OK, people, you insisted and demanded and rebuked me for not watching Thunderf00t’s latest video, so I did.
It was a great steaming pile of dishonest, sleazy shit, disgraceful propaganda to serve the cause of sexism.
Guess what? I’m never taking your advice again. Jerks. What a waste of time.
At least one good thing has come out of it, though: Michael Nugent takes it apart piece by piece. I can tell he was as appalled by the shameful smears as I was.
I also hadn’t realized until I watched it that Thunderf00t concludes by calling on conference organizers to blackball Rebecca Watson, Melody Hensley, Amy Roth, me, and all those other people who want to make the events respectful of women. It’s truly remarkable. He’s been whining about censorship! and bannings! and FREE SPEECH! yet here he is, organizing his followers to bombard secular leaders to silence feminists. I haven’t seen anything remotely similar from our side of this argument, yet here is the champion of holy sacred FREE SPEECH calling on his mob to ostracize people he disagrees with.
His priorities are genuinely screwed up, and if anyone is guilty of hypocrisy, it’s Phil Mason. Michael Nugent gets it right:
Please consider channeling your passion for freedom of expression into our fight for the right of people to express their secular beliefs without being beaten or jailed or killed for blasphemy, instead of fighting for the imaginary right of the Wooly Bumblebee to call Melody Hensley a twat on YouTube without having her video flagged.
Cue the ‘pitters complaining you didn’t understand the clear and compelling message by TF *snicker* and change your evil ways in three…two…one….
Thunderf00t is so lacking in self-awareness and a need to see himself as some kind of superhero freedom fighter — and he has so effectively brainwashed his YouTube acolytes in believing this of him, too — that the his most glaring, embarrassingly obvious exercises in projection and hypocrisy just spew from him without the slightest irony. As Matt said, he thinks in binary terms, incapable of seeing nuances and shades of grey in others’ viewpoints. It’s like dealing with David Barton on the subject of church/state separation.
FREEZE PEACH can of course be only held by certified FREEZE PEACH HOLDERS.
Buy your FREEZE PEACH HOLDER CERTIFICATE at your local venue for bigoted arsehattery today.
(offer extended under limited guarantee; some people like wimmen, brown-skinned or darker people and people to the left of the authoritarian right on the political spectrum are not eligible)
Warning: This comment might contain some sarcasm. Harmful if swallowed or otherwise internalized.
Gnumann+
And so it probably doesn’t. Might suggests the merest legitimate possibility. So, I presume, on trust, that it contains no irony, and am now en-route to my nearest venue for bigoted arsehattery (nice spelling, unlike those ‘mericans) today.
The pain is making you cruel, PZ – inflicting another thread full of Tfoots fans on us all. I better get more coffee.
I actually waded into the comments…having nothing better to do besides, you know, work and stuff.
It’s amazing what you find under the rocks…people defending Paul Elam’s comments about rape victims (conniving bitches who were begging for it) as just a clever rhetorical device and not evidence of hate at all, and others telling me there is a feminist conspiracy to castrate men and commit genocide. And while I’d like to believe they were just kidding I can’t quite make myself do it.
PZ, you were wrong about Youtube comments being a cesspit, it’s much worse than that. Cesspits at least have a useful function…
Aww I’m sorry you watch it PZ :( . It is 10 minutes of ones life you never get back.
@Brian E #4 – The advantage to the USian phrase “asshattery” is that it contains “shat”, the preterate of “to shit,” even though it is not typically pronounced that way. It also forms a should-be word, “shattery,” which has describes “a place where people have dumped steaming piles of excrement” such as Thunderfoot’s videos and comment threads.
I admire the intestinal fortitude of anyone who could watch the the entire TF video. You people disdain the use of painkillers at the dentist’s office too, right?
I like the new word ‘shattery’. It should get a lot of use in this thread.
@Gregory #8 – I’m totally stealing “shattery.”
I often refer to YouTube comments as Mos Eisley, for there has never been a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
@ Martin Wagner
Letting another think for one is the strongest addiction there is.
But when he calls for censoring feminists and all those silly people who think women should not have to deal with harassment, it isn’t hypocrisy because he’s right.
/ snark
…and others telling me there is a feminist conspiracy to castrate men and commit genocide.
Let me guess…that bit came from a DavidByron, right? He’s a piece of work from way back, someone who seems to have made it his job to spread lies to divide progressives against each other whenever possible.
The hater crowd is definitely getting stupider and nastier. It used to be composed of atheists who turned out to be misogynists. Now there’s an influx of misogynists who are incidentally atheists, and whose only real interest in the atheist movement is in spreading their poison.
I think you’re wrong, PZ. To me, Nugent’s admonition sounds just like Dear Muslima. The real priority problem isn’t focusing on focusing on free speech in the community to the detriment of focusing on REAL™ free speech issues elsewhere. Rather, the issue is placing a priority on free speech to the detriment of a non-hostile environment for women and other marginalised groups.
No, the castration fantasy primarily came form someone calling himself TwiztidcAsh
There was another one, “deadlychinchilla” warning everyone that America is going to become like Canada where people get arrested and thrown in jail for being rude. He knows this is true `cause he has friends here….O-o
I swear it was like all the hours I wasted playing with right wing fundamentalists in the CARM forums. Amusing and horrifying all at the same time.
A Hermit:
Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh, trufax. Gotta love ’em.
…this person does realize that Hark! A Vagrant! is comedy, right?
I must clarify. Nugent is certainly not being as condescending and vile as Dawkins was.I’m just trying to point to the similarity of the underlying argument.
Frankenstein’s monster keeps wondering how long it will take, till, given their shared hatred, feeling of superiority, absence of self-reflection, and in general, critical thinking, all those (for now) atheistic misogynists join the ranks of all other right wing authoritarians and become full wingnuts.
The last time I ventured into the fray on YT I was told there was no rape culture and that any experiences I’d had with it were merely lies I cooked up on the spot for the purpose of….I’m still not clear on what I was thought to have gained by making up stories about the quantity of rape, molestation and victim blaming I grew up around. The dudebroatheist response in the face of reality seems to be, (to quote Jay of SGU) “Oh yea?!?” I went away shaken and exhausted. I won’t do that again.
However, for those of you who dare to dive into that snake pit, there was a silver lining. A woman wrote me a letter thanking me for picking up the conversation where she put it down. She felt I carried the baton a bit further. She made my foray feel worthwhile. So, hugs to you brave lot who keep passing it on. I can’t find the fucks to give to that crowd anymore. I wish you many shiny new Internets and a bushel of Jolly Ranchers.
Hahahahahahahaha!! I mean, yeah, we’re generally polite, but we don’t send the Mounties after ya if you forget to say “sorry” when you bump into an inanimate object, eh.
Hahahahahaha! Thanks, A Hermit, for providing me with something to laugh aboot the rest of the day.
I thought Mike Nugent spoke sound sense, as he usually does.
Copy/paste of the comment I left there
At last some non hyperbolic fair minded common sense.
Do you think that following this we can get away from internecine strife, and get back to the iniquities of blasphemy law, the persecution of atheists, Christians, Jews and other Muslims by a large chunk of the Islamic world, the fake claims of persecution by Western Christians who interpret loss of undeserved privilege as persecution, and all the other iniquities justified an perpetuated by religion – not least by disadvantaging women.
It is a great shame that so many within atheism feel so challenged by women standing up for themselves.
David B
I think Michael Nugent’s wasting his time asking Thunderfart to “channel your passion for freedom of expression” toward a worthier cause. When your head’s as far up your fundament as Thunderfoot’s, you can’t see to redirect your steps, only stagger on in the same direction until you fall off or over something.
From the Niagara Falls area i’m sure.
I’d answer that with a firm “no”. Without a comprehensive retraction and apology, I’ve no interest at all in being in the same movement as Thunderfart – and I’m not even among those with the best reason for feeling that.
You’re welcome, eh…
Sloooooowly I turned. Step by step… Inch by inch….
“Right-wing authoritarians” misses the boat. The Thunderf00tian cohort of atheists seem more like social nihilists at the altar of individualism, wearing (to varying degrees) fallacious just-world fig-leaves.
I do agree that since the great atheistic schism occurred, a growing contingent of MRA-types seem to have allied themselves with these Penn Jillette atheists, to the point where sexism* is nearly as definitional to the subculture as atheism.
For fuck’s sake…. “internecine strife,” my ass.
Sure, whatever. See you in at best a few decades, to be way too fucking optimistic about it, when we have a new crop of shitheads because all the current ones are gone. In the meantime, since nothing is stopping me from talking about how bad religion is right now, I’m just going to laugh at you for pretending “we” have to “get back” to something.
@ Akira
I just love that bit. I don’t care if it’s The Stooges or Abbot & Costello, it gets me every single time.
Thanks for the chuckle.
I used to think that the OMG FREEZE PEACHES types (i.e. the free-speech absolutists) didn’t understand that in a 100% free-speech, nothing-is-off-limits situation, those who have general societal privilege and power will dominate.
But then, I realized that they do understand this.
They understand it very well.
That’s why they’re free-speech absolutists.
Internecine strife? What in the fuck is wrong with you, David? Is your head crammed that far up your ass? Just this week, we’ve been told by multiple people in multiple threads that:
We live in a post sexist society now, so wtf you women whining about?
Feminists don’t actively work for men’s rights, so they’re either evil fucking bitches or wastes of space.
Rape and domestic violence are biologically based and hey, irresistible urges!
Oooh, you *might* have been raped (even though I stated I had been) and it must not be talked about at all because it might hurt my fragile widdle feelings, so people need to stfu about rape.
Feminists are all stupid man, wanting a utopia and doing that herstory thing, ya know.
And that doesn’t even begin to cover it all. Not even the tippy top. There’s not only a lot of stupid out there, there’s a lot of active malevolence. “Internecine strife”? You call Rebecca Watson receiving daily abuse and rape threats for over a year “internecine strife”? You call whole forums and networks being created to fight for their right to harass and threaten women “internecine strife”?
Take your milquetoast and go home.
@David B
No and fuck you. This is not a wee little tiff between friends. My humanity is just as important as any other cause and we don’t need to put it aside so that you can focus on “more important matters” and if you disagree, you can go stand on the other side of the deep rift and feel superior with your new friends. I’m sure you’ll conquer the “really” important social work that needs to be done in society without getting bogged down in this silly argument over whether or not women are people.
Seriously, what an asshole.
Arren:
Shouldn’t that be phallacious just-world fig-leaves?
@Caine;
Think davidb‘s telling the likes of TF to stfu and stop causing strife, as evidenced by this quote here:
.
David B:
Perpetuating any part of the toxic religious society is not acceptable. There is no fucking way that we should even be having a debate about whether women are fully human or not. Toss that shit out with the bible and the q’uran.
@ Nick Gotts
The Libertatheists aren’t even in the same movement as we are, in my opinion.
David B, I’d argue with the characterization of the conflict as “internecine”, in that for those of us who care more about humanism and social justice than about unbelief in and of itself, this conflict has simply laid bare a fundamental disagreement between the two sides — it’d be more damaging to swallow their codswallop in order to maintain some illusory atheistic unity than it is to stand by our principles.
There’s no putting the dudebro djinni back in the bottle. Getting back to the roseate days of yesteryear, when we could all join hands and mock bigfoot believers, has not nearly enough appeal in light of the irreconcilability of the intervening disagreement.
In other words: good riddance.
.
there is a breed of right wing authoritarianism which fits on thunderfoot like a glove. It is called ‘social dominance orientation‘ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation
@ Caine
Hover the cursor over my #29’s “fallacious” for a
surprise! (I thought it was unsubtle enough as it was…..)Seriously? That’s who “we” are? And he does that here? Because chunderfool is here?
