Tennessee’s embarrassing tea party »« The tragedy of Aquaman

I don’t want to deal with this any more

It’s too stupid. It turns out TAM had an anti-harassment policy after all (good for them), except that it was secret and implemented by hidden cameras and disguised security goons who would turn their entire focus on victims of harassment, rather than harassers.

I don’t understand at all.

All I can guess at is that this policy was kept secret so it wouldn’t discourage any creepy guys from attending. Their money is just as good as any woman’s, after all! TAM wants to be open to everyone, including gropers and PUAs and drunk fumblers, and doesn’t want to send any messages that might inhibit them. And I think it’s perfectly fair that there be a skeptics’ convention that caters specifically to frustrated, privileged men — I just didn’t think that TAM, with its history of inclusivity, was going to elect to be that conference.

Comments

  1. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Stupid stupid Gnumann! Here I was trapped in the good old dualism of “trolling or stupid” when the obvious answer was “trolling and stupid.

    Good-for-nothing ape-brain! Why does the fallacy of the excluded middle come so naturally!

  2. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    manpower

    Oh fuck I’m dull– totally meant people, but used a sexist term.

    Herp derp.

  3. jacklewis says

    >>See? He’s frustrated! That means he’s angry. That means he lost the argument.

    Gee how often have I seen atheists get frustrated when dealing with professional liars (clergy). I guess the believers were winning all these debates and I just failed to see it… or more likely frustration is irrelevant to the truth of any claim?

  4. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    Cipher,

    JAL, go here!

    Thanks Cipher! That explains it. I’ve tried to stay out of TvTropes for fear of being sucked in.

  5. FluffyTheTerrible says

    @ jacklewis

    Gee how often have I seen atheists get frustrated when dealing with professional liars (clergy). I guess the believers were winning all these debates and I just failed to see it… or more likely frustration is irrelevant to the truth of any claim?

    If you haven’t read the thread, you should’t assume you know what the conversation is about.

    That post was in reply to reasonabel who stated multiple times that when people get angry they have lost the argument.
    I was using his unsubstantiated opinion against him.

  6. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    jacklewis:

    Why do you do that?

    Act as if anyone cares what you think that is…

  7. reasonabel says

    Why do you need to post here in order to gain cred on the slime pit forum

    I don’t but if you’re being, in my view unreasonable it stands to reason that I would check with another group to see if they think I was being unreasonable. After 200 insults, a person needs some reassurances after all.

  8. chigau (女性) says

    reasonabel
    Luckily for you, you have found a more congenial blog.
    Go there.
    Be happy.

  9. reasonabel says

    How about it reasonabel? Do you have the courage to come back here?

    I’m still here, and you’re still making ever effort to avoid the points made.

  10. FluffyTheTerrible says

    @ reasonabel

    Please show evidence of 200 insults. Please FUCK OFF to the slimepit. Your buddy Tigzy is waiting for you with open arms.

    in my view unreasonable it stands to reason that I would check with another group to see if they think I was being unreasonable.

    The fact that you chose the very opposite of the FtB community to “check with another group” says it all. That also means you and the posters here have zero in common.

  11. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    I’m still here, and you’re still making ever effort to avoid the points made.

    Avoiding them is easy, kinda like breathing. Actually catching them is harder, kinda like breathing water.

  12. reasonabel says

    @Fluffy

    You’re checking in with them too though aren’t you. I chose that because they were a community who might know whats going on at ftb or at least have an interest in it.

  13. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    Please respond to all the points made, or go away. THe slimepit will be happy to accept you, reasonabel.

  14. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    Hello tigzy.

    Note that that was a SUGGESTION to hug you, not a mandate. If it was forced upon either of you, it would be. BUT IT ISN’T.

    Dimwit.

  15. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    Reasonabel: Yes, if your definition of “interest” includes hate-fests and hoggling.

  16. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    Hello tigzy

    I stand corrected by Ing. Good bye and good riddance.

    *Damn, I should stop being so charitable to confirmed trolls*

  17. FluffyTheTerrible says

    @ reasonabel

    You’re checking in with them too though aren’t you

    That’s a tu quoque logical fallacy. Besides, you said you went there for innocent reasons, so that means I also went there for innocent reasons.

    Actually, no, I went there after a commenter expressed concern that you were doing this for credit at the slimepit…and that commenter was right.

    I chose that because they were a community who might know whats going on at ftb or at least have an interest in it.

    Considering all the history between FtB and the slimepit, it is false to state that the slimepit knows anything close to the truth about what goes on at FtB.

    The only way to find out about FtB is to be an honest interlocutor on the forums here.

    But you are a liar, and I have proven it.

    We are done.

  18. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    And replace “or” with “and” in my #20

  19. reasonabel says

    @thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield

    Please respond to all the points made, or go away. THe slimepit will be happy to accept you, reasonable.

    Thats a big ask. There are now 150-200 posts directed at me, most of them calling me a dishonest idiot. Pick a relevant point you’d like answered or go away.

