Oh looky here, what do you know – Phil “Thunderf00t” Mason who thinks Anita Sarkeesian is lying about getting threats for the sake of “PR” – that Phil Mason posting in October 2011 about threats he gets.
October 8 for instance.
So here I am at the Texas Freethought convention, where I’ve met for the first time Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience, and been having a great time with folks such as Aronra (also met in person for the first time) and many others when I get email from the infamous ‘crying muslim’ (dawahfilms). He STILL seems to be operating under the delusion that universities base their hiring and firing policies based on how much a v. whiney pussy complains about how someone explained to him that his religion made him both behave like an ass, and why his religion was evidently stupid. The baffling thing is he seems to think that I will be intimidated by his delusions.
And October 11.
YES Dawahfilms, giving away my docs to people who ask is doc dropping, and you were doing this, not only to me, but to at least one other member of my family. What’s even more pathetic is that EVEN NOW, after you have been caught, dropping my docs, you insist on trying to use weasel words to try and define your way out of this. Not just in your latest video (thunderfoot, lies vs truth), where you state:
“none of my VIDEOS doc dropped” -Dawahfilms
but in the email you wrote to me:
Im also pissed still at your “Dawahfilms doc dropped me” accusation, which is bullshit. You know as well as I do this info has been around for awhile. The fact that you had to pin it on me is nonsense. -Dawahfilms
I mean really, you expect to be this comically frugal with the truth to my face and expect me not to notice IMMEDIATELY? All that ‘belief in god’ had addled your brain with unrealistic wishful thinking.
And October 17.
Recently I wrote a blog post highlighting the wonderful irony of dawahfilms, the notorious moderate ‘death threating/ I hunt you down and destroy your career’ Muslim claiming that everyone should be held accountable for their youtube activity. Ironically, this man who claims that he wants to be a future public educator is also advising people to kill themselves.
Lots of screen shots.
Clearly I was not alone as evidently many others could not distinguish these options. So I propose ‘Dawahs Law’. When an individual is such a professional jerk, that it is impossible to distinguish them from a troll pretending to be an utter jerk merely by what they say. Dawahs Law, the professional jerks answer to the Poe!
He talked about his threats; why is Sarkeesian supposed to shut up about hers?
Because she’s a wummin daring to say uncomplimentary things about something he likes! In public, no less! And she refuses to shut up when told to!
There’s actual ‘reasons’ I suppose, but that’s what it really comes down to.
MRA Exceptionalism.
MRAs Taking Exceptional Liberties with Reality.
A citation would be nice.
—
Bit of a meh for me in any case — given my present estimation of the Thunderpod’s character, evident hypocrisy would make little difference.
The citation is in a previous post.
Thanks, I see it now.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/08/smart-marketing-good-business/
For balance, I want to add that I am thoroughly impressed with Anita Sarkeesian.
Over two years of credibility-enhancing perseverance and deliverance of promises speaks for itself.
Has Anita Sarkeesian filed a police report and/or contacted the FBI?
Also, let’s be clear about what Thunderf00t actually tweeted. It was: “IF they were credible threats I would have told no one but FBI. Else u just undermine any possible investigation. I think its PR!” Yes, you can try to spin that as an accusation, but it’s much easier to read it as T-f00t saying that Sarkeesian sacrificed the ability of LE to investigate in exchange for publicity. I don’t see any accusation of fabrication. And I’m not at all surprised that none of you have tweeted to ask T-f00t what he meant.
One last comment (if they’re ever let through). You (O.B.) wrote: “He [Thunderf00t] talked about his threats; why is Sarkeesian supposed to shut up about hers?”
The difference is that T-f00t did not talk about the threat(s) he received 12 seconds after they were posted. The suggestion is to wait until after the investigation, not keep silent forever.
Rape and death threats are so commonplace these days, it’s hardly worth the bother.*
However, reading Mason’s tweets yesterday motivated me to contribute money to The Feminist Frequency, above and beyond my contribution to the original kickstarter. I donated in the name of all the anonymous cowards (and their enablers) who send shit to women on the internet.
