenBeth Wachs unless she’s making an ass of herself. So, every so often she HAS to make an ass of herself to give her life meaning. That’s pretty much the “meaning” of all the slyme-types… if FtB didn’t exist, they’d have no existence either.

  14. says

    Well EllenBeth it would have been very easy for you to ask me what I meant instead of ragetweeting “Holy mofo crap how do you not see your hypocrisy Ophelia?” but you didn’t do that, did you.

    And your meaning is clear. You said what you said. There’s no rule that we have to “ask” people what they meant when their meaning is clear. Your meaning is that I’m hypocritical for saying “Why do they think they are above being questioned?” That’s not obscure or difficult to parse.

    It follows from that that you think I should not be criticizing the GSC for refusing to answer questions. Yup, it follows. That’s how language works. You said what you said.

  15. Anthony K says

    In response to my #21, PZ did use the construction “Ellen Beth thinks”.

    So, that is once, but not twice as Ellen Beth claimed.

  16. Jackie the wacky says

    I don’t think EllenBeth even lives in the same zip code as reality at this point. She’s makes dishonest accusations, back peddles, claims she’s being misconstrued and yet purposefully remains vague and smarmy.

    Harrasing =/= asking questions, EllenBeth.

    No, Ophelia is not being hypocritical.
    No, she doesn’t owe rando harassers on twitter her attention nor space on her blog.
    Yes, people putting themselves forward as our global thought leaders should be held accountable for their claims.
    Yes, you are being and have been consistently dishonest and horrible.

    You’re pathetic. I’m so glad you got your fee-fees hurt and went off to join Team Misogynist Harassers. It would be awful to have you hanging around embarrassing progressive atheism.

  17. says

    People, Ellenbeth doesn’t bother to actually READ or think about what she writes, so why exactly do you think she’s going to bother to read and address what you write?

  18. says

    It would have been very easy to simply ask me instead Ophelia took my tweet to use it for a, dare I use the word, “rage” blog, Ophelia?

    Why ask when the meaning seems obvious? It’s for you to explain why your reason and logic makes sense given the different expectations of organizations versus bloggers asking questions of organizations. It was an accusation of hypocrisy that did not make sense because of lack of explanation.

    PZ was reading into the motivations, but that seems to be a fine thing to do when the person making the assertion offers no reason and logic. If reason and logic are absent, the cause can be inferred to be emotional, like thinking that asking the group questions is unseemly.

  19. deepak shetty says

    @Ophelia
    Am I missing some context? For the allegation of hypocrisy to hold you would have to be above being questioned? So what is that referring to – blocking of some trolls or something else?

  20. says

    I’m not an organization.

    ^^
    This is apparently what constitutes a “rage blog” now. I really wonder how many plates Ophelia smashed in fury as she hammered out those shockingly ragey words. /snark

  21. says

    I see EBW’s quest for THE TRUTH continues apace, shame the path is littered with her disingenuous smarm, evasion and lies… I guess she’ll get there eventually :)

  22. A. Noyd says

    oolon (#33)

    I guess she’ll get there eventually.

    She’ll get there after days on the road by accidentally turning into what she thinks is the parking lot of a Flying J. The only thing she’ll care about is that she can’t get the shower she was hoping for, and she’ll leave before experiencing any lasting revelations.

  23. Kelseigh says

    Huh, a quick look reveals that now she thinks Ophelia is a hypocrite because she knew about the quoted tweet (which she characterizes as “stalking my feed”. Perhaps the problem where is she doesn’t know what “hypocrite” means?

  24. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Perhaps the problem where is she doesn’t know what “hypocrite” means?

    I suspect one could fill a very large book with words whose meaning Ellenbeth Wachs is unclear on.

  25. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    I suspect one could fill a very large book with words whose meaning Ellenbeth Wachs is unclear on.

    Like most of her scum-drenched co-creepers at the Slymepit she appears to have voluntarily excised many terms, phrases and concepts from her brain, not the least of which is ‘false equivalence is a logical fallacy’.

  26. says

    MrFancyPants:

    I’m not an organization.

    This is apparently what constitutes a “rage blog” now.