  20. jacklewis says

    @Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation
    “Why do you do that?

    Act as if anyone cares what you think that is…@”

    Well retard, you just posted something that I can’t possibly care about. Why did *you* do it? Try understanding your own behaviour and then maybe you can start to analyse other people’s.

  21. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    Tigzy:

    Apparently, that’s harassment now. Even if he holds up a hand defensively and I take the hint. It’s still harassment. Apparently.

    FALSE. Go read Greta’s post on the subject of hugs.

    Then go away to your slimepit.

  22. FluffyTheTerrible says

    @ tigzy

    No it wasn’t. It was a statement that I was waiting for Reasonabel with open arms.

    Apparently, that’s harassment now. Even if he holds up a hand defensively and I take the hint. It’s still harassment. Apparently.

    From the AA anti-harassment policy

    You are encouraged to ask for unequivocal consent for all activities during the conference. No touching other people without asking. This includes hands on knees, backs, shoulders—and hugs (ask first!). There are folks who do not like to be touched and will respect and like you more if you respect their personal space.

    Waiting for someone with open arms does not mean forcing a hug on them.

    Fuck off liar!

  23. says

    Actually, no, I went there after a commenter expressed concern that you were doing this for credit at the slimepit…and that commenter was right.

    Oh good…do I get my Pharyngula merit badge?

  24. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    Jacklewis:

    Well retard, you just posted something that I can’t possibly care about. Why did *you* do it?

    1. Stop shaming the mentally disabled. Apologize now.

    2. Last time I checked, PZ runs the blog. What you like does not matter in this case.

    Reasonabel:

    Thats a big ask. There are now 150-200 posts directed at me, most of them calling me a dishonest idiot. Pick a relevant point you’d like answered or go away.

    If you want us to stop calling you dishonest or a liar, PROVE THAT. With EVIDENCE from previous comments.

  25. FluffyTheTerrible says

    @ Ing

    Yes, of course. Would you like a porcupine, a badger or an octopus on it? We also offer combinations of those, as well as the very distinguished crown of porcupines.

  26. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Well retard, you just posted something that I can’t possibly care about.

    1: Ableist slur noted, not that I expect anything else from you. (Well, I was kinda expecting a gendered one, so ableist was kinda a surprise.)
    2: Why do you assume I did it for your benefit?

    And while we are talking – have you answered whether you are the elevator guy or not yet?

  27. FluffyTheTerrible says

    @ Gnumann

    Wasn’t that jackrawlinson? Or am I beginning to mix people up?

  28. chigau (女性) says

    jacklewis
    If you type
    <blockquote>paste quoted text here</blockquote>
    this will result:

    paste quoted text here

    It will make your comments easier to read.
    And it’s so easy, even a “retard” like Gnumann can do it.
    It will not help you make sense.

  29. Gnumann, quisling of the MRA nation says

    Wasn’t that jackrawlinson? Or am I beginning to mix people up?

    I think you are right. Keeping one jack-troll from another is hard.

    So sorry Jack, ignore that last bit.

    And you might got a treatment on a bit higher hostility level than you deserve because of my case of mistaken identity. Your use of ableist slurs kinda prevents me feeling sorry for that bit though.

  30. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    Tigzy:

    So you mean that if someone approaches me with their arms wide looking for a hug, and I hold up a hand of refusal, I can still report them for harassment even if they take the hint and don’t hug me?

    NO. Go back and read the text again.

    Read for comprehension this time.

  31. FluffyTheTerrible says

    @ tigzy

    You are encouraged to ask for unequivocal consent for all activities during the conference.

    If you are not sure you understood the non-verbal reply, you ask. People putting their hands up clearly means no

    No touching other people without asking.

    You break that rule, you can be accused of harassment.

    This is the last time I respond to your claims, since I know you are a slimepiter and, consequently, a dishonest interlocutor.

  32. mythbri says

    (Meta)

    This conversation is like a merry-go-round, except less of the merriness, and more of the nausea.

  33. Ogvorbis: Dogmaticus sycophantus says

    Hmm. I was right. reasonabel was here to get xis “I Got Banned At Pharyngula” badge (complete with the super secret magic decoder).

    No touching other people without asking.

    You break that rule, you can be accused of harassment.

    You break that rule and you can be charged with assault.

  34. says

    So reasonabel admits elsewhere to deliberately trolling while stating here that its trying to have a calm discussion.

    Since last night you’ve complained when people called you a liar for lying. There was always the possibility, I suppose, that you were just a fucking shithead, but that’s gone.

    Now we know that not are you a liar, you KNOW you’re a liar, you CAME here to lie, your denials of lying are deliberate lies, and the very LAST thing you ever wanted was a reasonable discussion.

    You set out to troll and lie to people as fucking entertainment.

    You ARE a fucking liar, but also a fucking piece of shit.
    You came here deliberately to START something.

    To HARASS people.