Thanks Thunderf00t! You really did give me the kick in the ass I needed!
* Sarcasm should be evident, but just in case… yeah, that was sarcasm.
Well done, Patrick G.
Blueshift Rhino @ 7 –
I don’t know, and it’s absolutely none of my business, ditto yours. It’s not your job to prod people who get threats and harassment about how they handle it. You’re not subject to threats and harassment, because you’re hiding behind a nym; that makes your views on what other people should do about the threats and harassment that they get less than worthless – it makes it presumptuous meddlesome lecturing about a harm that you have made yourself safe from. That’s ugly stuff. All this shit is ugly, and your cheering it on is ugly too. You’re a better fit at the slime pit than here, so you should choose that and give up on this.
“The difference is that T-f00t did not talk about the threat(s) he received 12 seconds after they were posted. The suggestion is to wait until after the investigation, not keep silent forever.”
If the victim waits, then it’s “Why didn’t she say something at the time? I call shenanigans!” If she says anything when it happens, it’s “Why didn’t she wait? She’s doing it wrong!” And who the bloody hades is it that’s suggesting “wait until after the investigation”? Who is that Voice of Authority on How Things Shall Be Done? You? Been watching too much CSI: Crazytown, have we? Find a badge in your cereal this morning? Ever tried reading a newspaper? Ever see how many ongoing/just-started investigations are announced there to the entire readership? I guess the police agencies with PIOs (Public Information Officers), and that would be pretty much every one of them, are just doing it wrong. Maybe you should tell them that.
canonicalkoi @13,
Not to mention, the track record of law enforcement agencies in actually doing something about online threats is pretty pathetic. PZ has written about how he reported Mabus’s threats to various agencies in multiple jurisdictions, and fuck-all happened until Mabus was dumb enough to threaten the Montreal police.
Not to mention that announcing that authorities have been alerted and that you’re staying with friends can easily complicate the situation enough to deter the person making the threats from trying anything further. They may have made the threats without even considering that authorities would get involved at all, so that knowledge alone may be enough to spook them. Combine that with their target staying with friends which means that she’s not alone, which means you have to deal with more than just one woman alone and the odds are even better that the harasser backs off. But then these fools don’t actually give a damn about Sarkeesian’s safety. It’s all about silencing her and discrediting her.
His writing used to be, if not particularly thoughtful, at least coherent. What happened to that guy?
I think misogyny caused something to break in his head.
@16 and 17,
Eh, I don’t know. I never followed him, but when I see excerpts of his “older” statements, like in this post, I can’t say I’m that impressed with them. He reminds me a lot of the Rational Response Squad — someone who was relatively harmless if confined to the role of sparring with the likes of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, but doesn’t exactly belong on atheism’s varsity squad.
I mean, the stuff quoted in the OP just reeks of “did you not KNOW how SMART I am? Did you think that your feeble efforts could defeat ME?”
Forgive me in advance for not replying to all that has been addressed to (aimed at?) me. I’m going to ignore the comments that express or are based on one or more unwarranted (and unfair) inferences, along with the irrelevant, personal attacks.
While, I agree that it’s usually nobody else’s business whether a police report was filed, when the incident is publicized it does become relevant. If you don’t know the answer, then that’s the end of that.
My point about the difference in how Thunderf00t and Anita Sarkeesian dealt with the threats that they received was to counter what I saw as the main point of O.B.’s post: namely, the accusation that Thunderf00t was being inconsistent or hypocritical (which starts with the title of this thread). If Thunderf00t had responded to the threats that he received in the same way as Sarkeesian and then turned around and criticized her for doing the same, then you’d have a point. But if he did things differently – especially if he not only did things differently, but also said why and even pre-criticized, with reasons, the approach that Sarkeesian took – then there’s no inconsistency or hypocrisy at all. You might disagree with his approach, but it’s not inconsistency or hypocrisy.
I have no idea how much experience other commenters have with police procedure and won’t make an inference. I will merely reassert that going public before making a report reduces the options of law enforcement.