    They’re now using the phrase “rage blogging” in the same way that Intelligent Design proponents use the word “scientism”. It’s not a critique of the opponent’s position, but a way of avoiding having to give such a critique. “Rage blogging” is just an empty slogan, used by people who are superficially convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority, but who deep down know they’re incapable of justifying such a proposition.

  27. embertine says

    Hi EllenBeth,

    Please can you clarify exactly what you meant by the following:
    “Holy mofo crap how do you not see your hypocrisy Ophelia?”

    The obvious interpretation is that Ophelia considers that she herself should not be questioned. If that is not what you meant, what did you mean please?

  28. theoreticalgrrrl says

    Ophelia is a hypocrite because she selectively deletes comments in her threads to make it sound like people didn’t clarify their argument and debunk the accusations she and others throw at them.
    I’m not a harasser, I’ve posted here for years, yet she does something that dishonest and sleazy to me, and no apology.

    I agree with Ellen on one point, Ophelia is a hypocrite. I’m sure this will also be conveniently deleted. Disgusting.

  29. theoreticalgrrrl says

    EllenBeth, I’d screen capture the thread you linked because Ophelia will probably delete the whole thing, or selectively delete comments to make it look like the conversation was going her way and the rest of us are liars.

  30. Hj Hornbeck says

    theoreticalgrrrl @42:

    I’m sure this will also be conveniently deleted.

    Which pretty much guarantees it won’t be. I also can’t help but note you’re holding Benson to the same standards as an organization that claims to represent all secular people across the globe.

    I’m sensing a common theme here.

  31. tonyinbatavia says

    theoreticalgrrrl, it’s Ophelia’s blog. She hasn’t declared herself as a secular representative to the world. She isn’t trying to solicit monies from you or anyone else to act on behalf of you or anyone else else. There is no pretense that she represents anyone but herself.

    Let’s try this another way: I will agree with you that Ophelia is being a hypocrite, truly, when all of these conditions are met:
    1. She declares herself our secular leader (thought or otherwise). Self-aggrandizingly.
    2. She tries to solicit monies to act in cryptic ways on our behalf. Globally.
    3. She botches her launch in a myriad of ways. Spectacularly.
    4. She refuses to answer our simple questions about all of the above. Snivelingly.

    I will start to pay attention when she meets one of those conditions. I will agree that she’s a hypocrite when she meets all four of those conditions. Until then, not so much.

  32. says

    So many people recently seem to be under the misapprehension that Butterflies and Wheels operates like Pharyngula’s Thunderdome and are therefore feeling entitled to their untrammeled rights to Freeze Peach™. This might be a good time to point out that there was a commenting policy some time ago (which listed some forms of vituperative speech which Ophelia as blog owner doesn’t feel obliged to host on the blog, as there are plenty of other places more suited to it). Having just looked now, I can’t find a link to it either here or on the ur-B&W, but commenters might do well to bear in mind Wheaton’s law, which I’ll simply paraphrase as “Don’t be an ass.”

  33. ewanmacdonald says

    I don’t know about anyone else but I was so infuriated by this shameless piece of rage blogging that I tossed myt laptop over the balcony (posting from the library now, through the red mist.)

    EllenBeth Wachs is a joke figure, and a boring obscurantist.

  34. says

    @ theoreticalgrrrl 42

    Ophelia is a hypocrite because she selectively deletes comments in her threads to make it sound like people didn’t clarify their argument and debunk the accusations she and others throw at them.

    This is not hypocrisy as stated. Hypocrisy is when one does something that they tell other people not to do in identical contexts. To demonstrate hypocrisy here you need to show that Ophelia believes that deleting comments is wrong in all situations, or that these situations where you claim she deleted comments are identical to situations where she complained of others deleting comments.

    The point that an individual and a group have different standards is very significant to the charge of hypocrisy and deserves attention. This is the basis for many current controversies like corporations begin given rights in campaign finance and now attempts to give corporations religious rights with respect to birth control.

  35. theoreticalgrrrl says

    As an individual, selectively deleting comments where someone is defending themselves against charges of dishonesty, AND to deliberately change/misrepresent the person’s argument, is a rotten, sleazy, dishonest thing to do.
    But, because she isn’t an organization, that makes it totally fine?

  36. theoreticalgrrrl says

    @45

    She does present herself as an honest, above-board person with integrity, who criticizes others when she feels she is being quote-mined or misrepresented. So, yeah, she’s a hypocrite.