    Come on, slimepitters – keep up the good work. Keep showing what those who support and defend harassers.

    Keep asserting that people who won’t tolerate you conspiring elsewhere to come to blogs and deliberately attack and derail and lie and troll are “bullies” for not putting up with your dishonest and deliberate abuse.

    Keep doing such great PR work for TAM. I’m sure that you’ll attract a lot of 4chaners and others from places where disgusting excuses for human beings hang out.

    TAM should be just a fantastic event in the future thanks to your efforts.

  35. FluffyTheTerrible says

    More evidence of dishonesty from reasonabel on the slimepit:

    Question from another poster
    Actually I wonder how many will pick up on where you said this:

    I actually agreed with most of their points in numerous threads, but if I disagree on one or two points I disagree with them all

    Reasonabel’s answer

    Oh well thats easy. None to zero. That guy actually read through a previous thread, combing it for evidence of prejudice because he couldn’t deal with the argument being presented in that thread.

    From my comment-bolded- at #469 in answer to reasonabel:

    @ reasonabel

    You do realise that you actually went back through another thread.

    I went back on another thread after you claimed that agreeing with Ing somehow magically made everything ok. I decided to revisit the contributions you made, in order to get a better idea of your character as can be guessed at based on your posts.

    Picked comments of mine out of context, that weren’t really bad, and tried to respond in bold type without really saying how they were wrong.

    I did not pick comments out of context, since I always included the quote you were answering to. The bolded text – my comments – were just that: comments on your previous contribution. Where I thought you were wrong – like the fat -shaming part – I called you out on it.

    Very telling reasonabel thinks the default gender is male. I am not that guy.

  36. FluffyTheTerrible says

    Advice reasonabel is giving to Tigzy on the slimepit:

    Oh yeah, PZs mighty banhamer.

    Step 1. Register a new gmail account
    Step 2. Go to a proxy site and register with ftb on wordpress.
    Step 3. Confirm the link.
    Step 4. Log in under your usual IP.

    Not that i’d do that of course, but it is hilarious that PZ talks about the “ban hammer” as if he’s brandishing some awesome weapon.

    It’s ok. It’s not only the IP that identifies, it’s the same flavour of idiocy you espouse. We will recognize that under any IP.

  37. reasonabel says

    @FluffyTheTerrible

    That post says exactly what i’ve posted here. Your point is what, that you don’t think you were being unfair and that by bolding that it makes it extra true?

  38. jacklewis says

    @thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield
    “For some, a SWAT team may be harrassing.”
    For criminals, probably… let’s not over do it. Having some under cover security personel is hardly a obvioulsy terribly bad idea. I really don’t see why that would be harassing to anyone. Still if anyone truly felt harassed by the mere presence of under cover monitoring personel I would like to know exactly why they feel that way (how can it be improved) and would have to weight that person’s disconfort against the actual goal of having these people there (prevent actual harrasment).
    “And note that a written policy can protect EVERYONE, not just one person, and has less manpower needs.”
    But the policy actually protects nobody, it’s actual people that protect each other. Some text on a piece of paper can not protect anyone. The theory is that jerks that have a tendency to not take no for an answer or grope women all the time would refrain from doing these obviously wrong things if they were written down. I am not convinced that this is the case but as I stated earlier I am NOT against harassment policies, I do however believe that having people to enforce them is a good thing and they may be more likely to catch offenders unawares if they are under cover.
    @FluffyTheTerrible
    “If you haven’t read the thread, you should’t assume you know what the conversation is about.”
    Fair enough. Still the “I was using his unsubstantiated opinion against him.” strategy is not allways the most effective but it could make the other party potentially realize that their arguments were wrong, I’ll grant you that. Not knowing the whole thread I would still assume that there is some distinction between being angy and being frustrated in terms of which one could indicate the level of assurance of the person making the argument.

  39. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I don’t but if you’re being, in my view unreasonable it stands to reason that I would check with another group to see if they think I was being unreasonable.

    Yeah, go to known fanbois instead of third impartial parties. Oops, there’s that third party evidence creeping. That is what you find unreasonable, and find as insulting. We don’t take your word for squat. The results of the squat maybe…

    most of them calling me a dishonest idiot.

    You haven’t proven you aren’t with third party evidence. Gee, I see a pattern, and saw it in one. If you don’t, it doesn’t say much for your intellect/cogency.

  40. Ogvorbis: Dogmaticus sycophantus says

    But the policy actually protects nobody, it’s actual people that protect each other. Some text on a piece of paper can not protect anyone.

    In which the commenter shows that xe has not read any of the previous 500 comments when the myriad ways that a written and public policy can be useful in reducing the chance of harassment taking place and making it easier for the organizers to deal with those problems that do arise.

  41. jacklewis says

    “In which the commenter shows that xe has not read any of the previous 500 comments when the myriad ways that a written and public policy can be useful in reducing the chance of harassment taking place and making it easier for the organizers to deal with those problems that do arise.”