The second main point that I saw in O.B.’s post and the early exchange of comments was an accusation that Thunderf00t accused Sarkeesian of lying. This took a few steps to track down, as it starts in a different thread, but it reads that way to me and I’ve seen no clarification (since I brought the issue up) that O.B. is not accusing Thunderf00t of this. Well, as I wrote yesterday, I don’t see the accusation in what Thunderf00t tweeted and I provided the alternative interpretation. If you’re not ready to defend your accusation against Thunderf00t, then you really ought to remove it.
Finally, I get the impression from the comments in response to mine that defending Sarkeesian against criticism is more important than many other things. In the past, the worst example of said many other things that was tossed under the bus was the idea that arguments should be based on defensible assumptions and replicable data. Now I worry that defending her is sometimes more important than the safety of women in general, too.
My take on the issue raised in comments 16-18 is this. Thunderf00t enjoyed great success with his Making Fun of Creationist series. That series used mockery. Mockery was a fine approach because that series was aimed at like-minded folks and other (closet) atheists. Mockery is usually quite effective when you are talking to folks who are already at least leaning in your favor. I can also be fun (unless you’re the target).
But when Thunderf00t became interested in feminism he made the terrible error of retaining the mockery approach that had worked so well before even though he was now talking to folks who were not predisposed to agree with him. Mockery is a terrible way to change someone’s mind; it is much, much more likely to cause someone to “dig in” than be convinced. It also makes little sense to mock someone that you wish to engage.
As usual, I am not making any claims about creationism or feminism. I am making the general claim that different styles of video are more effective in different situations – with mockery being effective when preaching to the choir but incredibly ineffective when proselytizing – and I am making some specific claims about Thunderf00t’s choices. That’s it.
I dunno, but the crazy seemed to come out about the same time he got incensed at people suggesting that T-foot not lick the legs of women strange to him. The thought that a Con might put anti-harrassment policies in place seemed to push him right on over the edge.
My apologies for the double-post. “Crazy” was a very poor choice of verbiage and I apologize. “Ill-conceived ideas”, “blatant misogyny” or even “stupidity” would have been far more accurate.
@ Blueshift Rhino
This is irrelevant to the larger issues being discussed and therefore victim-blaming functionally speaking (since the subject is being changed for illogical reasons). Thunderbutt is quite willing to speak out on his own harassment and death threats and so he is hypocritical, which is functionally discrimination here (different rules for people not him or in his group).
No spinning is required. “I think its PR!”. This makes his “IF” more suspect and I can fairly believe that he believes that she is lying about the threats. It might be easier for you to read it that way (and I would be interested in why you read it that way), but I see little reason to do so. The accusation against Thunderbutt is reasonable. I’m also not interested in asking Thunderbutt what he meant because as someone who wants to be a visible social figure with a more rude way of doing things I would rather his bad behavior come back to bite him in a larger social sense. He should learn to say what he means more carefully in 140 characters.
Why does this matter? Seriously.
Do you have a link where Thunderbutt explains the logic? I would like to see one. Because when someone threatens my life I find it quite rational to tell everyone about it as fast as possible in case something does happen and to make things more difficult for the people that want to take it.
In the absence of a logical reason and his general dislike for the person he is talking about in terms of wider social issues it’s quite reasonable for us to look at his consistency.
Blueshift Rhino – criticisms of you are not entirely irrelevant here. Perhaps you missed the comment in The Withdrawing Room where John Morales quoted you talking at the slime pit about your playing silly games on my blog. I don’t like people who play silly slime pit games on my blog.
In response to 23 (skipping your first point, as I already answered).
I agree that your reading of T-f00t’s post is viable – at least as viable as mine. But I do not agree that this makes the accusation (against him) reasonable. I, personally, have higher standards for serious, public accusations than almost any other sort of serious, public claim about someone else’s behavior … even folks I dislike. Plus, it would be so simple to ask him what he meant. Sending an email takes as little time as it takes to cut and paste an ambiguous quote.