    Why am I not surprised that you all are coming to her defense. I have always been honest and respectful with Ophelia, even when vehemently disagreeing with her. I would have expected the same, and I never would have thought she could stoop to deliberately misrepresenting someone, which she complains that the “slime pit” do to her all the time.

  37. says

    theoreticalgrrrl @ 42 and 43 – You’re wrong about my reasons for deleting your final comments on that thread and about the nature of those comments. You had said you were leaving and not coming back, and you were the only one brawling, so I simply got rid of the final stage of the brawl because it was so vituperative and shitty.

    But ok, if you think your comments are important for the historical record, fine. I restored them all. There are five:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/06/why-do-they-think-they-are-above-being-questioned/comment-page-1/#comment-2216831

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/06/why-do-they-think-they-are-above-being-questioned/comment-page-1/#comment-2216817

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/06/why-do-they-think-they-are-above-being-questioned/comment-page-1/#comment-2216747

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/06/why-do-they-think-they-are-above-being-questioned/comment-page-1/#comment-2216724

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/06/why-do-they-think-they-are-above-being-questioned/comment-page-1/#comment-2216706

    There’s your legacy, intact again.

    I’m closing comments on that thread though.

  38. says

    No I’m not, because you woke it up again.

    If you want to keep commenting, take a deep breath and pretend there are some rules you have to follow. Pretend this is my blog where I get to say how rude and abusive commenters get to be.

    Also, keep in mind that I’m not the Secular Coalition for America nor am I the Global Secular Council.

    Also, keep in mind that you’re not commenting under your real name, so you have a freedom to be abusive that not everyone has. Don’t abuse that freedom.

  39. theoreticalgrrrl says

    Oh wow, my comments magically came back up! I still have the deleted version, which includes the difference in comment #’s, captured. Jesus.

    “You had said you were leaving and not coming back, and you were the only one brawling, so I simply got rid of the final stage of the brawl because it was so vituperative and shitty.”

    Right. I wasn’t “brawling” I was responding to criticism leveled at me. Since when are you so delicate that you can’t stand disagreement? Why delete certain comments and not others, especially ones that make is sound like I’m making a different point?
    You deleted comments before I said I was leaving. Why leave up any of my comments then, other than to deliberately misrepresent me? That’s pretty vituperative and shitty.

  40. says

    For the substance of your accusastions, theoreticalgrrrl – they’re horseshit. The disagreement was a trivial one – whether or not referring to women as “females” is sexist – and your comments as it continued became wildly rude and abusive. I was on the point of putting you in moderation and/or closing the thread, when you said you were leaving, which saved me the trouble. I deleted your final comments simply because they were ugly. I think the only way that deletion “misrepresented” you is by making you seem less enraged over a minor issue than you in fact were.

    That’s it. Since you feel so strongly and as you say you have a long history here, I put them back. Rejoice: now everyone can see what a disproportionate rage you were in on Sunday.

  41. theoreticalgrrrl says

    Of course you’re closing comments on that thread. You got caught being deceptive and now you are trying to blame it on my “tone.”

  42. theoreticalgrrrl says

    Disappointing that you turned out to be no better than the people you complain about. There was nothing “ragey” about my comments.

  43. says

    You’re saying that on the thread where the comments are not visible. Go say it on the thread where they are, Or, better, do what you said you were doing and what I asked you to do: go away.

    I’m giving you a long leash because you have been commenting here for a long time. It’s not because your current comments are reasonable or valuable.

  44. yazikus says

    theoreticalgrrrl, I was reading that thread as it went down, and was quite surprised by how strongly you seem to feel about other people not appreciating being referred to as ‘females’. My personal response is usually, ‘female what, humans?’ Female human would be a better way to say it, but at that point why wouldn’t a person just say ‘women’?

  45. Forbidden Snowflake says

    There was nothing “ragey” about my comments.

    A person who uses Caps Lock is perceived by a reasonable reader as shouting. A person who uses Caps Lock to shout FUCK YOU at another commenter is perceived by a reasonable reader as ragey.

  46. says

    @ theoreticalgrrrl 50

    She does present herself as an honest, above-board person with integrity, who criticizes others when she feels she is being quote-mined or misrepresented. So, yeah, she’s a hypocrite.