    Maybe the commenter read these comments and while he can see the benefits of these policies (which part of I am not against is unclear?, maybe he also sees that the piece of paper on it’s own is not sufficient. I do believe that actual undercover people on the ground can be pretty effective too. That’s the part that I think is fairly obvious but that a lot of people seem to not agree with, feel free to add something meaningful to the point being discussed.

  42. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    Ing:

    I tend to assume the best in people. Naive me.

    Jacklewis:

    You know people will be singled out. Having a troupe of personnel following one at all times would be uncomfortable, especially for shy people.

    An actual policy would be MUCH more effective (as Og pointed out) in preventing harassment.

  43. says

    jacklewis:

    I am not convinced that this is the case but as I stated earlier I am NOT against harassment policies, I do however believe that having people to enforce them is a good thing and they may be more likely to catch offenders unawares if they are under cover.

    Not really. Harassment doesn’t happen out in the open, where anyone can see.

    Catching the offenders isn’t that hard. They’re not offenders until they break the rules. Once they break the rules, the simplest way to catch them is to have the victim report them. To do that, you need to have a clear policy outlining expected conduct, and a reporting system that is easy and responsive.

  44. thunk, safe behind a toasty heat shield says

    And also:

    People on the ground? Yes.

    Undercover? No.

    When I went to CONvergence recently, said people were easily identifiable by purple vests and available to speak to. If they are undercover, the harassed would not know who to come to– instead they would be coming to the harassed without solicitation.

    Unexpected people coming up to and following you very well might be harassment, or awfully close to it.

    It’s better that the people come to the security on their own terms.

  45. says

    jacklewis:

    I do believe that actual undercover people on the ground can be pretty effective too. That’s the part that I think is fairly obvious but that a lot of people seem to not agree with, feel free to add something meaningful to the point being discussed.

    Instead of having a small number of select “undercover people,” why don’t we all keep an eye out for harassment? That’ll increase the number of “undercover people” dramatically, and thereby make the whole thing a lot more effective.

    We can just stop tolerating harassing behavior. It’s a helluva lot more efficient than a few “undercover people.”

  46. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But the policy actually protects nobody,

    Citation needed. We’ve had enough unevidenced claims today. Either cite a source or drop the claim until you find a source.

  47. jacklewis says

    “Because the police never, ever use unnecessary force. Rodney King never existed.”

    Yeah clearly the police serves no purpose… because of Rodney King. Clearly society doesn’t need any law enforcement ever…
    I’m guessing you were making some sort of joke but simply have no skills at writing jokes…

    “But, of course, a bully would defend the actions of uniformed bullies who support a system built by rich straight religious male bullies to defend their bullying.”

    ROTFLMAO!

  48. jacklewis says

    “We’ve had enough unevidenced claims today.”

    Citation needed on that one.

  49. says

    I was arrested in 1985 for making a donut joke in front of an undercover cop.

    I was assaulted and threatened with arrest by a cop at a political rally in 2004 after laughingly saying “hey, do that again, let me get it on video!” after he give the finger to a man who asked for his badge number.

    But yeah, only criminals find cops harassing.

  50. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Citation needed on that one.

    Read every post by the fuckwitted troll reasonabel. Not one citation to back up a claim. You can do better. If you can’t, you should shut the fuck up.

  51. chigau (女性) says

    jacklewis
    Is your refusal to blockquote some kind of “statement” about bravely going your own way?
    An attempt at sorting those who may respond to you?
    Do you want get reactions only from those with advanced SIWOTI?
    ’cause most of us just page down.

  52. chigau (女性) says

    (an aside to all my fellow-hiveminders:
    SIWOTI is not a bad thing
    someone must do it)

  53. says

    (Disclaimer: I am a white, straight male; cops just seem to spike my anxiety.)

    A cop once followed me and then pulled me over out of nowhere, without explaining why. The only thing I know of that could have provoked this was that I parked at a nearby park to take a walk and have a smoke; there was a tow truck hanging around there and when I got back I saw police cars driving away; the cop car that followed me, I came across after I’d driven away.

    Another cop in the same neighborhood once followed me until I signalled to turn onto the street my house was on, just because I happened to pass the spot where they were sitting at. No rhyme or reason for it, just followed me seemingly waiting for me to tick over the speed limit, or not signal, or miss a stop sign by an inch, or something.

    But yeah, only criminals find cops harassing.

  54. jacklewis says

    @chigau (女性)
    “Is your refusal to blockquote some kind of “statement” about bravely going your own way?”

    I don’t remember refusing anything, still as far as leaps of logic go that’s a nice one. I thought quotation marks were pretty simple things when quoting something… to most.

    “’cause most of us just page down.”
    Any numbers to provide? It seems like a few of you have not gotten the memo and are responding.

  55. jacklewis says

    @starchamber.

    Anybody who drives a car will have had the same experience (I know I have).
    Not sure what the point is and how it pertains to having security personnel undercover at conferences though…

    @Nerd bla bla troll
    “Read every post by the fuckwitted troll reasonabel.”
    I can’t say that I find his posts sufficiently compelling to read them all, so sorry that’s not going to happen.