As to why this matters, I would take that up with O.B. (In my opinion, this thread shouldn’t exist, but, given that it does, responding to its content seems completely appropriate.) Maybe the short response that I gave to O.B.’s question was insufficient. The key is that T-f00t waited before talking about the threats he received. Sarkeesian did not. T-f00t did what is probably best if you want the threatener to be caught and punished. Sarkeesian did what is probably best if you want to rile up folks and send the trolls into a feeding frenzy.
Because how the man chose to talk about his harassment is the correct way! Duh. There is only one right way to do a thing. Clearly that is Thunderf00t’s way. *
I’m having a hard time giving a shit about whether it was 12 minutes or 12 days. I’m not sure why, I just have this intense *feeling* of not giving a fuck, despite Blue Rhino’s attempt to make it seem like it matters. I guess that’s my just vagina making me all shrill and emotional again.
* what is that jackass’s real name? Is nym is irritating and stupid. And I’m hoping it’s Cornelius.
Lol my just vagina. It is also righteous and merciful! When it isn’t making me cry on bonbons, anyway.
In response to 24.
Nope, I hadn’t seen that (but now have). Yes, I have held back many of my views since I knew that stating them – even if I am ready to discuss and defend them – would not produce a positive outcome for any of us. So, yes, I have been dishonest by omission, both here and on the A+ forums. Is that really sufficient to make me an “asshole”? To hold back certain things in a conversation because I know that saying them will end said conversation makes me an “asshole”?
On your approach, how do you expect to change people’s minds about things that matter to you? Do you want to change folks’ minds? Have I wandered into an echo-chamber by accident?
Authorities were notified. Anita said so in one of her first tweets on the subject.
Now slime on outta here.
Rhino @ 28 – if you know much about the slime pit over the past more than 3 years, then those questions are disingenuous and ridiculous. If you don’t know much about it you shouldn’t be trying to set me straight on the subject.
Now go away. You’re a fan of and participant at the slime pit; that makes you incompatible with my blog. It’s got very little to do with changing or not changing minds; it’s got to do with ethical ways of disagreeing.
You folks are exhausting.
The blog post makes one claim – that Thunderf00t thinks that Sarkeesian is lying – and asks one question – why does Thunderf00t get to tell Sarkeesian to shut up when he talked?
If no-one had escalated the claim that Thunderf00t thinks that Sarkeesian is lying to Thunderf00t has accused Sarkeesian of lying, then I wouldn’t care one bit about O.B.’s original claim. In fact, I think that O.B.’s claim is accurate. I, too, believe that Thunderf00t thinks that Sarkeesian is lying (but also believe that what Thunderf00t believes about her is close to irrelevant). What I object to is the much stronger claim that Thunderf00t accused Sarkeesian of lying.
As to the question asked at the end of blog post, I have decided to take it as rhetorical – intended to rile folks up and generate clicks – not to be actually answered. Sorry for wasting your time on that.
cheers
So we’re exhausting – so go away. Stick with the more restful slime pit.
Also, that bullshit about “to generate clicks”? That’s echt slime pit.
That’s all now. You’re done.
Blueshift Rhino @ 28
How do you expect to be able to change people’s minds about things that matter to you if you decide in advance that bringing them up won’t produce a positive result even though you claim to be capable of defending said views?
Yes, it’s called the Slymepit. Surely you’ve noticed that it’s nothing but a bunch of backslapping, circle-jerking asshats congratulating each other on getting banned from various social justice spaces. Except for the times when they’re congratulating each other for harassing feminist women off the internet, of course.
Apparently it worked because you are here. I can’t imagine Ophelia’s joy at having succeeded in getting that one extra click. From you.
I’m sure the empty halls of her palace, which she no doubt bought with the riches culled from innocent, unsuspecting bait clickers like you, are echoing with shrill mwa-ha-has of lady victory.
You know what else is exhausting? Recycled “whore” insults that were as fucking stupid and cheap in their previous incarnations as they are in this one.
Well they may be gone but here goes anyway.