I’m getting a flood of email and tweets telling me to “kiss and make up” with thunderf00t, because this debate is hurting the movement, and is over such trivial, petty problems.
My official response to such diminution of a real problem: FUCK YOU.
This is a serious, substantive difference of opinion, and I think how we resolve it will shape the direction the atheist movement takes. If we minimize it and accept the Thunderf00t position, we will dribble away and become increasingly irrelevant, serving no one but an increasingly negligible fraction of white male interests. If we stand up for equality, we have a shot at replacing religious ideology in this country with something better.
In a weird way, this might be a good thing. The atheist movement (whatever that means) has grown sufficiently large and successful that people actually give a crap. There would be no point in fighting over what the future of atheism should be if it didn’t have any. You could see this as a kind of milestone. We’ve become relevant enough that it’s necessary for these discussions to take place.
There’s a problem with the “internecine” phrasing, though. Personally, I don’t see the MRA types as in any way related to me or my opinions. The fact that we’re all atheists is practically irrelevant. That was the point of A+, as I see it.
So, it’s not so much that there’s infighting going on. Rather, this is a case of two, quite distinct, group fighting over who’s going to represent atheism to the larger society. This is about who the average person is going to think about when they hear the word “atheist”. Who’s going to be the mainstream and who’s going to be the fringe.
Luckily, I think we’ve got the edge on that. While there’s a lot of work to be done, our view is basically more in tune with common sense, decency and the values of people in general than the “men are being persecuted by communist feminazis who want to outlaw flirting” crowd.
Ibis3 – you might be right, but I chose to read Nugent’s piece as trying to get through to ignorant bigots like Tfoot by shifting the focus away from the focus of their unhinged hate-mongering – women- and back onto what they claim they want to focus on – anything else.
he’s trying to reason with someone incapable of being reasonable, of course, but perhaps he’ll get really lucky.
if the stars are aligned properly or sumthin
@PZ#42
Yay!
@ frankensteinmonster
Your own wiki cite asserts that SDO correlates “weakly” with RWA, and that they each contribute to prejudice in “an additive rather than interactive way”.
Using the terms interchangeably seems to me to diminish the utility of SDO as a separate construct. YMMV.
nightshadequeen:
Nope, that’s not what he’s saying. I know him from TalkRats. He just wants all this shit to stop so he can get back to being pleasantly tipsy and talking about proper skeptical stuff.
Are they actually calling endemic sexism within atheism a ‘trivial, petty problem’? I shudder at the human who can declare human rights to be trivial and petty.
.
I was not the one who decided to group them together with the other right wing authoritarians. it was Bob Altemeyer ( the guy who actually invented those cathegories ) himself in his book about authoritarianism, go read it, it is free online http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
I dunno; I might be reading it overly charitably, but I’m getting “we” to be the entire atheist community, A+’s and A-‘s alike. It’s a comment left on Mike Nugent’s site, not here.
Maybe I’m being entirely wrong (hey, davidb, can you clarify?) but I’m reading it as a statement mostly blaming A- detractors for the “internecine strife”.
That said; davidb, I can’t figure out the search on Youtube comments and your comment doesn’t appear at the end of Mike’s article; where did you leave it?
And in the future, if you’d like to quote a comment you made on another site, can you please use blockquotes? Just put text between <blockquote> and </blockquote> signs and it will show up
@ LykeX
Is this really a battle that’s worth fighting? You mention A+ — isn’t that an effort to create a new, distinct identifier rather than a claim on “atheism” as a whole?
It’s quite possible I’m getting this wrong, on the sidelines as I am, but it seems fruitless to pursue framing “atheist” to align with A+ principles. Thunderf00t remains an atheist regardless of his self-infatuation and pseudo-ironic sexism. I don’t see how it benefits anyone to redefine the general term to suit our* principles.
* I know this is presumptuous, but my posts are long-winded enough even using such shorthand…..
Sorry; didn’t see your comment at 47 when I was making 50, Caine. I apologize and retract my statements.
And about what’s good in the larger society, among two distinct groups which aren’t all atheists.
I doubt PZ means to imply in #42 that the only (or primary) reason we should care about this is that it’s in the interests of the atheist movement to do so; but in any case, there are much better reasons to fight against bigotry. If somehow doing that would make the atheist movement less effective in undermining religion, so the fuck what if it would? Why should atheists only care about that?
nightshadequeen, no worries.
@ frankensteinmonster
…..I actually read The Authoritarians a few years back. I don’t recall the two categories being conflated as you have portrayed them.
SDO fits Thunderf00t like a glove, indeed, just as you said. In my opinion, shoehorning him into RWA dilutes the meaning of the two distinct categories. Once again, YMMV — but I don’t see your reading being somehow authoritative, or mine indicating ignorance of the source material.
[/hair-splitting]
So Thunderfoot is rapidly becoming the Lord Monckton of anti-feminism. Beloved of idiots, never saw an orchard without a cherry to pick etc.
Nice to see it all laid out.
Indeed. Let me clarify. When I say “truck driver”, what kind of person do you picture? Personally, I picture a rather large, burly, unshaved man with a lumberjack shirt and a baseball cap (that may just be me). However, not all truck drivers are. I’m not even sure most are and I’m well aware of that, yet that’s still the picture that pops up in my head.
That’s what I’m talking about. I’m not trying to prevent TF and his ilk from calling themselves atheists, but I would want them to be considered the lunatic fringe of atheism by everybody, theist and atheist alike. I want it to be very clear that they’re not the most common or most accepted type of atheist. I want that to be us.
So, it’s not about making atheism synonymous with A+, it’s about making A+ the dominant, mainstream kind of atheism. We should be the atheists that everybody thinks of when they picture a stereotypical atheist: decent, rational, ethical people. People with a strong focus on truth and empathy.
I’m not trying to alter the dictionary definition of atheist. I’m advocating taking control of the cultural perception of what an atheist human being is like.
.
Do I really have to quote parts of the book that clearly show, that Bob Altemeyer himself considers SDO to be a different type of right wing authoritarianism than the classic RWA ?
Yeah, SDO is not RWA.
And Altemeyer doesn’t simply “group them together”:
Then he has a section titled “Similarities and Differences Between Social Dominators and Authoritarian Followers”.
+++++
I would agree that Thunderfoot types are likely to be high-SDO. But SDO simply is not a subset of RWA. There is some but not much overlap between the two.
Yeah, and now that I think of it,
is kind of iffy, too.
@ LykeX
I see. A noble goal, to be sure. I guess I’m just much more cynical as to the inevitability of “stereotypical” perceptions being irredeemably stupid.
As in many other things, I sincerely hope that my own view is incorrect. If I live to see our culture portray atheists in general as socially conscious, truly egalitarian human beings, I’ll take my figurative hat off to you and kiss the sky.
“suit our* principles.”
If it is only “our principles” that I am human and worthy of all that entails, then disbelief in gods seems of very little importance to me. It is not selfish for me or others to pursue the goal of being seen as fully human, nor is it anti- skepticism nor does it change my lack of belief in gods and other fairy tale creatures. I am an atheist too. I’m also a woman. I may as well belong to a group of non-fairy believers who hate me and my struggle to be seen as fully human in the disgustingly anti-woman culture I am forced to live in as join an “atheist community” where TF and his ilk are considered members in good standing, or even hero worshiped.. TF once said he was not merely an atheist but a PEARList. He is not in favor of mere disbelief as a thing to rally around. Neither am I. I’m either a person seeking for more space for truth and integrity in our world, or I’m not. If I’m not a person in this movement, then the precious movement can move right on without me. How can anyone suggest otherwise?
Also, I don’t think Altemeyer invented SDO. Wikipedia says Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto proposed it.
Thanks, SGBM. I was just about to dig into the text myself, to see if my eminently fallible memory let me down.
(Frankensteinmonster, I don’t see why you feel entitled to adopt such a supercilious tone, but I know that fussing over such is frowned upon here, so I’m going to drop this now.)
.
I Never said it is. Altemeyer calls in his book the RWA authoritarian followers and the SDO authoritarian leaders. So both are authoritarians. The leaders and the followers.
@ibis3:
TF’s “free speech issues” aren’t too small and therefore not a priority. They aren’t free speech issues at all.
@Arren, idée fixe oblique
I will admit to a certain level of blue sky thinking here, but you gotta aim high, right?
I recognize this isn’t going to happen overnight or perhaps even in a life-time, but I can absolutely guarantee that it will never happen if we choose to assimilate the toxic attitudes of TF and the like, rather than fight them. Taking a stand against this crap is a prerequisite for any good outcome.
@ jackiepaper
I don’t disagree with anything in your post. My only point was that our* subculture is better off being defined distinctly from mere “atheism”.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my post, for it to have elicited your response.
* There it is again.
I’m speaking from a position of ignorance on this….see, I like Pharyngula and although I surely don’t have time to read every post, I’ll have you know that the only place I’ve ever seen the name “Thunderfoot” is on this blog and despite not following the story (if that’s what it is) at all, the number of posts related to this dude is staggering.
The impression I get from not following the saga in any detail is that this is a guy who doesn’t deserve an audience, yet this place seems to serve as a vehicle for continuously promoting his name in the public eye. I guess I could be wrong about that, but to have the insightful posts about science and skepticism and their appearances in the news of the world periodically interrupted by what appears to be a bitchy online social media squabble not unlike an existential argument waged between two teenagers with different opinions who both think they’ve got it all figured out.
I look forward to the fulfillment of your commitment to not taking any future advice from those suggesting that you take the bait. Less clutter in the feed, y’know.
Translation: I don’t know shit about shit, but Ive’ got a penis, so that means my opinion is valuable and important, even though its based on nothing but my own ignorance and arrogance. But bitches ain’t shit and your blog should be all about what I want to talk and read about instead.
@ LykeX
On that we entirely agree. I’m certainly not arguing for assimilation — especially since, given the respective attitudes of the two sides of this conflict, it would be us forsaking principles to be assimilated*.
I’m appreciative of your optimism, and wouldn’t wish my grey-sky mentality on anyone.
* Sorry, I can get a bit obsessive about semantics…..
Gee, did ignoring the stupidity of creationism cause it to go away? No, it got stronger. It had more trouble when it has been exposed, and the exposure caused the legal system to come into play. Nothing is gained by the head in the sand approach, and you provided NO EVIDENCE to show that would happen. Try looking at how social change happens.
Damn! Why were any of us intelligent to realize that if TF is not spoken of on Pharyngula, he will just go away.
I am getting just a little tired of random people who know jack shit about the subject try to tell others how to handle the situation.
arren @29
What is meant by “Penn Jillette atheists?” Has Penn Jillette stepped into the foray of the atheism/feminism discussion or do you just mean atheists who to take a toxic brand of libertarianism to justify abuse and harassment in the name of liberty? It’s been a long time since I’ve heard or read anything Penn Jillette’s said so if he’s ever said anything particular toxic with regard to atheism or feminism or sexism, I haven’t heard it.
“If I live to see our culture portray atheists in general as socially conscious, truly egalitarian human beings, I’ll take my figurative hat off to you and kiss the sky.”
My goal is not to see us “portrayed” that way. It is to be that way. Fighting bigoted stereotypes is part of the goal to be that way, and it is a step in the right direction toward being portrayed that way. If white, cis gendered, straight, male atheists want better press, they might want to think about what they are doing to stop the demonization of all socially marginalized groups. If you only want the sun to shine on your special little snowflakes, fine. I’m not remotely satisfied with that.