    ” Not one citation to back up a claim. You can do better.”
    I’m sure I can but again I don’t really care what reasonable has posted.

    “If you can’t, you should shut the fuck up.”
    Or maybe you should stop comparing everyone to reasonabel? How about that?

  56. says

    Not sure what the point is and how it pertains to having security personnel undercover at conferences though…

    Gee. Someone asserts that having undercover cops can intimidate some people, you toss aside their comment with the dismissive “for criminals, probably…” and then when confronted with examples of non-criminals being harassed or feeling harassed by cops, you dismiss that with the above.

    You demand a citation for the statement “We’ve had enough unevidenced claims today” and when presented with plenty of evidence, you dismiss it as not worth your notice.

    You’re just kinda full of shit, aren’t you?

  57. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Anybody who drives a car will have had the same experience (I know I have).
    Not sure what the point is and how it pertains to having security personnel undercover at conferences though…

    They’re countering your silly point about how only criminals would find intense surveillance harassing.

  58. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    Not blockquoting makes your posts more difficult for some people here to understand. It’s not hard to do. Not doing it makes you look like an ass who doesn’t care about being understood.

  59. broboxley OT says

    cool, a place that the clowns would find offensive, way to go TAM
    pretend it doesnt happen, ensure that if it does happen a buttload of security glares at the victim daring them to complain until they leave the venue. How very homeland security of them

  60. bastionofsass says

    a slimepitter wrote:

    Not that i’d do that of course, but it is hilarious that PZ talks about the “ban hammer” as if he’s brandishing some awesome weapon.

    And yet, I see so much complaining and whining, especially lately, about people being “banned” from Pharyngula and other FtB blogs.

    If PZ’s attempts to ban someone are so gosh darn laughable, what’s the fuss about?

  61. hotshoe says

    slimepitter wrote:

    Not that i’d do that of course, but it is hilarious that PZ talks about the “ban hammer” as if he’s brandishing some awesome weapon.

    And yet, I see so much complaining and whining, especially lately, about people being “banned” from Pharyngula and other FtB blogs.

    If PZ’s attempts to ban someone are so gosh darn laughable, what’s the fuss about?

    Slimepitters lie so much they can’t keep their own lies straight.

  62. says

    it is hilarious that PZ talks about the “ban hammer” as if he’s brandishing some awesome weapon

    Right, because references to old sk00l intentionally-hyperbolic lighthearted catchphrases are magically transformed into totally serious business with no irony involved at all as soon as PZ’s Squidly Appendage types them on his patented DeConText0r keyboard.

    Fucking Memes, how do they work?

  63. says

    jacklewis #75:

    Anybody who drives a car will have had the same experience (I know I have).

    Oh, here’s the funny thing. See, I live in Canada, and policing here is RCMP except for Ontario, Quebec, and cities with their own police force.

    Both of the incidents I described happened in the same municipality, a municipality with its own police force. I’ve seen many RCMP officers parked at the side of the road; not once has one pulled out specifically to follow me for any length of time.

    And then, of course, there’s how you think that it’s perfectly okay for the police to just follow random people who have ostensibly done nothing wrong. Whatever happened to trust? Whatever happened to being able to go about one’s daily business without having to check to make sure our every step isn’t being watched?

    Your privilege is showing, big time.

  64. Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy says

    Aww, tigtog. I got super confused by tigzy upthread and xtog who has trolled elsewhere.

  65. chigau (女性) says

    jacklewis
    So, your continuing refusal to use

    blockquotes

    is ideological rather than incompetence?

  66. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Heh.

    Obvious trolls are obvious.

    (And they enrich PZ’s coffers!)

  67. says

    Some dude named Jonathan Ray claims that DJ Grothe viewed Harriet Hall’s t-shirt as a dress code issue:

    BTW, DJ told me early in the morning on the first day that he thought Harriet’s t-shirt was a terrible idea but that he wouldn’t impose a dress code.

    Libertarian cluelessness strikes again! “I can’t have a quiet word with one of my speakers to urge her to maintain a collegial and professional atmosphere, and to refrain from attacking fellow attendees and/or organizations that have donated to my event, because FREEEEDDOOOMMMMMM!!”

    bleagh

  68. 'Tis Himself says

    So, your continuing refusal to use

    blockquotes

    is ideological rather than incompetence?

    Blockquotes are for sheeple. Manly men don’ need no stinkin’ blockquotes!

  69. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Manly men don’ need no stinkin’ blockquotes!

    Apparently they don’t need citations either. Their word much be accepted without question, no matter how much bullshit they add to it.