@Blueshift Rhino
You missed the part where you explain why your standards are higher. Sociopolitical disagreement takes many forms some more colorful than others. Someone can say that a particular form is problematic (like harassment campaigns for an easier example) but that’s not going to do much without a reason. I can admit to giving the appearance of being biased (like everyone is, what matters is if a bias is appropriate) and more emotionally colorful (it makes language effective and I can say why I do what I do), but that is separate from substance.
That you find it simple to contact him is not important to me. As I stated, social consequences for socially lazy speech are important to me and if he wants to be able to talk like that socially and be a visible and influential member of a social community he has to be willing to put up with such consequences. If I became more influential somehow I would have to have more care for my words in similar fashion. It is a price of being an authority. I will continue with my cutting and pasting of quotes that are quite a bit less ambiguous than you make them out to be (you made absolutely no effort to say why my analysis was wrong so I can freely reject yours).
I asked why this matters,
Perhaps I should have replaced “this” with the above, but since I talked about Thunderbutt’s logic right after that I thought it would be obvious that I was asking you about the logic that you referred to in the tweet. Additionally why should I ask Ms. Benson to defend your claims? Even more additionally why bring up getting to respond at all because that is kind of obvious that responding to blog posts is a thing people can want to do in general. I’m talking about your response and you should be able to defend that as I am willing to defend any of mine.
You thought it was insufficient. We obviously did not. My questions were about finding out why you thought they were insufficient and now you are just repeating yourself when I wanted underlying reasons.
Why what Thunderbutt said “best”? Not saying it was best again when that was obvious by your comments.
Why do you assume that Sarkeesian wanted to rile up trolls instead of tell a wider community that she was basically under social assault? Why did you completely ignore my comment,
Just offering your counter opinion as a bookend does nothing. You also need to suggest why this was not the case and why your assumption of “riling up trolls” was more believable.
canonicalkoi @21,
I think Mason has been over the edge for a while (and probably thinking it made him “edgy”).
It was actually the battle against DawahFilms in 2010 that caused me think twice about watching his videos, and ultimately to unsubscribe. His opponent was no great prize (especially for trying to intimidate someone into silence by publicizing his real name), but when Mason suggested nuclear retaliation in response to Islamic terrorism, it struck me as extreme overkill.
If Mason had said it as a warning from the sidelines about how crazy the U.S. government can be, that would have been okay. But the righteousness with which Mason said it, it made me realize that Mason wouldn’t mourn the nuclear destruction of the civilian population of a Middle Eastern city. That, added to the bizarre suggestion that the U.S. military was a “sleeping giant”, told me that while Mason may know about the physical sciences, his political understanding was limited and hawkish.
I was surprised that FTB let him in here after that. Mason’s more recent political embraces have shown this former fan that I was right to unsubscribe long ago.
I knew nothing about him. That changed in a hurry.
For those that might not have gotten all the details, the “12 seconds” thing is a dog-whistle. Almost from the moment Sarkeesian posted about being driven from her home by threats, assholes began accusing her of faking it and demanding proof. So she provided a screen shot. Of course, they immediately leapt on it to “debunk” it, and one of the common accusations was that since the most recent tweet in the screen shot was from just 12 seconds before, Anita must have created the account herself and tweeted and screen captured immediately. The idea that she might have started taking screenshots while the abuse was ongoing (particularly since she was planning to go to the authorities) and happened to catch it 12 seconds after a tweet came in apparently didn’t occur to them. Rhino here apparently doesn’t even realize that she didn’t have to post the screenshot immediately after it was taken.
@screechymonkey
You’re pretty much bang on the money.
I used to follow Tf00t and his stuff where he criticized creationism and some of his pro-science and pro-nature work was pretty good.
When he (briefly) came onto FTB it was (from my perspective) as if an entire reservoir of childish stupidity and nonsense came gushing forth out of nowhere. It felt like something changed… But in reality it was probably something that was always there, it just had never come to the surface before.
I held on for a while hoping he’d come to his senses, but he just doubled down and got stuck in tight with the MRA crowd. It was really disappointing.