@ Randall Morrison
Throwing around terms like “existential” when they clearly don’t apply makes you look like a pseud. Your employ of “bitchy” is a lot more honest as to the level you’re operating on.
PJ poo-poos the idea of sexual harassment due to his morally bankrupt liberturd beliefs. After all, somebody is telling him to behave like a responsible adult off-stage, and liberturds can’t stand that.
@ jackiepaper
I fail to see how anything I’ve written justifies your lumping me together with your “special little snowflakes”. Good fortune to you in the new year.
I do not think the MRA’s (including rape apologists) are getting dumber I think that they are just getting much more public in displaying what they really think. They are speaking out loud and are being reported reported. They can post to everyone in the world openly and do about what they really think. If they are getting dumber it is doing that, they are exposing their hateful personalities and attitudes for what they are for all to see.
If rationality and unbelief is to have a positive influence on the development of human history society and culture it must stand for the rights and dignity of all people. Otherwise those who are rational are not “of faith” will just be the ex centric odd relative and the status quo will remain and human civilization will stagnate and fail
I am not going to watch any of that “Dudes” crapola I will trust the evaluation of trusted rationalist who have far more tolerance than I do.
uncle frogy
@ Minestuck
Here’s a pointer. I’m sure others here have more ample documentation, I’m a recently delurked junior participant here.
(I admit to using it in an offhand fashion, as a characterization rather than a specific point having to do with the OP — still think it fits, though.)
@ Nerd & Arren
Thank you. That’s pretty disappointing. I always enjoyed Penn Jillette’s stories and even some of his shows. I didn’t realize he was an asshat when it comes to sexual harassment. His sentiment does seem similar to TFoot’s and others who have jumped on his bandwagon.
Meanwhile in Belgium … TF would be proud …
FREEZE PEACH at its finest.
.
Trigger Warning for people who have endured harrassment, on-line bullying and decent human beings in general.
A group of youngsters created a Facebook group “Antwerp Whores”, uploading surreptitiously obtained pictures of young (often underaged) women.
.
Yep, that’s right … the Facebook commentariat. Almost as fine as the YouTube commentariat TF is so proud of.
Of course anybody with half a brain realises that this was just in good fun.
And this isn’t in any way symptomatic of the rampant mysoginy in modern society, and especially on-line … no way.
And after all, we all know that once a person has in any way drawn attention to the fact that she’s a woman, she has totally forfeited her individuality and has agreed to be for ever and always available as a thing to be lusted after.
And boys will be boys … this was just a harmless prank.
By the way, Facebook should be ashamed … censoring a group like that without real cause. After all, nobody complained about it … well, except a few overly PC whiners who recognised their own pictures.
And what are we complaining about? Belgium has laws in place that forbid harrassment based on gender, religion, sexuality, race, etc. So clearly if it is illegal, this couldn’t have been harrasment.
.
Man, even writing the above sarcastically makes me ill in my mouth.
.
I really wonder what’s worse … that there are several youngsters who are actually shitbrained enough to create a group like this and to go through the work needed to invade somebody’s privicy like that …
or that there are thousands of creepy assholes who thought nothing of actually cheering them on.
.
Actually, considering the banana-republic style “legal” system we have here, I’m afraid that the worse will probably be that the Shit-for-brains who created this abomination will probably get away with just a symbolic slap on the wrist while thousands of people will stand in line to congratualte them because “justice has been done”.
.
Honest question though … would there really be any TF acolyte (TF included) who would go as low as actually defend the above mentioned creeps?
I read “there is a breed of right wing authoritarianism which fits on thunderfoot like a glove. It is called ‘social dominance orientation‘” to mean that SDO is a breed of RWA, i.e. SDO is a subset of RWA.
I’m not sure what else you could mean by that. If you’re saying Thunderfoot (or anyone) is a low-RWA right wing authoritarian, I think that’s pretty confusing; I would avoid calling low-RWA people right wing authoritarians.
Not exactly. High-RWA low-SDO he calls authoritarian followers. High-RWA high-SDO (double highs), and low-RWA high-SDO, he calls authoritarian leaders. Simply knowing someone’s RWA score is not sufficient to place them as leader or follower.
I wouldn’t have disputed this, but initially you called SDO a breed of right wing authoritarianism. That’s what I find misleading, as it sounds like you’re saying SDO is a breed of RWA. But it is unlikely that Thunderfoot types would score high-RWA; they would not be double highs.
Altemeyer: «The vast majority of people who score highly on the RWA scale can be called submissive followers, champing at the bit for their champion. But aspiring dictators can sometimes score highly on the RWA scale too. Consider the first item on the measure: “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.” Couldn’t an authoritarian follower and an authoritarian leader both agree with this? The follower would say, “Yes, yes. Oh please let him appear,” and the wannabe leader would say, “Yes, yes. Behold, here I am.” And it’s clear that Double Highs want to dominate, not submit. They score as high on both the “How much power would you like to have at age 40?”question and the “Power-Mad” scale as the rest of the social dominators do–which is much higher than ordinary high RWAs do.
So who are these Double Highs? Simply put, they are “religious” social dominators. They usually had much more religious upbringings than social dominators typically had, or they may have “got religion” as adults. As a group their fervor does not quite reach the levels found among ordinary right-wing authoritarians. But they go to church much more than most people in my samples do. Ditto for being religious fundamentalists. Ditto for being religiously ethnocentric. They thus respond to the religious content on the RWA scale, which ordinary social dominators do not, and that helps make them Double Highs.»
Gregory:
Shall we add that word alongside smegmarmalade?
Nepenthe +1
Gregory +1
the rest of us need to get on the ball :)
Randall, honey, I have some bad news. Take a deep breath…okay, you’re a complete fuckwit. A willfully ignorant fuckwit. A fuckwit with their head crammed so far up their rectal canal it’s a wonder you can breathe. So fuckwitted you somehow can’t manage to read the comments in one of these staggeringly frequent threads – why considering just how many there are, one would think you could cram a little reading into that head. Perhaps a short video, as reading seems difficult for you. But nooooo, you just have to come along to cast your ignorance upon the water. You’ll have quite the return, too. Hope you enjoy it.
This very public infighting in the atheist movement is getting really depressing and icky. The last five years have been great for American atheism with lots of young positive people joining the ranks. Whereas if I was 18 right now and considering leaving my faith and saw how prominent this kind of thing was, I would have cause to hesitate. Please consider that when moving these discussions to public forums.
Jackiepaper:
I think you may have misunderstood Arren. He’s a recent delurkee and been fighting the good fight with the rest of us. I think he’s simply a bit more on the pessimistic side when it comes the larger atheist movement becoming a full A+, with A+ being the dominant paradigm. That is what I want, and what I’ll fight for every fucking day, however, I’m not all too sure I’ll be alive to see it happen.
Hey, everyone! Shut the fuck up! Mdcaton does not want to hear anything about this!
mdcaton #86
I hope you will be happier when you return to your church.
Bless your heart.
You would be doubting your faith in God, but upon seeing public argument among atheists, you would think “hmm, I guess God does exist after all”?
Are you high-RWA? ;)
Another “lets tolerate sexism for quiet” contender. So not cogent. Sexism is bad and must be fought against. Prove otherwise with solid EVIDENCE.
Janine
Don’t say ‘fu*k’.
It’s icky.
mdcaton:
Depressing and icky? For you? Just what the fuck do you think it’s like for us women who get to be harassed and threatened for the crime of being female on the internet? We need to pretend that people frothing their hatred of women is what, okey dokey, so you’ll feel okay?
I have news for you – when someone is ready to outgrow gods, they will. They’ll find a place they like to have discussions about it. What happens when that person wants more? What if they are a woman? What if they’re a man who is a feminist? What if they are gay? What if they are lesbian? What if they are gender queer? What if they are asexual or intersex? What if they have been raped and need to talk about that? What if they are a POC who needs to talk about racism? What if, what if, what if? We better get busy tearing down every safe fucking space we’ve made for all those people because you find it all icky.
Randall:
You must not read blog entries here very often. Like maybe once or twice a year. PZ *rarely* talks about Thunderf00t. Seriously, go back over the last 6 weeks worth of posts and you will see how little TF is talked about.
The only reason he is being discussed now is because of a video he wrote trying to drag PZ’s name (among others) through the mud.
Also, no one is promoting his name. He is being roundly criticized for his poor arguments and his sexism. If you want to see people promoting his name, go read the comments on his videos.
Your concern is noted.
They weren’t moved into the public. These were public issues to begin with, and they will stay that way.
If you find the time, please tell the 18-year-old shithead demographic that I personally don’t give a fuck.
Hey, mdcatan.
If people are scared away from the atheist movement because we are fighting sexism in our community, they can go back to church, ’cause I don’t want them. And you can go back to church with your sexism-apologism. They’ll appreciate it more.
Randall:
Here’s some advice: don’t display your ignorance for the world to see. It ain’t pretty.
This isn’t a squabble.
A squabble is fighting with your roommate over who’s turn it is to do the dishes.
This is about equality and human rights. It’s about treating women as living, breathing human beings deserving of the same rights as men. If you had actually read up on things before you shat your ignorance all over the places, you might have known that.
Oh, and leave “bitchy” at the door. This ain’t the place for slurs like that.
We’re actually trying to open atheism to more people, make it more welcoming for some. And less welcoming to predators, arseholes and bigots (not discrete categories).
Please do keep that in mind before displaying your privilege in public.
There’s no infighting going on. There’s just fighting. There are decent people fighting assholes.
Membership’s up. Who cares if we’re treating people like shit; fill those seats. It’s not like we’ve got any principles or anything.
Arren
Like most liberturds, they tend to be high-SDO, not high-RWA. Doesn’t mean they aren’t authoritarians in the end, just that they also believe they have an innate right to be the authorities.
How much you wanna’ bet that mdcatan hasn’t made the same comment on Phil Mason’s territory.
The disagreement was over the phrase “right wing authoritarians”, which was understood as the term of art meaning high-RWA.
LykeX:
Oh, we don’t want those! They clutter up the place something awful.
But he has and they rejected the suggestion too, which just goes to show that we’re exactly the same. Just two sides of the same coin, with mdcaton as the sole light in darkness. Oh, the humanity.
Kanthron: For the sake of your wallet, shouldn’t you ask for bets for not against?
And…icky. Seriously? Icky? Where are these idiots coming from? And why don’t they stop? It’s like a zombie invasion.
Can we please drop the gendered insults and slurs?
Oh, definately. Online discussions about whether women are actually human beings, about whether women’s concerns should be considered relevant (or even true!), about whether sexual harassment is a real problem or just something dreamed up by the feminazis to emasculate men are all icky and depressing. I shall, immediately, ignore anything having to do with human rights just to please you.
Actually, I won’t, but I’m not sure if you get the sarcasm there.
mdcaton:
Thank you *so* much for the concern you show for women being sexually harassed. /massive amounts of dripping sarcasm
You know what I hope?
I hope that an 18 year old lesbian who realizes she doesn’t believe in god and finds her way here will find support from a community that doesn’t tolerate people calling her a “dyke”.
I hope that an 18 year old black woman who recently rejected Jesus comes here and finds that it is a respite from the catcalls and sexist insults of daily life.
I hope that an 18 year old victim of sexual assault can come here and know that this community will jump down the throats of anyone who tells her to hush.
Why do I hope for all that?
Because I care about women.
I care that they’re having to face sexual harassment.