  70. says

    jacklewis:

    Anybody who drives a car will have had the same experience (I know I have).
    Not sure what the point is and how it pertains to having security personnel undercover at conferences though…

    Let’s see. We’ve responded to the whole “undercover agents are a good idea” assertion with:

    1. Logical counterarguments

    2. Evidence

    So far jacklewis has responded with:

    1. Non-sequiturs

    2. Crickets chirping

    Excellent! I’m so glad these slimepitter rationalists are on our side, for that whole atheist thing. They’re going to be such great assets.

  71. carlie says

    The ultimate goal isn’t actually to make it easier to report harassment: it’s to prevent harassment from happening in the first place. The kind of creeps who would harass someone are less likely to do it right in front of known security. So undercover security does nothing to help prevent harassment, while labeled security does.

  72. says

    @carlie in #93:

    So undercover security does nothing to help prevent harassment, while labeled security does.

    On the other hand, it probably could work if people were warned beforehand that there would be undercover security people. Kind of like warning store clerks that there will be mystery shoppers, to ensure they give good service to everyone. But again, that would require making your security approach public in advance, which obviously didn’t happen here.

    Not that I would advocate for such an approach. It doesn’t seem to foster an atmosphere of trust if you have to wonder with everyone whether they are an attendee or just pretending to be.

  73. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    The problem with relying on con staff to spot harassment, whether they’re identified or not, is that most harassment is not easily spotted from a distance. Sure, they might catch the occasional blatant ass grabber but without monitoring everyone’s interactions at all times they won’t be able to catch every creep who calls a woman a cunt, or stares at her tits, or cold propositions her, let alone identify a pattern of microagressions.

    This isn’t like having a plainclothes security guard in a shop to catch thieves because shoplifting is unambiguous. Even still, loss prevention specialists (if they’re doing they’re job right) have to follow a very specific procedure: observe the suspect select the merchandise, conceal it, then pass the point of purchase and exit the store at which point you have a bust. Skipping any of these steps or even letting them out of your sight for a moment where they could ditch the item could result in a bad bust, even if the shoplifter is caught red handed. If it’s that hard to bust a shoplifter how the fuck is this supposed to work with harassment which is often so difficult to spot for anyone other than the target?

  74. Philip Langmuir says

    Hi reasonabel!

    I don’t know if you’re still reading, but I’m a generous soul (that is, bored, high on coffee, and short on sleep), so I’m going to respond to what I think are your main points. Fortunately for a slow thinker like myself, I don’t actually have to come up with any rebuttals, because every point I’m about to make has been made by a half-dozen commenters already!

    That the harassment policy was used in response to a persons complaint over hurt feelings is more worrying than anything.

    I think “hurt feelings” misrepresents what Surly Amy would have felt at TAM. Had Dr. Hall mentioned in conversation to a third party that she didn’t much like the Skepchicks, Amy would have been perfectly justified in hurt feelings, but that (probably) wouldn’t have been harassment.

    But that’s not what Dr. Hall did. Wearing a T-shirt was a statement to the entire attendance of TAM that implied (whether done through naiveté or malice, and probably the former) she didn’t like the Skepchicks, which Amy quite reasonably found objectionable. What’s worse, she kept wearing it for several days after Amy said she found it upsetting. I’d think most workplaces would consider that to create a hostile environment, which would be harassing.

    I believe you objected at this point that Amy should have grown a thicker skin. As you know, she said this was only one of the events that she felt contributed to a chilly climate, and the only one she wished to talk about (obviously, you have no right to ask her what else occurred), so it’s unfair to say she considered the T-shirt harassment in and of itself.

    … I’d rather that it was used to protect people in danger of physical sexual harassment. Isn’t that why these policies were drawn up? Isn’t it drawing resources away from that task?

    On the contrary (as many have pointed out), this is exactly the sort of thing harassment policies are meant to prevent. “Physical sexual harassment” (aka sexual assault) is already covered by well-defined, well-publicized and (ha!) well-enforced policies, ie., laws and police. Sexual harassment laws might (might) be sufficient to ensure people’s physical safety, but can’t ensure people’s emotional safety. Harassment policies exist to fill in the gaps between physical and emotional safety.

    The other view to this is that a published policy does not act as an adequate deterrent to scumbags who are intent on harassing women.

    I disagree. Attending a conference like TAM costs several hundred dollars. If a someone plans to come to TAM expressly to harass others, but reads in the published harassment policy that zhe will be booted out on the first day, zhe’s quite likely to do something much cheaper, instead, like go to a club.

    Additionally, a harassment policy can’t be intended primarily to catch harassers in the act, first because in a 1000-person conference, there can’t possibly be enough employees to adequately observe the entire hall, and second because any scumbag worth hir salt will do hir harassing out of the public eye—in a washroom, in a hallway, in an elevator—where no amount of conference employees will be sufficient. Making the harassment policy public means it’s much clearer for the victims how, and to whom, they should report incidents of harassment.