    More generally hypocrisy is a subset of dishonesty so sticking to hypocrisy is needed, especially when comparing the issues of answering questions versus reasons of deletion of comments. They are separate issues.

    Note that even if substance was lost, Ophelia gets to set rules on tone in her blog, your first comment shows that you realize that you may have crossed a line there “Yeah, I used some exclamation points and all caps, deal with it.” and that comes with consequences. Ophelia can delete comments of particular tone and still not be a hypocrite because it depends on why she deleted the comments. If you don’t want to lose particular substance, don’t engage in specific means of arguing that the owner of the blog tells you not to. If she deleted those comments because of reasons having to do with her authority to prevent specific ways of commenting, that is not hypocrisy or deception.

    @ theoreticalgrrrl 54

    Right. I wasn’t “brawling” I was responding to criticism leveled at me. Since when are you so delicate that you can’t stand disagreement? Why delete certain comments and not others, especially ones that make is sound like I’m making a different point?

    These are my thoughts and Ophelia can feel free to say if I am right or not. What matters is that they are valid possibilities. Like it or not some words and mannerisms of speech are hostile. Some people want to maintain a particular tone in their spaces. You were not just responding to criticism, you were doing so in ways Ophelia does not like around here, and you were challenging her authority as a person allowed to request particular behavior in her social space.

    *”Yeah, I used some exclamation points and all caps, deal with it.” implies a lack of respect for social rules that Ophelia cares about. she does not have to let challenges to her ability to moderate stand.
    *Direct insults “Fuck off, fuck you”
    *Refusal to acknowledge the importance of characterizing what another person said exactly and honestly. She does not have to accept characterization in place of accuracy, or leave challenges to that moderation authority in place. Missing content and authority challenges are different and a hypocrisy or deception claim must make that distinction.
    Two examples.
    One, your comment “(Most) People are reacting that way because it’s an inoffensive word, and telling people that it’s offensive is going to get a reaction.”. He told people it was offensive for reasons, and when you replace those reasons with “telling people it’s offensive” he’s justified in pointing out that he’s not saying that it’s just offensive when you don’t actually address his substance. Omitting his substance is portraying him as being black and white in opinions of offensiveness.
    Two, “sleight of hand tricks” and “verbal sleight of hand” are different things. “Tricks” implies deliberate dishonesty claims by Ophelia’s via claims of malevolent action by you, and she did not use the word. Instead “verbal sleight of hand” is a valid point about your word replacement that you might have committed by sloppy thinking (inappropriate unconscious category switch from specific to more general is affected by motivated reasoning). She did not imply you were being dishonest and left room for language imprecision.

    She does not have to put up with exaggerated paraphrasing that leads to increased confusion as commenting evolves.
    She does not have to put up with direct angry insults (yes comments were ragey) when comments devolve into arguments.
    She does not have to put up with yelling when comments devolve into arguments.
    She does not have to put up with direct challenges from people who admit they think they may be crossing the line, and then proceed to do so anyway.

  47. says

    Another big reason was just the total disproportion – the disagreement was over a very minor point, and thus not worth all the caps and exclamation points and accusations of lying. I think I probably cut more slack for disagreements over more important issues, but this? Shouty fury over a very minor point? No thanks.

  48. says

    I’m going back through theoreticalgrrrl’s previous comments, which were made under a few different names (but the same email address, so not exactly sock-puppeting) and I found one of amusing relevance:

    I used to belong to a Yahoo group and the moderator was completely anti-moderating in the name of free speech. It was a complete mess, mostly dominated by a paranoid guy who thought the government was using his microwave to control his thoughts. No one could have a normal conversation or debate about anything. It was draining and pointless. But no one could convince the moderator to do something about the trolls, he was so convinced it was some sacred duty to let people be free to spew whatever nonsense they wanted and constantly derail discussions.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/11/people-change-their-minds/comment-page-1/#comment-340229

  49. theoreticalgrrrl says

    Nice Ophelia, trash talking me after telling me to go away so I can’t defend myself. Yeah, I used to post under a couple different names before FTB required you log in and stick to one. Which I TOLD people here I did.(oops, all caps, sue me) Callistacat and Grace. So exactly not a “gotcha!” but thanks for hinting that I “sockpuppeted”. I’m sure no one else has changed their ‘nyms here.What other dirt did you dig up to prove I’m disproportionately hysterical and worthy of contempt and ridicule?