And I want to do my part to help ensure that these women have *somewhere* they can come where they do not have to face the mountain of sexist, misogynist bullshit that exists everywhere.
This “very public infighting” is [hopefully] pushing the sexist atheists to the fringes and allowing more diversity within the movement.
You can go away now. Trot trot.
Took one for the team. I know it is a painful slog to try understand the point he is trying to make.
Gnumann+
I am not good at gambling.
@vaiyt #66
After I posted, I went and looked at the quotation in context. From the context, it’s clear that the emphasis is on the imaginary right of the Wooly Bumblebee to call Melody Hensley a twat on YouTube without having her video flagged–i.e. that there is no free speech issue in being flagged for bullying on a private platform when you’re doing some bullying. However, when taken out of context, that emphasis fades (at least as I initially read it above) and seems to be about contrasting focusing on free speech within the community when there are people being jailed and killed for blasphemy.
Even given the contextual interpretation (i.e. the one the author intended, and presumably the one agreed to by PZ), it makes me uncomfortable. The reason is because while *we* agree there’s no free speech issue involved when a private platform has rules about not harassing other people, these people don’t hold the same view. They obviously feel that [pedestal]Free Speech[/pedestal] means being able to say whatever you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want, even on privately owned platforms and in public spaces of any kind*. To them, lies, defamation, harassment, slander, mockery, sexual degradation, racist slurs–it’s all sacred** and should be protected no matter the social cost or harm to actual people. In short, for them, there is what they consider a free speech issue. For feminists in the community there is what we consider a sexism issue, whereas for Dawkins and other Dear Muslima adherents there isn’t. The parallel in the “go over there and help some people who are suffering for real” construct is still too close for comfort to me.
*Moreover, they think that the intended audience is obligated to listen.
**They are the 1st amendment equivalent of the 2nd’s gun nuts, really.
If you distance yourself a bit, and forget about the damage he is trying to cause for a second, it is really quite a bizarre video.
…wondering how long it will take, till, given their shared hatred, feeling of superiority, absence of self-reflection, and in general, critical thinking, all those (for now) atheistic misogynists join the ranks of all other right wing authoritarians and become full wingnuts.
I have a strong feeling a lot of those misogynists never left that camp in the first place. It doesn’t matter what god(s) they say they worship or don’t worship — their behavior makes them just as bad as the wingnuts.
I hate drive-bys.
mdcaton are you here?
@ Dalillama
SGBM beat me to it. (I do see how my initial statement could be construed as denying authoritarianism in favor of my “individualism” formulation — but I meant that to refer to the trappings that adorn Libertatheism, not to deny underlying authoritarianism.)
(Incidentally, for the Randall Morrisons: the whole “RWA” vs. “SDO” digression is a perfect example of what an actually trivial quibble looks like — in contrast to, you know, “sexism’s still rampant in our Western cultures” vs. “bitches be grateful you aren’t in Saudi Arabia; stop icky-ing up my super-skeptical Vulcan club!”)
@ lilandra
I don’t understand what you’re driving at.
@Arren PZs OP about his reaction to watching Thunder’s video.
@ Nightshade queen post 50
My comment is no 76 on the link to the Mike Nugent article linked to in his OP, not on the yt comment page. I got fed up of watching that. a minute or so in.
I misspoke myself a little. I meant to say that can we all take what Mike Nugent has to say on board, and get back to pointing out the evils of religion.
I was – or meant to be – blaming thunderfoot and his acolytes for setting off and maintaining what oughtn’t to be but in fact is something which has been in fact divisive and turning a lot of people off.
I’ve been a bit side-tracked for the last few months with personal health issues, so have concentrated more on my own board and a couple of other places than FTB, but here is a copy paste of what I wrote as post 17 of Maryam’s blog, back in september – it was Marymam’s post of the 11th iirc
”
Good to see you back blogging again, Maryam.
I’ve been sort of following the elevatorgate thing, and the atheism+ idea over the last few weeks, and while I agree with much of what atheism+ stands for, and while perhaps it ought not to be divisive, a look through this comments thread I think shows that you are a little too sanguine in thinking that it is not in fact divisive.
Like the Bright thing of a few years ago, as far as I am concerned the sooner it blows over the better.
Yes, of course, we atheists should be, and generally are, concerned about social issues.
And concerned about equality for women of whatever sexual orientation, equality for gay males and the list goes on.
One of my co-admins at my discussion board just posted there
“Somehow they seem to be doing a great job of putting people off who actually agree with them for the best part.”
I tend to agree.
I’m quite an old man now, and I was always sympathetic to feminism, ever since the days when Germaine Greer was writing about it. But the Dworkins of this world alienated a lot of sympathetic people, and I fear that some of the atheism+ people are seeking a similar sort of unproductive ideological purity.
From the same thread on my board, from another co-admin who I think you have met personally.
“When I was a young working woman, I got paid less than men with similar qualifications and experience, purely because I was a woman. When I wanted to sign a legal agreement I was told I had to get my husband’s consent. I could go on with a whole lot of such examples.
When my mother was a young woman and got married, she had to hide the fact that she was married, because her company had a policy of firing married women. And that was the norm.
When I was a young maths teacher I went to a maths teachers’ conference. One day at dinner I mentioned that I was a feminist (by which I meant that I believed in equal rights for women). The reaction of the otherwise entirely male table was one of horror and I was attacked in every possible way.
So I am what wordy had described as an equality feminist. And I have been a Humanist as long as I have been a feminist (i.e. since before you were born). To put it succinctly, I am a Humanist because I am an atheist and I care about human rights in general and also care about people’s welfare.
Now in the 1970s, we saw the rise of a new kind of feminism, some of whose adherents might accurately be described as “feminazis”. So how do you think people like Shadowfox and me and all the other equality feminists felt about our movement being hijacked by men-hating extremists? Perhaps a little bit like your man Jim, ranting about the hijacking of “atheism”. And in the 1970s there were some real extremists. I can remember some of them having agonised debates about how they could possibly raise male children. And in the 1980s when I was working for the cause of extending the reproductive rights of poor women in developing countries by helping them get access to a choice of contraceptive methods that didn’t cost the earth, I was frequently attacked by self-styled feminists who thought I wanted to control world population by stopping women from having the children they wanted.
I’ve had to fight that kind of crap so much that I do resent your assumption that the word “feminist” can only mean what you choose it to mean. You’re not the vocabulary pope pronouncing ex cathedra.
FYI I have always cared for men’s rights too. “Feminism” means that to me as well. So, for example, I don’t think it should be automatic that in divorce, mothers and not fathers should get custody of children. I don’t, however, think that in general men in the west are terribly disadvantaged, any more than I think that Christians are in general persecuted.”
And from the same woman
“Frankly, I don’t care what your feminist lecturer told you. I was probably a feminist before she was born too!
My sort of feminism is a subset of Humanism (capital H please). Same as wanting equal rights for blacks and whites or gays and straights.
Women are approximately half the human race. Many countries discriminate against them by law. This is a sufficiently serious problem to demand a huge input that it’s just not getting at the moment. There was a considerable international effort against racial apartheid in one country. Why is there less effort against gender apartheid? Why are so many people content to accept it as a cultural peculiarity like wearing a turban? ”
And from the same woman
“I’m female. Can I be a misogynist because I think far too much was made of an annoying and inept proposition in a lift? ”
This whole atheism+ thing reminds me of the bit in ‘Life of Brian’ about the various liberation fronts.
The dust will settle, just as it did with the Bright thing, now pretty much dead and buried.
The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.
David B”
I still pretty much stand by that for all the twats who insist on insulting anyone who fails to climb on their personal agendas.
But make no mistake, it is the Thunderfoots etc where I attribute the bulk of the blame, though looking through just this comment thread, and a couple back at Maryam’s board while looking for my quote, while it ought not be so divisive, divisive it is proving to be.
David B
Wow, now I’m starting to see where the ascerbic reputation for this comments section comes from. I guess I’ll know better than to comment on something I know nothing about in the future.
To clarify, I got the impression over the last several months or so that Thunderfoot’s “saga” had come to an end and he and his view were no longer welcome. I guess I must’ve been wrong, as I stated I could have been. My only opinion was that continuing to share and publicize what someone who has been exiled from a community is promoting won’t make it go away. It’s clear now that I must’ve been wrong when I concluded that all of this Thunderfoot stuff no longer had a place here.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
I don’t know what the fuck your problem is, “honey”, but you’ve just roundly dismissed me as an ignormus that cannot read in a completely deconstructive and abusive manner on the basis of my sole contribution to this thread that certainly never singled out or criticized anyone involved. Obviously you have more time to read and write the various ejaculations of profanity and contempt in all of these threads than I do because no, a fuckwit like me doesn’t have time to cram that kind of reading into my head. I’m glad that you’ve at least enjoyed this opportunity to show everyone else how much smarter you are than I am. Gold star.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
I don’t normally comment on articles with this kind of traffic (obviously) so I just have to assume that you’re trolling me by somehow characterizing my admission of ignorance as a call to arms for the patriarchy is so far off base…
Nerd of Redhead, Dances of OM Trolls:
I am aware. I never intended to provide evidence that ignoring an issue makes it go away, only that I was under the impression that there wasn’t an issue. It seems to me that based on these responses, Thunderfoot’s antics are a more serious threat to progressively changing our culture for the better than I thought. If that’s the case, I stand corrected.
Arren, idée fixe oblique:
Your concern over semantics has drawn you to call me out as a pseud because you don’t seem to understand what an existential argument is, but at least I don’t require an exhaustive Thunderfoot Almanac of evidence to respond. Maybe some adjectives are only used to describe arguments at certain altitudes, as we are clearly “operating on different levels”.
Anyway, the moral of the story is, don’t comment on anything ever. I’m going to go back to reading articles selectively and you won’t get so much as a punctuation mark out of me in the future, regardless of the topic. It’s not worth getting lambasted by my own ideological peers who seem to know everything except how to treat another person. I’ll try and ensure the door gives me a right-good spanking on the way out.
Arren:
Nothing, really. It’s Lilandra’s way of trying to say something positive. Phil (Tfoot) is a personal friend of hers and her husband’s (Aron Ra).
DavidB:
We do not use gendered slurs or insults here. If you’re going to insist on posting, knock it off. And no, we don’t give a shit how it is or isn’t used in the UK.
I don’t see how noting “the damage he is trying to cause” and remarking that “it is really quite a bizarre video” can be construed as “trying to say something positive.”
davidb, that was some very impressive blather.
Andrea Dworkin was a radical feminist, which is – rather than an insult as many seem to think – an actual strain of thought within feminism.
I posted this over on here, but perhaps it will help you pull your head out of your ass.
I shall first posit that this is the core idea and thought process of feminism (all feminism):
The different strains of feminism differ in how they answer the question that inevitably flows from this:
Radical feminism posits that the concepts of “masculine” and “feminine” are irredeemably tainted and are themselves inherently toxic, and thus need smashing. Radical feminism posits that the patriarchal system is not a coating on society, it is in and of society, and thus, society needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up. This is what makes it “radical,” after all.
Dworkin and radfems are not “anti men,” we are opposed to the systematic way in which men and women are set apart, set at odds, and men are upheld and women are downgraded. We are opposed to the systematic ways in which men are privileged over women and the systematic ways in which women are chewed up and spat out, for no reason other than because they are women. We are opposed to the systematic ways in which men are forced into a narrow, confining box labelled “masculinity,” no matter their inborn inclinations.
Really, radical feminism wants to liberate men, because we realize that women will never be free until men are and we can move forward, not as men and women struggling against each other, but together as a species.
So you’re a fucking idiot. Okay.