    Lastly, referring back to your (others’?) point about “growing a thicker skin” and “having to tailor your behaviour to the most sensitive people” (both statements paraphrased, sorry, and it might be jacklewis who said them), making the harassment policy public—regardless of how strong it is—means you don’t have to worry about who the policy favours: if you read it and decide it isn’t sufficient to keep you safe, then you know not to attend the conference (and/or to lobby to change the policy); if you read it and decide that things you quite like to do are considered harassment, then you know not to attend the conference (and/or to lobby to change the policy).

    A harassment policy isn’t there to force everyone to have fun, it’s there to clarify how strongly the conference organizers will protect the experience of the most disadvantaged, since it’s much more straightforward for potential harassers to change their behaviour than for the harassed to change their whole psychological makeup.

  75. alwayscurious says

    jacklewis #54:

    Having some under cover security personel is hardly a
    obvioulsy terribly bad idea. I really don’t see why that would be harassing to anyone. Still if anyone truly felt harassed by the mere presence of under cover monitoring personel I would like to know exactly why they feel that way (how can it be improved) and would have to weight that person’s disconfort against the actual goal of having these people there (prevent actual harrasment).

    Here’s one way that secret security could turn unpleasant:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/07/18/tams-harassment-policy-was-secret-why/#comment-71947

    But really, why reinvent the wheel?

    * We know that public policies are useful for setting a tone encouraging good behavior

    * We know that policies enforced by uniformed security are effective for preventing problems & solving those that aren’t prevented

    * We know that addressing the problem directly & publicly creates an environment where people feel safer and more alert (as opposed to denying/hiding from the problem)

    * We know that effectively addressing these problems requires some degree of tracking frequency & nature

    After all is said and done, undercover security is a minor point meant to improve enforcement and oversight in an already established system (think marked vs. unmarked police cars; enlisted military vs. special ops; corporate visitors vs. secret shoppers).

    Finally, without a public policy & recognizable security a victim has no assurance of identity and limited recourse if he/she suspects that the plain-clothed security is maybe faked or being unhelpful.

  76. jacklewis says

    @30 thunk

    1. Stop shaming the mentally disabled. Apologize now.

    You might be right that comparing the mentally disabled to the poster I was responding to might be too much for the former to bare. Then again perhaps comment @9 was also based on Gunman thinking I was somebody else…

    Last time I checked, PZ runs the blog. What you like does not matter in this case.

    Talk about having trouble following a two post thread, I don’t remember asking you who your daddy was… And it’s pretty rude and clueless to intervene when somebody is explicitely responding to somebody else. Which part of @Gnumann is beyond your understanding? Mind your own business.
    @35

    So sorry Jack, ignore that last bit.

    Sure but the first bit #9 was the starting point. What was that all about.

    And you might got a treatment on a bit higher hostility level than you deserve because of my case of mistaken identity. Your use of ableist slurs kinda prevents me feeling sorry for that bit though.

    That`s one half assed apology if I ever read one (good thing I’m a glass is half full kind of guy). You almost sounded human there for half a second, that will surely be frowned upon. Surely your initial intervention was sort of begging for that sort of reply. I’m not freaking Jesus Christ here, I’m not going to turn cheeks non stop when people just start writing pure crap at me without any provocation. So if you have a list of approved slurs to provide for future use feel free to do so, I`ve seen more insults of all types in this blog than anywhere else so the whining about tone for one particular slur seems a bit disingenuous to say the least.

    @38 Chigau
    I’m sure with some time you might get over your fear of quotation marks.
    Weren’t you supposed to just hit page down anyway?
    “It will not help you make sense.”
    I’d take that a bit more seriously if it wasn’t from some OCD guy who keeps writing about using block comments… fasincating stuff!

    Here’s hoping you enjoy the block comments, I did them just for you.

  77. jacklewis says

    alwayscurious #98

    The link you provided does not really tell me how the secret security was unpleasant. And notice that from the moment she is questionned they are no longer secret anyway so the whole secret issue is not what this is really about. The part where they showed up out of the blue and took interest in what she was discussing was something she actually appreciated…

    The questionning seemed to have been problematic and have caused tears but not much is divulged to see if the language was abusive, the questions were in bad taste or whatever… there is no data from which to know what actually happened. Maybe there is some other link where that stuff is clearly and consisely laid out, that particular comment, I’m sorry to say, is all over the place.
    Nothing about the actual harassment is mentionned either… except that it was somehow less unpleasant than the questionning… pretty strange actually.

    That part about being told not to talk about it and then actually being afraid to talk about it to friends is really weird too. Assuming it happened, why not just tell the personel that you will talk about it to as many people you want. Why go along with that request if you don’t think it makes sense? Why all the crying?
    Then there’s apparently phone calls and some disagreements… again the context is not clear about what happened and how…

    I can’t really take it one way or the other, this kind of statement will probably just confirm whatever bias the reader had before reading it…

  78. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    JackLewis, still nothing but your inane and fuckwitted evidenceless OPINION. A true discussion requires two things: 1) third party evidence, and 2) the possibility you are full of shit. Otherwise, you have nothing cogent to say on any subject.