    The quote you found amusing? Ha. You tone trolling me – for my hysterical, derailing opinion that “Female” isn’t a degrading, offensive term that nobody should use as a noun. It’s a stupid opinion, and I said so.

    Make a list next time which topics are so trivial that you will have no problem completely trashing and alienating a loyal reader over.

    Not for me, the damage has been done, but the next feminist woman you throw under the bus for the sake of your ego.

    A couple words in all caps and a few exclamation points….the humanity! Seriously, a derail that destroyed the whole thread. But interesting you left up the comment someone left after mine about civil rights workers and anal sex. That’s just fine with you?

    You now try to vilify me because you showed that you selectively delete comments to make it look like I lied, and you got caught. If it was a “minor point,” why the selective deleting? It may be minor to you, but expressing the opinion that if someone uses female as a noun they are degrading and dehumanizing and othering women, well, it’s just an opinion. You survived it. The thread survived it, somehow.

    @67
    Why don’t you just go ahead and call me an hysterical, emotional female…oops, I mean woman. We can’t used that other word lest it offend the professionally offended. It wasn’t even about the word, it was the accusations that I was twisting words and using “verbal sleight of hand” that I was reacting to, but of course leave all that out.

    As if you don’t react to people telling you to shut up because there are More Important Issues. (Dear Muslima, anyone)?
    What a dishonest hypocrite you are. .

    The quote you found amusing? Ha. You tone trolling me for my opinion that “Female” isn’t a degrading, offensive term we can’t use as a noun. it’s a stupid opinion, and I said so.

    Make a list next time which topics are so trivial that you will have no problem trashing and alienating a loyal reader over. Not for me, the damage has been done, but the next woman you throw under the bus for the sake of your ego.

    A couple words in all caps and a few exclamation points….the humanity! Serious, a derail that destroyed the whole thread. But interesting you left up the comment someone left after mine about civil rights workers and anal sex. Not important.
    @67
    Why don’t you just go ahead and call me an hysterical, emotional female…oops, I mean woman. We can’t used that other word lest it offend the professionally offended.

    Vilify me because you showed that you selectively delete comments to make it look like I lied, and you got caught. If it was a “minor point,” why the selective deleting?

    which may be minor to you, but telling people if they use it they are degrading and othering women, it’s just an opinion. You survived it.

    It wasn’t even about the word, it was the accusations that I was twisting words and “verbal sleight of hand” that I was reacting to, but leave all that out.

    As if you don’t react to people telling you to shut up because there are More Important Issues To Deal With. (Dear Muslima, anyone)?
    Just unbelievable. What a dishonest person you are.

  50. theoreticalgrrrl says

    @Brony
    *”Yeah, I used some exclamation points and all caps, deal with it.” implies a lack of respect for social rules that Ophelia cares about. she does not have to let challenges to her ability to moderate stand.

    LOL. I was being sarcastic, because it’s ridiculous to be offended by a couple of words in all caps and a few exclamation points. Jesus. Talk about twisting words. And suddenly the f-bomb is wildly innappropriate here. Who are you kidding?

  51. Stacy says

    I’ve just been reading Harry Franhfurt’s On Bullshit and found something that describes exactly what EllenBeth did here. Frankfurt quotes from the essay The Prevalence of Humbug by Max Black:

    HUMBUG: deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebody’s own thoughts, feelings, or attitudes.

  52. theoreticalgrrrl says

    @68

    Yeah, totally the same thing. I constantly talk about microwaves and troll your blog. Except I don’t.

    I really respected you Ophelia and I am unbelievably hurt that you would go out of your way to trash me and ridicule me when I said I have a history of commenting here. You know I am not the kind of person you’re making me out to be. But fine. Throw other feminists under the bus.

  53. theoreticalgrrrl says

    “These are my thoughts and Ophelia can feel free to say if I am right or not.”

    Oh goody for you. She didn’t say if I’m right or not, she deleted comments without telling me or anyone else, to make it look like the conversation went in a way it didn’t.

    Projecting “ragey” and “furor” on a female commenter, not sexist and patronizing at all. Nope.