Seriously, fuck off. If you can’t even do that, at least learn how to fucking use a blockquote tag.
@ Randall
::laughter::
You don’t do the whole “self-awareness” thing, I guess. No “Thunderf00t Almanac” is required to forbear from misusing philosophical terms. I didn’t call you a pseud, I said that such misuse makes you look like one — and it does.
Fare thee well.
@ Lilandra
…..No, I actually managed to wrap my head around the fact that you were addressing the OP. I just don’t understand the point you were trying to make in that regard.
@ 118
I don’t know if this women is a misogynist, but if you’re quoting her accurately she doesn’t appear to know what she’s talking about on this issue.
Rebecca Watson made a brief and very reasonable comment in a video that was mostly about other stuff.
Cue torrents of ridiculous and angry abuse.
It was the people who got infuriated about her comment that made too much of it, that made it the issue it has become, not Rebecca Watson.
It’s quite depressing that this needs to be pointed out over and over and over and over.
@ thetalkingstove
No, no, no — Watson traveled back in time, invented circumcision, and set in motion a diabolical plan to emasculate men for all time.
“Guys, don’t do that” was just the cherry atop her epoch-spanning misandrist sundae. Get it straight.
Arren, I believe the point was that it’s really quite a bizarre video. Perhaps surreal, even. And the bizarreness stands out particularly if the viewer distances themself from thinking about the damage he is trying to cause. (Otherwise, the damage he is trying to cause is what stands out for the viewer.)
That’s it: it’s a bizarre video, and he is trying to cause damage, and one or the other of these observations stands out more to lilandra depending on how she views it.
David B: Throw the word “twat” around again, and you’ll find yourself banned.
@Arren SGBM at post 122 pretty much sums up my point.
@ Arren
Of course. I had forgotten her full range of evil feminazi time warping abilities. Her minions must have gotten to me finally.
@130
Ten bucks says he come back with “but I’m British, so it doesn’t mean that” *herp derp*
Randall:
Allowing Thunderf00t’s sexism to go unchallenged is not in the best interests of equality. If he’s going to attack people and misrepresent their opinions, he is going to find himself facing opposition.
Please stop telling other how to manage their time.
And learn to read for comprehension.
Esteleth:
I agree with all of the above (no idea how society could be dismantled and rebuilt, but it needs to be done).
Didn’t the elevatorshit really hit the elevatorfan after RW used her Mighty Power of the Podium to berate a Poor Innocent Student who berated RW on her (PIS’s) blog.
or am I misremembering?
Then there was ‘Dear Muslima’.
@ SGBM & Lilandra
OK. “Bizarre” is certainly one way to describe it. Thanks for the clarification…..
The shit had hit the fan well before RW criticized SM.
@Caine PZ is Aron’s friend too, and we are acquainted in real life. So when someone says something about him, I match it with my impression of him and, which is that he is well meaning. I am also aware of his contributions to science and atheism. I have defended him in hostile forums because of that. I have actually had people including Thunder pressure me and Aron to quit FTB. I don’t consider social pressure a good enough reason to stop doing anything that isn’t harmful.
OTOH Thunder is a horse of another color. His actions in this video are indefensible given any context be it personal or in light of his other contributions. I think having spoken to Thunder personally about his behavior and sharing some insight about that may help people who are puzzled by his behavior. That is about it.
@ 130 PZ
And it won’t even be the nice kind of banning with fluffeh bunnehs either O.O
@ 138 Estheleth
I’m sure I’m having some sort of lapse in memory, RW is rebecca watson who is SM?
The student, michaeld. I am blanking on her full name, but her name is Stephanie Mc[Something].
Esteleth #138
OK
I thought the events were much closer together.
I had an internet disruption at the time and was reading backward through the threads.
(and fuck NatGeo and its failure to reinstate those comments)
Oh right, sorry. Back on the same page, nothing to see here, goes back to reading/lurking o.o
I think the storm was already swirling at the time, chigau.
But it did intensify afterwards.
However, I firmly believe that if it hadn’t been that, it would have been something else. Once the haters had decided that RW had to be destroyed, they would have used any ammo they could get their hands on.
micghaeld @ #140
Stef McGraw (I think). She was presented by the anti-Watson faction as a “victim” of Rebecca Watson because Watson called McGraw out publicly (at a talk, I think) about some comments McGraw made regarding Watson’s “guys don’t do that” comment.
Err a little googling probably should have done before posting, Stef Mcgraw, that was her name.
I might be late to the party, so here’s my take
RW was with friends and fans drinking at a bar attached to a her hotel. She said she was calling it a night and left.
SM followed her to the elevator and got in.
While in this enclosed space with no exists, SM asked her back to his room for coffee.
She said No, nothing happened (thankfully)
She then makes a video and mentions this
Shit blows up.
Everyone ends up taking sides. TF being on the “what’s the big deal?” side
TF was then asked to leave FTB
He then got unauthorized access to the backchannel email list
Now is running his mouth in very dishonest ways against RW and anyone who stands for equality. (as others have pointed out)
Essentally that’s the jist of it I think. If I missed something (and I know I have) feel free to edit and make the needed changes to correct if you so choose.
Personally, I’m with PZ, RW, and everyone else who stands for equality.
Those who don’t understand might need to be shown what life is like to be without the protections of that privledge.
This reminds me of the abortion debate when Female Democrats started to propose anti-men’s health things like Prostate Exams for Vigara and seeing Republicans going “that isn’t right that violates a man’s digity and it’s completely unnessarry” and yet were still proposing the trans-vaginal exam.
EG followed her to the elevator and got in.
SM is someone else entirely.
SGBM @148
Ahh, my mistake. if i had the ability to edit that post apporpiately I would.
We still have no idea who EG actually was. *shrugs* I’m sure that’s for the best.
@147 Michael Zeora
Essentially right but a little off, couple corrections
Yay steph mcgraw was not the one in the elevator she’s part of the aftermath discussion of the incident.
Thunderf00t was asked to join months after this all happened, posted several really miss the point dumb posts on sexual harassment policies at conventions and was after several back and forths asked to leave.
But not Jack Rawlinson.
Like Tony, I also agree with all of this. I have other reasons for wanting to dismantle and rebuild society, too.
I guess that makes me a radical feminist too. Go figure.
Excellent and cogent definition that I, too, wholeheartedly agree with.
@Davidb
Firstly, please learn how to blockquote.
I see several links to youtube and a link to Skepticon’s harassment policy. Where is this post you made? Please link to it.
Thank you for clarifying.
——
For context, I’m going to leave a link to Maryam’s actual post here for the sake of context. I haven’t read it.
From davidb‘s post on Maryam’s blog:
…
Firstly, can you find an example of someone being put off who actually disagrees with the tenants of A+ and who isn’t an accommodist. I honestly think you’ll have a difficult time trying. I’ve glanced at the comment thread of Maryam’s post; as a summary of the naysayers:
1. Peter Ferguson
“It’s not misogyny until I call it so!”
6. …
End of message. No citations, sources, anything.
7. JimboJones2
Hun, the entire world is not you.
8. …
No additional comment needed, I hope.
16. Egbert
Again asserted without evidence.
And then you, davidb, at number 17.
These are the people you’re choosing to defend, davidb. Why?
I’m sorry if treat women like humans and not sex vending machines is unproductive ideological purity to you.
‘Cause it definitely isn’t over here.
From your equality feminist female friend:
Citation on “men-hating”.
If you seriously think that “Guys, don’t do that” was “far too much”, well, I’m not sure what you think of the rape threats made in response to “Guys, don’t do that.” Because it’s that, to me, that’s the out-of-proportion response.
Also, davidb, can you please try to a) make an argument here and stop copy-pasting comments you made elsewhere and b) actually make your own damn arguments instead of quoting others?
@Randall Morrison
That sounds like a good decision.
Randall to Caine:
Firstly, tone is not everything, but I fail to read
As something that’s not criticism.
Or trivializing to the extreme.
Secondly, yeah, telling people that the message of “no, sexual harrassment is not okay” is “not unlike an existential argument waged between two teenagers with different opinions who both think they’ve got it all figured out” is hella rude, don’tcha think?
From Randall
Nope! Moral of the story is: educate yourself before you comment, asshole. And if you seriously think you’re my ideological peer, well, I fucking don’t think so.
SallyStrange, Allegro:
Uh oh, we better watch out.
People will start talking about how Pharyngula is the Rad Fem hub of Atheism.
Oh, wait, I don’t care what they have to say.
Although this may not have been part of what lilandra was getting at, I infer from this that it can be stated with a high degree of confidence that TF in fact had no point to make in this video aside from the damage he was trying to cause.
Randall, do you routinely comment on stuff that you know absolutely nothing about, without even bothering to inform yourself of the basics? If so, why? What can you possibly hope to contribute?
Eeeeek! I might be a radical feminist and I didn’t even know it O.O
Keep up the good fight. Radical feminism rocks.
Geez, this is a depressing thread in so many ways. Obviously, there’s the whole I cannot believe I still have to protest this shit thing, but seriously, we’ve got people who are trying to simultaneously concern/tone troll (if you worry aloud that rude language on this forum may drive people away from the movement as a whole, you’re technically doing both) and using gendered insults, which is depressing on a whole other level. I’m not even going to go on, but I can think of five other ways the mere existence of this comments thread is depressing.
On the other hand, at least PZ’s example may save other people from wasting their time with that idiot’s videos, maybe? (I haven’t watched, but I don’t watch videos anyway so I don’t count. But surely there must be someone, somewhere, who will read this and say “ah, excellent advice, I won’t watch that video, thank you PZ” and as a result have a more productive, more pleasant day. They say no good deed is ever wasted.)
@michald(stupid mobile won’t let me quote):
I’m beginning to suspect the same myself. Though I don’t know if I will go so far as a complete dismantling, I fear we have to make do with a severe refurbishing. Not knocking down the whole house at once (we have to live somewhere after all). More one bathroom and one room at the time ’till the whole place is new. With new drainage and probably some major patching on the foundation (Am I overextending this metaphor now?). Same with the concepts of feminity and masculinity. They need to be cleansed, refurbished, extended, broadend and modified in all kinds of ways. And gender essentialism has to go. But I don’t actually think we can do without some concepts of femininity and masculinity.
What does that make me?
A moderate radical feminist?
A radical moderate feminist?
The idiot muttering incoherently in the corner?
Well, the last one, for the moment. This isn’t really incoherent, but contradictory:
Why do we need concept of what is (essentially) feminine and masculine? What would those concepts be for, if not for some kind of gender essentialism? People already have identities as individuals, so it’s not as if they would lose some ability to express that. Do we need to impose identities upon them as a group?
Not a clue Gnumann…. not a clue… I mostly try not to worry too much about labels. While definitely helpful and useful sometimes I think worry we spend a bit too much time arguing over them anyway.
We have biological female and male which suits reproductive capabilities and little else. Femininity and masculinity are social constructs, IMO. The latter constructs are what create the problems that we could do without. What concepts do you believe are necessary?
Yeah I’m with allegro razor et al.
Masculinity and femininity are kind of like religion, they cause a lot of problems and what little good they might do is probably best sought else where.
A definite yes to the inchorent-muttering-theory then :)
Or at least the idiot who can’t express himself with sufficient clarity.
What I meant to say us that I’m not sure we can get away from concepts of feminity and masculinity, and that a substantive re-write to lessen their impact and to erase the borders. I’m proposing any inherent benefit for the concepts, it’s more my take on a strategy to get away from the harmful bits. It’s not a perfect solution, but I believe it’s far easier to implement. I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong though.