  79. jacklewis says

    Hey Nerd, Go fuck yourself. I don’t give a shit what you think about anything. I don’t even believe you have the capacity to think anything about anything.
    You’re just a one trick pony/automated quote generator who regardless of what he reads will always write “it’s just an opinion without evidence” while not having the faintest idea what these words even mean or even understanding anything that you feel the emotional need to write a knee jerk response to. You are one truly disturbed little piece of shit. Get some professional help or just shut the fuck up and stop intervening in discussions that don’t fucking involve you.

  80. Tethys says

    jacklewis

    This is a pharygula comment thread, not your personal blog. If you post on it, you might get answered by people you weren’t addressing. If that bothers you the obvious solution would be to avoid posting.

    You read fluffys link but fail to see how the incident was creating a bad environment? Perhaps your empathy tank is empty?
    Since when is it better to grill the victim of harassment, rather than the harasser?

    Oh, and you can fuck right off. I doubt you will be missed.

  81. jacklewis says

    “Oh, and you can fuck right off. I doubt you will be missed.”
    Well at least I have an empathy tank… Maybe you need a “self awareness” tank?

    “You read fluffys link but fail to see how the incident was creating a bad environment?”

    Could you be more specific? I already explained in way more detail than you why no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from that comment… you apparently require less to be convinced, so good for you… I guess. Clearly a sceptical outlook on things is only to be used when one disagrees with something right?

    “I doubt you will be missed.”
    Unlike you, I’m not here in search of a herd to belong to.

  82. Wowbagger, Deputy Vice-President (Silencing) says

    SallyStrange wrote:

    Looking for a herd to get shit on by isn’t really much of an improvement.

    Especially not when the whole point of it is to run off to brag to your buddies about how you got ‘censored’ for ‘dissent’ despite your ‘right to free speech'; apparently, a bunch of clueless, privilege-blind misogynist asshats engaging in bullshit hyperskepticism in no way constitutes a ‘herd’.

  83. chigau (女性) says

    fasincating
    jacklewis uses blockquotes just to please me.
    Such Power!

  84. Amarantha says

    Apparently “words on a tshirt” is the new “offer of coffee” for the douchecakes who like to trivialise these issues. Watching them squirm to evade any discussion of context is reminding me of Stephanie’s marvellous post on Elisions.

  85. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I already explained in way more detail than you why no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from that comment…

    Your WORD jacklewis explains nothing, being nothing. You require evidence to back up your word. MRA slimepitters have nothing but attitude and fuckwitted OPINIONS. The OPINIONS are fuckwitted since they aren’t backed by evidence. You won’t supply supporting evidence, ergo, the only conclusion is your OPINION is lies and bullshit.

  86. jacklewis says

    @chigau
    “jacklewis uses blockquotes just to please me.
    Such Power!”

    I do agree that I have an amazing power not to be a complete douche like some round here. Glad you noticed it.
    I guess nobody has ever done anything to please you before… that would explain the under developed social skills.

    @Nerd
    Could you write another dumb ass post with a bunch of fuckwits and OPINION in bold, it’s great stuff, keep it fresh.

    @Amanda
    I’ll have to stop wearing the T-shirt with the big A on it… it might be too much for the religious folk to endure… Oh yeah, I forgot that *they* are fair play.

  87. hotshoe says

    I’ll have to stop wearing the T-shirt with the big A on it… it might be too much for the religious folk to endure…

    Yeah, you just go right ahead with that plan, you hopelessly obtuse piece of crap.

  88. John Morales says

    [meta]

    chew-toy jacklewis:

    I guess nobody has ever done anything to please you before… that would explain the under developed social skills.

    Stupid guess, stupid inference.

    Could you write another dumb ass post with a bunch of fuckwits and OPINION in bold, it’s great stuff, keep it fresh.

    Your stupid fuckwit OPINION is neither great nor fresh, hence it merits no effort.

    I’ll have to stop wearing the T-shirt with the big A on it… it might be too much for the religious folk to endure… Oh yeah, I forgot that *they* are fair play.

    Your forgetfulness and herd mentality are duly noted, O incompetent.

    <snicker>

  89. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Could you write another dumb ass post with a bunch of fuckwits and OPINION in bold, it’s great stuff, keep it fresh.

    Why should I? You do the same old same old. Your OPINION is bullshit. Show otherwise with third party evidence. OOPS, you didn’t….What a MF loser….

  90. christo930 says

    People seem to forget that we are talking about a woman who got upset about a t-shirt that another woman was wearing. A t-shirt that was in no way offensive to even the insecure idiot in the world. This woman who was reduced to tears by a t-shirt another well known feminist was wearing, is manufacturing a problem that doesn’t exist.

  91. Amphiox says

    Oh look, another “blame-the-victim”, “she’s-hysterical/overreacting/lying” apologizer creeps out of the woodwork.

    A month late.

    *barf*

  92. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    More OPINION, but no academic evidence from the MRA crowd. Boring and *POOF* dismissed.