  54. says

    theoretialgrrrl –

    No, I didn’t. I didn’t delete your final comments to make anything look like anything other than to make the whole thread look a little bit calmer. Your final comments were just angry abusive shouting.

    No, I don’t need to make a list of what’s trivial. Most people just know that disagreeing about whether referring to women as “females” is objectionable or not is not important enough to get in a towering rage about. They don’t need to be told. Most of those who do need to be told will take the point and reduce the heat. You got in a towering raged about it and then refused to reduce the heat. That seems uncharacteristic, so I was hoping you would just take a break from here and come back when you’re less furious.

  55. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    theoreticalgrrrl @ 69

    It’s a stupid opinion, and I said so.

    This right here is the problem. You were out of line from the start. You can disagree with it all you like. You can be as not offended as you like. But, when you start telling people their views are ridiculous and nonsense and stupid and making bald assertions about what people who aren’t you ought to be offended by? You’re over the line.

    When you got called out on it, you doubled down and became vitriolic to the point where Ophelia felt it was abusive. And guess what? It’s Ophelia’s fucking blog. That’s her call to make and she made it.

    The re-addition of your deleted comments to the whole thing really doesn’t make you look more reasonable. It’s just more of the argument by direct assertion garbage you started with only more hostile.

  56. says

    @ theoreticalgrrrl 70
    It honestly did not look like sarcasm to me. If I did not see it as sarcasm I won’t be the only one. Sarcasm is a thing that does not work so well on the internet.

    I’m sorry but you are using a lot of cognitive distortions in your reactions to thing that do have a habit of turning conversations into fights. Those are not going away and they are things you should be worried about if you care about responding to people accurately. I’m really trying to help you understand here.

    Jumping to conclusions
    *She did not hint that you sockpuppeted, she explicitly stated that it was not exactly sockpuppeting.

    *She is not tone trolling you, she is criticizing the intensity and manner with which you were disagreeing. Tone trolling is a method to get people to calm down as a means to make them stop arguing, she wanted you to argue less intensely and avoid things like exaggerated paraphrasing, she did not want you to shut up. Literally using quotes that present things the other person did not actually say, those are your emotional impressions which are not arguments.

    Entitlement beliefs.
    *If lots of people in an environment are acting like something is a commonly understood part of reality, find out why. Demanding that they tell you in advance why their conclusions about reality are valid is not reasonable because most of us are not prepared to actually articulate our assumptions and it’s only when asked that one can make the attempt. Only when you understand someone else’s reasoning can you deal with it in an effective manner. This would be an example of the group engaging in the “Assumed similarity” cognitive distortion, but demanding people list all their assumptions up front is not a reasonable solution. Those get discovered as conversations continue.

    Entitlement beliefs/Personalizing
    *That you think her desire for a reduction in emotional intensity is irrelevant. This is her space, and she actually has psychologically valid reasons for the policy. We are more prone to motivated reasoning and all it’s attendant biases when things are emotionally intense. Not everyone wants passions to run high on their blog and the general desire is not personal. You are feeling that it is personal because it’s happening to you right now.

    Other distortions I’m seeing,
    All or nothing thinking
    Using feelings as the basis of a judgment, when the objective evidence does not support your feelings
    Cognitive labeling
    Magnifying (Cognitively Exaggerating)
    Failure to consider alternative explanations
    Attributing strangers’ behavior to their character and not considering situational/contextual factors
    The Peak-End Rule

    No real distortion of thought, but rude and strategically unwise.
    *Don’t try to predict people’s emotional responses. Why don’t you just go ahead and call me an hysterical, emotional female…oops, I mean woman. This probably feels good, but it’s essentially name calling and does not work in disagreements. Take advantage of the emotional responses of others and control your own. I know your meaning was to refer to the fact that you perceive claims of “slight of hand” to be unfair, but you did switch words on people. They are not accusations if you are actually doing it.

    You now try to vilify me because you showed that you selectively delete comments to make it look like I lied, and you got caught. If it was a “minor point,” why the selective deleting?

    She said I was correct about her motivations so you can look at my list of reasons. I was actually pretty detailed because I’m very familiar with how intense emotion can cause problems all sorts of social environments.

    It may be minor to you, but expressing the opinion that if someone uses female as a noun they are degrading and dehumanizing and othering women, well, it’s just an opinion. You survived it. The thread survived it, somehow.