For all those mumblers before me who are so worried that arguing over feminism and derogatory language and other such stuff might put off people who are teetering on the brink of abandoning their religious or other ideological baggage ….
The very best thing for a woman or a man or a LGBTQ person or a victim of abuse to see in this environment is that we will argue, come hell or high water, for their rights to be respected and for their voices to be heard. When they’ve been ignored, abused, silenced and criticised for being who they are and how they are in their previous circles, it must be a relief to see that, in atheist land and skepticism country, when someone pushes the toxic shit they’ve been living with all their lives, that a veritable horde of supporters and defenders come forward without their even asking for that support.
And we’re not choosy. If one of the horde slips up in some way, they might be one of the group but they’ll be called on it anyway. I can’t picture/remember myself in the position (being as old as the hills and one of those 70s feminists) but leaving religious or otherwise toxic families or marriages or social groups and finding people who are absolutely fearless and relentless in calling out bullshit wherever they find it must be exhilarating at the same time as it’s a bit intimidating.
Even if they lack the courage to engage in discussions, they can relax even when the topic under discussion is nasty or triggering. Just to watch and read fools and creeps being taken down for their arrogance and nastiness must provoke a warm feeling of admiration. They’ve probably heard that atheism is just another religion. but to see that the same toxic stuff is repeated by some atheists but ruthlessly sought out and negated by others when it would have been either acceptable or swept under the carpet where they came from. Biiig sigh of relief.
Gnumann:
Why? Masculinity and femininity are social constructs. All made up and changed as society changes. What good do they do except to provide convenient boxes to shove people in instead of thinking?
The whole reason I’m Manhood in America right now is to gain a better grasp on just how masculinity was constructed in the U.S. and why that construct has recently turned into vile and toxic channels.
We’d all be a lot fucking better off without the baggage of stereotypes we’re all supposed to live by.
Gnumann, also, consider that people cling to the traditional constructs of masculinity and femininity to justify transphobia.
Randall:
Perhaps you shouldn’t proudly trumpet your status as an ignoramus who can’t possibly be bothered to read about a situation before criticizing everyone involved.
I was wrong in confining myself to pointing out you’re a willful ignoramus with reading comprehension problems. You’re also an assclam in smegmarmalade sauce, one who thinks their distinctly uniformed opinion is of dire importance.
WAIT EVERYONE.
SHHHHHHHHHHH
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, but I have a lot to say about it.
Listen up
michaeld @159:
I suppose we have room for another. It’s a tight squeeze with all the rad fems in here:-)
.
society needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up
Sounds like the right thing to do. Where do I sign?
Dang, my smallest tutu can chafe….
I read only my own comments.
They are really clever.
Shouldn’t y’all listen to me?
@tony
I have a willowy build so I don’t take up much room if that helps.
O.O waits for chigau to say something….
*ahem*
*cough*
What’s that over there?
*runs away*
Muz @56
I loved this. Let’s say we asked Thunderf00t to respond to his specific cherry-picking, to justify his reliance on outdated information (PZ’s removed slide, Matt’s Facebook reversal), and to provide his proofs of contact of the “bullied or cajoled”* sources. Would he be able to quell the seeming similarity to Lord Monckton?
*Bullyjoled, as Anthony K said on B&W. I laughed.
I believe the point D Pitman was not that it made him sad but that “It was a great steaming pile of dishonest, sleazy shit, disgraceful propaganda to serve the cause of sexism”.
He also specifically said he couldn’t judge it in the previous post because he hadn’t seen it, so I don’t know where you get the idea that he came to a conclusion before viewing it.
Hey DPitman. Go fuck yourself, you worthless sack of shit.
That is all.
You can ignore D pitman.
Quit insulting sacks of shit by comparing them to DPitman, banhammered troll for abject stupidity. Shit finds dp stupid.
Please, ignore Dpitman. A slymer, who will once again be banned once an alert is sent.
Heh! The rant by the banned is as full of truth as that video by TF. Somehow, I doubt that the banned one will bother to read Micheal Nugent’s responce. It might make the banned one sad.
response
‘bleah’
I love how slymepitters always bring up viewcounts/the fact that their forum has now 400 members as if it was some sort of logical argument.
Um.
Just because someone views a video/lurks on your forum doesn’t mean that they agree with you.
Athyco @179.
Cheers. I guess if we ask and he responds with mostly derisive attempts at drawing room wit and veiled legal threats we’ll know for sure! ;)
Michael Zeora @147
Not really, no. There isn’t really any direct connection between TF and Elevatorgate. EG does mark the great schism/trouble, as it were, and most of the disagreement is essentially sparked by feminism it would seem. But TFs falling out with FTB was all over his railing against harassment policies at conferences. Rebecca Watson is heavily involved in that as well and many people conflate all this stuff together post hoc, seeing a trajectory of creeping feminism and “PC”ness in the atheist movement (a la TFs video). But these incidents aren’t directly connected.
nightshadequeen:
No kidding. Sometimes I spend time reading on RR and I couldn’t be further from their, uh, beliefs.
Comments section filled up to like nothing..
So for the important comment: PZ, there’s no single “youtube culture”, just like there is no single “internet culture” or “blog culture”. There are parts of youtube, there are types of channels there, different comments sections, a whole number of communities.
– just the same waste of time as reading and responding to other people’s articles online. PZ, you don’t like watching vids, don’t have the time, just stop denigrating video recordings as a medium and youtube as a space for public expression and creativity.
But otherwise you’re absolutely right about TF’s video.
I wonder how the growth in atheism tracks with atheists being more openly involved as advocates for “social causes” that some say are a diversion from the primary focus as they interpret it.
From my limited interaction with young people at least. They seem very aware of being treated unfairly or in a prejudicial manner. They do not seem to be overly accepting of the abuse of others .
Things like the religious who sexually abuse children.
I may be a radical humanist as well as a radical a few other things.
Isn’t it funny I had a reluctance to write feminist in there. interesting
I think it might go along with not calling myself an atheist though I do not believe in any gods at all.
uncle frogy
Caine: Did you see my attempt at clarification in 167 before your 169?
It’s not that I see any special benefit, or don’t see the negatives (though trans issues is not the ones I’m most alert of most of the time, so the reminder there is deeply appreciated). It’s my pessimism and failure to see a viable way to completely disassemble the constructs.
When I see the changes a gradual approach has made in my neck of the woods, and the current backlash to those changes – I can’t envision how a complete change can be engineered with democratic means except in an extremely long term. On the other hand. Gradualism has done a lot, even if it’s pretty far from enough.
And like I said in 167 – I’m very open to the idea that I might be wrong.
@191:
PZ has every right to denigrate YouTube comments. He has spoken at length about the type of comments he has gotten on his videos before. Clearly in his eyes, the majority of comments are stupid and worthless. If you think they are good…great. PZ is not required to agree with you. Personally, I am not a fan of many of the YouTube comments I have read either.
@ 194.
the type of comments he has gotten on his videos before.
Yes.. exactly that. But PZ seems to equate this with all YouTube comments and talks about YouTube as a single entity.
And I’d agree that the majority of comments PZ gets on vids (because they are responses to TF, who has thousands of fanboy/girl subscribers) are horrible and stupid and worthless. But it’s like saying that the constructive criticism you get when trying to have reasonable discussions about race at a neonazi march is indicative of the public dialogue on the issue.
Personally I’m a great fan of many YouTube comments sections – be it constructive, lighthearted and informative discussions of constitutional law issues, short funny and positive reactions to a favourite YouTube entertainer’s latest video, or even the general laughter and derision going on under creationist’s attempts at “science”.
Not only that … even if everybody who follows your videos/forums agrees with you … even if you have the highest amount of followers … that still doesn’t mean that you are right.
I thought that those slymers/TF acolytes were supposed to be “skeptics”. Haven’t they heard of the argumentam ad populum fallacy? Or is that only a fallacy when it is used against them?
=8-dx:
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it might be easier to convince people if you supply some good examples of functional YouTube comment fields.
7000 upvotes? 400 Slymepit members?
Interesting.
I understand there are rather a large number of scientists who dissent from Darwinism. According to the DI at least.
Why I wonder if this could be a similar phenomenon? Nah, couldn’t be. Although we do have D Pitman predicting a feminist Waterloo…
Louis
No, they need to die in a fire.
There is no right or better way to be a man or a woman, not to mention those who are in between and out of the binary completely. You are or you are not and it has nothing to do with the dangly bits and chromosomes.
People should just be people and they should be able to like X, do Y, wear Z without somebody questioning their gender identity.
Which are? Seriously, what is the benefit of taking any set of things (and we know that through history those were very different things) and label them masculine or feminine?
I mean, you could say that pooping babies out of a vagina is “feminine” cause it’s something that men can’t do, but since not all women choose to do so, to declare them implicitely less woman is shitty. Ad we already had transmen carrying babies, soooo
All the world for all the people and that includes toy cars and make up.
I think we’re all aware that this won’t happen overnight, but acting like the concepts have any value as such isn’t exactly helping
Well, the constructs have to be disassembled as constructs.* But many of the basic elements can be retained; they just need to be delinked from the constructs. We can still admire some qualities in people and disdain others. The problem comes when the same quality is admired in one category of people and disdained in another, or believed to reside essentially in one category or define it. (We really need to overcome speciesism as part of this, because it’s inherently connected…)
*In fact, they’re disassembled and reassembled all the time – it’s not like every culture in every time period has had the same notions of what’s “masculine” and “feminine.”
Hello to all- I’m new to FTB, and it was actually this clash of opinions that intrigued me enough to look into the issue more, hence the creation of this account. I’ve seen Tf00t’s most recent video, and I soon found myself directed to this forum. I’ve read through Michael Nugent’s criticisms, which I thank you for linking me to; that having been said, I’m not convinced that Mr. Nugent’s assessment of the video was… shall we say, sincere. I was going to write a list of contentions to Mr. Nugent’s response, but as chance had it, I just found this video response Mr. Nugent’s criticisms which not only covered the problems that I had with his response, but also brought up a number of other interesting points that I think are worth your consideration. I am interested to hear your thoughts on this, so will link the video below.
Best wishes, ~KC
Whoops! This is the actual video I was referring to, my mistake… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlXCgzf3bxY&feature=g-high-f&list=FLmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A
An eleven minute video by Justin Vacula? Yeah, I’m gonna have to pass on that.
Hey King Crocoduck;
I’m not sure if you know this, but the polite thing to do before claiming a video represents you is to explain the claim it’s making, explain why you agree to the claim, and then link to the video.
@ibis3
Why should anyone care about their view? It’s wrong.h.
@D Pitman
In an ideal world, a video like this would get NO upvotes at all.
@Arren
Sorry for misreading you.
I got a little too trigger happy yesterday.
What do you mean by “man” or “woman”? How is “being a woman” different from “not being a woman”, in your view?
Does there need to be a difference?
When did I ever advocate caring about their view? Are you just trying to be funny or was I not being clear?
nightshadequeen @207: if not, why insist on using the words? (I’m not saying you are doing that, but a lot of people do – including Giliell AFAICT)
@ibis3:
PZ only sounds like he’s making a Dear Muslima argument if TF’s view of freeze peach is worthy of consideration.
The point is not that freeze peach on the internets aren’t important because some other atheistic issue is more pressing, which would be a Dear Muslima argument. TF’s view makes no sense, his freeze peach rights are imaginary, and so, instead of pursuing something he has no right to in the first place, he should do something actually worth a damn.
@anne mariehovgaard
To me, being a woman/not being a woman is something someone decides, conciously or not, to be or not to be.
Ditto for being a man/not being a man.
Now, what “being a woman” means…well, I’d argue that it’s different for each woman. Yeah, that probably makes the word completely empty, but how do you define it? It’s like…if there’s a group of people who’re claiming to be “women” but I think they have an attribute A that makes them “not-women”, do I get to impose my terminology on them?
Then again, if someone told me that they were an atheist who believed in Yahweh, I’d feel like I could rightly call them rather confused.
Then again, I feel like the term “atheist” is less socially engraved than “woman” or “man”.
tl;dr Being a man/not being a man/being a woman/not being a woman, to me, feels like a) a personal choice that’s b) hellishly hard to define without being exclusive of someone or another, and c) it’s easier to just accept people’s claims on face value.
nightshadequeen: seems to me that makes the words man/woman completely worthless for communication. Why would anyone want to keep using a word they have emptied of all meaning?
Caine, SC and Giliell:
I’m so sorry, it’s definitely time for me to start some writing lessons. And stop posting about important things on the mobile late at night.
There’s a typo in my 167. A rather bad one:
should read:
I hope this clears up some confusion, again, I’m so sorry.
SC:
I got no quarrel with this at all. I just believe we can’t get people to don’t have any concept of the feminine and masculine at all. I think it’s too ingrained and that attempts to throw them on the fire wholly (to paraphrase Giliell) will fail, at least for a very long time (as in several generations). I’m open to the fact that I might be wrong, and I would love to be proven wrong.
Either way, I think the first several hundred milestones would be the same. So perhaps I should just shut the fuck up with my doubts and support the radfem agenda. It’s far closer to my views than any other major movement I know of anyway.
@ anne mariehovgaard
a) they’re historical terms that b) people still care about and c) use as part of their identity.
Also, IMO, not defining them is the best I can do at defining them.
Here’s a good skeptic exercise. Now that you know one thing of his that others find reasonable that you don’t, go back and look at his show for other things you thought were reasonable and see if any of the same mistakes or dishonesty is being committed. IMO that is the real value of Bullshit! Start with Taxes and the wheel chair ramp one
King Crocoduck @ 200:
(1) Why not? If you went in with an open mind, “sincere” should be the default. Then, specific things in the writing would spark your suspicions so that you’d end up “not convinced.” What are these specific things?
(2) I watched both videos. I believe that both were “sincere,” but neither was evidential.
The first said that Thunderf00t had “demonstrated” his points. Michael Nugent pointed out circumstances of quote mining and cherry picking, linking to the original sources as evidence. He demonstrated that a slide (PZ) and a Facebook post (Matt) had been reconsidered and dropped to avoid confusion well before Thunderf00t’s video and therefore couldn’t be considered a valid argument at this point. There, just two points of contention about Thunderf00t’s video (and of course, in a lengthy post of 10+ sections, there were more). When specifics such as these are brought up against points someone has presented, the original presentation is not “demonstrated” unless those arguments are met with evidence. On top of that, it was hyperbolic. The terms “misogynist” and “privilege” were equated to “nigger.” The harassment policies were described as “draconian.” Rape was named “one of the least likely forms of crime in the US.” Feminists were declared “religious people” who accept feminism “on faith.” Asserted, not evidenced.
Vacula’s video didn’t address the points of contention in Nugent’s post, either. At the end, he was saying that more “back story” should have been included. But, there was no connection made that the “back story” would invalidate Nugent’s points. I was surprised that Vacula’s examples of “nasty” communications he received involved calling him “fat” or “stupid” but not “should be raped” when he himself said that women did get those kinds of communications (but he didn’t think they were threatening, legally actionable, or made just because they were women). Surely, if these kinds of threats are made without consideration of gender, wouldn’t Vacula have gotten rape or sodomy threats? It would seem to be the default of his own argument.
(3) What are those? I’d be interested in knowing which ones you think are evidenced, not simply asserted.
King Crockoduck,
You may enjoy wallowing in Justin Vacula’s puke, but don’t expect anyone else to do so.
Let me try that again.
@vaiyt #210
The original DM argument was that the sexual harassment reported by Rebecca was imaginary, and instead of complaining about it, she should do something “worth a damn”.
That’s the most cogent description of radical feminism I’ve seen recently. I’m not a radical feminist. I’m not a radical in general. I think that society can be fixed without having to tear it completely down. I also don’t think that the concepts of masculine and feminine are irredeemably tainted. They can be reassembled as positive descriptors without tying them to a particular gender.
I’ve sent PZ an alert about dpitman.
King Crocoduck @200:
It would be interesting to know what led you to believe Nugent’s post to be insincere. For example, was there punctuation before a word like “insincere” that gave it a “we know I mean something more sinister here” vibe? You see, when I watched Vacula’s video, there was a point at which he paused and changed tone and emphasis when he said the word “threat” when talking about emails to Ophelia Benson. I thought that was insincere. You may disagree, but it’s at 3:42 in the video, so you can check it out and come to your own conclusion.
And that’s what was missing when I watched both videos. I paused and replayed a number of times. What points do you find in either of them that are evidenced (with direct quotes and links to the originals as Michael Nugent did) rather than simply asserted? Vacula noticeably begins sentences with “I don’t think…” or “I don’t see…” this, that, or the other. The nastiness of the internet is “just the way it is,” except that the nastiness he gets is “fat,” “look stupid,” or “loser” rather than anything specifically gendered.
What do you believe is the usefulness of the hyperbole in the first one–that an “entire year of hearing misogynist and privilege” can be likened to a year of hearing nigger? That the community is “melting down”? That the harassment policies under which conferences have already been held are “draconian”? That women accept “on faith” and therefore “feminists are religious people”? We laugh at Christians who try to tell us that they don’t have enough “faith” to be an atheist. I find it hard to believe that this assertion becomes serious or sincere when it becomes “I don’t have enough ‘faith’ to be feminist.”
Nick:
So did I and so did Chigau, last night. :) He seems to need re-banning on a regular basis.
Ildi:
No, I don’t think they can. For purely biological descriptors, man and woman work fine, but could always be changed. When you get into masculinity and femininity, we’re talking constructed concepts which have a very deep history and are not easily changed at all. Look how long feminism has been happening and how much the traditional ideas of femininity hang on; look at how toxic femininity is gaining hold.
So, you want to reassemble them. Make a list of what constitutes masculinity. Then make a list of what constitutes femininity. Then ask yourself what the fuck the point is, because if you aren’t going to tie them to either gender absolutely, there’s no point in labeling them ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’.
@ jackiepaper
No harm done — I appreciate the apology.
@ =8)-DX
I second Gnumann’s request for links to worthwhile Youtube comments. I make no claim to be an expert, but having skimmed dozens over the years, I recall the vast majority of them inhabiting the spectrum between the truly loathsome and the merely ridiculous. The latter can be good for a laugh, but otherwise….. (I freely admit that my irrationally severe dislike of netspeak pidgin surely contributes to this impression to whatever degree.)
We don’t need to “write” (or think) about it at all. You’re basically saying this: “We need to do a substantial re-write of God, because it’s a messed-up concept, but we have to keep something about it to talk about that (because?).”
Again, I don’t think we need to “completely disassemble the construct” of a god, to stick with the analogy. We can simply disbelieve it entirely. If others do use it and it’s harmful, we can use that same construct (without disassembling or remaking it into something else) and talk about why it is harmful. Coming up with a new version which is barely distinguishable from the original in the relevant ways (like, for example, a deist god or panpsychism) tends to perpetuate the idea by giving a new variation which isn’t any more respectable or justifiable. And it tends to muddy the water. People may think the problem is only with a monotheistic interventionist god, for example (or the god of some specific denomination X, or even one specific believers’ god), and that all the other gods are safe from any given criticism of it. It makes communicating about them more difficult, because it multiplies the targets of criticism (i.e., they all do have different meanings, strictly speaking) and each gets obscured with the next.
I’m assuming dpitman wants to be banned.
You’d think he’d try a ‘nym change, or at least an anagram
madpint
dampnit
Chigau:
This one seems fitting…”Out, damn’d damp nit! out, I say!”
Damn pit
I’ve always looked first for the dirty words in my anagrams.
consciousness razor:
What I’m saying is that we need some way to talk about god because we haven’t been able to get the others to discard the concept as invalid. The negotiation of the concept is still going on, and we’re not even in the lead yet.
The same way with masculinities/femininities. The concepts do a lot of damage and we can bloody well get on without them, but I’m unsure that if turning up to the negotiating table with the end-goal visible is the most fruitful approach. I think the concepts need some serious weakening before the coup de gras. In the same way that the concept of god was severely lessened before it became socially acceptable to be an atheist.
And as I said before – I’m very open to the possibility that I’m wrong.
D Pitman is Reap Paden.
Gnumann:
No. Do you not understand that you sound just like those who tell us to “lighten up on the feminism! Be nice and men will listen to you!”
The concepts are being weakened as we speak, they’ve been under the process of being weakened for fucking hundreds of years now – how long do you want us to simply inch about until we speak out, firmly, as to what needs to be done?
The issue I have with the words ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ is that they set up an unnecessary dichotomy.
Anthony K:
You might want to let PZ know that.
Masculine: adjective
1.
pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men: masculine attire.
2.
having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, as strength and boldness.
3.
Grammar . noting or pertaining to the gender of Latin, Greek, German, French, Spanish, hebrew, etc., which has among its members most nouns referring to males, as well as other nouns, as Spanish dedo, “finger,” German Bleistift, “pencil.”
4.
(of a woman) mannish.
Feminine:
adjective
1.
pertaining to a woman or girl: feminine beauty; feminine dress.
2.
having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness.
3.
effeminate; womanish: a man with a feminine walk.
4.
belonging to the female sex; female: feminine staff members.
5.
Grammar . noting or pertaining to that one of the three genders of Latin, Greek, German, etc., or one of the two genders of French, Spanish, hebrew, etc., having among its members most nouns referring to females, as well as other nouns, as Latin stella “star,” or German Zeit “time.”
So, basically, if we gave “masculine” and “feminine” definitions that are completely fucking disconnected from any current definition that they currently possess they could be untainted and genderless. Good fucking luck with that. But forgive us for thinking that is simpler to just abandon it, instead of going about the unnecessary and Sisyphean task of salvaging it.
I thought he knew. How many idiots can there be who are that consistently subliterate in all the same ways?
Yikes! I should have thought of that but didn’t. Thanks for alerting me. I was thinking more along the lines of “be a backstabbing bastard” than “be nice” – but I know what intent isn’t…
I’ll go down in the corner to sit down, have a serious session of “shut the fuck up” on this issue and rethink.
I’m not sure why it would matter to him. Both nyms were banned, weren’t they?
Caine:
No; as SC said they’re not cast in stone, and they’re not even consistent across cultures. I think we mainly disagree on what needs to be done. You can call “working within the system” being accomodationist; I think history shows that trying to dismantle the system and starting from scratch to fix problems hurts more people than it helps. (If you can ever really do that.)
Anthony:
He might, but I don’t think he does. Wouldn’t hurt to pass the info on.
Ildi:
As I said to you in a post supra:
Let’s address that first, eh? Be specific.
ildi
I know I promised to have a serious “shut the fuck up” on this issue – but I think your comment just fast-tracked my thinking process and made me see the errors in my thinking.
While I agree that the whole “dismantling society”-concept will end in (worse than) tears – I had inadvertently in my mind connected the dots from this to the concepts of femininity and masculinity. I’m too wrapped in the web I guess, too used to the dualism from upbringing and background noise even though I intellectually know it’s harmful bullshit. The only system the concepts truly reinforce is patriarchy, and I think we all agree toppling that system by non-violent means will hurt no-one(we all except you little stray MRA trolls of course).