    It was not that you were arguing against the offensiveness of female. It was the exaggerated paraphrasing, the emotional intensity of responses…

    What a dishonest hypocrite you are.

    Dishonesty and hypocrisy are still not in evidence. She is specifically saying her reasons for deletion had to do with your intensity and things like exaggerated paraphrasing and since those things do exist and are worth worrying about it’s a reasonable conclusion.

  57. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Projecting “ragey” and “furor” on a female commenter, not sexist and patronizing at all. Nope.

    The word you are looking for is “inferring”, not “projecting”.

  58. Richard Sanderson aka "John Gobb" says

    I’m laughing my little socks off at the thought of Ophelia moaning that the GLOBAL Secular Council won’t answer her trolling and inane questions.

    FREEEEZE PEEEEEEAAAACCCCCHHHHHHH,

    You really are a fucking joke, Ophelia.

  59. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    Ophelia wrote:

    They did answer my questions.

    A stump-dumb slymepit creep like Rich Sanderson never lets facts or reality get in the way of his frantic, desperate-for-attention hoggling.

  60. says

    What a life, eh? Wholly parasitic on a few bloggers, desperately seeking attention from others who are parasitic on those same few bloggers – for years on end. Oy.

  61. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    What a life, eh? Wholly parasitic on a few bloggers, desperately seeking attention from others who are parasitic on those same few bloggers – for years on end. Oy.

    Well, it’s certainly paid off for him; after years of being a suckup sidekick to the real movers & shakers of the scumhole he’s managed to get to all of (snort) 278 (giggle) Twitter followers (hahahaha!)…

  62. says

    That’s all? I guess that’s actually rather reassuring — that one of the most antic freaks of the anti-feminist skeptic/atheist brigade has such a pathetic following.

  63. Badland says

    @82

    He could always ask Sara Mayhew how to acquire 25,000 followers overnight. Gravitas! Credibility! Big numbers!

  64. says

    chigau/#84:

    Curse you. You win. I believe my score is still in the double digits somewhere.

    (This _is_ like golf, right? Lower is better?)

  65. says

    @ Richard Sanderson aka “John Gobb” 78

    I’m laughing my little socks off at the thought of Ophelia moaning that the GLOBAL Secular Council won’t answer her trolling and inane questions.

    They did answer them. I’m enjoying the thought of you laughing at phantoms.

    FREEEEZE PEEEEEEAAAACCCCCHHHHHHH,

    You seem to be misusing the phrase. No one is entitled to a voice in every social space, or to use their voice in every possible way in the same space. That really does not apply to a situation where a group does not have to answer questions about how they treat people or how they conduct their operations, but it does not look so good if they choose not to answer such questions.

    You really are a fucking joke, Ophelia.

    You already gave me reasons not to trust what you find funny. You appreciation of the situation and persons around us seems very error-ridden.

  66. chigau (違う) says

    AJ Milne #86
    My low score is aided by my not actually being on Twitter.
    I do have a Facebook account. With not one friend.

  67. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    Having a low number of followers is hardly a bad thing – unless you happen to be someone who likes to think of themselves as a ‘thought leader’ and tries to influence others. Then it makes you look like a complete asshat.

  68. says

    #88:

    I dunno, chigau. While I guess I have to accept the Facebook thing as legit, it seems to me this not actually having an account thing is cheating.

    (/Facebook amuses me. They seem to think I should want more friends… It’s always fill out your profile more, that’ll help… Or here, how ’bout friending these people, they look nice… Honestly, it’s a bit like having a worried and none-too-selective busybody friend trying to hook you up with random people they’ve seen across a room or met once on a bus somewhere, when, seriously, you’re already finding it complicated enough to keep track of what you’ve already got yourself into. And I’m not actually on Twitter so much, so it keeps sending me these vaguely mournful, needy emails asking me why not. There really should be some kinda ‘digital introvert’ setting for these things.)

  69. chigau (違う) says

    AJ Milne
    I signed-up for FarceBork because ya gotta be signed-up to actually look for stuff.
    Not a word of my profile is true.
    And my name there is a misspelling of the name of a character (a kinda psychopathic assassin) in a not-well-known SF novel.
    Strangely, this results in those auto-offers of “maybe you’d like these people” featuring exclusively Africans.

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>