I’m so sorry for the error of my ways, and I think I see them now. If not I trust Caine to lovingly wack me in the head with some carefully chosen words.
Caine: I would like to say this to you. I hope I’m not too forward:
I think the word “love” is inappropriate for a person I’ve only traded words with on the internet, but I certainly appreciate you very much. Don’t ever think otherwise no matter how blockheaded I might behave (and I will behave blockheaded in the future, that’s certainly a given). Thank you for being you.
Gnumann:
Thank you right back. I appreciate you very much. I don’t consider you to be blockheaded in any way, at all. I think you’re probably more helpful to many who read, because you aren’t worried about putting your thought processes out there. That’s important, really important.
We all have to think things through, we all have to consider things through the lenses of other eyes, everyone has to go through these processes. I think you do a fine job of it, too.
I’ll have to think about this and get back with youse.
Ok King Crocoduck, I’ll bite. The problem with JV’s response to MN’s response to TF is twofold.
A) It’s mostly predicated on the assumption that the complaints that women have about sexism in the atheist / secular community are unfounded because HE hasn’t been shown the evidence.
BULSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT
He’s been show multiple times actual examples of rape and death threats issued towards multiple women in the atheist community. He chooses to ignore it because it doesn’t fit his preconceived notion that feminists are just whiny little bitches who have nothing to complain about and should just stfu so he can concentrate on the important stuff like bigfoot and ufo’s.
B) Nowhere does he address MN’s criticism’s of TF’s extensive quote mining and cherry picking which is the crux of the criticism, so QED, he did nothing to address MN’s actual arguments.
I’m going to make the charitable assumption that you are genuine when you say you’re new to movement, which is the only reason I chose to address you. My gut feeling is that you’re a slymepitter sock puppet, but I’d love to be wrong and find out you are genuinely interested in the truth. If you are, you have a lot of work to do, a lot of reading, a lot of back story to catch up on.
Coming in here and posting 10 minute rants by JV isn’t going to help you understand this fight any better.
In fact, any posting to JV, or praise thereof, will show you to be an MRA sympathizer, not worth listening to. Make your choice cricket, and chose wisely. We are watching….
erikthebasset,
I got that gut feeling, too. Mine came from his sentence
The negative phrasing to allow for backtracking, because that “not convinced” may mean it will take anywhere from 100 to 1 piece of information/evidence to change his mind, and he’s vague here so that he can protest. The ellipsis for thoughtful pause. The “shall we say” to communicate that he’s choosing a euphemism rather than…oh! saying the harsh truth outright. Finally, choosing the word “sincere” to describe the unconvincing quality. What the hell does “sincere” have to do with accurate and evidenced? Is he accusing Michael Nugent of lying now about the content of this post or lying back in August–that he was actually bullied or cajoled?
As to the video, JV quoted the first two paragraph of MN’s post back in August, then later says, “So, I’m really at a loss here to hear so much about all these threats and rape threats and these threats of violence against women. I don’t see them. I’m waiting for someone to send me them or to talk about these threats.” If he’d read all of MN’s August post, he’d have seen TEN examples since 2007.
Caine
And how easily any advances are crushed.
I reckon I dropped the ball a bit on pushing forward in this area because when I had my kids, early 80s, it seemed to be going pretty well. With the benefit of hindsight, I now see the gender neutral-ish toys and clothing used then as the last gasp of the traditional this-is-for-little-ones and that-is-for-older-kids split. When you see baby pictures of your soldier father and grandfather as a 2 year old in the traditional white ‘dress’ of a 1920 or 1890s toddler, it’s quite plain. There was never any doubt about their strictly traditional views of masculine and feminine but it wasn’t en/forced on babies and preschoolers as now. I thought at the time that we were doing really well with not imposing and enforcing rigid roles on little children.
In fact, we were merely lucky that the pinkification of early girlhood had Barbies and trike handlebars and not much more as the exemplars at the time. Though I do recall when my first was a toddler – dressed in bright pink pedal pushers and a frilly sleeved t-shirt and a cute 2 year old’s handbag – that a shop assistant referred to her as a boy. She clearly couldn’t grasp the concept of a girl of that age in pants rather than a dress.
The toxic stuff seemed to gather strength and speed during the 90s. But that might be just a local thing, it was probably at different times and different rates in other places. I do remember being shocked that people were sending 10 year olds to school wearing nail polish. Most of these parents were 5 or 10 years younger than I was, and I now see it as my holding onto the ‘kids are kids and not small adults’ notion from my own upbringing – which they probably would have seen as old-fashioned if ever we’d discussed it in those terms.
So I’ll probably have to do the same thing, only more strongly with my daughters’ kids when they arrive. At least they’ll be on board rather than reluctant or downright opposed as their grandparents and great-grandparents variously were.
I hope I’m not too late with my response. First of all, there are some assumptions I’m making about utopia. On one hand, people will never be identical widgets straight off the assembly line; on the other, people will never be special little snowflakes who can only be described using unique identifiers. In addition, I think any society will reflect that people seem to function best on a local level in smallish communities (however they form their communities) where they feel challenged to do their best, where there are social pressures and sanctions in place to encourage you to play well with others while maximizing individual freedoms, and where there are customs and rituals that people engage in to bind them together in that community.
People often reflect their allegiance to a community through their behavior and dress, i.e., self-stereotype, and I think there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, the main difference between stereotyping and prejudice is if you don’t look past the stereotype that the individual seems to represent and look for the individual differences. Our brain organizes and our memory works by stereotyping everything; it becomes lazy thinking when you don’t move past those simple categories to the individual. In that context, I think that the constructs of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’(whatever qualities end up being defined as belonging to these constructs) can serve as useful shorthand to describe people and for people to self-identify. You could describe someone as a masculine woman or a feminine man without there being any negative connotations associated with that. It would be a cluster of characteristics that often seem to go together. I don’t think it poses a problem if they seem to go together because of societal mores rather than any core differences between the sexes.
ildi,
From my little corner of the world, it’s not exactly easy to divide people into boxes like that. For example, I wear nail polish (traditionally feminine), build my own furniture (traditionally masculine), knit (feminine), like and excel at math (masculine), wear high heels (feminine), program (masculine), like and study biology (feminine), and wants to be a doctor (masculine).
What box do I fit into?
To all who have responded to me:
Thank you for your swift replies, but I couldn’t help but feel a bit of hostility directed at my post. I’m reasonably new to this whole schism, and no, I’m not a sock account. I have an independent YT account of the same name; you can look me up in order to verify that I’m not anyone who you’ve dealt with before.
That having been said, I’m merely curious about what your responses are to Jason’s statements. I have to say that I agree with him on several points, but I don’t want to muddy the waters with any ad hoc opinions- if someone would kindly address each point that he brought up, I’d appreciate it. This isn’t a hostile challenge, by the way- I’m merely attempting to understand everyone’s positions clearly so that I can make an informed assessment of the situation.
Why don’t you bring a statement or two of the flaming MRA fuckwit over here. I’m certainly not going to look at any video by JV or TF, nor are many people here.
Videos for me are vanity press. One can say or do anything without quality control on the accuracy and truth of the claims. Without any quality control, I can only presume lies and propergander are being presented, not factual evidence based discussion.
KC, FYI JV has posted here in the past. He was long on bad attitude, lies, and bullshit, short on factual evidence based arguments. I apply heavy skepticism to everything he says without a citation to show he isn’t lying.
Nerd,
Ahhh I’m Sorry I haven’t A Clue has a lot to answer for! From the Uxbridge English Dictionary:
Propergander (noun): a really good look at something.
Genius, Nerd, sheer genius. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter etc.
Louis
There Crocoduck from when you posted this on Ophelia’s
http://haphazardhermit.blogspot.ca/2013/01/a-reply-to-justin-vaculas-latest-video.html
The many problems with Justin Vacula’s video in as polite and complete a way I can manage.
If you have a specific point, then summarize it here or at least give a time stamp so I don’t have to watch the whole thing. If your only point is “here’s a video, tell me what you think”, then my position is that life’s too short to waste 11 minutes listening to Vacula.
Hey I’m like, just asking questions.
I just asked questions once.
I got better.
Louis
nightshadequeen @214/215:
But b) and c) make no sense! How can a combination of letters that don’t actually refer to anything specific be important? What are they identifying _as_? How can you “identify as” a member of a group when members of that group have nothing in common that distinguishes them from other people? If I said I’m a grbml, and being a grbml is an essential part of my identity – but I can’t tell you what a grbml is, or on what grounds I would decide that someone else is or is not a grbml, or what grbmls have in common apart from identifying as grbmls, in fact my strongly held position is that these questions don’t have an answer and every grbml must decide what they feel being a grbml means… I think you would say that’s ridiculous.
Well, I was thinking of saying “that’s grbmlulous,” but now that you mention it….
Maybe it’s supposed to be a riddle.
ibis3:
Do you know what a false equivalency is?
Those two paragraphs come from Pharyngula Standards and Practices, King Crocoduck, and they’ve been abided by, as you can attest since you only “sense” hostility. Besides, that shouldn’t really worry anyone who does satirical videos on YouTube. Evidence to back up the claims, even if it’s provided in an in-your-face attitude (as you do yourself in some of your videos), is what matters. And so far, you’re 0 for 2. I’m not confident that you’re being…shall we say, sincere?
What counts in Vacula’s video as evidence to you? To me, there’s a big heap of nuthin’. He has a number of sentences that begin with “I don’t know…” and “I don’t see….” and “I don’t think….” He says “particularly” often enough for me to wince at it, but even in those sentences there are no particulars.
Finally, he’s of the opinion that no one has given him evidence for our side of the issue and that no one has discussed it. That is utter bullshit, King Crocoduck. One of the people involved in this is Rebecca Watson (everything is her fault*). Do you think that Vacula could take a look at her Page o’ Hate and say that there’s no evidence? That he could look over the comments of her posts, the posts by Surly Amy, the posts by the 19 secular/atheist leaders who wrote articles in the series that Thunderf00t decries and say that no one has talked about it? Again, I say bullshit.
Now…do you have any particulars to debate? Quit being vague.
http://skepchick.org/page-o-hate/
*That’s a jest here, King Crocoduck. In time, even the heat death of the universe will be Rebecca Watson’s fault.
Missed this first time through. Though there’s little point this late, I’ll add semi-support the remarked conjecture on high-SDO. My impression is that the atheist/skeptic
faction commonly referred to as MRA/Anti-feminist is high-SDO, low-RWA — and that the SDO is the fundamental cause underlying the anti-feminism, as well as several other issues considered “problems”.
In the unlikely event anyone is curious for details of my thoughts on this, they can turn more up by Googling back through Pharyngula’s archives, looking for my handle with keywords like SDO, RWA, and Altemeyer.
Michael needs to take off the kid gloves. I understand he was trying to be civil (something TF isn’t deserving of given many of his past videos), but I couldn’t sit through TF’s video for more than a minute. Made me sick.
This is my response on Michael’s blog post:
“I think you went way too easy on him. While I understand his position, the way he went about making the video shows his lack of understanding about feminism as a movement and it shows his confusion between free speech in the public realm and free speech on private sites like FTB and youtube. I am glad that TF is not a [civil] judge because his lack of understanding in this area would cause many problems. Finally, his reaction to the change in policy at the conferences makes me wonder if his accusations against feminists in the atheist community aren’t a form of projecting on his part.”